Ban Rules Released: Use Dahua or Hikvision, No US Government Contracts

By Charles Rollet, Published Jul 13, 2020, 11:50am EDT (Info+)

The US government has released the rules implementing the "Prohibition on Contracting with Entities Using" Dahua, Hikvision, and Huawei based products.

IPVM Image

This is the so-called 'blacklisting' clause and follows the GSA ordering government contractors to immediately remove Dahua and Hikvision products. This new 86-page regulation is technically marked as an 'interim' and 'prepublication' though the government is not even accepting comments on this until after the official version is published.

This goes into effect 1 month from today, on August 13, 2020.

In this post, IPVM takes a detailed look at this important rule, including:

  • Blacklisting Applies "Regardless" Of Federal Contract-Related
  • Public Comment Once Rule Published In Federal Register
  • "Reasonable Inquiry" Mandated
  • What Does "Uses" Mean? No Details
  • Maintenance Of Banned Items Considered "Covered Services"
  • Integrators Maintaining Hikuawei Products Effectively Blacklisted
  • No Clear Rule on What to Do About Existing Equipment
  • Banned OEM Disclosure Required
  • Maintenance Services Require Disclosure As Well
  • Inaccurate Statements to Government Constitute "Breach of Contract"
  • "Backhaul" and "Roaming" Exceptions Don't Apply to Contractors
  • Waivers Take "At Least A Few Weeks", So Maybe Just Use Someone Else, Gov Says
  • Prime Contractor Affected
  • COTS, Micro-Purchases Covered
  • Government Considering Expanding Blacklist Clause to Affiliates, Parents, Subsidiaries
  • "Significant National Security Benefits", Calls Out China
  • UPDATE: SIA Response

Executive *******

*** **** ** ***** *** ***-********, notably ************ "***********" ** ****** ********* as "******* ********" *.*. ***** *** blacklisting. *********** **** ******* "********** *******" beforehand ** ***** ** *** ********** they *** *** ***** ****** ********* or ********. *** *** ********** ** considering ********* *** *********'* ***** *** just ** * ****** ******, *** to *** ******/*********.

*******, *** **** ****** **** ******* unclear ** *** ******** **** *** government ***** ** "****" *** ******* merely ******* ****** ********* ** ********** "use". *** **** **** **** *** explain ** ****** ********** *** *** removal ** ******** *********. (*** ***, however, **************** ******* "***********"** **** ************ ** ****** **, 2021.)

Rule ********

*** ***** ****** ********:

IPVM Image

Blacklisting ******* "**********" ** ******* ********-*******

******** ****** **, ****, ******* ******** "are **********" **** ***** ******** **** an ****** "**** **** ******* ****************** equipment ** ********". ***********,** **** *** ********, **** **** ******* ************ ********* *****, "********** ** *******" it's ******* ********-*******:

IPVM Image

Public ******* **** **** ********* ** ******* ********

*** **** ** ** ***** ******** August **, *.*. *** ***** **** now. *******, ******* *** ** ********* for ** **** **** *** **** is ********* ** *** ******* ********, which *** *** ******** ***. (**** will ****** **** **** **** **** happens).

IPVM Image

"Reasonable *******" ********

"**** *****" ** * ******* ****** requires "********** * ********** *******" ********** on ******* ****** *********/******** "*** **** by *** *******":

IPVM Image

"********** *******" ** ******* ** ** "inquiry ******** ** ******* *** ***********" about ****** ********* *****; ** ******** or ***** ***** ***** ** *** necessary:

IPVM Image

*** ********** **** ***, ***, *** NSA *** "********* ******* ** *******" to****** *** ****** ********** (***)** ***** *********** "** ********* ******** after ********** * ********** *******".

UPDATE ** *********/**************: The new rule states that for the "representations" required to government, "whether the ****** ******" uses covered equipment/services must be disclosed, along with "examining relationships with any ************* ** ********" [emphasis added].

IPVM Image

What **** "****" ****? ** *******

* **** ***** **** *** ******** NDAA ** **** ** *** *** define *** **** "****" **** ** prohibited *** ********** ******* **** ** entity **** "*********** ****************** ********* ** ********".

*******, *** *** **** **** *** define "****". *******, ** **** *** state ******* ****** ******* * ****** (and ***** ******* *******) ** ********** "use".

Maintenance ** ****** ***** ********** "******* ********"

*******, *** **** ******* ****** **** "maintenance" ** * ******* "****" ** considered "******* ********" *** **** ** disclosed (*.*. ******* ** ************):

IPVM Image

*** **** **** *** **** **** of "******* *******": ***** "*** ********** with ***********". ** **** ****, **** the******* ******* ****(***) **** ** *********:

IPVM Image

(****: **** *** ********** **** "********", they **** "********" ** ** ***-******** ***** ************, not ********* ************* *******.)

Integrators *********** ******** ******** *********** ***********

**********, **** **** ***** ** **** an ********** *** ********* *** *********/*****/********* cameras ** ********* ** * ******* alley * ***** *** ***** ************ for ********* "******* ********".

**** ** **** ** ***** ******* with *********** *** **** ********** ** this ********* *** ********** *** ********** of ****** ********* ** "***********"*** *** ******* ********* ***.

No ***** **** ** **** ** ** ***** ******** *********

*** *** **** ******** ** ***** procedures *** ******* **** ****** ********* that ** ******* ** ***. *** rule **** ***** ** * ******* that *** ****** "**** ******" ** be "**** ** *** ********** ****" is ********** "**** ** *******" ** banned *********:

IPVM Image

**** ******* *** ******* *** ******** banned ********* **** *** ******* **** not ** ********** "*********". **** ** what ****** *** ******* ******, ****** ** ****** **, **** deadline:

*** ********** *** **** *** ****** all ******* ********* ** ******** ** August **, **** **** ** ******* from *** ********* ** ********* **** be ********.

Banned *** ********** ********

** * ********** *** ****** ********* in ***** ****** *****, ** **** of *** "********** *******", **** **** list ** *** *** ******** *** OEM ****** **:

IPVM Image

Inaccurate ********** ** ********** ********** "****** ** ********"

*** ********** ****** **** "******* ** submit ** ******** ************** ** *** Government *********** * ****** ** ******** that *** **** ** ************, ***********, and ********* ************":

IPVM Image

"Backhaul"/ "*******" ********** ***'* ***** ** ***********

*** ******** ************ ** ********* *** "********" *** "roaming" ************:

IPVM Image

*** *** **** ********, *******, **** this **** *** ***** ** ***********:

IPVM Image

**** ********** *** ******** **** ** integrator *** **** ***** ****** ********* products *** ****** ** ****** ** blacklisted ******* *** ********* "****** ***** or ******** **** **** *******".UPDATE/CORRECTION: As ******* ***** * *********, *** ******** *** incorrect. *** ********** *** "********, *******, or *************** ************" ** *** ***** to ***********, ******* *** ********* ********* equipment **** "****** ***** ** ******** user **** *******" **** ***** ***** to ***********.

*******, **** ** **** **** ***** contractors **** ******* ***** ************** *** suppliers *** ******* *********/******** *** ** well (*** ****** ** *********/**************).**** **** * ***** ********** ******* analog ********* ******* ** *** ******* government ******** *** * ************ **** a *************/******** ***** ******* *****/********, ***** would ******* **********, ******* ** ************.******/**********: *** ********* ****** **** *** "flow ****" ** **************. ***** *********** must ******* ***** *** ********* ****** equipment *****, ********* ********* ******** ** subcontractors, ******* **** *** *** ****** from ***** ************** **** *** ****** equipment ** ******* ********. *** **** explains:

