DENIED: April 1, 2016
CBCA 5040
STEPHEN D. BRADLEY,
Appellant,
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Stephen D. Bradley, pro se, Goodyear, AZ.
Keaton Norquist, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, San
Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges HYATT, POLLACK, and SULLIVAN.
POLLACK, Board Judge.
Appellant, Stephen D. Bradley, appeals the contracting officer’s final decision
denying his claim for the return of the purchase price of a used travel trailer sold to him by
the General Services Administration (GSA or Government) via auction, on the ground that
the Government misdescribed the condition of the vehicle.  Respondent moves for summary
relief, arguing that appellant failed to establish the necessary elements needed to prevail
under the misdescription clause of the contract.  For the reasons below, we grant
respondent’s motion and deny the appeal.


CBCA 5040 2
Background
1.  On May 28, 2015, GSA offered a Rockwood Forest River Travel Trailer for sale
through its online auction website, GSAAuctions.gov.  The auction announcement included
the following description of the vehicle:
Travel trailer, 30x8x10 foot, Rockwood, Forest River, 2002, w/ 4x12 foot
slide, GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating] 7560, 1 personnel door. 
Conditions of appliances/equipment unknown.  Repairs required included but
not limited to: gas cook stove missing, & evidence of rodent infestation. 
Inspection is strongly recommended. . . . 
THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT WARRANTED. 
The announcement indicated that the vehicle was located in Sasabe, Arizona, and informed
prospective bidders that arrangements for inspection of the vehicle could be made with the
listed property custodian.
2.  As a condition of participating in the auction, prospective bidders were required
to agree to GSA’s online sale terms and conditions, which included the following provisions:
Inspection of Property
Bidders agree to physically inspect the property upon which they bid or
thereby waive the opportunity to conduct a physical inspection.  In waiving
their inspection rights, bidders bear the risk for any gross omissions regarding
the functionality of items, failures to cite major missing parts and/or
restrictions with regards to usage that would have been revealed by physical
inspection.
Condition of Property
Condition of the 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.

CBCA 5040 3
Description Warranty & Refunds
The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed in
the GSAAuctions.gov website will conform to its written description. 
Features, characteristics, deficiencies, etc. not addressed in the description are
excluded from that warranty.  GSA further cautions bidders that GSA’s written
description represents GSA’s best efforts to describe the items 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. 
Claims of Misdescription
If items have been awarded but not paid for and the successful bidder feels that
the property is mis-described, 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 misdescription.  No verbal contact
with the custodian or the Sales Contracting Officer or any other federal official
will constitute a notice of misdescription.  
When items are awarded and payment has been received, regardless of the
removal status (removal may or may not have occurred), the successful bidder
must submit a written notice to the Sales Contracting Officer within 15
calendar days from the date of payment email notification (the Purchaser’s
Receipt).  If property has been removed and the claim is accepted by the Sales
Contracting Officer, the purchaser must maintain the property in its purchased
condition and return it at their expense to the location designated by the Sales
Contracting Officer or any other federal official.
3.  On June 1, 2015, appellant accepted the above terms and conditions and was
therefore able to participate in the bidding process.  Appellant does not state that he contacted
the GSA property custodian to inquire about the condition of the trailer or to arrange for
inspection of the property prior to submitting his bid.

