___________________________ DENIED: September 15, 1997 ___________________________ GSBCA 14097 KENNETH G. HANKE, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Kenneth G. Hanke, pro se, Whittier, CA. Kathy Teller, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, San Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judge DANIELS (Chairman), NEILL, and DeGRAFF. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. The General Services Administration (GSA) issued an invitation for bids to purchase surplus government property, and in response, Kenneth G. Hanke was the successful bidder for two trucks. Mr. Hanke contends that GSA s invitation for bids did not accurately describe the condition of the trucks and he wants the sales canceled and his money refunded. The parties chose to submit the case for a decision based upon the record. Because the items were not misdescribed and Mr. Hanke could have discovered the condition of the trucks if he had conducted an inspection, his appeal is denied. Findings of Fact GSA s sales office in San Francisco, California, issued an invitation for sealed bids to purchase surplus government property found at various locations in southern California. Among the items of property were two pickup trucks located at the Federal Correctional Institution in Lompoc, California. These items were described as follows: 045 DODGE PICKUP, « Ton, 1991, VIN:16YXMS289599, repairs required but not limited to: engine needs repair (159W9-6114-002) 048 CHEVROLET TRUCK, PICKUP, 1993, VIN:14ZXPZ235779, Repairs required but not limited to: Engine needs repair (1591W9-6179-0001) Exhibit 4. The invitation for bids explained that bidders could inspect the two trucks between October 7 and 11, 1996, and that bids would be opened on October 17, 1996. The invitation told bidders the following: It is the buyer s responsibility to perform [an] inspection . . . . Do not rely totally on individual item description (sic) as they are basic. 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. . . . . BIDDER IS CAUTIONED TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY. . . . . CONDITION OF PROPERTY IS NOT WARRANTED . . . . The Government Warrants to the Original purchaser that the property listed in the invitation for bids will conform to its description. . . . . VEHICLE INSPECTION. During your inspection, we ask you to check the condition of the equipment and vehicle, such as the interior, windows, doors, body, paint, engine, air conditioner, heater, etc. . . . As expressed in the sale terms, we do not warrant the condition of the property. These are used vehicles for sale. . . . . INSPECTION FOR DEFICIENCIES: Deficiencies, when known have been noted in the item description; however, absence of any deficiency(ies) does not mean the property doesn t have a deficiency(ies). The government provides an inspection period for prospective bidders to determine the true condition and to bid accordingly. Failure to inspect will not be considered a basis for cancellation of the contract. BIDDERS ARE CAUTIONED TO INSPECT THE PROPERTY BEFORE BIDDING. Exhibit 4. The sale terms referred to in the invitation for bids are contained in Standard Form 114C, General Sale Terms and Conditions, which was incorporated into the invitation for bids. Exhibit 4. The sale terms provided that bidders were invited, urged, and cautioned to inspect the property prior to submitting a bid. The sale terms also provided that the property offered for sale was offered as is and that the Government did not make any warranty as to the quality of the property. Exhibit 5. The invitation for bids cautioned prospective bidders to submit bids only for items they were prepared to pay for and to remove. The invitation explained: All items awarded to you as the high bidder are contractually yours and must be paid for and removed [within ten days after the date of award]. Failure to do so may subject you to pay as liquidated damages a sum equal to . . . 20% of the purchase price of the item(s) as to which the default has occurred. Exhibit 4. One correctional facility employee, Miguel Kercado, distinctly remember[s] speaking several times with Mr. Hanke about the two trucks. Mr. Kercado says that he told Mr. Hanke that the trucks had been used to circle the perimeter of the correctional facility twenty-four hours per day, and that the last time Mr. Kercado saw the trucks, the bodies were in fair shape. He also said that he did not know the mechanical or cosmetic condition of the trucks, and that they might not be in drive away condition. Mr. Kercado remembers that some issue came up concerning the transmissions, due to the fact that the trucks had been constantly driven in low gear at a low rate of speed. Mr. Kercado advised Mr. Hanke that there was a viewing period and suggested that Mr. Hanke call to arrange for an inspection. Exhibits 18, 20. Mr. Hanke does not dispute Mr. Kercado s version of their conversations. Exhibit 22, 24. Mr. Hanke submitted bids for seven vehicles. He bid $1,815 for item 046, the Dodge truck, and $3,117 for item 048, the Chevrolet truck. Exhibit 6. Mr. Hanke did not inspect the trucks before submitting his bids. Exhibit 24. In a notice of award dated October 23, 1996, GSA told Mr. Hanke that it accepted his bids for items 046 and 048, and that payment was due and the trucks had to be removed by November 6, 1996. Exhibits 7, 8. On October 23, 1996, Mr. Hanke contacted the GSA contracting officer and told her that his wife had decided that he should not buy item 048, the Chevrolet truck. Exhibits 9, 21. The contracting officer sent a notice to Mr. Hanke informing him that he was in default of his obligation to purchase item 048 and that he owed liquidated damages of twenty percent of the bid price, which amounted to $623.40. Exhibit 10. Mr. Hanke paid the liquidated damages for item 048, the Chevrolet truck. He also paid in full for item 046, the Dodge truck. Exhibits 11, 14. Mr. Hanke first saw the two trucks when he went to remove the Dodge truck on October 31, 1996. The Dodge truck did not have a battery or a right vent window. Its left side was damaged and a door latch and lock were missing on the left door. The interior was wet because the side window had been left open. The Chevrolet truck had no radiator, condenser, fan, or battery, and the seat was in the truck bed. Mr. Hanke had a towing service move the Dodge truck to a garage on November 1, 1996. Exhibit 12. On November 4, 1996, Mr. Hanke told an employee in GSA s sales office that both awards should be canceled because the trucks deficiencies were obvious and should have been stated in the invitation for bids. Mr. Hanke asked GSA to refund his money. Exhibit 12. In letters dated December 2 and 16, 1996, the contracting officer informed Mr. Hanke that GSA would not cancel the awards. The contracting officer concluded that the contracts should not be canceled because Mr. Hanke did not inspect the trucks before submitting his bid. Exhibits 21, 23. This appeal followed. Discussion Mr. Hanke says that GSA should cancel the sale of the two trucks and refund his money because the trucks were not described accurately in the invitation for bids. He says, I must rely on the catalogue description and the honesty and integrity of the Government employee to whom I spoke to explain deficiencies or state that they do not know the answer to my questions. Notice of Appeal at 4. In order to recover upon a claim that an item sold at auction was misdescribed, a successful bidder must establish that the Government knew of a problem with the item and that information about the problem was not available to bidders. We have held numerous times that a successful bidder cannot establish that an item was misdescribed if the bidder complains of a problem that a bidder could have reasonably discovered during an inspection. If a deficiency can be reasonably discovered during an inspection, then information about the deficiency is available to bidders and the Government is not liable for a misdescription. We have reached this conclusion when a bidder conducts an inspection and fails to notice a problem, and when a bidder decides not to conduct an inspection and so does not see a problem. Carl W. Poole v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12320, 94-1 BCA  26,396; John C. Cruden, GSBCA 9331, 89-1 BCA  21,348; Garrett J. Veenstra, GSBCA 7251, 85-2 BCA  18,127; Mary E. Mullins, GSBCA 6726, 83-2 BCA  16,589. In this case, the description of each truck stated that required repairs included, but were not limited to, the truck s engine. The invitation for bids stated that the item descriptions were basic, and advised potential bidders that a deficiency might exist even if it was not contained in the item s description. The invitation stated that the condition and quality of the property was not warranted, and reminded potential bidders that they were bidding to purchase used vehicles, in as is condition. The invitation for bids repeatedly invited, urged, and cautioned potential bidders to inspect items before submitting bids. The invitation also stated that contracts would not be canceled based upon a failure to inspect, which is consistent with our holdings that a misdescription claim cannot succeed if information about a problem is available to bidders. Mr. Hanke does not contend that any of the conditions about which he now complains were hidden or not obvious from a cursory inspection. If Mr. Hanke had inspected the trucks before bidding as the invitation for bids urged him to do, he could have readily seen the conditions about which he now complains. Because a bidder could have reasonably discovered the condition of the trucks during an inspection, information about the trucks' deficiencies was available to bidders and the Government is not liable for a misdescription. Decision The appeal is DENIED. ______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge We concur: _______________________________ ________________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge Board Judge