Governing clause
FAR 52.204-25
Implements Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA.
Fort Carson, Peterson Space Force Base which hosts US Space Command and NORAD, Schriever Space Force Base and the United States Air Force Academy anchor this market. The installations themselves run their own programs. The commercial opportunity is the defense contractor base around them, and the large public sector employer base beside it.
That contractor base is why a security conversation in Colorado Springs starts with where the equipment was made and who made the components inside it.
Governing clause
FAR 52.204-25
Implements Section 889 of the 2019 NDAA.
Applies to
Use, not just purchase
Contractor use of covered equipment is the exposure.
Anchor installations
Four
Fort Carson, Peterson, Schriever and the Air Force Academy.
Deliverable
Provenance audit
Installed base inventory plus a phased replacement plan.
Section 889 and FAR 52.204-25 restrict certain Chinese-manufactured video surveillance and telecommunications equipment from federal procurement, and restrict contractor use of covered equipment. For a defense contractor in Colorado Springs, that turns equipment provenance from a purchasing preference into a compliance obligation with contract consequences.
The trap is components. A camera assembled elsewhere can still contain a restricted image processor or chipset, and a recorder sold under a familiar brand can be a rebadged covered device. Certification statements from a manufacturer are the beginning of due diligence, not the end.
Confirm current applicability, scope and any exception with your contracting officer. Rules and interpretations change, and the contracting officer is the authority, not an integrator's web page.
Beyond defense, Colorado Springs carries a heavy public sector concentration: the county, the city, the municipal utility, three large school districts and the university. Each brings a different obligation.
Municipal facilities mix public access and restricted areas in the same building, and their recordings are subject to open records requests, so retention policy and automated redaction are procurement criteria rather than features. The utility brings critical infrastructure standards. The districts bring Colorado school statute, including the facial recognition restriction and the 2025 stop-arm enforcement authorization.
Contractors working on or near installation property frequently inherit design expectations from the customer rather than from code: identification-grade pixel density at controlled entries, audited two-person access at sensitive spaces, longer retention than commercial norms, and logged review and export.
Design to the pixel density, not to the camera count. Identification is roughly 250 pixels per meter, about 80 pixels per foot. Recognition is roughly 125 pixels per meter, about 40 pixels per foot. Stating coverage that way is what survives a customer audit.
Written generally: electrified locking, delayed egress and any change to a required exit is reviewed locally and the fire authority decides. On secured contractor space, the tension between a customer's lockdown expectation and code-required free egress comes up regularly. Code wins, and we design a compliant alternative rather than an unapproved one.
Pricing does not change much by city. Labor rates, lift work, conduit runs and permit time do. Treat every figure below as a budgeting range for scoping, not a quote.
Hardware is typically 20 to 35 percent of installed cost. Budget roughly 1,000 to 2,500 dollars per camera fully installed, more for pole mounts, parking structures, long conduit and lift work. Access control runs roughly 1,500 to 3,500 dollars per door installed for a card or fob system, and cloud access software is commonly 3.50 to 15 dollars per door per month.
In cloud video, retention period is the single largest cost lever, ahead of resolution, analytics and whether recording is continuous or event based. Decide retention as a policy question first and the budget follows.
Section 889 and FAR 52.204-25 summaries are plain-language planning summaries. Confirm current applicability, scope and exceptions with your contracting officer.
If your contract carries FAR 52.204-25, covered equipment in use is a compliance problem even if you bought it years ago. The practical first step is an inventory that identifies restricted and questionable devices, then a phased replacement plan. Confirm scope and applicability with your contracting officer.
Yes. That is a defined deliverable: a model-by-model inventory of the installed base, provenance documentation where the manufacturer supplies it, a flag list, and a replacement plan that reuses cabling and mounts where practical.
Not necessarily. Assembly location and brand ownership do not settle component provenance. Restricted image processors and rebadged devices are the common failure. Ask for component-level documentation and treat a bare certification letter as the start of due diligence.
Yes. Districts here operate under Colorado school statute, including the state restriction on facial recognition in schools and the 2025 stop-arm enforcement authorization with its vendor compensation restriction.
The drivers change with the geography. These are the differences worth knowing.
Office vacancy and conversion work rather than provenance compliance.
View areaOur office, and the region's healthcare accreditation center of gravity.
View areaThe strongest federal compliance market in our footprint, anchored by two national laboratories.
View areaThe second strong provenance market, anchored by Hill Air Force Base contractors.
View areaIf your contract carries FAR 52.204-25, start with an inventory. We will tell you what has to be replaced and what does not.
Kindly provide your contact info and a team member will get in touch shortly.