DENIED:  February 22, 2024
CBCA 7890
FIRST PLACE AUTO SALES, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Kamalodin Toghiyani, President, and John Cousins, Consultant and Buyer, of First
Place Auto Sales, Inc., Gainesville, FL, appearing for Appellant.
Anthony M. Giannopoulos, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services
Administration, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges LESTER, GOODMAN, and SULLIVAN.
LESTER, Board Judge.
Respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), has filed a motion seeking
summary judgment on a claim for damages arising out of the public auction of a vehicle that
its purchaser, First Place Auto Sales, Inc. (First Place Auto), asserts was mis-described.  GSA
argues that it did not make any representations about the condition of the paint on the
vehicle, which is the defect about which First Place Auto complains, and that, even if it had,
the language in the parties’ agreement, including GSA’s disclaimers of any warranties, bars
recovery of repair costs.  For the reasons explained below, we grant summary judgment in
GSA’s favor and deny the appeal.


CBCA 7890 2
Background
The Auction
GSA Auctions offers personal property, such as vehicles, computers, heavy
equipment, jewelry, and furniture, for sale to the general public.  Appeal File, Exhibit 9 at
AF024.1  Before participating in a GSA Auctions bid process, bidders must complete the
Bidder Registration and Bid Form contained in the Invitation for Bids for a particular sale. 
Id.  As part of that process, bidders “must acknowledge that they have read and accepted
ALL terms and conditions detailed on [the GSA Auctions] website and indicate that they
agree by marking the required box during the registration process or when prompted to when
a change to the terms have been implemented.”  Id. at AF025.  By accepting the GSA
Auctions terms and conditions, “bidders are also agreeing to the General Sales Terms and
Conditions (Standard Form 114C, April 2001),” id. at AF024, which “apply to all sales of
GSA Fleet vehicles” and are incorporated into all GSA fleet sales contracts.  Exhibit 2 at
AF03.
The “Inspection” clause in the Standard Form 114C terms and conditions, which
indicates that property being auctioned “will be available for inspection at the places and
times specified in the Invitation,” “invite[s], urge[s], and caution[s]” bidders “to inspect the
property prior to submitting a bid.” https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF_114C.pdf
(incorporated into Exhibit 2 at AF03).  The Standard Form 114C terms and conditions also
include a “Limited Description Warranty” clause, which reads as follows:
LIMITED DESCRIPTION WARRANTY.  The Government warrants to the
original purchaser that the property listed in the Invitation for Bids or the Fleet
Sales Catalog will conform to its description only.  Condition of property is
not guaranteed.  Deficiencies, when known, have been noted in the item
description; however, the absence of any indicated deficiencies does not mean
there are none.  Announced conditions at time of sale supersede the
description in the Invitation for Bids or the Fleet Sales Catalog.
If a mis-description is determined, the Government will keep the property and
refund any money paid unless an equitable resolution is agreeable between
both parties.  Any refund of payment, full or in part, as a result of a vehicle
claim, will be made by electronic funds transfer (EFT) or a credit back to the
credit card, if paid with such, on which payment was originally made.  If a
1 Unless otherwise noted, all exhibits cited in this decision are contained in the
appeal file.

CBCA 7890 3
mis-description is determined after removal, the purchaser may be required to
take the property at his or her expense to a location specified by the
contracting officer.  No refund will be made unless 1) the purchaser is still in
possession of, and the owner of the vehicle, and 2) the purchaser submits a
written notice, claiming a mis-description, to the contracting officer within 15
calendar days of the date . . . specified for removal and maintains the property
in the same condition as when removed.  Purchasers may be required to submit
an independent estimate of repairs from a reputable repair facility as part of
their written notice to the contracting officer.  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 mis-described property.  The purchaser is not entitled to
any payment for loss of profit or any other monetary damages, including
special, direct, indirect, or consequential damages.
Exhibit 2 at AF03-04 (emphasis added).2  Similarly, the GSA Auctions terms and conditions
identify the following limited warranty:
The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed on
GSAAuctions.gov will conform to its written description.  Features,
characteristics, deficiencies, etc. not addressed in the description are excluded
from this warranty.  GSA further cautions bidders that GSA’s written
description represents GSA’s best effort to describe the item based on the
information provided to it by the owning agency.  Therefore, gross omissions
regarding the functionality of items, failures to cite major missing parts and/or
restrictions with regards to usage may occur.
The Government does not warrant the merchantability of the property or its
purpose.  The purchaser is not entitled to any payment for loss of profit or any
other money damages—special, direct, indirect, or consequential.
2 Similarly, the GSA Auctions terms and conditions contained the following
disclaimer:  “Condition of property is not warranted.  Deficiencies, when known, have been
indicated in the property descriptions.  However, absence of any indicated deficiencies does
not mean that none exists.  Therefore, the bidder should ascertain the condition of the item
through physical inspection.  Please also reference the Inspection of Property clause.” 
Exhibit 9 at AF035.

CBCA 7890 4
Exhibit 9 at AF035 (emphasis added).  If a bidder does not agree to the presented terms and
conditions, it cannot place bids on the property.  Id. at AF024.
On or about August 8, 2023, GSA conducted a live auction at the Bel Air Auto
Auction in Edgewood, Maryland.  Bidders were provided with an auction catalog identifying
the year, make, model, color, and mileage of each vehicle in the auction.  In addition, each
vehicle had an accompanying “Condition Report,” which provided additional information
specific to each vehicle.  One of the vehicles included in the auction was a 2012 Blue Bird
All American Bus (the Blue Bird bus), listed as Run #923, VIN #1BABNBXA1CF283590. 
Exhibit 1 at AF02.  The condition report for the Blue Bird bus identified the make and model
of the bus, its color (blue), its Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), the brand of its tires, and
its engine size, and it indicated that the bus was “[d]rivable” and had no unibody/frame
damage.  Exhibit 7 at AF018-019.  Even though the report included thirteen exterior and
interior photographs of the bus, id. at AF019-020, the GSA Auctions terms and conditions
indicated that “[p]hotographs may not depict an exact representation of the bid item(s) and
should not be relied upon in place of written item descriptions or as a substitute for physical
inspection.”  Exhibit 9 at AF030.  The report also contained the following disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER.  THIS CONDITION REPORT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED BY
THE SELLER.  THIS CONDITION REPORT IS NEITHER INTENDED,
NOR SHOULD IT BE CONSTRUED TO CONSTITUTE, ANY TYPE OF
WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY,
AND ANY SUCH WARRANTY, WHETHER ARISING BY OPERATION
OF LAW OR OTHERWISE, IS HEREBY DISCLAIMED.  ANY
REPUBLISHING OF THIS CONDITION REPORT SHALL CONTAIN
THIS DISCLAIMER.
Exhibit 7 at AF021.
A representative of First Place Auto attended the August 8 auction and was the highest
bidder for the Blue Bird bus, at a price of $12,000.  Exhibit 3 at AF014.  Notice of award of
the vehicle to First Place Auto was issued that same day under contract no.
GS0WF23FBE2105.  Exhibit 4 at AF015.  It is unclear from the record whether, prior to
bidding on the Blue Bird bus, First Place Auto had visited the auction site on the auction
“preview dates,” which were advertised in the auction notice as being August 7 and early on
August 8 prior to the auction.  See Exhibit 1 at AF01.
When making payment for the Blue Bird bus on August 8, 2023, First Place Auto
signed a sales receipt agreeing to the following:

CBCA 7890 5
NO REFUNDS EXCEPT AS PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
STANDARD FORM 114C AND THE GSA SALE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO SALE NUMBER WAFBPC23239[.]
Exhibit 3 at AF014.
First Place Auto’s Claim
On August 23, 2023, First Place Auto notified the GSA Sales contracting officer by
email that the exterior paint on the bus was in poor condition.  Exhibit 6 at AF017.  First
Place Auto has represented that “[t]he entire bus had particles that were glued to the surface,
so the bus . . . had two problems, it needed material to be removed and the entire bus needed
painting.”  Appellant’s Response (Feb. 1, 2024) at 2.  First Place Auto’s email of August 23,
2023, contained what First Place Auto identified as a “claim” seeking payment of $5000 for
“complete paint.”  Exhibit 6 at AF017.
On August 25, 2023, the GSA Sales contracting officer issued a final decision denying
First Place Auto’s claim.  Exhibit 8.  In the final decision, the contracting officer indicated
that the Blue Bird bus was accurately described in the “Condition Report” and that the
condition of the bus was not guaranteed.  Id. at AF023.  The contracting officer also
represented that, under the terms and conditions to which First Place Auto had agreed as a
condition of being allowed to participate in the auction, the amount of recovery for any
mis-described property is limited to a return of the purchase price of the property and that,
as relevant to the claim here, no purchaser is entitled to payment for monetary damages,
whether they be special, direct, indirect, or consequential damages, for the cost of repairing
or otherwise altering property purchased at auction.  Id. at AF022.
Proceedings Before the Board
On August 31, 2023, First Place Auto timely mailed to the Board, through the United
States Postal Service, its notice of appeal of the contracting officer’s decision, and the Clerk
of the Board docketed that appeal on September 12, 2023, as CBCA 7890.  First Place Auto
described its claim, which it had increased from $5000 to $6000, as follows:
I am writing to appeal a denial on a warranty claim that I submitted August 23,
2023, regarding [the Blue Bird bus], contract number GS0WF23FBE2105.
Although First Place Auto purchased the bus on August 8, 2023, we did not
receive the bus until August 22, 2023 and didn’t see it until the following day. 
Once we saw the state of the paint, I immediately reach[ed] out to see if
something could be done.

CBCA 7890 6
I have been in business since 1979 and have grown confident in the grade scale
that GSA has developed and never have I seen a vehicle fall through the cracks
of your grading system.  I am not seeking reimbursement for the entirety of the
repaint, but am simply requesting $6000 to help partially cover it.
Notice of Appeal at 1.
In November 2023, First Place Auto filed documents with the Board describing its
purchase of a different vehicle, for which it wants compensation, which it bought at another
auction during the pendency of this appeal.  Specifically, on November 8, 2023, First Place
Auto filed a request with the Board asking that it be allowed “to explain the situation
regarding the 2015 Ford F550 bus that was purchased on 10/10/2023 at the Bel Air Auto
Auction over the Internet,” which GSA had allegedly listed as “drivable” and for which First
Place Auto paid $36,250.  Apparently, the Ford vehicle needed significant repair work at a
cost of $9536.18, and First Place Auto wants GSA to buy the Ford back so that it “can go
forward without the Ford expenses.”  In a supplement filed on November 13, 2023, First
Place Auto provided invoices for the repair work that it paid on the Ford vehicle, indicated
that it is “$5,190 out of pocket,” and requested that GSA “see [its] way to granting us that
amount to make us whole.”  First Place Auto’s submissions do not indicate that it submitted
a claim to the GSA Sales contracting officer for those monies or received a contracting
officer’s final decision on such a claim.  Although the GSA counsel of record in this appeal
was copied on both the November 8 and 13 filings, the GSA Sales contracting officer was
not, and neither filing was directed to the contracting officer.
On November 28, 2023, GSA filed a motion for summary judgment on First Place
Auto’s claim relating to the Blue Bird bus, arguing that (1) GSA had made no representations
regarding the condition of the paint on the bus, precluding any kind of argument that GSA
had warranted the paint; (2) GSA had expressly disclaimed any warranty; and (3) the auction
contract between the parties limits any damages for an alleged mis-description of a vehicle
to a refund of the purchase price in exchange for return of the vehicle in its original condition
and precludes reimbursement of repair costs incurred to improve the vehicle.  GSA did not
address the allegations that First Place Auto raised in its November 8 and 13 submissions to
the Board about problems with the Ford vehicle that it purchased on October 10, 2023.  First
Place Auto filed its response to GSA’s motion on February 1, 2024.
Discussion
I. Jurisdiction
First Place Auto submitted the claim involving the Blue Bird bus to the GSA
contracting officer on August 23, 2023.  In that claim, First Place Auto sought

CBCA 7890 7
reimbursement of $5000 to “complete paint” on a vehicle (the Blue Bird bus) that it
purchased at auction on August 8, 2023.  The GSA contracting officer issued a final decision
denying that claim on August 25, 2023, and notified First Place Auto of its right to appeal
the decision to the Board within ninety days.  We possess jurisdiction to entertain First Place
Auto’s appeal of that final decision.  See Corrections Corp. of America v. Department of
Homeland Security, CBCA 2647, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,971, at 175,741.  Although, in its notice
of appeal, First Place Auto increased the amount of its claim from $5000 to $6000, that
increase does not affect our jurisdiction.  See ECC International Constructors, LLC v.
Secretary of the Army, 79 F.4th 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Santa Fe Engineers, Inc. v.
United States, 818 F.2d 856, 858 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The Board has no jurisdiction to consider First Place Auto’s request, raised in its
submissions in November 2023, for costs incurred to repair a Ford F550 bus that First Place
Auto purchased during the pendency of this appeal.  “The CDA requires that ‘[e]ach claim
by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract . . . shall be submitted
to the contracting officer for a decision.’”  Sharp Electronics Corp. v. McHugh, 707 F.3d
1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a)(1)-(2) (2012)).  “Under the CDA,
a final decision by a CO on a ‘claim’ is a prerequisite for Board jurisdiction.”  Id. (quoting
Reflectone, Inc. v. Dalton, 60 F.3d 1572, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).  “Without the
[submission] of a claim [to the contracting officer] and the issuance of a final decision (or
the failure to issue such a decision within the prescribed period of time), this Board lacks
jurisdiction.”  Xcelerated Subsistence Solutions v. Department of Justice, CBCA 5654, 18-1
BCA ¶ 37,066, at 180,423 (2017).  There is no evidence in the record that First Place Auto
ever submitted a claim to the GSA Sales contracting officer seeking a final decision about
the Ford vehicle purchase or that the contracting officer has issued a final decision on such
a claim.3  To the extent that First Place Auto wants to pursue a claim involving the Ford
vehicle, it will first have to address that claim with the GSA Sales contracting officer.
The only claim properly before us is First Place Auto’s request for compensation
associated with the Blue Bird bus purchased on August 8, 2023, which we consider below.
II. First Place Auto’s Blue Bird Bus Claim
First Place Auto seeks to recover costs that it incurred in repainting the bus that it
purchased at auction, arguing that GSA mis-described the vehicle and that First Place Auto
should not have to shoulder the repair costs.  Its claim fails for the four following reasons,
each of which provides an independent basis for denying First Place Auto’s claim:
3 First Place Auto has also not filed a notice of appeal of any contracting
officer’s final decision relating to the Ford vehicle purchase.

CBCA 7890 8
First, GSA did not make any representations in its “Condition Report” or elsewhere
about the condition or quality of the paint on the Blue Bird bus, precluding a claim of
mis-description.  Although GSA warranted that any auctioned vehicle would “conform to its
written description,” the GSA Auctions terms and conditions expressly provided that
“[f]eatures, characteristics, deficiencies, etc. not addressed in the description are excluded
from this warranty.”  Exhibit 9 at AF034.  “[M]ere ‘[f]ailure to disclose’ . . . a vehicle
characteristic ‘does not amount to a mis-description.’”  Stephane Alrivy v. General Services
Administration, CBCA 7666, 23-1 BCA ¶ 38,337, at 186,156 (quoting T.K. Hughes Auto
Sales, Inc. v. General Services Administration, CBCA 5397, et al., 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,747, at
179,110); see Frances Spicer v. General Services Administration, CBCA 1532, 09-2 BCA
¶ 34,195, at 168,994 (failure to disclose vehicle’s condition does not amount to a
mis-description); Fred M. Lyda v. General Services Administration, CBCA 493, 07-2 BCA
¶ 33,631, at 166,572 (mis-description connotes an affirmative inaccurate description of
something, not an omission).  The closest that GSA ever comes to disclosing any information
about the paint on the bus is by (correctly) identifying that the bus is blue.  That is far from
a representation of the quality of the vehicle’s paint.  First Place Auto has not identified any
affirmative misrepresentation by GSA about the Blue Bird bus.
Second, GSA disclaimed any warranty of the condition of the vehicle, first in its
general terms and conditions and then again in the “Condition Report” for the Blue Bird bus. 
See Exhibits 2 at AF03, 7 at AF021, 9 at AF035.  The word “condition” refers to “the state
of something, esp. with regard to its appearance, quality, or working order,”
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/condition (last visited
Feb. 21, 2024), which includes the quality of the paint on a vehicle.  Accordingly, GSA’s
contract provisions plainly disavowed any warranty of the quality of the Blue Bird bus paint. 
“In cases where the vehicle is sold ‘as is,’ the warranty of description is satisfied when the
advertisement provides an accurate year, make, model, and VIN number.”  Godwin Anagu
v. General Services Administration, CBCA 5626, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,812, at 179,413.  GSA met
that requirement here, and its warranty disclaimer precludes the Government’s liability for
damages for the poor paint quality of the bus.
Third, First Place Auto waived its right to claim mis-description by failing to inspect
the Blue Bird bus before bidding on it, even though it had an opportunity to do so.  The
notice for the auction that included the Blue Bird bus identified “preview dates” for potential
bidders to inspect the vehicles that would be auctioned on August 8, 2023.  As previously
mentioned, the “Inspection” clause in the Standard Form 114C terms and conditions, which
indicates that “[p]roperty will be available for inspection at the places and times specified in
the Invitation,” “invite[s], urge[s], and caution[s]” bidders “to inspect the property prior to
submitting a bid.”  https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/SF_114C.pdf (incorporated into Exhibit
2 at AF03).  As seen in a video of the Blue Bird bus that First Place Auto submitted as
evidence in this appeal, it is clear that the defects in the paint on the bus were so obvious to

