DENIED: September 3, 1992 GSBCA 11840 MERCERS AUTOS, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. H. F. Mercer, President of Mercers Autos, Laurinburg, NC, appearing for Appellant. A. R. Dattolo, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. HENDLEY, Board Judge. In November 1991, Mercers Autos, appellant, paid for a 1985 Dodge pickup truck which included options that appellant did not want. Appellant returned the truck to respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), but respondent withheld liquidated damages after paying appellant the balance of its bid. On June 15, 1992, appellant elected to proceed under our small claims procedure, Rule 13. Both parties elected a decision on the record in accordance with Rule 11. Pursuant to our Rule 13 small claims procedure, we deny the appeal. Findings of Fact 1. In the fall of 1991, respondent sent appellant a surplus property solicitation package, number 41FBPS92004. Accompanying the bid materials was the following warranty: The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed in the invitation for bids will conform to its description. If a misdescription is determined before removal of the property, the Government will keep the property and refund any money paid. If a misdescription is determined after removal, the Government will refund any money paid if the purchaser takes the property at his or her own expense to a location specified by the contracting officer. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 13. The warranty included this proviso at the bottom of the page: Deficiencies, when known, have been indicated in the item description. However, absence of any indicated deficiency does not mean the item may not have deficiencies. Bidders are cautioned to inspect before bidding. Condition of property is not guaranteed. Id. The bid materials also incorporated by reference the standard "General Sale Term and Conditions" Form 114C, which holds a purchaser of Government property liable for liquidated damages amounting to 20% of its bid if it defaults on its purchase agreement. Id., Exhibit 3. 2. Bidders could inspect the Dodge pickup truck in McClennanville, South Carolina, from October 15 through 25, 1991, and were required to submit bids by October 31, 1991. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 15. Appellant bid on seventy-two cars, including a bid of $1060 for item 24. Id., Exhibit 4. Respondent described item 24 as: 1985 DODGE PU, 6 CYL, AT ID#151-5556. SN 187GD14HXS631389. REPAIRS REQUIRED: BODY, ETC. Id., Exhibit 2 at 3. 3. Appellant called the custodian of the Dodge, a U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service division, for a description of the car. Appeal File, Exhibit 9. The division's fleet manager, William M. Gause, told appellant that the car had a slant 6-cylinder engine, automatic transmission, air conditioning, power steering, and a full size spare tire. Id. Mr. Gause also told appellant that the car ran "as if going up hill" and had high mileage, although it had been serviced regularly. Id. 4. On November 5, 1991, respondent awarded appellant the Dodge pickup truck for $1060. Appeal File Supplement, Exhibit 1. Appellant retrieved the truck in South Carolina on December 11, 1991, and paid for it, but returned it later. Appeal File, Exhibits 7, 8. In a letter dated December 14, 1991, appellant explained that it rejected the truck because it had air conditioning and power steering, which "our customer did not want and would not have." Appeal File, Exhibit 8. Respondent withheld $212 in liquidated damages, pursuant to the Default clause, but returned the balance of the purchase price to appellant. 5. On February 21, 1992, the contracting officer held in its decision that respondent's failure to mention air conditioning and power steering in the bid materials was not a misdescription and denied appellant's claim. Appeal File, Exhibit 10. Respondent terminated the contract for default on March 31, 1992, and continued withholding $212 in liquidated damages. Id., Exhibit 12. The Board docketed this appeal on May 13, 1992, and on June 15, 1992, appellant elected to proceed under the small claims procedure, Board Rule 13. Discussion Appellant argues that respondent, by failing to note in the solicitation that the Dodge pickup truck was equipped with air conditioning and power steering, "misdescribed" the vehicle. To buttress its misdescription claim, appellant attached bid materials that respondent issued in July 1992, which included the fact that the rejected Dodge truck had air conditioning and power steering: 1985 DODGE PU, 6 CYL, AT, ID# 151-5556, AC, PS SN 187GD1HXFS631389. REPAIRS REQUIRED: BODY, ETC. Appellant's letter to Board, Exhibit A (August 13, 1992)(emphasis added). It seems to us that appellant received more than he bid on, yet was unhappy with the truck, and now asks the Board to correct its own mistake. Appellant has not convinced us that it is entitled to relief. The Board long has enforced the inspection clause very strictly, even against would-be car purchasers who received fewer features, or parts, in worse condition than they thought they were bidding on. In The Reverend William Stanfield, GSBCA 4777, 77-1 BCA 12,522, the Government custodian did not let a bidder trying to inspect a car start its engine. The car in fact did not run, but the Board upheld the Government's assessment of liquidated damages on the grounds that the description in the solicitation said nothing about the car's operability. Id. Likewise, the Board denied relief in R.A. Duggan, Jr., GSBCA 4843, 77-2 BCA 12,743. There, the purchaser bid on a truck that had no hood without inspecting it. Before the purchaser could retrieve the truck, snow fell on the engine, melted, and rusted out its parts. Id. at 61,933. Still, the purchaser received no reduction of the purchase price. Id. at 61,934. Similarly, in John C. Cruden, GSBCA 9331, 89-1 BCA 21,348, at 107,620 (1988), bid materials described a car only by serial number and mileage, without any mention of features. The purchaser discovered that the air conditioning and brake lights did not work as he drove off the GSA lot, even though the auctioneer had "bragged about the functioning air conditioning and good condition of the cars." Id. Noting that the buyer could have discovered both problems by pre-bid inspection and citing the solicitation clause which warns bidders that "absence of any indicated deficiencies" does not mean that the item has no deficiencies, the Board denied relief. Id. at 107,623. Here, the unmentioned "deficiencies" of air conditioning and power steering were ones that appellant could have discovered at a pre-bid inspection, and the solicitation warned appellant that the truck might have deficiencies not indicated in the description. Finding 1. We commend appellant for promptly returning the vehicle to receive some reimbursement, since it did not want the truck. However, it is not entitled to complete relief from its own error, and we deny its appeal. Decision For the reasons stated above, this appeal is DENIED. ___________________________ JAMES W. HENDLEY Board Judge