CBCA 5040 4
4.  By e-mail message dated June 4, 2015, the GSA sales contracting officer (SCO)
notified appellant that he was the successful high bidder for the travel trailer at issue and was
awarded contract number GS-09F-15-FBE-6032 in the amount of $3460.  The notice further
stated that payment for the vehicle was due within two business days of the date of the e-mail
message and that the property could be retrieved after appellant received his purchaser’s
receipt. 
5.  On June 5, 2015, appellant initiated a wire transfer to GSA in the amount of $3460. 
On June 8, 2015, after the purchase transaction was complete, appellant received his
purchaser’s receipt authorizing him to remove the property. 
6.  On or around June 9, 2015, appellant retrieved the trailer and received a certificate
to obtain title.  At the time of removal, the property custodian noted the poor condition of the
vehicle and advised appellant to undertake an inspection of the trailer.  Appellant states that
he was “unable to perform a thorough inspection” due to the lack of power on-site and the
presence of, among other things, “an Africanized [b]ee infestation with an actual hive
attached to . . . [the] trailer.”  Notwithstanding this observed condition, appellant took
possession of the vehicle. 
7.  On June 30, 2015, appellant delivered the trailer to a recreational vehicle repair
shop located in Mesa, Arizona.  On July 1, 2015, appellant left for a one-month vacation. 
By e-mail message dated July 7, 2015, the repair facility notified appellant of a number of
deficiencies in and on the trailer – including a missing furnace, severe water damage, and an
inoperable air conditioning unit – and provided a quote for the cost of repairs.
8.  By e-mail message dated August 5, 2015, appellant contacted the GSA SCO
alleging that the Government had misrepresented the condition of the trailer in failing to
provide a complete description.  Appellant alleged that the vehicle was missing its furnace,
had a broken air conditioning unit, and was water damaged.  Appellant noted the deficiencies
were “easily identifiable but were undisclosed.”  Appellant requested cancellation of the sale
and a full refund.
9.  By e-mail message dated August 14, 2015, the SCO denied appellant’s claim,
concluding that, pursuant to the Claims of Misdescription clause, the claim was untimely and
that the property was not misdescribed.
10.  By e-mail message dated August 25, 2015, appellant responded to the SCO’s
denial letter, again noting the deficiencies earlier identified in the vehicle and further alleging
that the trailer had an inoperable manual slide.  As to the timeliness of his claim to GSA,
appellant stated that he could not deliver the trailer for repair inspection until he had first

CBCA 5040 5
addressed the infestation issues.1  Morever, appellant stated, “We left for vacation on the 1st
of July for the month.  It was upon our return I could finally deal with all the issues with this
trailer.”  As to the contract provisions governing the sale cited by the SCO in the denial letter,
appellant stated, “[t]he numerous pages of rules and regulations . . . reference[d] are
burdensome to say the least” and it would be the rare case that “even one consumer [would]
be aware of, know and understand all the minutia of the rules and regulations contained in
your contracts.”
11.  By e-mail message dated September 15, 2015, the SCO rendered a final decision
concerning appellant’s claim.  As in his initial denial letter, the SCO determined that
appellant’s failure to comply with the misdescription notice provision, and the fact that the
property was not misdescribed, precluded his claim.
12.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal with the Board on October 23, 2015.  We
have jurisdiction pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109
(2012).
13.  On December 28, 2015, GSA submitted its motion for summary relief.
Discussion
We begin our analysis with the familiar principles applicable to motions for summary
relief.  Recently, in Turner Construction Co. v. Smithsonian Institution, CBCA 2862, et al.,
15-1 BCA ¶ 36,139, we explained:
Summary relief is appropriate when the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law, based upon undisputed material facts.  URS Energy &
Construction, Inc. v. Department of Energy, CBCA 3632, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,949,
at 175,683.  The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence
of genuine issues of material fact and all justifiable inferences must be drawn
in favor of the non-movant.  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325
(1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986).  A material
fact is one that will affect the outcome of the case.  Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247. 
“[T]he party opposing summary judgment must show an evidentiary conflict
on the record; mere denials or conclusory statements are not sufficient.” 
1 Appellant indicated to the SCO that he undertook cleaning of the trailer before
addressing the infestation, fumigated the “entire unit several times,” and again “clean[ed]
and “scrub[bed] down” the trailer. 

