DENIED:  August 28, 2008 
CBCA 999 
GREG CARLSON, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Greg Carlson, pro se, Phoenix, AZ. 
Robert W. Schlattman, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Lakewood, CO, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges STERN , POLLACK, and GOODMAN. 
STERN, Board Judge. 
Mr. Greg Carlson (appellant) appeals the denial by a contracting officer of the 
General Services Administration (GSA or respondent) of his claim for $1837.64, for the 
costs to repair a truck that he purchased at a GSA auction.  GSA moves to dismiss the appeal 
on the basis that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

                                                                                                                          
   
 
  
  
    
   
 
2 CBCA 999 
Background 
Appellant purchased a 2001 Ford F250 XLT pickup truck at a cost of $12,400 at an 
online GSA auction.  The truck was described as having a cracked windshield and some 
scrapes and scratches. The GSA description also stated, “Absence of Any Indicated 
Deficiency Does Not Mean None Exist” and “The Condition of the Property is Not 
Warranted.”  The truck also was advertised as available for inspection.  The “Online Sale 
Terms and Conditions” stated, 
BIDDING 
. . . . 
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. 
. . . . 
CONTRACT DISPUTES 
. . . . 
Description Warranty. 
. . . 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 

                                                                                                                          
   
  
 
   
 
 
  
    
 
  
3 CBCA 999 
in place of all other guarantees and warranties, expressed or implied. 
. . . . 
Claims 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) if 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. 
Mr. Carlson alleges that when he took possession of the vehicle, on August 29, 2007, 
he saw that the truck had major damage to the rear bed and bumper.  Mr Carlson alleges that 
the contracting officer told him to get an estimate of the damage and that he would “take 
care of it.”  Appellant has placed an estimate in the record for damages amounting to 
$1837.64.  Mr. Carlson seeks this amount of damages based on the alleged misdescription 
of the condition of the vehicle and the alleged statement of the contracting officer. 
Respondent seeks dismissal of the claim on the following bases: 
•	 GSA did not warrant the condition of the vehicle. 
•	 The description of the vehicle may have been incomplete but it was not 
incorrect, and that even if it was misdescribed, appellant has no remedy 
since appellant did not notify GSA of the misdescription until 
September 18, 2007, more than fifteen days after the award to 
appellant on August 4, 2007. 

                                                                                                                          
  
   
    
   
  
    
 
  
 
  
  
 
             
       
    
 
  
 
 
 
4 CBCA 999 
Discussion 
This motion to dismiss is more appropriately designated as one for summary relief 
as it seeks denial of the appeal as a matter of law, even assuming the facts as alleged by the 
opposing party are correct. 
We are guided by the well-established rules applicable to summary relief motions. 
Summary relief is only appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact 
(a fact that may affect the outcome of the litigation) and the moving party is entitled to relief 
as a matter of law.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986).  Any doubt 
on whether summary relief is appropriate is to be resolved against the moving party.  Celotex 
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).  The moving party shoulders the burden of 
proving that no question of material fact exists.  Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 
157 (1970). 
Appellant seek $1837.64 for the costs of repairs to the truck.  For the purpose of 
deciding this motion we assume that the facts alleged by appellant are accurate. 
Auctions conducted by GSA are governed by the rules set forth in the terms and 
conditions that accompany the solicitation. Bidders, like appellant, must agree to these rules 
to participate in the auction.  Thus, the rules become binding on all bidders.  Darren R. 
Gentilquore v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16705, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,117. 
The terms and conditions advised Mr. Carlson to inspect the vehicle prior to bidding. 
Mr. Carlson did not heed this advice.  The rules also provided that any statements made by 
a GSA employee were not authorized and would not give Mr. Carlson any rights.  Thus, 
even if true as alleged, the statements made by the contracting officer were not binding on 
GSA and provide no basis for relief to appellant.  Larry J. McKinney v. General Services 
Administration, GSBCA 16720, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,119. 
Mr. Carlson also alleges that the truck was misdescribed, or that the full extent of 
damage was not disclosed.  Again, the terms and conditions clearly set forth the remedy 
available to appellant in this circumstance.  The only remedy is refund of the purchase price 
if the purchaser notifies the contracting officer within fifteen days of award or removal of 
the property from the government location. Upon such notification, the property must be 
returned to the Government.  “Repair of the property and assessment of damages against the 
Government is not an option.” Patrick C. Sullivan v. General Services Administration, 
CBCA 936, 08-1 BCA 
¶ 33,820. 
Appellant did not notify the contracting officer of the alleged misdescription within 
the fifteen day period.  In addition, the property was not returned.  Appellant seeks the costs 
of the repairs to the vehicle.  Mr. Carlson is not entitled to this relief under the terms and 

                                                                                                                          
 
5 CBCA 999 
conditions to which he agreed. 
Decision 
Respondent’s motion is granted.  The appeal is DENIED. 
____________________________ 
JAMES L. STERN 
Board Judge
 We concur: 
__________________________ ____________________________ 
HOWARD A. POLLACK ALLAN H. GOODMAN 
Board Judge Board Judge