_____________________________ DENIED: August 21, 1997 _____________________________ GSBCA 13991 COLERIDGE D. HENRI, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Coleridge D. Henri, pro se, College Park, GA. George U. Lane, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges NEILL and VERGILIO. NEILL, Board Judge. This case arises from the purchase of a Ford Taurus at an auction held on behalf of the General Services Administration (GSA). Appellant seeks reimbursement for the costs of repairing his vehicle after purchase and asks that we decide this case using our accelerated procedure. Rule 203. Both parties have elected to have the case decided on the record without a hearing. Rule 111. Given the record before us, we deny the appeal. Findings of Fact On September 13, 1996, an auction of Government-owned vehicles was held in Atlanta, Georgia. The vehicles were available for inspection on September 12 and 13. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. A bid card signed by appellant expressly states that auction sales are subject to the terms and conditions of the Government's standard form 114C and any special terms and conditions applicable to the sale. Appeal File, Exhibit 6. Standard form 114C contains general terms and conditions for the sale of Government property. Among the conditions listed is one which provides that the property listed is offered for sale "as is" and "where is." No warranty, express or implied, is offered as to quantity, kind, character, quality, weight, size, or description. Prior to the start of this sale, in accordance with standard procedure, the auctioneer advised bidders of other terms and conditions applicable to this sale of vehicles. Among these was a provision which stated: The property is warranted as to description only. Condition is not guaranteed. Defects, when known, are announced. However, absence of any mention of defects does not mean there are none. Appeal File, Exhibits 4, 14 at 7. Among the vehicles described in the catalog provided to bidders was item 142. This item was described in the catalog as a six-cylinder, gas-driven, white, 1993 Ford Taurus GL with mileage of 83,807. Appeal File, Exhibit 3. Appellant submitted a bid for this vehicle. The vehicle was sold to appellant, as the highest bidder, for $5100. Id., Exhibits 6-7. On the day of purchase, appellant took possession of the car and delivered it to a mechanic who changed the oil, the oil filter, wires, and spark plugs. Two days later, on September 15, while the vehicle was in use, its transmission failed. The car was towed to a transmission repair shop where the transmission was rebuilt and several other repairs were made. The cost for this work amounted to a total $1373.70. Other repair work was done on the engine shortly thereafter for an additional $311. Appeal File, Exhibit 11. By letter dated September 30, 1996, appellant contacted the GSA contracting officer and requested assistance with the cost of repairs to his vehicle. Appeal File, Exhibit 11. In this letter appellant freely admitted that he heard the auctioneer advise perspective purchasers that each vehicle was to be sold "as is." Nevertheless, he noted that the problems he later encountered were unusual and not susceptible to detection prior to the sale. He explained that he is a retired clergyman on a fixed pension and needed help with these unexpected expenses. Id. In a letter dated November 6, 1996, the contracting officer denied appellant's request. The letter noted that the vehicle was sold free of any warranty of merchantability or fitness and that its condition was not guaranteed. Given the terms and conditions of sale, the contracting officer explained that he had no authority to reimburse claimant for these repairs and, for that reason, was denying the claim. Appeal File, Exhibit 12. Mr. Henri thereupon filed a timely appeal of the contracting officer's decision. Id., Exhibit 14. Discussion In comments filed regarding the Government's brief in this case, appellant writes: I did know that you purchased, "as is". I know that the car was not misrepresented. I know that the Taurus was sold in "good faith". I know that the U.S. Government would not have sold it without specifying its defects had they been known. I am not "suing" General Services Administration! However, I am asking help on the repairs because: 1. I am 84 years old - and would not have abused the car; 2. The car was in my possession less than 48 hours; 3. Transmission failed on Sunday afternoon, September 15th . . . only 9 miles from my home - but within the county where I reside; 4. I had the car serviced (oil, filters, spark plugs, etc.) on the day I removed it from [the auctioneer's] premises. . . . I am not accusing or suing General Administration Services [sic]. I am simply asking that in view of the short time of ownership and the major cost of repairs, that I be granted some financial assistance in spite of rules, regulation and policies of the Government. Appellant's Comments on Respondent's Closing Brief at 1. As friendly as this suit may be and notwithstanding appellant's assurances that he has no intention of "suing" GSA, there is a genuine dispute here. Thanks to the candor of appellant, however, the issue in dispute is readily discernible. In his decision, the contracting officer explained that, given the terms and conditions of the contract of sale, he lacked the authority to pay a claim such as that presented by appellant. Herein lies the dispute. Appellant obviously disagrees with this statement and urges him to assist with these unexpected expenses for the reasons stated. An individual purchasing a vehicle at auction "as is" and free of any warranties other than that of description, inevitably accepts certain risks and uncertainties. As we have pointed out in the past, the uncertainties inherent in such a transaction are presumably reflected in the price bid. Audycki, GSBCA 9309, 88-3 BCA  21,112, at 106,575; James P. Smith, GSBCA 8216, 86-3 BCA  19,131, at 96,712. In purchasing a Government-owned vehicle at auction, the purchaser accepts the uncertain risk of repair. In doing so, however, the purchaser pays a price presumably lower than that which would be sought by the Government if the condition of the vehicle were subject to warranty. Appellant, therefore, should have already received a certain benefit price-wise in purchasing his vehicle from GSA free from any warranty. Under the contract, he is not entitled to anything more. The contracting officer is clearly correct in refusing to pay appellant's claim. Like appellant himself, the contracting officer is bound by the terms and conditions of the contract he has entered into with appellant on behalf of the United States Government. He must abide by its terms. He cannot authorize a payment which is not in accordance with the terms. As we have previously held, payment under conditions such as these for repair of a vehicle after it has been purchased and removed from the premises cannot be made since it would be outside the terms and conditions of the contract and could well represent an illegal expenditure of Government funds. Magdi A. Risk v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 13572, 96-2 BCA  28,401, at 141,820. The contracting officer lacks the power to pay this claim. Furthermore, we are unaware of any authority which would permit this Board, as a tribunal established under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C.  601-613 (1994)), to grant the unique relief appellant seeks in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that the contracting officer acted correctly in rejecting appellant's claim. Decision This appeal is DENIED. __________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge I concur: __________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge