DENIED: December 3, 2009 
CBCA 1465 
RANDY PRESTON, 
Appellant, 
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
Respondent. 
Randy Preston, pro se, Shelton, WA. 
Gabriel Steinberg, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent.
 
Before Board Judges POLLACK , DRUMMOND , and KULLBERG.

KULLBERG, Board Judge.
 
Mr. Randy Preston (Mr. Preston or appellant) appeals the denial of his claim by the 
General Services Administration’s (GSA’s) contracting officer for the refund of the purchase 
price of three paddle boats that he purchased at a GSA online auction. This appeal is being 

   
  
    
   
       
      
     
     
  
 
     
  
2 CBCA 1465 
decided on the basis of the parties’ record submissions. 1 For the reasons stated below, the 
appeal is denied. 
Facts 
On October 28, 2008, the Illinois State Agency for Surplus Property listed for sale 
three paddle boats (lot 035) on the GSA  website, GSAAuctions.gov.   Appeal File, 
Exhibits 2 , 15. 2   The description of the paddle boats was the following: 
ONE LOT TO CONSIST OF APPROX 3 EA PADDLE 
BOATS, 2 AND 4 PERSON, SERIAL #CAQJE11293F101, 
MFG: FUTURE BEACH, MDL: BK 100.  REPAIRS MAY BE 
REQUIRED.  PARTS MAY BE MISSING. 
Exhibit 2.  
By registering with GSA and submitting a bid, a bidder became subject to the terms 
and conditions of sale at GSA auctions.  Exhibit 3 at 2.  The terms and conditions advised 
prospective bidders that they should not rely on photographs of bid items and that such items 
were available for inspection.  Id . at 3-4.  Bidders were advised of the following warranty 
provision: 
The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the 
property listed in the GSAAuctions.gov website will conform to 
its written description. If a misdescription is determined by the 
Contracting Officer of the sale, before payment, the contract will 
be cancelled without any liability to the bidder.  If a 
1 The Government elected to have this appeal decided on the record.  Although 
Mr. Preston elected a hearing of this appeal and requested that he appear by video conference 
from a location near his home, he failed to appear for the hearing.  A hearing was scheduled 
for September 23, 2009, and arrangements were made for Mr. Preston’s appearance by means 
of video conference at the GSA office in Auburn, Washington.  Conference Memorandum 
at 2 (July 24, 2009). At the hearing, the Board went on the record briefly in order to establish 
that Mr. Preston had failed to appear at the hearing and that his absence was unexcused. 
Transcript at 3-11.  The Board’s subsequent order dated September 30, 2009, determined that 
Mr. Preston was deemed to have submitted his case on the record in light of his unexcused 
absence from the hearing.  Rule 20(c) (48 CFR 6101.20(c) (2008)).  
All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. 
2 

   
     
   
 
 
 
 
 
    
   
 
 
3 CBCA 1465 
misdescription is determined by the Contracting Officer of the 
sale before removal of the property, the Government will keep 
the property and refund any money paid.  If a misdescription is 
determined by the Contracting Officer of the sale after removal, 
the Government will refund any money paid if the purchaser 
takes the property at his/her expense to a location specified by 
the Sales Contracting Officer.  The Refund Claim Procedure 
described below will be strictly followed for filing a claim.  No 
refunds will be made, after property is removed, for shortages of 
individual items within a lot.  This warranty is in place of all 
other guarantees and warranties, expressed or implied . 
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.  
Id. at 5.  The procedure for submitting a claim in the event of a misdescription was the 
following: 
If items have been awarded but not paid for and the successful 
bidder feels that the property is misdescribed, he/she must 
follow these procedures: A written claim needs to be submitted 
to the Sales Contracting Officer within 15 calendar days from 
the date of award requesting release of contractual obligation for 
reasons satisfying that of a mis-description. No verbal contact 
with the custodian or the Sales Contracting Officer will 
constitute a notice of misdescription. 
When items are awarded but removal may or may not have 
occurred, the successful bidder must (1) submit a written notice 
to the Sales Contracting Officer within 15 calendar days from 
the date of award prior to removal that the property was 
mis-described, (2) if removed, maintain the property in the 
purchased condition until it is returned, and (3) [i]f your 
mis-description claim is accepted by a Contracting Officer and 
if the property has already been removed, return the property at 
your own expense to a location specified by the Sales 
Contracting Officer. 

