Raytheon v. United States: Court Rejects Army’s Technical Data Claim Over Vendor Lists

Background of the Contract Requirements

Raytheon Company and the United States Army Contracting Command-Redstone entered into a series of engineering support contracts for the Patriot missile system. Beginning in 2012, Raytheon became obligated to provide the Army with quarterly vendor lists. These lists identified the suppliers from whom Raytheon had purchased parts over the preceding two years. The requirement appeared in a Contract Data Requirements List tied to a Data Item Description, DI-MGMT-80894, which instructed Raytheon to compile the lists from invoices, purchase orders, and other procurement records. The lists included part numbers, supplier names, addresses, Commercial and Government Entity codes, and related procurement information.

The contracts incorporated DFARS 252.227-7013 (Rights in Technical Data) and DFARS 252.227-7037 (Validation of Restrictive Markings on Technical Data). These regulations defined “technical data” as recorded information of a scientific or technical nature, excluding management data or information incidental to contract administration. Raytheon supplied multiple vendor lists under the contracts, initially labeling them with proprietary markings. None of the lists contained DFARS technical data markings.

Developments Leading to the Final Determination

Between 2012 and 2015, Raytheon submitted several vendor lists. Early lists bore legends restricting distribution and referencing export-control limitations. Beginning in 2015, the Army disapproved certain submissions, stating that Raytheon should not have marked the lists as proprietary. The Army also raised questions about part numbers and other content. Although Raytheon corrected some content issues, it continued to assert that the lists contained management information rather than technical data.

In 2016, the Army formally notified Raytheon that it considered the vendor lists to be technical data under DFARS 252.227-7013(a)(15) because they included part identifiers and information the Army believed was technical in nature. The Army directed Raytheon to remove its proprietary legends and replace them with markings reflecting Government Purpose Rights. Raytheon declined, maintaining that the lists were not technical data.

Further submissions in 2017 under a continuation contract contained similar proprietary markings. The Army disapproved the lists but approved them pending a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision. The Contracting Officer issued the final decision in June 2018, concluding that the vendor lists were technical data. The decision asserted that the lists contained necessary technical information and were used in conjunction with engineering drawings. The Contracting Officer directed Raytheon to remove its markings and apply Government Purpose Rights legends.

Raytheon filed suit challenging the determination. It sought declarations that the vendor lists were not technical data, that the final decision was void, and that the Army had breached the contract by treating the lists as technical data. In the alternative, Raytheon sought declarations regarding the scope of rights the government could assert if the lists were found to be technical data.

Court of Federal Claims’ Analysis

The Court of Federal Claims examined whether the vendor lists constituted technical data under DFARS 252.227-7013(a)(15). The analysis began with the regulatory definition, which required information to be scientific or technical in nature to qualify as technical data. The court reviewed the content of the lists, which consisted of part descriptions, material numbers, supplier addresses, and procurement identifiers. It noted that the lists lacked physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the components and did not include design information or manufacturing processes.

The court observed that identifying a supplier or showing recent purchases did not inherently reveal technical characteristics of an item. The lists provided procurement history rather than technical insight. The court also reviewed testimony showing that the lists were generated from Raytheon’s procurement system using invoices and purchase orders, which placed them within management or administrative data rather than technical data under the regulation.

The court considered the government’s argument that Army engineers used the lists during maintenance and procurement activities. The court concluded that utility to engineers did not transform the information into technical data. The regulation focused on the nature of the information, not on who used it. The court also analyzed past iterations of the technical data regulations, which emphasized design-related information, engineering documents, and manufacturing data. These categories differed significantly from the information contained in the vendor lists.

Finally, the court reviewed the broader purpose of technical data regulations, which centered on promoting competition in defense procurement by enabling the government to reprocure items from alternative manufacturers. The court found that the vendor lists did not serve that purpose. Engineering drawings and specifications would still permit competitive procurement without the lists. The vendor lists instead documented purchasing history rather than providing information essential for reproduction of the items.

Court’s Decision

The Court of Federal Claims held that Raytheon’s vendor lists were not technical data under DFARS 252.227-7013(a)(15). It concluded that the information was not inherently scientific or technical and instead reflected procurement and management information excluded from the definition. The court granted Raytheon’s cross-motion for summary judgment as to the counts seeking declaratory judgments that the vendor lists were not technical data and that the Contracting Officer’s Final Decision was void to that extent. Because the lists were not technical data, the court dismissed the remaining counts as moot.

Assistance With Data Rights Matters

If you’ve experienced disputes involving technical data, data rights, or contractual obligations under defense regulations, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles matters involving intellectual property rights in government contracting, DFARS data rights, copyright issues, and related compliance concerns. Reach out to our team through our data rights law page to learn how our team can assist with your claim.