____________________
                          DENIED: May 16, 1995
                          ____________________
                              GSBCA 13176
                            DOROTHEA BARBEE,
                                        Appellant,
                                   v.
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
                                        Respondent.
        Dorothea Barbee, pro se, Fort Worth, TX.
        Jerry  Ann  Foster,  Office  of  Regional  Counsel,  General
   Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX, counsel for Respondent.
   Before Board Judges DEVINE, WILLIAMS, and VERGILIO.
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
        On February  7, 1995,  the Board  received this  appeal from
   Dorothea  Barbee concerning  a  vehicle  sale  conducted  by  the
   respondent, the General  Services Administration.  A  contracting
   officer decision  concludes that  Ms. Barbee  was the  successful
   bidder for a given vehicle at the auction, that she is in default
   for failure to  pay for and remove  the vehicle, and that  she is
   liable to the agency  for damages.  Maintaining that  she did not
   bid on the vehicle in question,  Ms. Barbee seeks to reverse  the
   decision of the contracting officer.
        The  Board concludes that  Ms. Barbee attended  the auction,
   submitted the successful bid on  the given vehicle, and failed to
   pay for (and remove) the vehicle.  The agency properly deemed Ms.
   Barbee to  be in default under the contract  and to be liable for
   damages.   Accordingly, Ms.  Barbee is liable  to the  agency for
   $920 plus  interest as  dictated under the  contract.   The Board
   denies the appeal.
                            Findings of Fact
        1.   On October  4, 1990, the agency held  a "vehicle sale."
   Appeal File,  Exhibit 1.   The brochure announcing the  sale both
   identifies the vehicles to be  sold by lot number and description
   and specifies that the sale is to  be held in accordance with the
   provisions   of  Standard  Form  114C  (General  Sale  Terms  and
   Conditions),  June 1986 edition, and the stated special terms and
   conditions.  Appeal File, Exhibit 1.
        2.   Two of the "special terms and conditions" provide:
        IMPORTANT NOTICE TO  ALL BIDDERS: You are  cautioned to
        bid only on those items you are prepared to pay for and
        remove in accordance  with the terms and  conditions of
        the sale.   All items awarded to you as the high bidder
        are  contractually yours  and  must  be  paid  for  and
        removed  within  the   time  period  allowed  by   this
        Invitation for Bids.  Failure  to do so may subject you
        to pay liquidated damages, a  sum equal to the  greater
        of (a) 20%  of the total purchase price  of the item(s)
        as to which the default has occurred; or (b) $25.00; or
        (c) the purchase price of  such item(s) if the purchase
        is less than  $25.00.  It  is not  GSA policy to  grant
        extensions of time for payment and removal.
        METHOD  OF BIDDING: Items will  be offered for sale one
        at a time  in numerical order.  Persons  wishing to bid
        on an  item may  do so only  at the  time that  item is
        being  offered.   Bidders  will  write  their  bids  on
        special bid  cards that will  be available at  the sale
        site.    Sale  officials will  sort  through  all cards
        received  for  an item  and  select the  card  with the
        highest bid.  The officials will then announce the high
        bidder and the amount of his high bid before proceeding
        to  sell the  next item.    Bidders will  not have  the
        opportunity to  raise a  bid once the  high bid  for an
        item is announced.
   Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 5.
        3.   The Default clause of the standard form specifies:
        The Purchaser agrees that in  the event he fails to pay
        for   the  property  or  remove  the  same  within  the
        prescribed period(s) of  time, the Government shall  be
        entitled to retain (or collect) as liquidated damages a
        sum  equal to  the greater  of  (a) 20  percent of  the
        purchase price of the  item(s) as to which the  default
        has occurred, or (b) $25, or the purchase price of such
        item(s) if the  purchase price is less  than $25. . . .
        Provided further,  That the  maximum sum  which may  be
        recovered by the  Government as damages for  failure of
        the Purchaser to  pay for and remove the property shall
        be  the   formula   amount.     The  Government   shall
        specifically  apprise  the  Purchaser,  either  in  its
        original notice  of default (or  in separate subsequent
        written notice), that upon the expiration of the period
        prescribed for curing the  default, the formula  amount
        will  be retained (or  collected) by the  Government as
        liquidated damages.
   Standard Form 114C (June 1986) at 1-2 (  9).  The form also has a
   separate provision regarding  interest; interest shall  accrue on
   all amounts not paid within thirty calendar days from the date of
   first  written demand, notwithstanding any other provision of the
   contract.  Id. at 2 (  11).
