________________________ DENIED: October 6, 1994 ________________________ GSBCA 12610 HERBERT A. HORNER, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Herbert A. Horner, pro se, Daleville, AL. George U. Lane, Jr., Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. VERGILIO, Board Judge. On October 1, 1993, Herbert A. Horner filed this appeal with the Board. Mr. Horner had purchased a vehicle from the respondent, the General Services Administration. After removing the vehicle, Mr. Horner encountered various problems with the vehicle. He seeks $1,157.70--the amount he spent on repairs. He claims that the vehicle was negligently maintained prior to his purchase and that the agency concealed the negligent maintenance. Mr. Horner elected the small claims procedures in this case; accordingly, this decision shall be final and conclusive and shall not be set aside except in the case of fraud. 41 U.S.C. 608 (1988); Rule 13. The Board denies the appeal. The agency guaranteed neither the existing condition nor the prior maintenance of the vehicle. Mr. Horner obtained the very vehicle described in the notice of sale; the vehicle was not misdescribed. The record does not demonstrate that the agency knew of the defects alleged by Mr. Horner to exist at the time of the sale; therefore, the agency did not breach a condition of sale which states that deficiencies, when known, have been indicated in the item description. Findings of Fact 1. On May 4, 1993, the agency conducted a spot bid sale. The notice of the sale begins: "CONDITION OF PROPERTY IS NOT GUARANTEED. YOU ARE CAUTIONED TO INSPECT AND ASSURE YOURSELF OF CONDITION PRIOR TO BIDDING." The notice also states: "CONDITION OF PROPERTY IS NOT WARRANTED" and "DEFICIENCIES, WHEN KNOWN, HAVE BEEN INDICATED IN THE ITEM DESCRIPTION. HOWEVER, ABSENCE OF ANY INDICATED DEFICIENCIES DOES NOT MEAN THE ITEM IS WITHOUT DEFICIENCIES." Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 1. 2. Apart from the conditions noted in Finding 1, the notice of the sale contains a "description warranty" providing, in part: If a misdescription is determined after removal, the Government will refund any money paid if the purchaser takes the property at his or her expense to a location specified by the contracting officer. No refund will be made unless the purchaser submits a written notice to the contracting officer within 15 calendar days of the date of removal that the property is misdescribed and maintains the property in the same condition as when removed. . . . This warranty is in place of all other guarantees and warranties, express or implie[d]. The Government does not warrant merchantability of the property or its fitness for any use or purpose. The amount of recovery under this provision is limited to the purchase price of the misdescribed property. The purchaser is not entitled to any payment for loss of profit or any other damages, special, direct, indirect, or consequential. Clause no. 2 of Standard Form 114C is deleted. Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 1. 3. Mr. Horner submitted the winning bid for and removed (on May 4) the vehicle identified in lot 17. Appeal File, Exhibits 2, 3. The notice of sale specifies no problems or adverse conditions associated with the lot 17 vehicle. Id. 4. By letter dated June 3, 1993, Mr. Horner requested reimbursement of $1,157.70 from the agency's sales office. This amount reflects the sum of $58.32 (for a new battery), $102.34 (valve and sensor), and $997.04 (rebuilding of engine) as his cost of repairs to the vehicle. Mr. Horner maintains that negligent maintenance prior to his purchase of the vehicle caused some or all of the problems he encountered with the vehicle necessitating the enumerated repairs. Appeal File, Exhibit 4. A statement from an individual identifying himself as a "master auto technician" reveals his "opinion that the engine in Mr. Horner's [vehicle] was not serviced as it should have been." Id. Although Mr. Horner states that in mid-May 1993 he orally informed the Government of his difficulties with the vehicle, he does not suggest that he reduced his concerns to writing prior to the letter of June 3. 5. By letter dated July 26, 1993, to Mr. Horner the contracting officer denied the claim. Appeal File, Exhibit 7. 6. On October 1, 1993, the Board received from Mr. Horner a notice of appeal, seeking to recover $1,157.70 (an amount less than the purchase price). Mr. Horner contends that negligence by the Government in the maintenance of the vehicle "should not be allowed" and should justify his recovery of repair costs. Appeal File, Exhibit 8. 7. A certified statement from an individual at the relevant Fleet Management Center for the agency states: I was not aware of any problems with this vehicle, it was checked and inspected by other potential buyers all day prior to the sale, and the morning of the sale, and we (GSA Fleet Management) were unaware of any mechanical problems at that time. Appeal File, Exhibit 11. Discussion Mr. Horner seeks to recover $1,157.70--his cost of repairs to the vehicle. Mr. Horner purchased the vehicle described in the notice of sale. The notice of sale description is silent about the prior maintenance history of the vehicle and any problems with the vehicle. Mr. Horner has failed to demonstrate a basis for recovery under the terms of the "description warranty." Moreover, having neither provided written notice to the contracting officer within fifteen calendar days of removal, nor returned the vehicle to the agency, Mr. Horner has not established a basis for recovery under the clause. Further, Mr. Horner has not demonstrated a legal basis under the clause to recover his repair costs while retaining the vehicle. Apart from the description warranty clause, a provision of the sale states: "DEFICIENCIES, WHEN KNOWN, HAVE BEEN INDICATED IN THE ITEM DESCRIPTION." Finding 1. Even assuming negligent Government maintenance (which is not apparent from the record), the record does not demonstrate that the agency knew of any problems with the vehicle. The only evidence on point in the record indicates that the agency was unaware of any mechanical problems. Finding 7. The record demonstrates no agency breach of this provision--that is, the agency did not fail to disclose a known deficiency. Decision Mr. Horner has not met his burden of proof to recover any of the requested $1,157.70. Accordingly, the Board DENIES the appeal. ______________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge