From the TIKC Advisory Team · Compliance & Regulatory Alerts
The Certification That Can Sink You: Section 889, the 1260H List, and Your Supply Chain
Section 889 bars covered Chinese telecom and surveillance gear — and a false representation is FCA exposure. Now the 1260H List adds new deadlines. How…

Published September 14, 2026 | TIKC NewsWire
Every offer you submit carries a Section 889 representation — and in a record enforcement year, a wrong one is more than a paperwork problem. Section 889 of the FY2019 NDAA bars the government from buying, or contracting with companies that use, covered Chinese telecommunications and video-surveillance equipment. Because compliance runs on your self-certification, an inaccurate representation is a potential False Claims Act exposure on every invoice that follows.
What’s Actually Prohibited
Section 889 covers equipment and services from five named Chinese companies and their subsidiaries and affiliates: Huawei, ZTE, Hytera, Hikvision, and Dahua. It has two parts. Part A bars the government from procuring covered gear. Part B is the one that catches contractors: agencies can’t contract with a company that uses covered equipment or services — even if that use has nothing to do with your federal work. The representation is made after a “reasonable inquiry” into your systems — company-wide, not just your federal-facing environment.
The New Layer: The 1260H List
Supply-chain scrutiny is expanding beyond the original five. The Department of Defense’s 1260H List of “Chinese Military Companies” brings new compliance obligations, with deadlines phasing in beginning June 2026 (for contractors working with entities that lobby for listed companies) and June 2027 (for contractors sourcing from or doing business with 1260H-listed entities). The direction is clear: the government wants adversary-linked technology and firms out of the defense supply chain, and it’s pushing the obligation down to you — through certifications that carry FCA exposure.
What to Do Now
Inventory your technology — phones, routers, switches, cameras, and services — for covered brands and their affiliates, across your whole company, not just federal-facing systems. Document your “reasonable inquiry.” If you represent compliance, keep the evidence of how you checked — the inventory, who performed it, and when. Push it down your supply chain. Ask vendors and subcontractors to certify, and build 889 (and now 1260H) screening into your procurement terms. Watch the 1260H deadlines and map any exposure to listed entities now, before the June windows pass.
The Bottom Line
A five-minute box-check on a representation you can’t actually support is exactly the kind of thing that becomes an FCA case. Section 889’s Part B reaches your entire organization — every Hikvision camera in a breakroom, every Huawei component in a router — not just your government work environment. The 1260H deadlines are already running. Treat both as real inventory exercises, document the work, and build the certifications into your supply chain before a DIBCAC assessor or OIG investigator does it for you. Brick by brick.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Part B apply even to equipment I don’t use on federal work?
Yes — that is the most important thing to understand about Part B. The prohibition reaches covered equipment anywhere in your organization, regardless of whether it touches a federal contract. A Hikvision security camera in your office lobby, a Huawei component in your company router — if it’s in your organization and it’s covered equipment, you cannot represent compliance under Part B without removing it.
What if I certify compliance and I’m wrong?
An inaccurate Section 889 representation can support a False Claims Act theory if you knew or recklessly disregarded that it was false. Every invoice submitted under that contract is potentially a false claim. This is why a documented reasonable inquiry — an actual inventory, not a verbal assurance — is essential. It demonstrates good faith and limits the government’s ability to argue reckless disregard.
What is the 1260H List and how is it different from Section 889?
Section 889 covers five specific named Chinese companies’ telecommunications and video surveillance equipment. The 1260H List is the DoD’s annually updated list of Chinese Military Companies, spanning a much broader range of sectors including AI, aerospace, and biotechnology. The 1260H prohibitions phase in through June 2026 and June 2027 and cover contractors who work with, source from, or have consultants lobbying for listed entities — a wider net than Section 889’s equipment-focused prohibitions.
References
National Law Review. (2026). Navigating Section 889 and 1260H compliance for U.S. defense contractors. https://www.natlawreview.com
U.S. Code / FAR. (2026). Section 889, John S. McCain NDAA for FY2019 (Pub. L. 115-232); FAR 52.204-25. https://www.acquisition.gov
About the Author
Melanie Patterson
Founder & CEO of Team Integrity Knowledge Center and creator of GovCon iSource. Former nurse turned entrepreneur with over 10 years guiding small, women-owned, and minority-owned businesses to over $10 million in government awards. Build, grow, scale — brick by brick. Contact
Your next step
Talk it through with a TIKC advisor
Continue reading
Related stories

Do Your Share of the Work: The Limitations on Subcontracting Rule
When you win a small-business set-aside, the government expects your small business to actually do the work, not hand most of it to a big…

The Wage Rules for Service Work: The Service Contract Act Explained
If you hold a federal service contract, with janitors, guards, call-center staff, or maintenance crews, the Service Contract Act sets what you must pay them…

Paying the Prevailing Wage: The Davis-Bacon and Certified Payroll Trap
On federal construction, you do not get to decide what to pay your workers. The Davis-Bacon Act sets a prevailing wage, and every week you…

When the Auditor Walks the Floor: Surviving a DCAA Floor Check
One day, with no warning, a government auditor shows up and asks your people what they are working on and what contract they are charging…

Timecard Fraud Just Drove a $184 Million Settlement. Your Hours Are the New Target
In 2026, the fastest road to a giant False Claims Act bill is not a fake product or a phantom vendor. It is the timesheet…

The $400 Hammer Problem: Spare-Parts and Catalog Overpricing
The government buys a lot of spare parts, and overcharging for them is one of the oldest and most watched forms of contract abuse. Marking…

Loading the Front End: Why Unbalanced Bidding Can Backfire
You can win a job and still get your pricing wrong in a way that raises red flags. Front-loading early line items, or shifting price…

Pass the First One for Real: First Article Testing and the Approval Trap
On many contracts, before you can ship in volume, one sample has to pass first article testing. Certifying that the first article passed, or sending…

Follow Your Own Rules: Cost Accounting Compliance and Why Consistency Is the Law
Once you tell the government how you account for costs, you have to actually do it that way, every time, on every contract. Quietly shifting…

Warn Before the Money Runs Out: The Limitation of Cost and Funds Clauses
On a cost-type contract, you do not just keep working and billing when the budget is running low. You have a duty to warn the…

Asking for More, Honestly: Why a Padded Request for Equitable Adjustment Is Fraud
When the government changes the job, you have a right to ask for more money through a request for equitable adjustment. That is fair and…

In 2026, GovCon Enforcement Got Personal
Across 2026, one pattern keeps showing up in government contracting settlements: the government is naming the people, not just the companies. CEOs and presidents are…




