Photo of Peter Terenzio

Mr. Terenzio advises contractors across a broad range of different issues. His practice includes bid protests, contract claims and disputes, regulatory counseling, and internal investigations.

Before joining the firm, Mr. Terenzio clerked for Chief Judge Susan G. Braden of the Court of Federal Claims.

Many contractors are familiar with the Davis-Bacon Act (“DBA”), the statute that requires government contractors to pay prevailing wages to workers employed in the construction, alteration, or repair of buildings or other public works.  The DBA is enforced by the Department of Labor, which is responsible for issuing the “wage determinations” that list the prevailing wages for different labor categories within a geographical area and for promulgating regulations used to implement the DBA’s requirements.

On March 18, 2022, the Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”), announcing that it intends to make a number of revisions to the DBA regulations.  In the Department’s view, these revisions represent the largest change to the DBA regulations since the last major rewrite in 1981.

Continue Reading Department of Labor Proposes Overhaul to Davis-Bacon Act Regulations

Two federal agencies recently released a joint Request for Information (“RFI”) in the latest in a series of concrete steps to meet the Biden Administration’s goal to achieve 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity (CFE)[1] in federal operations by 2030.  The RFI, issued by DLA-Energy and GSA, offers industry a chance to shape future federal CFE procurements by providing information on carbon-free electricity supplied in competitive retail markets.  Although not itself a procurement opportunity, the information submitted under the RFI will inform the parameters and conditions of CFE competitions that the federal government expects to begin as soon as this year, with contract deliveries starting in 2023.

Continue Reading RFI Begins to Chart Course for Federal Clean Energy Procurements

As discussed in our previous post, multiple federal courts have issued preliminary injunctions blocking the Biden Administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees of federal contractors.  On January 27, 2022, the United States District Court of Arizona issued a new and additional injunction barring enforcement of the mandate within the State of Arizona.  In so doing, the Arizona court added to the injunctions previously issued by the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Western District of Louisiana, Eastern District of Missouri, Middle District of Florida, and Southern District of Georgia.

The Georgia injunction is the only one of the rulings that applies nationwide.  Like the Arizona injunction, the Missouri, Florida, and Kentucky injunctions are limited to specific states (collectively, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Missouri, Nebraska, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Florida).  The Louisiana injunction is also limited, but its limitations are based on entities rather than geography; it applies to contracts and other agreements between the federal government and the governments of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Indiana.  The Biden Administration has appealed these earlier decisions; we expect that an appeal of the Arizona decision to the Ninth Circuit will likewise be forthcoming.

At the same time, the Biden Administration’s other primary COVID-19 initiative for large employers — the vaccination and testing emergency temporary standard issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (the so-called “OSHA Mandate”) — was stayed by the United States Supreme Court on January 13, 2022.  In the wake of that decision, OSHA announced on January 25, 2022 that it is withdrawing the enforceable emergency temporary standard.

While the Supreme Court’s decision halted immediate application of the OSHA Mandate, the emergency temporary standard qualifies as a proposed rule for purposes of OSHA’s notice-and-comment rulemaking process under 29 U.S.C. § 655, and OSHA has announced that it will continue to consider the emergency temporary standard pursuant to that process.  Accordingly, OSHA could attempt to promulgate a final rule (as opposed to an emergency temporary standard) that addresses vaccines or testing requirements.

The rest of this post consists of (1) an overview of the Arizona decision regarding the federal contractor vaccine mandate; and (2) an update on the status of the other challenges to the federal contractor vaccine mandate, including the Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Florida, and Georgia litigations.

Continue Reading COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Update: Arizona District Court Issues Additional Injunction; Mandate Remains Enjoined Nationwide; OSHA Mandate Withdrawn

On December 8, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14057 (“Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability”), the Administration’s latest – and most significant – effort to promote cleaner and more sustainable federal procurement.  At the heart of the new Order is the Administration’s goal to meet a net-zero emissions target across the federal government by 2050.  To do so, the Administration promises to “transform federal procurement and operations” and to leverage the government’s portfolio of “300,000 buildings, fleet of 600,000 cars and trucks, and annual purchasing power of $650 billion [in] goods and services” to facilitate increased adoption of green technology.  The new Executive Order will require further agency action to pursue and execute on these objectives, but once implemented, it appears poised to usher in a new – and greener – era of federal contracting.

In order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, the Executive Order and an accompanying “Federal Sustainability Plan” set four primary goals:

  1. Power: 100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity on a net annual basis by 2030;
  2. Vehicles: 100 percent zero-emission vehicle acquisitions by 2035, including 100 percent zero-emission light-duty vehicle acquisitions by 2027;
  3. Buildings: A net-zero emissions building portfolio by 2045, including a 50 percent emissions reduction by 2032; and
  4. Materials: Net-zero emissions from federal procurement no later than 2050, including a Buy Clean policy to promote use of construction materials with lower embodied emissions.

This blog post consists of three parts: (1) a summary of each of the four major goals referenced above; (2) a description of the Executive Order’s procedures for implementation, together with the exceptions to its coverage; and (3) concluding thoughts about key takeaways of this Executive Order for the contracting community and potential new entrants into the federal marketplace.

Continue Reading Biden Executive Order Promises to “Transform Federal Procurement” to Meet Net-Zero Emissions Target

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, reviewing and approving agency waivers of any Made in America Laws—including, for example, waivers of the Buy American Act (“BAA”) and Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”), as well as developing a publicly available website to post the descriptions of the proposed waivers and justifications for each.  Last week, the Made in America Office launched its new website, establishing for the first time a centralized, government-wide database of all proposed waivers of Made in America Laws.

Continue Reading The Made in America Office Website Is Live

The government is moving forward with further changes to Buy American Act (“BAA”) regulations.  But based on yesterday’s public meeting to discuss the July 30 notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) to revise existing BAA regulations, it remains to be seen exactly where those changes are headed.

As discussed in our prior client alert, the NPRM implements Executive Order 14005 (“Ensuring the Future Is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers”) by proposing three major changes to existing BAA regulations: (1) higher domestic content thresholds; (2) enhanced price preferences for “critical” items and components; and (3) new domestic content reporting requirements for “critical” items and components.  The agenda for the public meeting covered each of these changes, as well as other questions raised in the NPRM related to BAA waivers and exceptions.

Continue Reading Buy American Act Update: FAR Council Holds Public Meeting on New Proposed 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 for three reasons.  First, in rejecting the government’s argument that Boeing had waived its right to attack the relevant FAR provision, the court clarified the circumstances in which a contractor will be found to have waived its rights to object to FAR provisions.  Second, in concluding that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction to consider the dispute, the court provided a useful primer on the three different kinds of jurisdiction available under the Tucker Act.

Finally, the Federal Circuit’s remand means the Court of Federal Claims will now address Boeing’s substantive challenge to FAR 30.606, which directs contracting officers to ignore offsets that save the government money when calculating the impact of changes to a contractor’s cost accounting practices.  Boeing’s argument that this provision amounts to a breach of contract and an illegal exaction will now be resolved on the merits.

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

It goes without saying that the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and the defense industrial base.  And while Congress has taken steps to mitigate these impacts, the sheer scale of the pandemic’s effects pose a continuing challenge to both DoD and its contractors.  Now a group of major defense contractors has submitted a pair of joint letters to the Pentagon and OMB highlighting the need for further action and the risk to the defense industrial base if such actions are not taken.

Continue Reading Defense Contractors Say Section 3610 and Other Contractor Support Measures Require Relief

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 corrective action challenge is often tricky, however — and a misstep can result in dismissal.  GAO recently clarified that timing in Computer World Services Corporation.

Continue Reading GAO Clarifies Timing for Corrective Action Protests

It’s a big deal in the government contracts community whenever the Federal Circuit weighs in on a bid protest.  And it is a particularly big deal when the Federal Circuit issues a split opinion in a bid protest.  That’s what happened last week in Inserso Corporation v. United States (No. 2019-1933), where the Federal Circuit issued a split opinion denying a protest as waived under Blue & Gold.

Continue Reading Federal Circuit Splits on Blue & Gold Question in Inserso