Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________________ DENIED: March 25, 1998 _________________________ GSBCA 14424 WILLIAM B. WOBIG, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. William B. Wobig, pro se, Laurel, MT. Leigh Ann Holt, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Denver, CO, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges DANIELS (Chairman), PARKER, and WILLIAMS. PARKER, Board Judge. Appellant, Mr. William Wobig, purchased a 1992 Buick Le Sabre at an auction conducted by respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), in Lakewood, Colorado. After taking the car home to Montana, Mr. Wobig discovered that the car had numerous problems not noted on the item description sheet. Mr. Wobig's claim for a refund of the purchase price of $5,860 was denied by the contracting officer, and Mr. Wobig has appealed that decision. The parties have requested that the Board decide the case based upon the written record in accordance with Rule 109. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the appeal. Findings of Fact The auction at which Mr. Wobig purchased the car which is the subject of his claim was held on Tuesday, September 23, 1997. Bidders were provided with, among other things, a statement of the terms and conditions under which the sale would be conducted. Among the terms and conditions stated were the following: Description Warranty: - Condition of property is not warranted. Description Warranty and Refunds Description Warranty. The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed in the Invitation for Bid will conform to its description. . . . . Deficiencies: Deficiencies, when known, have been indicated in the item description. However, absence of any indicated deficiencies does not mean that none exist. It is the Bidder's responsibility to inspect property for deficiencies before bidding. Inspection. The bidder is invited, urged, and cautioned to inspect the property prior to submitting a bid. Property will be available for inspection at the places and times specified in the Invitation. Condition of items offered is not guaranteed. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. The form on which Mr. Wobig entered his bid contained the following reminder: Note: Check your bid & item numbers. Mistakes can be costly! Condition of items offered is not warranted. Absence of any indicated deficiency does not mean the item may not have deficiencies. Bidders should not assume that deficiencies do not exist even if none are listed. Inspection of sale items prior to bidding is highly recommended. Id., Exhibit 2. Mr. Wobig's bid of $5,860 was the highest on Item 007, which was described as follows: Sedan, 1992 Buick, Le Sabre, Grey, 6CYL, AT, AC, PS, Cruise, EST MI: UNKN, VIN: 1G4HP53L5NH526355 (Armrest Broken, Repairs May Be Required) (RPT 7219 IT 0003) Appeal File, Exhibits 2-5. Mr. Wobig did not inspect the car prior to bidding. Appeal File, Exhibit 7. Mr. Wobig took possession of the vehicle on October 17 and drove it to his home in Laurel, Montana. On October 21, he wrote to the contracting officer, reporting that the car had scratches in various places, some missing trim pieces, a soiled floor and a loose back rest. He requested a refund of the purchase price. Appeal File, Exhibit 6. Mr. Wobig's request was denied by the contracting officer. Discussion As the contract documents state, the only warranty offered in a GSA auction sale of excess property is a warranty of description. Mr. Wobig admits that the car conformed to its description -- a 1992 Buick Le Sabre -- but maintains that GSA should have noted the various defects in condition which he found after taking the car home to Montana. Mr. Wobig states that the defects he found were identical to ones listed for another car for sale that day and he surmises that GSA must have made a mistake in transcribing the information to the item description sheet. Unfortunately, even if GSA did make a transcription error -- and there is no convincing evidence that it did -- Mr. Wobig cannot recover the purchase price. The documents provided to potential bidders were virtually covered with statements to the effect that GSA does not warrant the condition of the property. Bidders are expected to inspect the items prior to bidding and to take into account in formulating their bids the risk that the item may have problems which are not stated in the description. Here, Mr. Wobig did not inspect the vehicle prior to submitting his bid. Given the terms and conditions of the sale, he has no legal basis to demand a refund of the purchase price. Decision The appeal is DENIED. _______________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge We concur: _______________________________ _________________________ ______ STEPHEN M. DANIELS MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge Board Judge