Skip to content
Photo of Peter Terenzio

Peter Terenzio

Peter Terenzio advises clients regarding the regulatory requirements that govern federal contractors and grantees. He focuses on helping clients navigate the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and the cost principles in FAR Part 31 and 2 CFR Part 200. He also routinely advises on Other Transaction Authority (OTA) research, prototype, and production agreements.

Peter works on accounting, cost, and pricing matters, including providing day-to-day compliance advice; assisting with responses to audits and investigations and findings of potential noncompliance; and performing internal investigations of alleged violations. He also advises on other regulatory regimes, including the complicated prevailing wage rules imposed by the Davis Bacon Act (DBA) and Service Contact Act (SCA). He has particular experience with prototype OTAs issued in cutting edge fields, including quantum computing and biotechnology.

Peter also represents contractors in disputes arising under contracts and grants. He knows how to work closely with the client's subject matter experts to prepare and submit detailed requests for equitable adjustment (REAs) to secure price or schedule relief. When contract disputes cannot be resolved amicably, he has helped clients in litigation before federal courts and the Boards of Contract Appeals.

Contact:Read more about Peter TerenzioEmail

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down an extensive series of tariffs imposed last year by President Trump, holding that they were not authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”).  And on March 4, 2026, the United States Court of International Trade began the process of refunding certain of “the millions of entries that were subject to IEEPA,” through a process known in the international trade context as liquidating. 

These recent decisions by the Supreme Court and Court of International Trade may prompt federal contractors to consider seeking refunds of tariffs paid to import goods required to perform under their government contracts.  As we covered in a previous post, government contracts may contain clauses allowing for price increases following the imposition of a new federal tax.  These clauses can also work the other way and require a price decrease (or a credit to the Government under a cost-reimbursement contract) in the event of an after-relieved tax.  

Continue Reading Tariff Takedown:  Implications of Tariff Refunds for Government Contractors

On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14332, “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” (“EO 14332” or “the EO”) to “strengthen oversight and coordination of, and to streamline, agency grantmaking” and “ensure greater accountability for use of public funds.”  Sec. 1.  Among other things, the EO:  (1) directs agencies to review discretionary funding opportunities for consistency with agency priorities; (2) provides principles for agencies to use in assessing discretionary awards; (3) directs the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to revise the Uniform Guidance applicable to federal financial assistance; and (4) requires agencies to include terms and conditions in their discretionary grant agreements allowing for termination for convenience and preventing recipients from drawing down funds without prior written explanation and approval.  Through these methods, EO 14332 focuses on increased political oversight of discretionary funding, ensuring broad termination for convenience rights, and limiting indirect costs.  The EO arrives at the intersection of recent efforts by the Trump Administration both to cancel, terminate, or otherwise pause federal funding viewed as inconsistent with the Administration’s policy priorities and to streamline federal procurement regulations.

Continue Reading White House Issues Executive Order Focused on “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking”

On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“EO”), “Modernizing Defense Acquisitions and Spurring Innovation In the Defense Industrial Base,” that may have significant implications for federal government contractors doing business with the Department of Defense (“DoD”), and particularly those with touchpoints to Major Defense Acquisition Programs (“MDAPs”).

The EO requires DoD to take a number of actions, including:

  • Within 60 days (i.e., June 8th), the Secretary of Defense must submit to the President a plan to reform the DoD acquisition process to eliminate inefficiencies.  The plan must prioritize commercial solutions and the use of Other Transactions Authority (“OTA”) agreements and Rapid Capabilities Office mechanisms.  The plan must also eliminate redundant tasks and approvals, centralize decision-making, and incorporate effective risk management for all acquisition programs through a governance structure referred to as a Configuration Steering Board. 
  • Under no specified timeline, DoD is generally directed to revise internal regulations and implementation guidance — including the DoD Financial Management Regulation and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement — utilizing the principle from the “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” EO (Jan. 31, 2025) that for every new regulation proposed, ten existing regulations should be repealed.
  • Within 90 days (i.e., July 8th), the Secretary of Defense must review all MDAPs and consider for “potential cancellation” programs that are: (1) more than 15% behind schedule; (2) more than 15% above cost; (3) “unable to meet key performance parameters”; or (4) otherwise not aligned with DoD mission priorities.  Following this review of MDAPs, the Secretary of Defense will conduct a similar review for all remaining major systems.
  • Within 120 days (i.e. August 7th), the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Military Departments, must propose a plan to overhaul the defense acquisition workforce by restructuring performance metrics, assessing workforce sizing requirements, and deploying expert-led field training teams to enhance familiarity with innovative acquisition authorities.  These reforms are intended to incentivize prudent risk-taking and expand the workforce’s fluency in commercial solutions and adaptive acquisition strategies.  
  • Within 180 days (i.e., October 6th), the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, must complete a comprehensive review of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (“JCIDS”), with the aim of streamlining and accelerating acquisition.[1] 

We address the EO’s directives for acquisition process reform and MDAP review in greater detail below. 

Continue Reading Trump Administration Issues Executive Order Aimed At Modernizing Defense Acquisitions And Spurring Innovation

On August 25, 2022, President Biden announced a new Executive Order (“EO”) addressing the Implementation of the CHIPS Act of 2022 (“CHIPS Act”).  The CHIPS Act was signed by President Biden on August 9, 2022, and, among other things, authorizes $39 billion in funding for new projects to establish semiconductor…

Continue Reading Biden Administration Announces Priorities for the Implementation of the CHIPS Act of 2022

Under the January 2021 “Made in America” Executive Order 14005, President Biden established a new Made in America Office to oversee and administer domestic preference requirements in federal procurements.  Housed within the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), the Made in America Office was tasked with, among other things,…
Continue Reading The Made in America Office Website Is Live

As discussed in our

…
Continue Reading FAR Council Virtual Public Meeting on the Proposed Made in America FAR Rule

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in The Boeing Company v. United States that clears the way for resolution of Boeing’s substantive challenge to a controversial FAR provision that can give the government windfall recoveries in Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) matters.  The Federal Circuit decision is notable

…
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Rejects Government’s Waiver and Jurisdiction Defenses, Paving the Way for a CAS Showdown at the Court of Federal Claims

Although it is usually good news for a protester when an agency takes corrective action, the corrective action sometimes fails to adequately address the protest grounds.  When this occurs, a protester may wish to file a new protest challenging the agency’s corrective action.  The question of when to file a

…
Continue Reading GAO Clarifies Timing for Corrective Action Protest

Contractors sidelined by facility closures and stay-at-home orders in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic may now have a new pathway to recovering idle labor costs.  The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act includes a provision, Section 3610, that provides a new form of relief for contractors facing

…
Continue Reading CARES Act Includes New Route to Recovery for Contractors Affected By COVID-19

Tight deadlines are a fact of life in the world of government contracting.  Indeed, it is not unusual for the government to expect a contractor to provide large amounts of information in just a few short days.  And the draconian penalty for missing such a deadline is usually the rejection

…
Continue Reading Not So Fast Guy: Recent GAO Decision Provides Rule For When Agency Deadlines Are Unreasonably Short