CBCA 5040 6
Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390-91 (Fed. Cir.
1987).
Id. at 176,394.
Appellant asserts he is entitled to the return of the $3460 paid for the purchase of the
trailer because “GSA failed to disclose the true nature” of the vehicle and he would not have
bid on the trailer “had the true nature of disrepair . . . been truthfully disclosed.”   Appellant
is complaining about the condition of the trailer.  The contract specifically states that the
condition of the property is not warranted and, further, that the absence of any indicated
deficiency does not mean that none exists.  The bidder is warned to ascertain the condition
through inspection.  Appellant made no inspection before submitting his bid.  Although GSA
warrants that the items purchased in its auctions are the items they are stated to be, it
expressly disavows, in multiple provisions of the sale terms and conditions, any warranty of
condition.  Everett M. Myers v. General Services Administration, CBCA 940, 08-1 BCA
¶ 33,841; Chris Ward v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16473, 05-1 BCA
¶ 32,881.  We find that under the circumstances in this case, appellant’s claim must be
denied.  See Joseph M. Hutchison v. General Services Administration, CBCA 752, 08-1 BCA
¶ 33,804.
Here, the description GSA provided included clear language describing the condition
of the vehicle’s appliances and equipment “unknown” and alerting appellant to significant
potential repairs including, but not limited to, a missing stove and rodent damage. 
Importantly, the Description Warranty & Refunds clause expressly excluded from the
warranty any deficiencies not identified (in this case, the defective air conditioning unit and
manual shift and the missing furnace).  Where the sales terms and conditions plainly alert the
appellant of the risks of purchase, there is “no remedy . . . based on a warranty as to
condition.”  Hutchison, 08-1 BCA at 167,341; see also Myers, 08-1 BCA at 167,477-78 (“In
these auction sales, where both the buyer and the seller are ignorant of the true condition of
the item sold, the buyer assumes the risks and uncertainties inherent in purchasing a used
item.”).
“The Description Warranty clause in [an auction sale] contract allows a purchaser to
recover his money where the vehicle has been misdescribed and where the purchaser has
submitted written notice of an actionable misdescription of the vehicle within fifteen days
from the date the vehicle was removed from the auction site.”  Hutchison, 08-1 BCA at
167,340.  Appellant’s contract contained such a clause, which expressly provided:
The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed in
the GSAAuctions.gov website will conform to its written description. 

CBCA 5040 7
Features, characteristics, deficiencies, etc. not addressed in the description
are excluded from that warranty. . . . Therefore, gross omissions regarding the
functionality of items, failures to cite major missing parts and/or restrictions
with regards to usage may occur. [Emphasis added.]
In this instance, the property was not misdescribed.  “Misdescription requires the
Government to have made an error in describing what has been offered for sale.”  Hutchison,
08-1 BCA at 167,341.  Here, the Government accurately described what it offered for sale –
a 2002 Rockwood Forest River Travel Trailer requiring repair – and appellant does not
dispute that this is what he received (i.e., he does not challenge the accuracy of the
description).  Appellant, instead, bases his mis-description claim on the fact that the property
was in worse condition than he expected.  However, “[t]he fact that the condition of the
vehicle . . . [was] not what appellant expected or desired is not synonymous with a
misdescription.”  Id.  As such, appellant cannot prevail on a claim of misdescription in this
case.2
Finally, even if we were to find a misdescription, which we do not, appellant’s claim
is untimely.  As we noted in Hutchison, “the failure to submit a claim within the requisite
time-frame of fifteen days defeats any claim a purchaser might otherwise have under the
Description Warranty clause.” 08-1 BCA at 167,341 (citing  McNutt Used Cars v. General
Services Administration, GSBCA 16398, 04-2 BCA ¶ 32,668;  Danny R. Mitchell v. General
Services Administration, GSBCA 16122, 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,511).  Here, pursuant to the Claim
of Misdescription clause, appellant was required to submit such claim within fifteen calendar
days of receiving his purchaser’s receipt.  Appellant received his purchaser’s receipt on June
8, 2015, and was therefore required to submit his claim by June 23, 2015.  Appellant did not
notify the SCO of his claim until August 5, 2015 – fifty-eight days from the date he received
the purchaser’s receipt.
2 Appellant’s additional arguments alleging a misdescription of the trailer’s
vehicle identification number (VIN) and year model are also without merit.  The VIN and
model year listed on the Arizona Department of Transportation certificate of title appellant
received (submitted as an exhibit with appellant’s response) and the VIN and model year
listed on the certificate to obtain title are identical.

CBCA 5040 8
Decision
Based on the foregoing, respondent’s motion for summary relief is granted.  The
appeal is DENIED.
__________________________
HOWARD A. POLLACK
Board Judge
We concur:
_________________________ __________________________
CATHERINE B. HYATT MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge Board Judge