        4.   Bid cards for  items 4, 6, 11,  18, 19, 20, 22,  and 26
   have  the name,  address,  telephone number,  and signature  of a
   Dorothea Barbee.  Appeal File, Exhibits 11, 12.  These cards were
   retained by the agency because each was among the three high bids
   on the given items.  Id., Exhibits 11, 25 (  3).
        5.   For item  11 (the vehicle  at issue in this  case), the
   agency determined that a Dorothea Barbee submitted the successful
   bid of $4600.  For the sale of this item, the contracting officer
   read  out  the  winning  bid   amount  and  his  attempt  at  the
   pronunciation of the name.  A Dorothea Barbee  identified herself
   as  the successful  bidder and  spelled her  name.   Appeal File,
   Exhibits 12, 25 (tape recording).
        6.   For item 26, a Dorothea Barbee submitted the successful
   bid of $4250.  Exhibits 2, 6, 12.
        7.   At  the conclusion  of the  sale,  the Dorothea  Barbee
   involved in this appeal (hereafter  Ms. Barbee) paid for item 26.
   Exhibit 2.  At that time, the contracting officer recognized that
   the same Ms.  Barbee was also the  successful bidder on item  11.
   He explained  to Ms.  Barbee that she  was obligated  to purchase
   item 11 (as well as  item 26, for which she  had paid).  She  did
   not deny  that she  had  successfully bid  on  items 11  and  26.
   Appeal File, Exhibits 6, 23, 24.
        8.   The contracting officer provided Ms. Barbee with a cure
   letter dated  October 5, 1990.  The  letter specifies that she is
   in  default due  to her failure  to pay  for and remove  item 11.
   Further, it states  that if the default  is not cured  by October
   22, the  agency will assess  liquidated damages in the  amount of
   $920 (20% of  the $4600 price bid  by Ms. Barbee).   Appeal File,
   Exhibit 3.
        9.   On October  18, a  Ms. Barbee called  the agency.   She
   said she will  come by  to pay for  the vehicle and  pick up  the
   keys, she wants  the vehicle and will be in  before the deadline.
   Appeal File, Exhibits 4, 22.
        10.  By  letter dated  October  26,  1990,  the  contracting
   officer informed Ms. Barbee that  because the default for item 11
   had   not  been  cured,  "your  contract  is  hereby  terminated.
   Liquidated damages in  the amount  of $920  must be  paid by  you
   within 30 days of this letter."  Appeal File, Exhibit 5.
        11.  By  letter dated November 14, 1990, Ms. Barbee informed
   the agency "I have received the car I bid[] on.  No. 26."  Appeal
   File, Exhibit 6.
        12.  On  November 15,  1990, the  contracting officer  spoke
   with Ms.  Barbee, who  raised no  basis  for not  paying for  the
   vehicle (item 11).  Appeal File, Exhibit 23.
        13.  By letters  dated December  19, 1990,  and January  31,
   1991, the agency informed Ms. Barbee of the amount  due, and that
   interest  and  other charges  would accrue  until the  amount was
   paid.  Appeal File, Exhibits 7, 8.
        14.  With   payment   still   not   received   after   other
   communications,  the  agency  sent  Ms.  Barbee  a  letter  dated
   November  28,  1994,  advising her  that  interest,  penalty, and
   administrative charges continued to accrue on the unpaid original
   amount of  $920.   The agency sought  payment of $1749  (the $920
   plus unspecified and undifferentiated late charges and interest).
   Appeal File, Exhibit 13.
        15.  During a telephone call on December 1, 1994, Ms. Barbee
   informed  the agency  that  she  desired to  listen  to the  tape
   recording of the sale.  For the first time, she asserted that she
   did not bid on items 11 and 26 and does not want to pay for them.
   Appeal File, Exhibits 14.
        16.  During a telephone call on December 9, 1994, the agency
   invited Ms. Barbee to view the eight bid cards of Dorothea Barbee
   from the sale, Finding 4.  Ms. Barbee maintained that she did not
   bid on  the  vehicles and  that  the bid  cards  are not  in  her
   handwriting.  Appeal File, Exhibits 15, 25.
        17.  On December 13,  1994, Ms. Barbee visited  the agency's
   offices  and  reviewed  the  bid  cards.   She  denied  that  the
   signatures were hers.  Appeal File, Exhibits 16, 25.
