Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _____________________ DENIED: March 9, 1998 _____________________ GSBCA 14447 BOB'S AUTO SALES, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Robert D. Hamm, Owner of Bob's Auto Sales, Mobile, AL, appearing for Appellant. George U. Lane, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent. VERGILIO, Board Judge. Bob's Auto Sales, appellant, purchased a vehicle at an auction conducted by the General Services Administration, respondent. The vehicle was misdescribed (it was sold as model year 1989, but was a 1986 model). Bob's Auto sought a refund of $250 (for compensation it provided to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle and for alleged expenses relating to registration and titling); a contracting officer denied the request. Bob's Auto did not inform the contracting officer of the misdescription within fifteen calendar days of removing the vehicle, and did not return the vehicle to the Government. Bob's Auto did not comply with the contract provisions defining the obligations of the parties in cases of a misdescription for which a purchaser seeks relief. Bob's Auto has not established a basis to overturn the decision of the contracting officer. Accordingly, the Board denies the appeal. Findings of Fact 1. The agency sold property at an auction. Among the terms and conditions of the sale was a specific "description warranty" provision, which states in pertinent part: 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 or her 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, express 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 property. The purchaser is not entitled to any payment for loss of profit or any other money damages, special, direct, indirect, or consequential. Exhibit 1 (all exhibits are in the appeal file). Further, subject to the above provision, the property was offered for sale "as is" and "where is." Id. (Standard Form 114C, 2). 2. On June 17, 1997, at the auction, Bob's Auto purchased, obtained a certificate to obtain title to, and took possession of, a vehicle described as a 1989 model year. Exhibits 2, 3. 3. By letter dated October 8, 1997, Bob's Auto informed an agency contracting officer that after reselling the vehicle, the titling process revealed that the vehicle is a 1986 model. Bob's Auto sought a corrected certificate of title and $250 (the subsequent purchaser retained the vehicle "for a $200 compensation plus the cost of redoing the licence tag and registration, at a cost of approximately $50). Exhibit 3. The agency provided a corrected certificate of title; it did not adjust the price or provide compensation. Exhibit 4. Thereafter, the agency offered the opportunity to return the vehicle for a full refund; Bob's Auto declined the offer. Exhibit 6. 4. In response to a claim for $250, Exhibit 5, the contracting officer issued a decision dated December 19, 1997, denying the claim. Exhibit 6. 5. The Board received this appeal on January 2, 1998. Bob's Auto now seeks $750--the original $250 as well as $500 "to pay for the time required in defending my original claim." Bob's Auto associates the $50 component of the original $250 amount with time and legal expenses to correct the license tag registration and to prepare a corrected title application. For this amount, the record does not reveal what efforts it expended or expenses it incurred. 6. Bob's Auto has elected the small claims procedure. This decision is final and conclusive, shall not be set aside except in cases of fraud, and shall have no value as precedent for future cases. 41 U.S.C. 608 (1994); Rule 202. Discussion The description warranty clause was a term and condition of the sale. It established obligations of the agency and purchaser should a misdescription occur and a purchaser seek relief. The vehicle was misdescribed. However, Bob's Auto failed to comply with the contract requirements for recovering under the description warranty clause. Bob's Auto did not bring the misdescription to the attention of the contracting officer within fifteen calendar days of removing the vehicle after the sale, and did not return the vehicle to the Government. After the contracting officer waived the time requirement of the clause, Bob's Auto opted not to return the vehicle for a refund. The description warranty clause specifies that purchasers will not be entitled to any payment for loss of profit or any other money damages in the case of a misdescription. Bob's Auto seeks what the clause expressly disallows. D. Bernard v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12466, 94-3 BCA 27,157. Bob's Auto has not provided a rationale for interpreting the contract in a manner which permits recovery of the $200 it seeks. The agency has satisfied its contractual obligations. Bob's Auto has provided no factual or legal support for the $50 it seeks for alleged time expended or expenses incurred to correct the license tag registration and to prepare a corrected title application. Even if one overlooks the limitations of the agency's obligations in the case of a misdescription, without adequate proof, the purchaser is entitled to no recovery. Wholesale Auto Center v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12675, 94-3 BCA 27,209. Bob's Auto has not demonstrated a basis for recovery of the $250. Similarly, the $500 it seeks as compensation for the time required in defending the claim is not recoverable because Bob's Auto did not prevail in this appeal. Decision The Board DENIES the appeal. ______________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge