Software Development Under Government-Funded Technology Investment Agreements Is Development "Exclusively at Private Expense" Under Data Rights Clauses
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.27.18
On July 17, 2018, in Appeal of The Boeing Company (Boeing), the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) granted Boeing’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that, as a matter of law, software Boeing developed with U.S. government funding under two Technology Investment Agreements (TIA) is subject to restricted rights because it was developed “exclusively at private expense” as defined in DFARS 252.227-7014(a)(8), because TIAs are not procurement contracts. The dispute involves two TIAs issued to Boeing pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2358 as Research and Development Projects, one fully funded by the government and the other partially funded by the government, and an Army Low Rate Initial Product (LRIP) contract for the manufacturing of AH-64D model aircraft, which incorporated DFARS 252.227-7014. Boeing asserted that the government had restricted rights in certain software delivered under the LRIP Contract because the software was developed under the TIAs and, therefore, exclusively at private expense for data rights purposes. The government challenged Boeing’s assertion because the TIAs, and therefore the software development, were government funded, and ultimately issued a final decision which Boeing appealed. The ASBCA held that the TIAs are not government “contracts” as defined in FAR 2.101 and, therefore, the associated funding are not “costs charged directly to a government contract” for the purposes of the source of funding test under DFARS 252.227-7014(a). Thus, the associated software was “developed exclusively at private expense” as that term is defined in DFARS 252.227-7014(a)(8).
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26




