DENIED:  March 23, 2009 
CBCA 1324 
STEVEN A. GROSHONG, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Steven A. Groshong, pro se, Everett, WA. 
Leigh Ann Bunetta, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Denver, CO, counsel for Respondent. 
STEEL , Board Judge. 
Appellant, Mr. Steven Groshong, brings this appeal in the amount of $1650 for 
partial offset of the cost of repairs to a truck that he purchased at a General Services 
Administration (GSA) online auction (http://www.gsaauctions.gov), under contract no. 
GS08F08FBE1961.  Respondent argues that the cost of such repairs is not recoverable 
under the terms of the contract.  Appellant has elected to have the case heard under 
CBCA Rule 52, Small Claims Procedure.  Such an election provides that the panel chair 
alone shall resolve the appeal, and that the decision shall be final and conclusive, and 
shall not be set aside except in cases of fraud affecting the Board’s proceedings.  Palmer 
v. Barram , 184 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999).  The parties have agreed to submit this matter 
for decision on the written record.  This decision has no precedential value.   The appeal 
is denied. 

 
 
  
 
 
   
 
                    2 C B C A  1 3 2 4
Facts 
On May 14, 2008, Mr. Groshong was high bidder and purchased Lot No. 023, a 
2000 Chevrolet K3500 truck, for $9250.  The pickup truck was located at the United 
States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Forest Service) wareyard in Cedar City, 
Utah, and was offered via GSA Auction Invitation No. 81QSCI08039.  Exhibit 1.
1 
The description of the vehicle was as follows: 
Pickup Truck, Chevrolet K3500, 2000, 4WD, 8 CYL, 5SPD MT, AC, 
CRUISE, 454, CREWCAB, TAG:6109) [sic] (EST MI:68256), 
VIN:1GCHK33J4YF482726. (SEATS TORN, DENTS & SCRATCHES). 
THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT WARRANTED.  
INSPECTION AND REMOVAL BY APPOINTMENT ONLY.  NO 
INSPECTION OR REMOVAL ON FRIDAYS. 
Exhibit 6. 
As part of his registration process to submit bids at the GSA auction website, Mr. 
Groshong agreed to GSA’s standard Sale of Government Property Online Sale Terms and 
Conditions.  See http://gsaauctions.gov/html/AboutGSAAuctions.htm .  These terms and 
conditions urge potential bidders to inspect the items being sold before submitting their 
bids, and does not warrant the property being offered for sale: 
Condition of Property.  
The following replaces Clause No. 2 of the SF114C .  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. 
Description Warranty and Refunds 
Description Warranty . 
1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. 

 
     
 
    
 
 
 
 
       
 
                    3 C B C A  1 3 2 4
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 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. . . .  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 purchaser is not entitled to any payment for loss of profit or 
any other money damages - special, direct, indirect, or consequential. 
Mis-described Property . 
Prior to the closing of a sale, if an item has been determined to be 
inadequately described for example, 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, the property may be considered as mis-described. . . . 
Inspection.  
Bidders are invited, urged, and cautioned to inspect the property prior to 
bidding.  Bidders must contact the custodian indicated in the item 
description for inspection dates and times. 
. . . . 
Oral Statements and Modifications. 
Any oral statement or representation by any representative of the 
Government, changing or supplementing the offering or contract or any 
condition thereof, is unauthorized and shall confer no right upon the bidder 
or purchaser. Further, no interpretation of any provision of the contract, 
including applicable performance requirements, shall be binding on the 
government unless furnished or agreed to, in writing by the Contracting 
Officer or his designated representative. 
Exhibit 3 at 4. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                    4 C B C A  1 3 2 4
The online terms and conditions make clear that also applicable to GSAAuction 
sales are the Standard Form 114C Sale of Government Property General Sale Terms and 
Conditions.  These terms include the following provisions: 
2.  CONDITION AND LOCATION OF PROPERTY. 
Unless otherwise provided in the Invitation, all property listed therein is 
offered for sale “as is” and “where is.”  Unless otherwise provided in the 
Invitation, the Government makes no warranty, express or implied, as to 
quantity, kind, character, quality, weight, size, or description of any of the 
property, or its fitness for any use or purpose. 
Exhibit 4. 
In addition, the online Other Special Requirements and Conditions state about 
vehicles: 
The vehicles being offered in the GSAAuctions.gov website may not meet 
state motor vehicle emissions inspections or other state requirements and 
may require repairs to meet those standards. 
Exhibit 3 at 10. 
Prior to bidding from Everett, Washington, Mr. Groshong spoke with a GSA 
payment official in Denver and a Forest Service property custodian at the wareyard in 
Cedar City, Utah, about the condition and maintenance of the truck.  Exhibit 14. 
Following his telephone conversations, he placed his bid for $9250 on May 14, 2008. 
Upon winning the auction, he paid for the truck.  Exhibit 12. 
The next day, Friday, May 15, 2008, Mr. Groshong flew to Cedar City, Utah, and 
upon arrival at the Forest Service wareyard, at approximately 3:00 p.m., he was given the 
keys and the truck was pointed out to him.  Upon his inspection of the truck, he 
determined that the tires were bald with missing tread.  He called the GSA contracting 
officer in Denver and left a message that he believed the truck was misdescribed.  By this 
point, there appeared to be no one around to offer assistance, so Mr. Groshong removed 
the truck from the yard, purchased four new tires for the truck in Cedar City, and drove 
the 1139 miles to his home in Everett, Washington.  Exhibit 14. 

   
 
 
       
       
 
 
     
  
      
 
    
  
  
  
  
 
 
                    5 C B C A  1 3 2 4
On May 20, 2008, he submitted a letter to the GSA contracting officer claiming the 
vehicle was misdescribed and alleging a gross omission regarding the functionality of the 
vehicle.  Exhibit 9.    On June 6, 2008, the contracting officer denied Mr. Groshon’s 
claim.  Exhibit 11.  Mr. Groshong timely appealed to this Board.  
Nearly two months later, on July 8, 2008, Mr. Groshong had the truck inspected. 
He reports that the fuel injection system is clogged, the front portion of frame at the K 
member is bent, front suspension components including ball joints need replacing, the 
exhaust system leaks into the cab, the fuel gauge and cruise control light do not work, the 
rear shocks leak, the emergency brake release handle does not work, the ignition key 
sticks, and there is cosmetic interior and exterior damage. The truck remains in Everett. 
Exhibit 12. 
Discussion 
Mr. Groshong initially requested of the contracting officer that he be reimbursed 
the purchase price of the vehicle.  When his claim was denied, he appealed to the Board 
and seeks $1650 towards the repairs. 
Auctions conducted by GSA are governed by the rules and regulations set forth in 
the terms and conditions available online.  Bidders must agree to these rules to particpate 
in the auction, and therefore the rules are binding on Mr. Groshong.   Darren R. 
Gentilquore v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16705, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,117.  
The vehicle purchased by Mr. Groshong was correctly identified on the website as 
a 2000 Chevrolet K3500 truck with an estimated mileage of 68,256 and Vehicle 
Identification number  1GCHK33J4YF482726. The description also was correct as far as 
it went in stating that the seats were torn, and that there were dents and scratches.   The 
truck advertised and pictured on GSA’s auction site and the truck driven away from the 
Cedar City wareyard were the same vehicle.  However, because the description did not 
also include information such as the fact that the frame was bent, the fuel gauge was 
broken, or that significant repairs were required, Mr. Groshong alleges (quoting the 
Misdescribed Property section above) that the vehicle was misdescribed, because the 
defects in the vehicle were inadequately disclosed, such that there was 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.” 
  Brevity of description is not the same as misdescription. While repairs may be 
required on the vehicle Mr. Groshong purchased, there was no gross omission regarding 
functionality, failure to cite major missing parts, or restrictions with regard to its use. 

 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
   
 
   
 
   
  
                    6 C B C A  1 3 2 4
After all, he was able to drive the vehicle to the tire dealer and then drive it 1139 miles to 
his home.  Appellant’s complaint does not implicate the accuracy of the description, but 
rather, the condition of the property he bought.  Claude Kobasic v. General Services 
Administration, GSBCA 16456, 05-1 BCA  ¶ 32,833 (2004);  see also Danny R. Mitchell , 
GSBCA 16209, 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,551, reconsideration denied , 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,588. 
Although GSA warrants that the items purchased are the items offered for sale, it 
specifically refuses to provide a warranty of condition.  Property offered for sale is sold 
“as is.”  Chris Ward v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16473, 05-1 BCA 
¶ 32,881 (2005);  Coleridge D. Henri v. General Serivces Administration, GSBCA 13991, 
97-2 BCA ¶ 29,187, at 145,161.  In fact, purchasers are vehemently urged to inspect the 
items for sale prior to bidding. If Mr. Groshong had inspected the vehicle, sat in the truck 
cab, and turned on the engine, the deficiencies of which he complains would have been 
apparent.  Even the bent frame was apparent, as Mr. Groshong demonstrated by providing 
the Board with photographs of the damage.  Exhibits 12 and 14. 
Further, prospective bidders, including Mr. Groshong, are warned that they cannot 
rely upon the oral representations of government representatives, who are not authorized 
to supplement or modify the auction terms or item description. The information about 
how to contact the property custodian is only for the purpose of arranging an inspection 
visit.  Conversation with personnel at the site is no substitute for a  direct inspection.  No 
relief is available even if the buyer can prove he was misled by site personnel as to the 
actual condition of the property.  The buyer assumes the risk of purchasing a used vehicle 
through the auction process.  Chris Ward. 
Finally, in the rare case where a buyer can show that the property is misdescribed 
pursuant to the online terms and conditions, the only possible remedy is return of the 
property and reimbursement of the purchase price.  Assessment of damages against the 
Government for repair of the property is not an option. See Gavin L. Rouse v. General 
Services Administration, GSBCA 15993, 03-1 BCA ¶ 32,210; Dan Parish v. General 
Services Administration, GSBCA 16025, 03-1 BCA ¶ 32,211. Here, Mr. Groshong seeks 
a contribution towards the cost of repair of the vehicle.  Under the terms and conditions to 
which he agreed (“purchaser is not entitled to any payment for loss of  profit or any other 
money damages - special, direct, indirect, or consequential,” Description Warranty, 
supra ), Mr. Groshong is not entitled to this relief, and neither the contracting officer nor 
this Board has authority to grant it. Chris Ward ; Greg Carlson v. General Services 
Administration, CBCA 999, 08-2 BCA ¶ 33,945.  

                    7 C B C A  1 3 2 4
Decision 
The appeal is DENIED.
 ___________________________
     CANDIDA S. STEEL
      Board Judge