Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


                              _______________________________________

                  MOTIONS DENIED:  March 4, 2004
                 _______________________________


                        GSBCA 16122, 16209


                        DANNY R. MITCHELL,

                                             Appellant,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                             Respondent.

     Danny R. Mitchell, pro se, Pocahontas, AR.

     Gabriel N. Steinberg, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration,
Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. 

Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, HYATT, DeGRAFF, and
GOODMAN.

Per Curiam.

     On January 22, 2004, the Board granted respondent's motion for summary relief and
denied the appeal in Danny R. Mitchell v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16122.
On February 26, 2004, the Board granted respondent's motion for summary relief and denied
the appeal in Danny R. Mitchell v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16209.  On
March 1, 2004, Mr. Mitchell filed the pending Motion for Mistrials, Motion to Vacate
Judgments, Motion to Combine Appeals, and Motion to Transfer to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.  He filed this motion pursuant to Board Rule 132,
which allows us to alter or amend a decision or to grant a new hearing, and Board Rule 133,
which allows us to relieve a party from the operation of a final decision.  Although
Mr. Mitchell has not established his motions in GSBCA 16122 were timely filed, we will
consider them on their merits.  

     We deny appellant's motion for mistrials and motion to vacate judgments, because no
grounds exist for granting them.  In support of his motions, Mr. Mitchell contends we lacked
jurisdiction to consider any of the issues presented in either of the appeals he filed here.  As
we explained in both our decisions, however, Mr. Mitchell appealed to us from decisions
issued by contracting officers who denied claims submitted by Mr. Mitchell, and the Contract
Disputes Act provides us with jurisdiction to review such decisions.  41 U.S.C.    601-613
(2000).  To the extent the appeals raised issues beyond our jurisdiction, we could not and did
not consider them.  Mr. Mitchell's mistaken belief that we lacked jurisdiction to consider any
of the issues presented in either appeal does not constitute grounds for granting the pending
motions.  

     We deny appellant's motion to combine appeals, because no purpose would be served
by any such order at this stage of the proceedings and because appellant has put forward no
grounds for consolidating the appeals.  Although this order applies to each captioned appeal,
it does not represent a consolidation of the appeals.

     We deny appellant's motion to transfer the appeals to the district court because we
lack the authority to make such a transfer.  

     The motions are DENIED.