____________________________ DENIED: December 19, 1997 ____________________________ GSBCA 14337 RAYMOND F. MILLER, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Raymond F. Miller, pro se, Hastings, MN. Leigh Ann Holt, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Denver, CO, counsel for Respondent. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. On October 6, 1997, appellant, Raymond F. Miller, filed this appeal from a contracting officer's final decision denying his claim in the amount of $2,296.08, representing expenses caused by his purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle at an auction conducted by the General Services Administration (GSA). Appellant elected to have his claim processed under the Board's small claims procedure. Rule 202. As such, this decision has been issued on an expedited basis, shall be final and conclusive, and has no value as precedent. Because under the terms of the sale at GSA's auction, GSA warrants only the description of the vehicle and not its condition, appellant may not recover. Moreover, appellant had fifteen days from the date of purchase within which to submit his claim, and he waited over two years. For both of these reasons, this claim must be denied. Background On July 22, 1995, GSA conducted a vehicle auction in Pierre, South Dakota. Under the terms and conditions of sale disclosed to bidders, GSA emphasized: "CONDITION OF PROPERTY IS NOT WARRANTED." Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 2. Further, the terms of the sale contained the following description of warranty: 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/her own 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, 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, or consequential. . . . Deficiencies, when known, have been indicated in the item description. However, absence of any indicated deficiencies does not mean the item is without deficiencies. Bidders are cautioned to inspect before bidding. Id. (emphasis added). Appellant signed a bidder registration card which indicated that "subject to the general sale terms and conditions" outlined above, he offered and agreed to purchase item number 35, for the amount of $9,700. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. Item number 35 was described as follows: Cherokee, 1992 Jeep, 4X4, Silver, 6 CYL, AT, AC, TAG: G61-25334, EST MI: 87587, VIN: 1J4FJ27S9NL242442. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. Appellant timely removed the vehicle, paid in full, and obtained title to the vehicle on July 27, 1995. Appeal File, Exhibits 3, 4. Shortly over two years later, on August 3, 1997, appellant wrote a letter to GSA claiming that, prior to his purchase, the jeep had been in an accident and was damaged, but the description at the auction did not mention this. Appeal File, Exhibit 5. Specifically, appellant claimed that the front seat was broken, there was broken glass under the seats, and the door on the driver's side had been repaired and repainted. Id. He specified that the main problem was that while he was driving the jeep would suddenly stop. Id. Because of this problem, claimant had the jeep analyzed by a mechanic and installed a new computer and a new engine at a cost of $1,868. Appeal File, Exhibit 10. In the opinion of the mechanic, the jeep had been in an accident. Id. Appellant requested that GSA's contracting officer look into this. Id., Exhibit 7. The contracting officer obtained the repair history for the vehicle which did not indicate that an accident had occurred. Appeal File, Exhibits 8-10. There had been broken glass in the vehicle which the contracting officer attributed to the replacement of the windshield and other windows. Id., Exhibit 9. The contracting officer denied the claim. Id. Appellant submitted receipts demonstrating that $2,208 in repairs had been expended on this jeep between May 16, 1996, and September 14, 1997. Appeal File, Exhibit 12. Discussion Appellant is not entitled to recover for repairs to the vehicle. Under the terms and conditions of the sale, the Government only warranted the description of the vehicle, not its condition. Further, appellant had only fifteen days within which to bring any problem with the vehicle to the attention of the Government. The Board has strictly interpreted and enforced the terms and conditions of vehicle auctions. E.g., Magdi A. Risk, GSBCA 13572, 96-2 BCA 28,401; Ashby Wood, GSBCA 11124, 93-2 BCA 25,608; Afaf Salem, GSBCA 10375, 91-1 BCA 23,343. Thus, because appellant did not notify the Government of any problem with the vehicle within fifteen days, and because the terms of the sale expressly preclude recovery stemming from the condition of the vehicle, appellant may not recover. In addition, appellant has not demonstrated that the vehicle was misdescribed or that the vehicle had been in an accident which was not disclosed. Decision The claim is DENIED. ______________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge