plaintiffs performance under other HUD contracts. Relying on opinions by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeal, the court found that because in Ervin the plaintiff could not prove that the database components were paid for solely at private expense, the government was entitled to the technical data rights. Id. Specifically, the Ervin court stated that: “[a]ny ... [government reimbursement ... as a direct or indirect cost, of some of the costs of developing an item, component, or process would mean that that item, component, or process was not developed ‘at private expense.’ ” [Bell Helicopter Textron, ASBCA No. 21,192, 85-3 BCA ¶ 18,415, 1985 WL 17050 (1985)] at 92,423, 1985 WL 17050; see also Megapulse, Inc., 1980 WL 17275 at *10, 1980 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 3819 at *10 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Ervin & Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 59
recognizing private right of action holding that the government is liable under the ftca in the same respect as a private person under the law of the place where the act occurred holding that where there is a mixture of private and government funds development is not at private expense and the government gets unlimited rights to all the data holding that where statutory remedies exist private employees do not have a private cause of action for violation of state constitutional rights holding that taxes are not private property that can be physically taken by the government