Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________________ DENIED: June 10, 1999 ________________________________________ GSBCA 14882 IRISTINE EVANS-RODDY, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Iristine Evans-Roddy, pro se, Alexandria, VA. Judith A. Bonner, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges NEILL, WILLIAMS, and GOODMAN. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. On January 21, 1999, appellant, Iristine Evans-Roddy, filed this appeal from a contracting officer s decision denying her claim for an adjustment in the price of a vehicle purchased from respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), at a Government surplus property auction. Appellant contends that the vehicle she purchased was misdescribed because there were no repairs listed as needed in the description of the vehicle. Appellant seeks, as remedy, $1300 for repairs made to the vehicle subsequently. The appeal is denied for several reasons. First, the condition of the vehicle was not guaranteed. Second, there is no evidence in the record that indicates that the Government had prior knowledge of any defects in the vehicle. Third, appellant acknowledged in writing that the vehicle might have mechanical and interior and exterior defects which were not addressed in the catalogue. Finally, the appellant had an opportunity to inspect the vehicle prior to its purchase, but failed to do so. Findings of Fact 2 On December 10, 1998, GSA conducted a public auction at the GSA Surplus Sales Center in Springfield, Virginia. Appeal File, Exhibit 2. A complete list of the property that was to be sold was made available to potential purchasers in the auction packet entitled Property Listing and Addition [sic] Provisions of Auction. Id. Additionally, the auction packet stated that the items would be available for inspection on December 8 and 9, 1998, from 8:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Id. Although the keys to the vehicle were available, so that it could be inspected prior to purchase, appellant elected not to inspect it. Affidavit of Contracting Officer Iris Wright Simpson (Simpson Affidavit) (May 4, 1999) 5, 8. The Notice to all Bidders contained the following pertinent provisions: "Condition of Property is Not Warranted DESCRIPTION WARRANTY: The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed in the Invitation for Bids will conform to its description. The absence of information regarding deficiencies does not mean that additional deficiencies do not exist, and therefore does not constitute a misdescription. 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 purchasers [sic] takes the property at his or her expense to a location specified by the contracting officer. FOR ANY CLAIMS OF DISPUTE THE PURCHASER MUST SUBMIT A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE SALE THAT THE PROPERTY IS MISDESCRIBED AND MAINTAIN[ ] THAT . . . PROPERTY IN THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN PURCHASED AND/OR REMOVED. After property has been removed, no refund will be made for shortages of property sold by the LOT. 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 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, indirect, or consequential. BIDDERS ARE CAUTIONED TO INSPECT BEFORE BIDDING. BID AT YOUR OWN RISK!!!!!!! Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 2-3. 3 In addition, appellant signed a written acknowledgment that was issued to all GSA auction customers, which read as follows: The vehicle you purchased may have several mechanical, exterior, and interior defects that we have not addressed in the catalog. However we do not warrant condition and are not responsible for the absence of information. Appeal File, Exhibit 10. Appellant was the high bidder on a vehicle whose description read as follows: 166 S/Wagon, 1987 Volvo 740, 4 Door, VIN: YV1FX8756H1079891, Odometer Reading 136,281, (1531F882540003) Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 18. The purchase price of the vehicle was $2400. Id., Exhibit 6. On December 10, 1998, after purchasing the vehicle but before removing it from the lot, appellant inspected it and informed the contracting officer that the vehicle she purchased was misdescribed. Simpson Affidavit 10. Appellant claimed that there was a one-inch dent in the hood with other small defects, and that oil was leaking onto the padding on the left side of the hood cover. Appeal File, Exhibit 8. Appellant also stated that work needed to be performed on the engine, at a mechanic s estimated cost of over $2000. Id. Additionally, appellant pointed out that items #171 and #176 in the catalogue identified small dents in each respective vehicle, whereas item #166, the vehicle she purchased, did not list any defects in its description. Id. The contracting officer informed appellant that although the deficiencies did not appear in the sales catalogue, the vehicle had not been misdescribed. Simpson Affidavit 10. On December 14, 1998, appellant sent a Vehicle Inspection Report from Brown s Volvo of Alexandria (Brown's) to the contracting officer. Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at 1-2. The vehicle had been inspected by Brown's, and the report listed more than had been raised by appellant in her discussion with the contracting officer on December 10, 1998, including repairs to the temperature gauge, electrical work, pinion seal, PVC hose, gasket valve cover, turbo hose, and antenna. Id. On December 17, 1998, in order to settle the dispute, the contracting officer informed appellant she would be willing to make a price adjustment in the amount of $567 (the cost of replacement for two rear light lenses and the valve cover gasket and for the evaluation). Simpson Affidavit 12. Additionally, the contracting officer stated: At the time of the sale I had no knowledge concerning the condition of the vehicle which appellant purchased. At the time of the sale I had no knowledge concerning 4 any engine, transmission, electrical or other mechanical deficiencies regarding this vehicle. Id., 13. The contracting officer notified appellant in a letter dated December 17, 1998, that the offer of $567 was the final decision in the matter. Appeal File, Exhibit 10. On January 21, 1999, appellant filed a notice of appeal, in which she stated she believed the car was misdescribed and requested an adjustment in the bid price. Id., Exhibit 11. On April 14, 1999, appellant informed the Board of additional repair costs and estimates totaling $4445.76, for the vehicle she purchased on December 10, 1998, covering a new turbo system and wiring harness and repair costs. Appeal File, Exhibit 13. On April 17, 1999, appellant submitted to us a final repair order, in the amount of $128.40 from Lee s Auto Body & Paint, Alexandria, VA, covering the repairs made to the dent in the hood. Id., Exhibit 14. During a telephonic conference on April 15, 1999, appellant clarified that she is seeking $1300 as an adjustment to the bid price due to the misdescription. Discussion Appellant claims that the contracting officer did not fairly adjust the bid price of the vehicle and that she was deceived because there were absolutely no repairs listed in the description of the vehicle. Appeal File, Exhibit 11. Appellant's claim fails. In the Notice to all Bidders, the only warranty made to appellant in this sale was that the vehicle would conform to its description. All other warranties and guarantees, express or implied, were specifically excluded. Moreover, appellant expressly acknowledged in writing that the vehicle might have deficiencies not stated in the catalogue and that GSA did not warrant the vehicle's condition. Additionally, in order to recover based on misdescription, appellant must show that the specific mechanical problems experienced were known to the Government prior to the sale and that the information was not disclosed to prospective buyers. Dorothy and Al Audycki, GSBCA 9309, 88-3 BCA 21,112, at 106,574; Mike Casey v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 11570, 92-2 BCA 24,882, at 124,102. Appellant has not proved that the deficiencies in the vehicle were known to the contracting officer at the time of the auction. Nor has appellant proved that the contracting officer failed to disclose to her any information regarding the vehicle and its various mechanical problems. In fact, the contracting officer specifically stated: At the time of the sale I had no knowledge concerning the condition of the vehicle which appellant purchased. At the time of the sale I had no knowledge concerning 5 any engine, transmission, electrical or other mechanical deficiencies regarding this vehicle. Simpson Affidavit 13. Because appellant failed to establish that the Government had prior knowledge regarding the vehicle s problems that it specifically withheld, appellant may not recover in this appeal. Further, appellant had ample opportunity to inspect the vehicle before she purchased it, but failed to do so. The deficiencies that appellant initially discussed with the contracting officer (i.e., the dent in the hood and the oil leak) were easily discoverable with reasonable inspection. Appeal File, Exhibits 8, 9. As such, appellant may not recover for these deficiencies. See Hanke v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 14097, 97-2 BCA 29,247. Even if the vehicle had been misdescribed, appellant s only remedy would have been a refund of the purchase price of the vehicle. Geoffry W. Garner, GSBCA 9942, 89-3 BCA 22,163. As we have recognized, The exclusive relief under the description warranty [is] a full refund, if notice was given within fifteen days of removal and the vehicle was returned in the same condition as when removed. James P. Zylla, GSBCA 8226, 89-3 BCA 22,084 at 111,066. Because appellant made repairs to the vehicle, thereby failing to return the vehicle in the same condition as when removed, no remedy is available. Simms v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 12921 (Dec. 30, 1994). Decision For the reasons stated above, the appeal is DENIED. _________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge We concur: ________________________________ _________________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge Board Judge