CONSOLIDATION GRANTED:  November 9, 2017
CBCA 5814, 5815, 5816
HARRIS IT SERVICES CORPORATION,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent.
J. Scott Hommer, III of Venable LLP, Tysons Corner, VA, and Keir X. Bancroft and
Michael T. Francel of Venable LLP, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant.
Benjamin M. Diliberto and Jason A.M. Fragoso, Office of General Counsel,
Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, and Frank DiNicola, Office of General
Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, Eatontown, NJ, counsel for Respondent.
O’ROURKE, Board Judge.
ORDER
Pending before the Board is the parties’ joint motion to consolidate CBCA 5814,
CBCA 5815, and CBCA 5816.  According to the parties, the appeals involve common
questions of law and fact and consolidation would serve to alleviate unnecessary
administrative burdens and expenses. 
Under Rule 2(d) of the Board’s Rules, we may order consolidation (or make any other
orders concerning proceedings as needed to avoid unnecessary costs or delays) when two or
more cases involve “common issues of law or fact.”  48 CFR 6101.2(d) (2016).  Our rule is
based upon and involves the same considerations that underlie Rule 42 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, which governs consolidation of actions in federal courts.  See


CBCA 5814, 5815, 5816 2
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., GSBCA 13298-REM, et al., 02-2 BCA ¶ 31,912, at 157,647 n.7
(noting similarity of federal rule and predecessor board’s similar rule).  Like courts subject
to the federal rule, the Board “has broad discretion in the exercise of its inherent power over
the administration and supervision of its own business to consolidate actions or portions
thereof.”  Algernon Blair, Inc., GSBCA 5920, et al., 82-2 BCA ¶ 15,859, at 78,626; see
Beacon Oil Co., EBCA 215-6-82, et al., 88-2 BCA ¶ 20,767, at 104,907 (“The decision to
consolidate is discretionary with the forum”); Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc., IBCA
1061-3-75, et al., 76-1 BCA ¶ 11,826, at 56,469 (consolidation is discretionary). 
Nevertheless, boards encourage the parties to seek consolidation when they recognize that
consolidation would create litigation efficiencies.  Goss Fire Protection, Inc., DOT BCA
2782E, 98-1 BCA ¶ 29,713, at 147,343-44.
In exercising its discretion to determine whether consolidation is appropriate, the
Board should employ the following two-step analysis:  (1) “determine whether both cases
present ‘a common question of law or fact’” and (2) “consider whether ‘the interests of
judicial economy’ outweigh ‘the potential for delay, confusion and prejudice that may result
from consolidation.’”  Lowry Economic Redevelopment Authority v. United States, 71 Fed.
Cl. 549, 553 (2006) (quoting Lucent Technologies Inc. v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 512, 513
(2006)); see Algernon Blair, Inc., 82-2 BCA at 78,626 (“There is for consideration not only
the avoidance of extra costs and delay to the parties, but also the avoidance of waste of
adjudicative resources”).  Further, to the extent that consolidation would likely waste
adjudicative resources, that “consideration can take precedence over the desires of” the party
or parties requesting consolidation.  Algernon Blair, Inc., 82-2 BCA at 78,626.
Here, the appeals share common questions of law and fact, including whether the
Service Contract Act (SCA) applied to Harris’ subcontractor’s employees, whether Harris
failed to notify the Department of Veterans Affairs of any personnel subject to the SCA,
whether Harris is entitled to the back wages it reimbursed its subcontractor, and what the
parties’ obligations were under the contract. In addition, according to the contracting
officer’s final decision, all three claims, which are the basis of each appeal, are “based on the
same legal theories.”  Although each appeal concerns a separate task order, each task order
is under the same contract, and at least two task orders appear to call for the same work and
employees.  According to the contracting officer’s final decision, “all three claims are almost
the same language verbatim, with only minor differences between the documents.”  
Based on the record thus far, the Board finds that discovery for each appeal would
substantially overlap, and if the appeals proceed to a hearing, the same witnesses would be
utilized to testify.  Furthermore, if the Board were to make a determination as to entitlement
in one appeal, such determination would resolve the other appeals.  The Board concludes that
neither party would be prejudiced from consolidation.  Consolidation is permissible as a 

CBCA 5814, 5815, 5816 3
matter of convenience and economy in administration, and each appeal would not lose its
separate identity or merge into one single appeal because of consolidation.  Johnson v.
Manhattan Railway Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496-97 (1933); 9A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur
R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2382, at 10 (3d ed. 2008).
For the foregoing reasons, we grant the motion to consolidate the appeals.  
_______________________________
KATHLEEN J. O’ROURKE
Board Judge