MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF DENIED:  September 12, 2007 
CBCA 528 
GEORGE P. GOBBLE, 
Appellant, 
v.
 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
Respondent. 
George P. Gobble, pro se, Vinton, VA. 
Gabriel N. Steinberg, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent.
 
Before Board Judges PARKER, BORWICK, and DEGRAFF.
 
PARKER, Board Judge.
 
The General Services Administration (GSA) has filed a motion for summary relief 
in connection with George P. Gobble’s appeal of a contracting officer decision terminating 
his contract for default and assessing liquidated damages. The damages were assessed for 
Mr. Gobble’s failure to pay for a trailer he allegedly purchased at a GSA online auction. 
Mr. Gobble claims that he did not bid on the trailer, or even participate in the auction. 
Because there are material facts in dispute, we deny GSA’s motion. 

 
      
 
   
  
    
  
 
 
              
 
  
 
 
  
2 CBCA 528 
Background 
On July 19, 2006, someone using Mr. Gobble’s registered username and password 
was the high bidder for a trailer at a GSA online auction.  When notified of the award, 
Mr. Gobble told the GSA contracting officer that he had not bid on the item and had not 
used his GSA account for years.  Mr. Gobble explained that, as a computer repairman, he 
keeps a computer at the front of his store for use by his customers, and he suspects that 
someone may have discovered his account information through the use of a nefarious 
computer program or virus. 
The contracting officer’s supervisor suggested that Mr. Gobble file reports with his 
credit bureau (his credit card had been used in the auction) and/or the police department and 
forward them to GSA.  When no documentation had been received by the August 7, 2006, 
deadline set by the contracting officer’s supervisor, GSA issued a default determination and 
assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of $1000 (twenty percent of the $5000 
purchase price, as provided in the terms and conditions of the sale).  After more telephone 
conversations, Mr. Gobble was given until September 7 to produce the requested 
information.  Mr. Gobble states that due to both his and the GSA employees’ vacation 
schedules and other communications difficulties, he was not able to fax the information to 
the contracting officer until September 12.  The faxed information consisted of a July 29 
letter from Experian’s Consumer Fraud Assistance group informing Mr. Gobble that the firm 
had added a security alert to his credit file and a copy of a letter from the Vinton, Virginia, 
police department showing that Mr. Gobble had filed on September 8 a complaint of 
“computer/identity fraud[.]  Someone placed order for a Travel Trailer on subject’s 
Computer.”  Appeal File, Exhibit 15.  The contracting officer decided to consider the 
information submitted by Mr. Gobble, but found it insufficient to establish identity theft. 
On September 13, the contracting officer sent a letter reaffirming his decision to terminate 
the contract for default.  This appeal ensued. 
Discussion 
Summary relief is appropriate when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law, based on undisputed material facts. The moving party bears the burden of 
demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact.  All justifiable inferences must 
be drawn in favor of the nonmovant.  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); 
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).  A fact is considered to be material 
if it will affect the Board’s decision, and an issue is genuine if enough evidence exists such 
that the fact could reasonably be decided in favor of the nonmovant after a hearing.  Fred M. 
Lyda v. General Services Administration, CBCA 493 (July 17, 2007); John A. Glasure v. 
General Services Administration, GSBCA 16046, 03-2 BCA ¶ 32,284. 

        
       
   
  
 
 
_______________________ 
_________________________ ________________________ 
3 CBCA 528 
The issue raised by Mr. Gobble is certainly material:  GSA acknowledges that if 
someone illegally obtained Mr. Gobble’s account information and used it to bid on the 
trailer, Mr. Gobble likely will not be held to have breached a contract with GSA.  The issue 
is also genuine: Mr. Gobble’s testimony, combined with evidence of his reporting the theft 
of his identity to the credit bureau and to the police could result in the issue being reasonably 
decided in Mr. Gobble’s favor.  This is especially so at this juncture because we are 
required, for purposes of deciding this motion, to make all justifiable inferences in 
Mr. Gobble’s favor.  Accordingly, because a genuine issue of material fact exists, GSA is 
not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the motion must be denied. 
Decision 
GSA’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY RELIEF is DENIED. Very shortly, the Board 
will issue an order on further proceedings. 
ROBERT W. PARKER 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK MARTHA H. DEGRAFF 
Board Judge Board Judge