*** ****** **** ********* ******* * reasonable *******whether *** ****** ****** uses “covered telecommunications” equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. This includes examining relationships with any subcontractor or supplier for ***** *** ***** ********** has a Federal contract and ****the ******** ** *************’* “******* ******************” ********* ** ******** ** * *********** ** ********* ********* ** *** ******. [emphasis *****]

Waivers **** "** ***** * *** *****", ** ***** **** *** ******* ****, **** ***

*** **** ***** ********* ** *** blacklist ****** ** ** * ****** is ******* *** *** ****** ********* usage, * ********* ******* **** ********* in*** ****** *** ****.**** ******** ******** **** *** **** of ******** ********* *********** ********** "* ******** ******* ** the ******** ** *** ******* ****************** equipment ** ********".

** *** *** ****, *** ********** recognizes **** ******* "***** ****** **** at ***** * *** *****" *** if **** **** ** *** *********, agencies *** **** "**** ***** ** an ******* **** **** *** ******* a ******":

IPVM Image

Prime ********** ********

*** ********* ****** **** ****** *** "prime ********** *****", *** **************, ******* a ******* ****** "**** *** ******** 'enter **** * ********' **** *** subcontractors". *** ***** ********** **** ***** examine *** ******** ******* *** "************* or ********" ** ***** ****** *********:

IPVM Image

COTS, *****-********* *******

*** **** **** **** **** (********** off *** *****) ***** *** ********:

IPVM Image

** *** *****-*********:

IPVM Image

**** ** ******* *** ***** ************ because **** ******** *** ********* ****** 'off *** *****' ******* ************.

Government *********** ********* ********* ****** ** **********, *******, ************

*** ********** ****** ** ** "***********" expanding *** ***** ** *** ********* clause ** ***** *** **** ** the *********** ********** ******, *** ** any "**********, *******, *** ************ ** the ******* **** *** ******** ********" of **** ******. **** ************ ********* would ** ********* "** ***** **** August **, ****".

IPVM Image

*******, **** ** *** * **** yet, *** *** ********** ** "********** specific ********" ** *** ********* ******:

IPVM Image

"Significant ******** ******** ********", ***** *** *****

*** ********** **** *** ********* ****** "provides *********** ******** ******** ******** ** the ******* ******", *** ** "********** the ********" **** ******* *********** ***** equipment ** ******** **** "******* * national ******** *******":

IPVM Image

*** ********** ***** *** ***** (***) in **********, ******* *** ********* ****** by *** ****, "*** ******* ******** to ********* **** ***** ************ *******":

IPVM Image

**** ** * ********* ** ******* 7 ** ****** ******** ************ ******** ****** ****

*** ************* *** ******** ***** *******, assist, *** ********* **** ******** ************ efforts ** ********** **** ***

UPDATE: *** ********, ***** *****

*** ********* ** *** ******* ** the **** ** ****** * *****:

** **now ******* **** **** that implementation of “Part B” of Section 889 under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2019 – must ** ******* [emphasis added]

* ***** ** ***** ******** ** the ** ******** ******** ***************** ** ******* *** ******* (*-**) which ****** ************** ** ****** ****.******:******* *** *******'****************** * *-**** ********* ****** ******** *** *** **** ******** ****** **** ****,******** **** ******.**** ***** *** **** ****** *** a ********** ***** ** *** ********* clause *** ******.

*** ********** *** *** **** *** not ********** *** ********** ** "****":

**** * **** ******** **** *********** with * ******** **** “****” *** covered ********* ** *******.This **** ** *** ******* ******* ** *** ** **********, yet contractors must certify compliance beginning August 13, 2020. [emphasis added]

*** **** ******* ** *** ********* cost ** *** **********:

*** ******* ********** ********* **** ** will **** *********** **** ***** $** billion ** ***** ********* **** *********** on *** *** ** ******* ******* telecommunications *** ***** ************ *********

******* ** ****** ****, *** ********** **** *** "***** costs" *********, $** ******* *** $** billion. (***** **** ******* *** ******* due ** *** ****** ** *** rule ** *** ******* ******** ****** than ***** ************).

IPVM Image

**********

**** **** ******* ** ********* *** NDAA ************ ********, **** ** **** ** *** significant **********/*********. *** ********** *** **** ignored *** ******** *** **************** *****. ***** *** ******* **********, *********** ***** ******* *********/******** ** any ******** **** "***********" ****** **** or **** ********* ************.

Comments (38)

It sounds like integrators have a choice: Participate in Government-funded jobs, OR offer Hikvision/Dahua/Huawei products. But you can't have both.

While this ruling seems a bit extreme in some places, I do not think anyone should be all that caught off guard by it at this point.

Agree: 11
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Any idea how this will affect a company like ADI on a global basis.

IE if they sell HIK or Dahua outside the US will they still be prevented from supplying government contracts in the US ?

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

As we noted in the post, there is still no clear definition of what "uses" means so we don't know if merely selling a banned product constitutes "use". ("Maintenance" of a banned product though is considered "covered services" leading to blacklist, however).

However, there is no territoriality exemption in the law, so it doesn't matter if usage of a covered product is in the US or outside, blacklisting is still on the table.

On the "uses" question, we will probably get more clarity when the final rule is issued after the 60 day public comment period.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

The original NDAA provided an exception for "backhaul" and "roaming" arrangements along with equipment that "cannot route or redirect user data traffic":

The new rule explains, however, that this does not apply to contractors:

IPVM Image

This undermines the argument that an integrator who only sells analog Hikvision products and claims he cannot be blacklisted because the equipment "cannot route or redirect user data traffic". Emphasis added.

disagree.

the text identifies two exceptions, 889(a)(2)(A) and 889(a)(2)(B).

the former regarding services including "backhaul, roaming and interconnection...", the latter regarding equipment that "cannot route or redirect...".

then as shown above, (in between your red lines), the text only claims the exception does not apply to the "backhaul etc" exception, i.e the 889(a)(2)(A), not the 889(a)(2)(B) exception regarding "cannot redirect".

logically it makes sense as well to only apply to (A), since if it applied to (B) as well, there no circumstance listed when such equipment could be excepted.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 3
Unhelpful
Funny

Thanks for finding this! You're right, it was my mistake. I corrected the section:

IPVM Image

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

Thanks for finding this! You're right, it was my mistake.

actually, on second thought, I'm probably wrong!

i mean, maybe there is some parallel universe where you could use Analog HD and be in compliance, but in this universe i'm thinking you're still getting banned for using an AHD supplier(Hik) that uses covered equip, even if the stuff you buy is excepted:

IPVM Image

what a mess!

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

How would this apply to companies like Panasonic (Advidia) or Bosch that have Dahua products in their product lines to this day? How does this affect contractors/integrators who sell those brands but not the Hikua sourced products? I am not certain how broadly to interpret "as a part of their supply chain".

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

As we noted in my reply to UD#2, there is still no clear definition of what "uses" means so we don't know if merely selling a banned product constitutes "use". However, the new rule is clear that "maintenance" of a banned product is considered "covered services" leading to blacklist. On the "uses" question, we will probably get more clarity when the final rule is issued after the 60 day public comment period.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

UPDATE: SIA Responds, Urges Delay

SIA responded to the release of the rule by urging a delay:

it is now clearer than ever that implementation of “Part B” of Section 889 under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2019 – must be delayed [emphasis added]

(A delay is still possible if the US Congress passes an amendment proposed by Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) which delays implementation to August 2021.)

SIA criticized the new rule for not clarifying the definition of "uses":

Part B bans agencies from contracting with a provider that “uses” any covered equipment or service. This term is not clearly defined in law or regulation, yet contractors must certify compliance beginning August 13, 2020. [emphasis added]

SIA also brought up the estimated cost of the regulation:

The federal government estimates that it will cost contractors well above $80 billion to fully implement this prohibition on the use of certain Chinese telecommunications and video surveillance equipment

However in the new rule, the government gave two "total costs" estimates, $43 billion and $89 billion. (These high numbers are largely due to the impact of the rule on the telecom industry rather than video surveillance).

IPVM Image

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Just to clarify my comment:

The government estimates 3 hours of paperwork is required for each Section 889 "representation" to the government for each federal contract:

IPVM Image

Specifically this 3 hours involves:

review the prohibitions, research the source of the product or service, and complete the additional detailed disclosure, if applicable.

reviewing definitions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the report

So the cost estimate is based on this 3 hours, multiplied by the number of entities affected, multiplied by the average number of federal contract responses over a 4-year period, multiplied by a rate of $94.76 per hour:

IPVM Image

The $94.76 per hour rate is based on double the government's "Step 5" level for General Schedule salary:

IPVM Image

As to whether Senator Ron Johnson's amendment will pass, there is little public information about this, but the D.C. office of law firm O'Melveny recently commented that "its prospects remain unclear in the face of opposition from senators critical of China."

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 3
Unhelpful
Funny

UPDATE: Senator Ron Johnson's amendment granting a 1-year blacklist clause delay did not end up in the final Senate NDAA bill, which has just passed. This means the last chance for a government delay on the blacklist clause has failed.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Queue up the legal team...

We have an "affiliate" company that is a central alarm monitoring entity. A service offering is video monitoring and video alarm verification. A new customer may have hikvision cameras and they typically would just be granted access to them. Seems to me this constitutes "use". Excited to see this play out.

Agree: 4
Disagree
Informative: 4
Unhelpful
Funny

Bosch and DMP have previously sold and have to warranty products made by Hikvision and Dahua. Can they legally stop all warranties?

Will Bosch and DMP be banned from government work and need to be removed as typically the two most often used DOD security panels?

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 1
Unhelpful
Funny

#6, we will check on both.

Point of fact, I know no Bosch products made by Hikvision. There are Bosch products made by Dahua, as we discussed here: Bosch Dropping Dahua

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

DMP was using HIK for an OEM, supposedly just changed or changing to another vendor. Existing equipment in field?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

In all fairness, the government should ask Hauwei for a list of all products that use Hisilicon and Huawei manufactured components.

That way I can ask employees if our company, or they “use” any of these products so we can remove them from “use”.

It would be handy for new hires also, maybe they wouldn’t want the job knowing their new 85” smart flat screen would have to be disposed of to meet the “use” case.

Can you terminate an employee for refusing to dispose of prohibited technology?

Does this sound extreme? Yes.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

If a Central Station has subscribers connect to it through Immix and it connects to Bob & Mary's convenience store using HIK cams and the same Central Station is monitoring a government building is there a violation of anything?

Also is it limited to IP cameras? If someone has an analog or TVI HIK cam hooked up to an old school DVR does someone who cleans that TVI camera get banned as an integrator? What would the justification be on analog? I understand IP and someone who has it connected to a WAN, but analog?

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Does this mean integrators will get paid to remove covered products and install compliant replacements?

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

this looks like a bureaucrat's dream: a rule so broad and vague it could never be properly implemented.

since the range between its most extreme interpretation and it's most charitable one is so great and so undefined, the bureaucrat will necessarily have wide latitude in its practical application.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 1

Our assumption for the last few months is that TAA and NDAA compliance will continue to spill over from a federal ONLY thing to a state requirement, to local and education requirement. We have been working hard to dig deep into both of these and be able to deliver TAA and NDAA compliant solutions. It's not easy. Supply chains are complex and convoluted.

We know of one state that is already just requiring TAA and NDAA compliance and we believe more will follow. Sure you can fight it, but its unclear if fighting it is a winning strategy.

Agree: 1
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

TAA compliance is not impossible to deliver. NDAA Sec. 889 Part B is impossible to deliver, using or oeming HIK or Dauha is one thing, but any entity that contracts with the federal government has to certify that they do not use and none of their vendors use covered product. Which means they can’t use a freight company, airplane, automobile, any Central Station that has a HIK or Dauha camera connected to it, any integrator or subcontractor that installs HIK or Dahua, most likely any vendor of any kind that have offices in foreign countries, uses a nationwide bank, or virtually any cloud service provider. No large multi-national prime contractor will be able to certify to Part B. Thus a legislative remedy to clarify the scope is necessary and likely, especially after the IFR shows $11B first year cost and raises more contracting questions than it answered. The policy goals of Part B are desirable and needed to protect our country, however the implementation still has some issues.I predict Part B gets pushed to Jan. 1 of 2022 and legislatively scope defined to a single “uses”. Or “Uses” with a secondary “Uses in fulfillment of the contract” for subsequent flow down vendors.

Agree
Disagree
Informative: 2
Unhelpful
Funny

I have no problem with banning these products via the effective date and would love to see more products made outside of China. I never jumped on the Hikvision/Dahua train. Over the last 12 years since moving from AV and back into the security business I have been installing IP based video surveillance systems. Cameras that used a HiSilicon chipset were installed over the last 12 years way before this was even on the map. Over the years we sold or completed bid projects with various manufacturers which included ArecontVision, Axis, Panasonic, Avigilon, Samsung, Hanwha, Ganz, IQinvision etc.

My problem is essentially requiring companies to replace equipment previously installed or stop servicing a system and drop customers, because they have a banned camera or system. I'm sure we all have taken over an account that another dealer or integrator installed and you are now the service provider for. These systems may have had Hikvision/Dahua cameras.

It is also one thing if we are talking about federal government facilities, but the can of worms opens when we discuss federal funded projects that have grant money from the federal government.

Agree: 2
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Personally, I would like to know how this can effect the education system; where obviously they have a financial interest in spending as little money as possible, like any good government agency; and therefore probably use Hikvision cameras.

Does this mean they might lose their Title I funding or Federal grants for education for this coming school year? That is, while they are already struggling to meet CDC guidelines as it is?

As many of you may know, the school boards move at a snails pace (they can't always even pass a large purchase in 30-days most of the time usually), much less having the time to rip out hundreds if not, thousands of cameras, and have it being "financially viable" for them to do so without some sort of backlash.

Imagine the public outcry for the use of taxpayer funds on this, or tax payers wanting an explanation over the Federal funding sources.

This almost seems like it's been tailored to torpedo public education, if not payed attention to.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Personally, I would like to know how this can effect the education system;

Education is definitely impacted though not by the 'blacklist' rule but by the other portion that bans the use of federal funds starting on August 13, 2020.

That rule is not facing any debate or calls for a delay that we have seen.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Can someone please clarify, does this ban extend to all network, surveillance, & server equipment made in China? Or just to equipment manufactured by those 3 companies? How about Dell Servers with Chinese components, and Netgear or Ubiquiti Switches and wireless bridges.

Tyvm!

AJ

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Hi AJ, thanks for your question. The ban only covers users of equipment and services from these 4 companies: Hikvision, Dahua, Huawei, and Hytera. There is no blanket ban on Chinese-made equipment.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Is there anyone actively pushing for a strict interpretation of this ban to where even board components are scrutinized? Will educated integrators be able to use this to force replacements and push out these high risk items from government use altogether?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Good question, Robert. From what we have seen, there is growing consensus that Huawei Hisilicon, an obvious core component, is included. For example, even Uniview is now offering non-Huawei chip cameras for that purpose.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

For example, even Uniview is now offering non-Huawei chip cameras for that purpose.

smart move, there could be hella lot of demand for replacement of banned Chinese equipment, so who better to do it than the largest unbanned Chinese manufacturer?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny: 2

But what if I identify an Axis or Uniview camera on site with a Huawei Hisilicon SoC. Will removal be required or will it be glossed over?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Will removal be required or will it be glossed over?

who installed it?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

We used to make our own stuff.

1945-60 American Sets

Scroll down to find some nice photos and think about all the money that has been made by sending our technology for production in other countries.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

think about all the money that has been made by sending our technology for production in other countries.

and it’s certainly a lot of money - back in 1954 a new TV like this one might set you back $12,000 (in today’s $).

IPVM Image

if we could have kept the manufacturing in the us, and maintained the price point, and then convinced people to pay it, everyone financially involved in the sale of TVs would have been way better off!

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Don't forget, they would sell A LOT less TV's if they cost that much these days -- that's the problem with trade arguments is that consumers want their goods, they want them cheaper, and they want them now... People would go crazy if that same $300 TV suddenly costed them even x3 that much all of a sudden, just because of where that same TV is made.

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

Don't forget, they would sell A LOT less TV's if they cost that much these days...

yes, that was actually my point :)

protectionism is great if you’re part of the industry being protected.

btw, I never understood some politicians fixation over the “trade imbalance” with China.

they give us stuff (products), we give them stuff (money).

as long as the products are equal in value to the money paid for them, isn’t that fair trade?

you would have to argue that the stuff from China is too expensive!

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

UPDATE: The DoD has issued new guidelines for its implementation of the blacklist clause, here's some highlights.

Existing delivery contracts will include the FAR clause for orders issued on or after August 13, 2020. That means no leeway or loopholes for existing contracts.

Contracting officers shall, in accordance with FAR 1.108(d), modify— Existing indefinite delivery contracts to include the FAR clause for orders issued on or after August 13, 2020, prior to placing any such orders; and Existing contracts, task orders, and delivery orders to include the FAR clause if executing a modification to extend the period of performance, including exercising an option, on or after August 13, 2020

For extending contracts, DoD "should" provide contractors "with adequate time to comply". No details on how much time that actually means, and "should" is only a recommendation (as opposed to "shall").

When executing a modification to extend the period of performance, including exercising an option, on or after August 13, 2020, contracting officers shall obtain the representation and should provide a sufficient amount of time to both provide notice for exercising the option and to provide contractors with adequate time to comply with the clause and provide the representation.

If a contracting officer doubts a contractor is being honest in their representation, the officer shall "consult with the program office" and "legal counsel". Not many details beyond this, but it's an indication the DoD is preparing for some contractors to file dishonest representations in order to keep their government business.

If an offeror has represented “does not” in the representation at paragraph (d)(2) of the provision at FAR 52.204-24, the contracting officer may rely on the representation, unless the contracting officer has an independent reason to question the representation. If the contracting officer has an independent reason to question this representation, the contracting officer shall consult with the program office or requiring activity and legal counsel on how to proceed

System for Award Management still not updated. The SAM update should provide more details to the many questions contractors still have about the blacklist clause. However, this update is still in the works and DoD did not provide a specific timeline.

The FAR council is working to update SAM to include a representation for the prohibition at 889(a)(1)(B)

If the DoD contracting officer can't determine whether the contractor actually uses covered equipment/services then the award shall not be made.

If the contracting officer is unable to make a determination [...] then award shall not be made to that offeror unless a waiver is granted.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

UPDATE: GSA is hosting a webinar on August 12 and says industry can submit questions before August 5th:

  • GSA is hosting a live and recorded virtual webinar on August 12, 2020 1:00 p.m. EDT. Register HERE
  • This webinar is comprised of leaders from GSA's business lines who will explain how they are implementing Section 889 in their specific business lines
  • Panelists will also answer questions that have been pre-collected from industry
  • please send in your questions no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT, August 5, 2020 to gsaombudsman@gsa.gov.
Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny

I'm not clear on how integrators are impacted by the "Maintenance/Service" clause. Does this mean that an integator providing a service contract on banned products to a customer can no longer do business with the Fed Govt?

Agree
Disagree
Informative
Unhelpful
Funny
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts reporting, tutorials and software funded by subscriber's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.
Loading Related Reports