Photo of John Nakoneczny

John Nakoneczny is an associate in the Government Contracts Group in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office.

John represents and counsels contractors from diverse industries on contract disputes and other government contract matters. Prior to joining Crowell & Moring, he clerked at the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, where he supported its judges in resolving and mediating appeals under the Contract Disputes Act. John earned his J.D. from The George Washington University Law School, where he was the president of the Government Contracts Student Association and on the Federal Circuit Bar Journal. While in law school, John served as a legal intern at the U.S. General Services Administration and the Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division. Upon graduation, John was awarded the President’s Volunteer Service Award.

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) recently published its Annual Report for FY 2023, providing statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and civilian agencies such as the Department of State, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the General Services Administration, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior

Flatland Realty, LLC, ASBCA No. 63409, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) granted an appeal seeking damages, plus interest, from an improper termination for default.  In an uncommon result, the Board awarded lost profit expectancy damages because the government had improperly terminated the contract, which did not incorporate a termination for convenience clause.Continue Reading Board “Evicts” Government Termination: Contractor Awarded Expected Lost Profits for Improper Lease Termination

On November 1, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) published its FY 2023 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, Central Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management

In StructSure Projects, Inc., ASBCA No. 62927, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) granted an appeal seeking recovery for increased costs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.  The underlying task order involved design and alteration services for existing medical facilities at Travis Air Force Base, and included a specific Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for the provision of temporary phasing facilities that the Government could use while the construction work was ongoing.  When the pandemic began in March 2020, StructSure and its subcontractors had to stop their on-site construction work for 44 days because the Government had limited base access for contractors deemed to be not mission-essential.  StructSure later sought schedule and monetary relief, but the Government only granted schedule extensions under the Default clause.Continue Reading COVID Costs Claim Succeeds: Contractor Entitled to Recover for Performance of Contract Despite Base Closure

In ECC Int’l Constructors Inc. v. Army, No. 2021-2323 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2023), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned longstanding precedent by holding that the requirement to state a “sum certain” in a claim submitted under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) is not a jurisdictional requirement.  The Court based its decision on recent Supreme Court guidance to “treat a procedural requirement as jurisdictional only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is.”  The Court parsed the CDA and found that Congress never used the words “sum certain,” evidencing that Congress did not intend the requirement to be jurisdictional.  This is important because jurisdictional requirements can be raised at any time—even years after the claim was filed and a full hearing on the merits was held—and result in dismissal of the case.  The Court explained that the “sum certain” is “nonetheless a mandatory rule that claimants must follow.” Continue Reading Sum-Thing Is Missing from the Contract Disputes Act: Federal Circuit Holds that “Sum Certain” Requirement is Non-Jurisdictional

On May 15, 2023, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA” or “the Board”) in J&J Maintenance, Inc., d/b/a J&J Worldwide Services, ASBCA No. 63013 issued an instructive analysis of its jurisdiction to hear monetary and nonmonetary claims.  Partially granting a government motion to dismiss, the ASBCA explained that, if a contractor does not seek monetary relief in its claim to the contracting officer (“CO”), then the contractor cannot seek monetary relief on appeal to the Board.  Addressing the contractor’s claim for contract interpretation, however, the Board denied the government’s motion to dismiss and held that, where a contractor can reasonably articulate “significant consequences” of its claim other than the recovery of money, the fact that the claim may also have a financial impact on the parties does not strip the Board of jurisdiction.  Continue Reading Money Talks, But So Do Other Impacts: ASBCA Underscores that a Claim with Possible Financial Impacts Is Not Fundamentally a Monetary Claim Unless It Has No Other Significant Consequences

On November 1, 2022, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) published its FY 2022 Report of Transactions and Proceedings, which provides statistics regarding the adjudication of appeals between contractors and the Army, Navy, Air Force, Corps of Engineers, Central Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Contract Management Agency

In Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, ASBCA No. 62209, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“Board”) denied the Air Force’s motion for summary judgment, which had argued that the “measured mile” approach to calculating disruption was legally untenable.  In its decision, the Board noted that it has “accepted the measured mile approach as an

On January 21, 2022, the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia issued an Order in Georgia v. Biden, No. 2:21-cv-163 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 21, 2022), which responded, in part, to the Government’s requests for clarification regarding the scope of the court’s nationwide injunction of the federal contractor vaccine mandate promulgated under Executive

Following President Biden’s announcement of Executive Order 14042 (“EO”) on September 9, 2021, several agencies have issued guidance on the EO’s applicability to the contractor community, which we reported on here.  Further to GSA’s September 30, 2021 Class Deviation CD-2021-13, on October 6, 2021, GSA reiterated that a mass modification program for all