  
        
 
  
    
 
   
   
  
  
  
 
   
      
       
   
 
     
  
4 CBCA 1465 
Id. at 6.  A misdescribed property was defined as “a gross omission regarding the 
functionality of an item, failure to cite major missing parts, and/or restrictions with regards 
to its use after purchase or removal are omitted in the description.”  Id. at 5-6.  In the event 
of a default by a bidder, the following procedures applied: 
If you are awarded an Item on GSA Auctions®, you have a 
responsibility to pay for the item or lot that you were awarded 
within 2 business days from the date & time the award email 
notification was sent and promptly remove it before 10 business 
days from the date & time the award email notification was sent, 
unless otherwise specified in the contract.  If you fail to meet 
either of these two conditions, you will be in violation of the 
online sale terms and conditions of your contract with the 
Government and will be considered “In default.” 
As a defaulted bidder, you will be responsible for the payment 
of liquidated damages, an administrative fee for the processing 
and re-handling of the item for which you neglected to pay for 
and/or remove. The charge will total 20% of the purchase price 
of the award amount or $200, whichever is greater.  The 
Government shall be entitled to retain (to collect) this amount of 
the purchase price of the item(s) as to which the default 
occurred.  
Id. at 6. 
Mr. Preston registered with GSA and submitted a bid in the amount of $954 for the 
paddle boats.  Exhibit 7.  On November 4, 2008, GSA notified Mr. Preston by an electronic 
mail message that his bid had been accepted and that he had been awarded contract 
GS04F09FBE0930 for sale lot number 41QSCI09064035.  Exhibit 6.  The notice also 
advised him that he must make payment within two business days and remove the property 
within ten business days of the date and time of the notice.  Id . Mr. Preston paid the bid price 
of $954 for the paddle boats, which was received by GSA on November 7, 2008. Exhibit 15. 
The receipt for his purchase, which was issued by GSA, instructed him to remove the paddle 
boats from the Springfield, Illinois, location by November 19, 2008.  Exhibits 8, 15.   
In a telephone call on November 17, 2008, Mr. Preston advised GSA’s contracting 
officer, Ms. Victoria Knotts, that he had driven to Springfield, Illinois, to pick up the paddle 
boats, and he wanted a refund of the bid price because the condition of the paddle boats had 
not been accurately represented.  Exhibit 15. In an electronic mail message dated 

    
  
 
    
   
 
  
 
 
   
    
   
 
 
5 CBCA 1465 
November 25, 2008, Mr. Preston submitted to Ms. Knotts his claim in the amount of $954. 
Exhibit 9.  He stated the following: 
In this case[,] the product description and pictures were not 
close to actual product condition.  They had the usual 
description of parts may be missing and repairs may be needed. 
The description should have been “scrap”, “severe damage”, 
“unusable” or some other wording to describe the actual 
condition.  A lot of the damage appears to be from handling, for 
example, [the] boats were put on the ground without protecting 
the propellers. 
I left the boats there and am asking for a refund on my credit 
card. 
Id. 
Ms. Knotts’ decision dated November 28, 2008, denied Mr. Preston’s claim and 
directed him to remove the paddle boats before December 31, 2008.  Exhibit 1.  Ms. Knott’s 
decision further stated the following: 
If you do not remove this property by the specified due date 
listed above, you will be placed in default.  As a defaulted 
bidder, you will be responsible for the payment of liquidated 
damages, an administrative fee for the processing and 
re-handling of the item for which you neglected to pay for 
and/or remove.  The charge will total 20% of the award price or 
$200.00, whichever is greater.  The liquidated damages for this 
item will be $200.00. 
Id.  Mr. Preston filed a notice of appeal with this Board on December 12, 2008.  In his notice 
of appeal, Mr. Preston increased his claim to $3932.  In addition to his claim for a refund of 
his bid of $954, he also asserted, for the first time, a claim for travel expenses to and from 
Springfield, Illinois, in the amount of $2418. 
A joint status report, which was submitted to the Board on April 29, 2009, represented 
that Mr. Preston was reimbursed the amount of $754, and $200 was withheld in liquidated 
damages. 

      
 
     
  
  
   
           
 
 
  
 
       
    
  
  
  
 
  
      
  