CBCA 7890 9
the naked eye that First Place Auto would easily have identified them had it inspected the bus
before bidding.  “[A] successful bidder cannot establish that an item was misdescribed if the
bidder complains of a problem that a bidder could have reasonably discovered during an
inspection.”  Kenneth G. Hanke v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 14097, 97-2
BCA ¶ 29,247, at 145,490; see John C. Cruden, GSBCA 9331, 89-1 BCA ¶ 21,348, at
107,622 (1988) (finding that a bidder cannot recover for allegedly undisclosed deficiencies
“that [he] could readily have ascertained for himself in advance of the sale by inspecting the
car”).  If “a bidder decides not to conduct an inspection,” it assumes liability for defects that
it could have detected.  Hanke, 97-2 BCA at 145,491; see 3 Daughters Painting Co. v.
General Services Administration, CBCA 6724, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,669, at 182,880 (“When
appellant chose to place a bid without inspecting the vehicle[,] he waived his right to assert
that the vehicle was mis-described.”).
Fourth, the type of damages that First Place Auto claims—that is, reimbursement of
the costs of repainting the Blue Bird bus—is barred by its agreement with GSA.  Under that
agreement, if there is an actionable mis-description, the purchaser’s sole remedy is a refund
of the purchase price.  Exhibit 2 at AF03-04.  That remedy is available, though, only if the
purchaser “maintains the property in the same condition as when removed” and returns it to
GSA in that condition.  Id. at AF03; see Nancy McBroom v. General Services
Administration, CBCA 5575, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,804, at 179,385 (“Appellant cannot make
changes to the vehicle and maintain a claim for misdescription.”); Antonio Zuco v. General
Services Administration, GSBCA 11873, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,734, at 128,027 (“Under the terms
of the contract, the buyer does not have the option to repair the car and seek the cost of
repairs.”).  Having repainted the Blue Bird bus, First Place Auto cannot now return it for a
refund, and its agreement expressly precludes recovery of any “special, direct, indirect, or
consequential damages.”  Id. at AF04.  For this reason, First Place Auto cannot recover its
repainting or repair costs.  See, e.g., T.K. Hughes Auto Sales, 17-1 BCA at 179,110;
DustNSew, LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 4769, 16-1 BCA ¶ 36,284, at
176,948-49.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, GSA’s motion for summary judgment is granted.  First
Place Auto’s claim is DENIED.
    Harold D. Lester, Jr.      
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge

CBCA 7890 10
We concur:
    Allan H. Goodman           Marian E. Sullivan         
ALLAN H. GOODMAN MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge Board Judge