        18.  By letter to  the agency dated  December 15, 1994,  Ms.
   Barbee  stated that  she had  reviewed the  bid cards.   Further,
   "These  are not my  handwriting.  No  bid cards were  shown to me
   with my signature handwriting on it.  I am now convinced that the
   car I [bought]  was purchased without my  handwriting signature."
   Appeal File, Exhibit 17.  She further stated that she only bid on
   four cylinder cars and hoped for a burgundy-colored vehicle (item
   11 was six cylinder and light blue).  Id.
        19.  By letter dated  January 6,  1995, to  Ms. Barbee,  the
   contracting officer issued a formal decision which identifies the
   forum for filing  an appeal and for  filing a claim.   The letter
   states in  part: "Based on  information provided by you,  and the
   documentation contained  in the sale  file, I am unable  to grant
   the relief you have requested.   There is nothing to support your
   allegation that someone  else signed the bid cards  in your name.
   Until your  account is  cleared it will  continue to  accrue late
   charges and interest."  Appeal File, Exhibit 18.
        20.  In a letter to the  agency dated February 2, Ms. Barbee
   comments on her conversation with the agency on October 18, 1990,
   in which she  stated that she would pay for and pick up the keys;
   and that she  wants the vehicle, Finding 9:  "Pleas[e] apply that
   statement to item  26 [] which I did remove.   It was on December
   13, 1994, in  [the agency's] office that I saw bid cards, item 11
   and  26 that did  not have my  signature on them."   Appeal File,
   Exhibit 19.
        21.  On February 7, 1995, the Board received this appeal.
        22.  In  a notarized  letter dated  March 14,  1995, to  the
   Board, Ms. Barbee states: "I  have been assessed $1,749.48, for a
   car  I did  not bid for  nor did  I want to  bid on  and have not
   received.  If  some one has used  my name, you should  be looking
   for that person.  You should be able to see this mistake."
                               Discussion
        Ms. Barbee maintains that  she did not bid on item  11.  She
   asserts that the signature on the bid card is not hers.
        Without  the  need  for   handwriting  experts,  the  record
   establishes that  Ms. Barbee was  the successful awardee  on item
   11.  Even  if the signature is  not hers, the card  was completed
   with her  knowledge and  authorization.   She identified  herself
   during the  sale as the  successful bidder for  item 11.   As the
   same  individual, she identified herself as the successful bidder
   for  item 26.  She  paid for item  26.  Although  informed at the
   time of  payment for item  26 that she  was obligated to  pay for
   item 11 as  well, she did not contemporaneously  contend that she
   was not the bidder.
        Ms. Barbee attributes her statements of October 18--that she
   intended to pay for  the vehicle and pick up the  keys before the
   cure period  expired--as relating to  item 26.   Finding 20.   At
   that time she had already paid for item 26.
        Ms. Barbee's assertions that she did not bid on any vehicles
   further cast  doubt on her  disavowals regarding item  11.   In a
   letter dated November  14, 1990, Ms. Barbee  expressly recognized
   that she had bid on item 26.  Finding 11.
        The contentions of Ms.  Barbee in attempting to  disavow the
   bid as hers are not  credible and are not supported by  evidence.
   The Board concludes  that Ms. Barbee successfully bid  on item 11
   and was in default due  to her failure to pay for and  remove the
   vehicle.
        Although  the amount of  liquidated damages assessed  is not
   specifically  in dispute, under  the default clause,  the maximum
   amount the agency may assess for default is 20% of the price bid.
   Finding  3.   In  establishing  "the  maximum  sum which  may  be
   recovered by  the Government as  damages," no mention is  made of
   late  charges,  other  administrative costs  or  penalties.   Id.
   Hence,  the contract does not  permit the additional late charges
   (even  if viewed  to  be  other than  punitive)  to be  assessed,
   because $920 is 20% of  the sale price--the contractually  agreed
   upon ceiling.   The interest provision of  the contract, however,
   operates without regard  to the liquidated damages  provision and
   its ceiling.  Id.  The agency may recover interest on  the amount
   due from the date of first written demand (October 26, 1990).
                                Decision
        The  Board DENIES the  appeal of Ms. Barbee.   The agency is
   entitled to  recover  $920, plus  interest  as described  in  the
   contract.
                                     ______________________________
                                     JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                     Board Judge
   We concur:
   ______________________________    ______________________________
   DONALD W. DEVINE                  MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
   Board Judge                       Board Judge