           
6 CBCA 1465 
Discussion 
Mr. Preston contends in his notice of appeal that the photograph of the paddle boats 
on the GSA auction website did not show the damage to the boats’ propellers, and he first 
saw the extent of that damage when he arrived at the Springfield, Illinois, site to pick up the 
boats.  GSA contends that the website put bidders on notice as to the possibility of missing 
parts or the need for repairs, and the terms and conditions of the online auction only provided 
for a warranty in the event of a misdescription and not a warranty as to the condition of the 
boats. 
The warranty provision of the terms and conditions of the GSA online auction 
provided for reimbursement of the bid price only in the event of a misdescription.  The 
General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals, which was one of the 
predecessors to this Board, recognized the following with regard to descriptions that appear 
on a GSA auction website: 
The terms and conditions do warrant “that the property listed in 
the GSAAuctions.gov website will conform to its description.” 
The description on the website may have been incomplete, but 
it was not a misdescription. A misdescription is an inaccurate– 
meaning an erroneous or wrong–description of something with 
which the describer is familiar.  Webster’s Third New 
International Dictionary  1143 (“misdescribe,” “misdescription”) 
(1986); see also id . 1139 (“inaccurate”), 2642 (“wrongly”). 
Larry J. McKinney v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16720, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,119, 
at 164,128.  It is also well established that “to the extent deficiencies could reasonably have 
been discerned during an in-person inspection, the purchaser cannot establish a 
misdescription.”  Fred M. Lyda v. General Services Administration, CBCA 493, 07-2 
BCA ¶ 33,631, at 166,572. 
In this case, Mr. Preston has not shown a misdescription due to the condition of the 
paddle boats.  GSA’s website stated that there were three paddle boats, and bidders were also 
advised that repairs may be required and that parts may be missing.  Mr. Preston has not 
disputed the accuracy of that information.  Although he argues that the website photograph 
did not show damage to the propellers on the paddle boats, the terms and conditions advised 
bidders not to rely on photographs and encouraged bidders to inspect an item before 
submitting a bid. Any damage to the propellers on the paddle boats was a condition that 
could have been determined by an inspection before bidding, and a finding of a 
misdescription is not warranted under such circumstances. 

 
  
  
  
    
 
     
 
  
   
   
  
 
  
   
    
 
 
      
 
7 CBCA 1465 
Mr. Preston contends that GSA’s website should have described the paddle boats 
using terms such as “scrap,” “severe damage,” “unusable,” or similar words describing their 
condition.  Such an argument “does not implicate the accuracy of the description, but rather, 
the condition of the property.”  Steven A. Groshong v. General Services Administration, 
CBCA 1324, 09-1 BCA ¶ 34,104, at 168,641. “Although GSA warrants that the items 
purchased in its auctions are the items they are stated to be, it expressly disavows any 
warranty of condition.”  Chris Ward v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16473, 
05-1 BCA ¶ 32,881, at 162,922.  Items sold at an auction are sold “as is.”  Frances Spicer 
v. General Services Administration, CBCA 1532, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,195, at 168,994.  This 
Board has recognized that “where the written description of the property being offered for 
sale is silent as to age or condition, a bidder proceeds at its peril if it chooses to bid based on 
its own assumptions as to either age or condition of the property.”  Alliance Business 
Enterprises LLC v. General Services Administration, CBCA 1101, 08-2 BCA ¶ 33,994, at 
168,117.  
Mr. Preston errs in his argument that the GSA website should have described the 
paddle boats using terms such as “scrap,” “severe damage,” or “unusable.”  Photographs of 
the paddle boats, which were included with Mr. Preston’s notice of appeal, show damage to 
the propellers on all three boats.  There is, however, no evidence that the three paddle boats 
were beyond repair or that replacement parts were not available.  The website advised 
bidders that repairs may be needed and that parts may be missing.  Such a description was 
sufficient to put Mr. Preston on notice of the possibility that the paddle boats might not be 
ready for immediate use.  The condition of the paddle boats that Mr. Preston discovered at 
the Springfield, Illinois, site was the risk that he took when he bid on items that he did not 
inspect before he made payment, and neither the contracting officer nor this Board has the 
authority to refund the purchase price because Mr. Preston was disappointed with the results 
of his bid.  Chris Ward , 05-1 BCA at 162,922. 
Finally, Mr. Preston has included in his notice of appeal a claim for travel expenses 
in the amount of $2418 without first submitting that claim to the contracting officer for a 
decision.  It is well established that this Board has no jurisdiction to consider a claim that has 
not been submitted to the contracting officer for a decision, and, instead, is raised for the first 
time by an appellant in its notice of appeal.  Kenan Construction Co. v. Department of State , 
CBCA 807, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,797.  This Board, consequently, has no jurisdiction over 
Mr. Preston’s claim for travel expenses. Even if this Board had jurisdiction, the terms and 
conditions of the auction preclude recovery of indirect, direct, special, or consequential 
damages.  Frances Spicer , 09-2 BCA at 168,994 (appellant sought damages that included 
travel costs, repair cost, and pain and suffering).  The only issue, consequently, before the 
Board in this appeal is Mr. Preston’s claim for his bid price of $954, and the Board will not 

 
8 CBCA 1465 
exceed its jurisdiction to address any other claim that has not been properly submitted to the 
contracting officer. 
Decision 
The appeal is DENIED . 
______________________ 
H. CHUCK KULLBERG 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
_______________________ _______________________ 
JEROME M. DRUMMOND HOWARD A. POLLACK 
Board Judge Board Judge