Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________________________ DENIED: May 12, 1997 ______________________________________ GSBCA 14063 WAYNE T. PALMER, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Wayne T. Palmer, Bailey, CO, appearing for Appellant. Leigh Ann Holt, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Denver, CO, counsel for Respondent. NEILL, Board Judge. This case involves a claim by appellant for the cost of replacing the transmission in a vehicle he purchased at auction from the General Services Administration (GSA). Both parties have agreed to have this case decided on the record without benefit of a hearing. In accordance with the claimant's request, we are deciding this case pursuant to the Board's small claims procedure. This decision, therefore, is final and conclusive and shall have no value as precedent. Background On August 1, 1996, appellant purchased a 1992 Ford Bronco for $11,000 at a vehicle auction held by the GSA Fleet Management Center in Denver, Colorado. The vehicle, at time of sale, already had an estimated mileage of 55,210. Appeal File, Exhibits 2-3. In mid-November of the same year, appellant drove his vehicle to Albuquerque, New Mexico, to visit friends. While there, he experienced difficulties with the transmission. He took the vehicle to a local Ford dealership, where he was told that the transmission had failed and required replacement. The work was done at a total cost of $1955.06. The service ticket from the dealership where this work was done shows that the mileage on the vehicle at the time the transmission was replaced was 64,715. Appeal File, Exhibits 4-5. On November 26, appellant submitted a claim to the GSA contracting officer responsible for the sale of the Bronco. He requested the contracting officer to provide some relief for the expense of replacing the transmission. Specifically he asked that GSA pay $1348.82, plus tax, for material and parts. He, in turn, was prepared to absorb the balance which, for the most part, represented the cost of the labor required to replace the transmission. Appeal File, Exhibit 4. By letter dated December 6, 1996, the contracting officer replied to appellant. She denied the claim, pointing out that, under the express terms of sale, the condition of the property sold was not warranted and, in place of any other guarantees and warranties, expressed or implied, the Government had warranted only that the property listed in the invitation for bids would confirm to its description. Furthermore, she pointed out that even a claim under this limited warranty of description must be submitted in writing and within fifteen calendar days of the date the property is removed. Since appellant, in signing the bidder registration form, agreed to these terms and conditions of the sale, the contracting officer concluded that he was bound by the same, and, therefore, not entitled to any payment for the cost of replacing the transmission. Appeal File, Exhibit 6. The special terms and conditions of sale applicable to appellant's purchase of his Ford Bronco do, in fact, read as the contracting officer stated in her letter. Appeal File, Exhibit 11. As she also pointed out, the bidder's registration card signed by appellant does, in fact, state that the bidder agrees to purchase items subject to the terms and conditions applicable to the sale. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. By letter dated December 10, appellant responded to the contracting officer's denial of his claim. He stated: "This request has nothing to do with Terms, Conditions, Warranty. This is a good faith request for a product that failed, because of accidents before I purchased the vehicle . . . ." Appeal File, Exhibit 8. By letter dated December 24, the contracting officer responded to appellant's letter of December 10. Once again, she denied the claim, this time in the form of a contracting officer's decision which advised the claimant of his right to appeal. Appeal File, Exhibit 9. Appellant promptly appealed the decision to this Board. Id., Exhibit 10. On January 28, 1997, in response to the Board's order for further proceedings, the claimant designated his notice of appeal as his complaint and requested that the case be processed pursuant to the Board's small claims procedure. GSA thereafter filed an answer in which it raised, as an affirmative defense, the terms and conditions of sale which expressly preclude any warranty but that of description and make claims under that limited warranty subject to a fifteen-day time limit. Appellant, in a submission dated March 20, provided a written "Rebuttal" to the Government's position as outlined in its answer. In his submission, appellant points out that an examination of the repair history (contained in the appeal file) discloses that since the vehicle was purchased by the Government in 1992, the transmission fluid and filter were never changed. This, he contends, is the number one cause why the transmission failed. As evidence of an additional cause, he points to body repairs also listed in the repair history. This, in his opinion, indicates that the vehicle was previously in a severe accident. In a conference with the Board on April 29, appellant and counsel for respondent agreed that the record as developed to date contained material sufficient to enable the Board to decide this case without the need for further submissions or a hearing. The record was, thereafter, closed. Discussion Appellant's Bronco was purchased free of any warranties whatsoever other than a simple warranty of description. The contracting officer has correctly pointed out to appellant that the description of the vehicle was warranted but its condition was not. We find no evidence of misdescription and, in any event, the time for asserting a claim under that very limited warranty expired long before appellant submitted the claim which is the subject of this dispute. Relief for appellant under some theory of warranty is, therefore, out of the question. Appellant, himself, appears to have recognized this when he stated to the contracting officer that his claim is not about terms and conditions or warranty, but rather one of "good faith." After a careful review of the vehicle's repair history, appellant has concluded, perhaps correctly, that the transmission failed because it was not properly maintained or was severely damaged in an accident while still owned by the Government. Determining the reasons for the failure of the transmission, however, does not convince us that GSA in this case has violated the terms of sale or in some other way broken faith with appellant. The vehicle was sold to appellant "as is" without any guarantee or warranty other than to say that it was what it was described to be. Appellant accepted the vehicle with that understanding. He was under no compulsion to do so. He drove it successfully for almost another 10,000 miles before encountering any problem with the transmission. As sure as he took delivery of the Bronco, he also accepted the risk that some critical part might fail at some future date. In a situation such as this, we can find no legal basis which would justify payment of Government funds to assist the appellant in meeting the cost of repairing his vehicle. Decision The claimant's appeal is DENIED. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge