When does DFARS 252.227-7013 apply?

Is the contract a DoD contract for a noncommercial item, component, process, or computer software documentation? If yes, 252.227-7013 generally applies to technical data deliverables. Commercial items use 252.227-7015. Computer software (as opposed to technical data) uses 252.227-7014. Was the underlying item or process developed exclusively at private expense? If yes, limited rights apply by default and the contractor can assert a more restrictive marking. Maintain contemporaneous funding records (cost ledgers, IR&D files) to defend the assertion if challenged. Did the contract include a request for prior assertions of restrictions? Most DoD solicitations include a list-of-prior-assertions requirement. Failing to list a pre-existing limited-rights item up front can cost you the right to assert limited rights later in performance.

What are the most common contractor pitfalls under DFARS 252.227-7013?

Missing or late restrictive legends on deliverables: The clause is unforgiving on marking. A drawing delivered without the prescribed limited-rights or GPR legend is generally treated as delivered with unlimited rights regardless of funding history. Proofreading deliverables before submission is a contract-compliance step, not just QA. Mischaracterizing mixed-funding development as private expense: If even a small portion of development was funded under a prior government contract or grant, the default is government purpose rights, not limited rights. DCMA and DCAA can pull cost-accounting records to test the funding assertion years after delivery. Failing to list prior assertions in the solicitation response: The solicitation's prior-assertions list is the contractor's opportunity to flag limited-rights data carried in from prior efforts. Items not listed are vulnerable to a forfeiture argument later. Treat the list as a key proposal artifact, not boilerplate. Treating GPR as effectively limited rights: Government purpose rights allow the government to release data to competitors for follow-on procurements after the five-year period. Contractors who assume GPR will protect them from re-competition are routinely surprised at year six.

What audit-flag patterns are associated with DFARS 252.227-7013?

Auditors and contracting officers commonly flag: Deliverables with no restrictive legend on items the contractor later claims as limited rights; Prior-assertions list missing or boilerplate when the contractor has known IR&D-developed items; Funding history cited as private expense for items previously developed under SBIR or other government funding; Inconsistent marking across related deliverables (drawings limited, source models unmarked); GPR clock running on items the contractor still treats as competition-sensitive past year five.

DFARS

DFARS 252.227-7013 — Rights in Technical Data—Noncommercial Items

Establishes the government's license rights in technical data delivered under DoD contracts for noncommercial items. The default license category turns on who funded the development.

Citation: 48 C.F.R. § 252.227-7013 (DFARS) · Live text on acquisition.gov

What this clause does

DFARS 252.227-7013 is the central data-rights clause for noncommercial-item DoD contracts. It defines three primary license categories: unlimited rights, government purpose rights (GPR), and limited rights. The applicable category for a given technical data deliverable depends on who paid for the development of the underlying item, component, or process.

If development was funded exclusively at private expense, the contractor delivers technical data with limited rights and may withhold detailed manufacturing or process data entirely under certain conditions. If development was funded exclusively by the government, the data is delivered with unlimited rights, meaning the government may use, disclose, reproduce, and authorize others to do the same without restriction. If development was mixed funding, the default is government purpose rights, which gives the government broad use within government purposes (including authorizing competitors to use the data for follow-on government procurements) but restricts commercial use for a five-year period that begins on contract award.

Marking is everything. The clause specifies the legends contractors must apply to deliverables to assert limited rights or GPR. Missing, late, or non-conforming legends generally result in the government acquiring unlimited rights by default, even if the underlying funding history would have supported a more restrictive category. The clause also sets up a challenge process: the government can challenge an asserted restriction, and the contractor must defend the assertion with development-funding evidence.

Does this clause apply to my contract?

Three tests resolve applicability. Read each in order; the first "no" usually means the clause does not flow.

1.Is the contract a DoD contract for a noncommercial item, component, process, or computer software documentation?
If yes, 252.227-7013 generally applies to technical data deliverables. Commercial items use 252.227-7015. Computer software (as opposed to technical data) uses 252.227-7014.
2.Was the underlying item or process developed exclusively at private expense?
If yes, limited rights apply by default and the contractor can assert a more restrictive marking. Maintain contemporaneous funding records (cost ledgers, IR&D files) to defend the assertion if challenged.
3.Did the contract include a request for prior assertions of restrictions?
Most DoD solicitations include a list-of-prior-assertions requirement. Failing to list a pre-existing limited-rights item up front can cost you the right to assert limited rights later in performance.

Common contractor pitfalls

Patterns that produce questioned costs, back-wage liability, or False Claims Act exposure under this clause.

Missing or late restrictive legends on deliverables
The clause is unforgiving on marking. A drawing delivered without the prescribed limited-rights or GPR legend is generally treated as delivered with unlimited rights regardless of funding history. Proofreading deliverables before submission is a contract-compliance step, not just QA.
Mischaracterizing mixed-funding development as private expense
If even a small portion of development was funded under a prior government contract or grant, the default is government purpose rights, not limited rights. DCMA and DCAA can pull cost-accounting records to test the funding assertion years after delivery.
Failing to list prior assertions in the solicitation response
The solicitation's prior-assertions list is the contractor's opportunity to flag limited-rights data carried in from prior efforts. Items not listed are vulnerable to a forfeiture argument later. Treat the list as a key proposal artifact, not boilerplate.
Treating GPR as effectively limited rights
Government purpose rights allow the government to release data to competitors for follow-on procurements after the five-year period. Contractors who assume GPR will protect them from re-competition are routinely surprised at year six.

Audit-flag patterns

Specific signals that contracting officers, DCAA, and agency IGs use to surface noncompliance.

Deliverables with no restrictive legend on items the contractor later claims as limited rights
Prior-assertions list missing or boilerplate when the contractor has known IR&D-developed items
Funding history cited as private expense for items previously developed under SBIR or other government funding
Inconsistent marking across related deliverables (drawings limited, source models unmarked)
GPR clock running on items the contractor still treats as competition-sensitive past year five

Related clauses

Clauses that flow alongside or interact with DFARS 252.227-7013.

Frequently asked

What does DFARS 252.227-7013 require?: Establishes the government's license rights in technical data delivered under DoD contracts for noncommercial items. The default license category turns on who funded the development.
When does DFARS 252.227-7013 apply?: Is the contract a DoD contract for a noncommercial item, component, process, or computer software documentation? If yes, 252.227-7013 generally applies to technical data deliverables. Commercial items use 252.227-7015. Computer software (as opposed to technical data) uses 252.227-7014. Was the underlying item or process developed exclusively at private expense? If yes, limited rights apply by default and the contractor can assert a more restrictive marking. Maintain contemporaneous funding records (cost ledgers, IR&D files) to defend the assertion if challenged. Did the contract include a request for prior assertions of restrictions? Most DoD solicitations include a list-of-prior-assertions requirement. Failing to list a pre-existing limited-rights item up front can cost you the right to assert limited rights later in performance.
What are the most common contractor pitfalls under DFARS 252.227-7013?: Missing or late restrictive legends on deliverables: The clause is unforgiving on marking. A drawing delivered without the prescribed limited-rights or GPR legend is generally treated as delivered with unlimited rights regardless of funding history. Proofreading deliverables before submission is a contract-compliance step, not just QA. Mischaracterizing mixed-funding development as private expense: If even a small portion of development was funded under a prior government contract or grant, the default is government purpose rights, not limited rights. DCMA and DCAA can pull cost-accounting records to test the funding assertion years after delivery. Failing to list prior assertions in the solicitation response: The solicitation's prior-assertions list is the contractor's opportunity to flag limited-rights data carried in from prior efforts. Items not listed are vulnerable to a forfeiture argument later. Treat the list as a key proposal artifact, not boilerplate. Treating GPR as effectively limited rights: Government purpose rights allow the government to release data to competitors for follow-on procurements after the five-year period. Contractors who assume GPR will protect them from re-competition are routinely surprised at year six.
What audit-flag patterns are associated with DFARS 252.227-7013?: Auditors and contracting officers commonly flag: Deliverables with no restrictive legend on items the contractor later claims as limited rights; Prior-assertions list missing or boilerplate when the contractor has known IR&D-developed items; Funding history cited as private expense for items previously developed under SBIR or other government funding; Inconsistent marking across related deliverables (drawings limited, source models unmarked); GPR clock running on items the contractor still treats as competition-sensitive past year five.

Sources

DFARS clause text — acquisition.gov/dfars/252.227-7013
DCAA Contract Audit Manual — dcaa.mil/Guidance/CAM
Plain-English methodology — FieldLedger methodology

Snapshot date: 2026-05-08. Clause text is binding only as of the version incorporated into your specific contract — check acquisition.gov for the live regulatory text.