DENIED: March 19, 1996 GSBCA 13488 DANIEL J. CONIDI, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Daniel J. Conidi, pro se, River Forest, IL. Marcy A. Sherrill, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Chicago, IL, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges WILLIAMS and DeGRAFF. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Daniel J. Conidi has appealed a contracting officer s decision denying his claim for $261.20 in damages under a contract for the purchase of a file cabinet with a safe. On February 15, 1996, appellant elected the accelerated procedure, and both parties waived a hearing and submitted their cases on the then existing record. Conference Memorandum (Feb. 15, 1996) at 1. Mr. Conidi claims that the safe was not accurately described because the invitation for bids (IFB) failed to disclose that the safe lacked a combination. Mr. Conidi has requested that the Government reimburse him for the cost he incurred in having the safe opened by a locksmith. Because the safe was not warranted either for merchantability or for a particular purpose, and Mr. Conidi had a duty to inspect the safe prior to submitting a bid, we deny the appeal. Findings of Fact In April 1994, the General Services Administration (GSA) mailed copies of IFB number 51FBPS94-021 to individuals interested in bidding on surplus personal property at a government auction in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. The IFB included an item bid sheet to be completed, signed, and returned, a description of the items for sale, a Description Warranty, and other conditions which applied to the auction. Id. The description of the safe in question stated, in relevant part, "Cabinet, Safe File 4 Drawer Manu-Mosler." Appeal File, Exhibit 2. The Description Warranty in the IFB provided, in pertinent part: 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 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. AFTER PROPERTY HAS BEEN REMOVED, NO REFUND WILL BE MADE FOR SHORTAGES OF PROPERTY SOLD BY THE "LOT". THIS WARRANTY IS IN PLACE OF ALL OTHER GUARANTEES AND WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WARRANT THE 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 MONEY DAMAGES, SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. The IFB contained a paragraph entitled "Notice of Possible Deficiencies," which provided: Absence of deficiencies in the description of sales items does not mean that deficiencies do not exist. Bidders are cautioned that parts, equipment and accessories may be missing from sales items. Bidders are further advised that sales items and any of their parts, equipment and accessories may be defective and/or damaged. These deficiencies may exist for any item in this sale, including those described as "USED". Oral statements of condition and description are unauthorized and confer no rights upon the bidder or purchaser. BIDDERS ARE CAUTIONED TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY BEFORE BIDDING. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. The IFB also contained a clause entitled "Oral Statements and Modification," which provides that any statements made by government representatives do not change the conditions of the IFB or contract and do not confer any rights upon the bidder. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. The IFB expressly advised bidders that property had to be removed by a successful bidder within twenty calendar days after notice of award. Id. Appellant submitted a bid of $100 for the Mosler four-drawer safe/file cabinet at issue, advertised as sale number 51FBPS94-21, item 016. Appeal File, Exhibit 6 at 1. By notice dated June 9, 1994, Mr. Conidi was awarded the safe/file cabinet. Id., Exhibit 7 at 1. Under the IFB, appellant had to remove the property no later than July 12, 1994. Id., Exhibit 6 at 2. Over a year later, on September 14, 1995, Mr. Conidi picked up the safe/file cabinet, discovered that the safe had no combination, and took it to a locksmith to have it opened. Appeal File, Exhibit 6. It cost Mr. Conidi $261.20 to have the safe opened. In an undated letter which was received by GSA on October 18, 1995, Mr. Conidi requested reimbursement from GSA in this amount. Id. Mr. Conidi s claim for reimbursement was denied in a contracting officer s final decision issued on November 11, 1995. Id., Exhibit 7 at 2. Discussion Mr. Conidi claims that GSA failed to accurately describe the safe in the IFB, that GSA should have been aware that the safe had no combination, and that GSA sells items such as this regularly and should have inquired as to the combination from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the agency providing the goods for auction. Complaint 2. Mr. Conidi also claims that GSA should have known that the safe had no combination because the property custodian at the FBI informed Mr. Conidi that such information had been forwarded to GSA. Id. Finally, Mr. Conidi claims that he was unaware of a duty to inspect the goods before bidding. Id. 3. This Board has recognized that a bidder's ability to recover in situations involving auction sales is governed by the terms and conditions of the IFB, which become a key part of the contract between the bidder and the Government. Jack P. Wade, GSBCA 12173, 93-2 BCA 25,808, at 128,460. According to the IFB, Mr. Conidi could recover the purchase price of the safe/file cabinet only if GSA misdescribed the safe, and Mr. Conidi informed GSA of the problem within fifteen calendar days after removal and maintained the safe in the same condition. None of those requirements has been met here. The safe was not misdescribed. Appellant received exactly what the description stated, a four-drawer safe/file cabinet. The absence of a combination would have been readily apparent upon inspection. The IFB expressly notified bidders that items could contain deficiencies. The absence of a combination was a deficiency in the file cabinet's condition, which was not warranted. Appellant failed to follow the procedures in the IFB. Appellant removed the safe over a year after receiving notice of award, but the contract called for removal within twenty days. Appellant also failed to notify GSA about the combination within fifteen calendar days after removal as required by the contract. He did not maintain the safe in the same condition, but altered it by having a locksmith open it. Finally, the IFB set forth the exclusive remedy available for misdescribed goods as the refund of the purchase price, and expressly advised bidders that money damages or loss of profit could not be recovered. Decision The appeal is DENIED. __________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge I concur: ________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge