DENIED: July 13, 2009 
CBCA 1532 
FRANCES SPICER, 
Appellant, 
v. 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 
Respondent. 
Frances A. Spicer, pro se, Lakewood, CO, Appellant. 
Kathleen K. Barksdale, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent. 
Before Board Judges STEEL , DRUMMOND  and KULLBERG. 
STEEL , Board Judge. 
Ms. Frances Spicer (appellant) sought to be reimbursed the purchase price of a vehicle 
she acquired at a General Services Administration (GSA) auction, as well as the cost of 
repairing the vehicle and compensation for pain and suffering. A GSA contracting officer 
denied her claim.  Appellant appealed the contracting officer’s final decision.  Appellant 
maintains that she is entitled to return the vehicle to GSA and requests that she be reimbursed 
the purchase price of $5020.  Additionally, she requests that costs for gas, air travel, hotel 
accommodations, taxes, fees, and repairs already performed on the vehicle be paid to her. 
She also requests $1000 as compensation for pain and suffering. In support of her claim, she 
supplied bills in the amount of $1137.77 for repairs performed on the vehicle, as well as 

                                                                                                                        
        
  
  
 
 
     
  
  
    
 
 
  
 
 
    
 
   
           
   
   
2CBCA 1532  
estimates in the amount of $4786.61 for necessary repairs not yet performed.  GSA now 
moves for summary relief and requests that the appeal be denied or dismissed.  
Background 
On or about December 9, 2008, GSA conducted an Internet auction for the sale of a 
2004 Chevrolet Impala, Vehicle Information Number 2G1WF52K349399611, with mileage 
estimated at 61,400. Appeal File, Exhibit 3.
1   The vehicle information, including a 
photograph, was shown on the GSA auction website.  The vehicle description included make, 
model, year, and a list of equipment.  The description also included a statement, appearing 
in all capital letters, that repairs were required and that the vehicle was “inoperable, needs 
to be towed, needs new battery, parts may be missing and other repairs may be required.” 
Id. 
The Online Sale Terms and Conditions which appeared on the GSA auction website 
cautioned that the condition of the property was not warranted but that “[d]eficiencies, when 
known, have been indicated in the property descriptions.   However, absence of any indicated 
deficiencies does not mean that none exists.” Exhibit 4.  Despite the fact that the condition 
of the vehicle was not warranted and that the terms and conditions issued a number of 
warnings to prospective bidders, appellant alleges that the car was misdescribed, or that the 
full extent of damage was not disclosed.  
The Online Sale Terms and Conditions included language stating that photographs of 
the vehicle may not depict an exact representation of the bid item(s) and should not be relied 
upon in place of a written item description or as substitute for physical inspection.  Exhibit 4. 
Bidders were “invited, urged and cautioned to inspect the property prior to bidding.”  Id. 
Furthermore, bidders were advised to contact the custodian for inspection dates at the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation in Richmond, Virginia, where the vehicle was located.  Exhibit 3. 
In these clear terms, Ms. Spicer was advised to inspect the vehicle prior to bidding, but she 
did not heed this advice. 
Appellant was the high bidder at the auction and was awarded the vehicle at a cost of 
$5020 on December 9, 2008, under contract number GS03F09FBE0790.  Exhibit 5.  
Appellant was awarded the vehicle on December 9, 2008. Exhibit 5.  On December 
23, 2008, appellant first alleged a vehicle misdescription to a manager within the GSA 
Property Management Division.  Exhibit 26. In accordance with the online sale terms and 
conditions, appellant was informed that she was not authorized to return the vehicle since she 
had made repairs to the vehicle.  Exhibit 22. 
1   All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. 

                                                                                                                        
  
  
    
         
     
      
 
   
   
 
 
 
   
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
  
3 CBCA 1532  
Discussion 
Summary relief is only appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material 
fact and the moving party is entitled to relief as a matter of law.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party shoulders the burden of demonstrating 
that no genuine issue of material fact exists.  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323 
(1986). Any doubt as to whether summary relief is appropriate is to be resolved against the 
moving party.  Id. at 325. For the purpose of deciding this motion, we assume that the facts 
alleged by appellant are accurate. 
GSA auctions are governed by the rules set forth in the terms and conditions 
accompanying the solicitation. Bidders, like appellant, must agree to these rules to 
participate in the auction.  In this manner, the rules become binding on all bidders.  Darren 
R. Gentilquore v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16705, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,117.  By 
registering and submitting a bid, appellant agreed to the terms and conditions of the sale. 
Pursuant to the Sale of Government Property Online Sale Terms and Conditions, a 
misdescription occurs when there exists “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.”  Exhibit 4.  In the event of a true misdescription, the terms and 
conditions clearly set forth the remedy available to appellant: a refund limited to 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 at the successful bidder’s expense.  The property must be 
maintained “in the purchased condition until it is returned.”  Exhibit 5;  see also John Glasure 
v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16046, 03-2 BCA ¶ 32,284. 
In her untimely January 2, 2009, letter of misdescription to the GSA, appellant 
maintained that the agency failed to disclose known mechanical problems, asserting that 
“there is a hole in the trunk of the car, and a hole or something on the dash covering this, that 
it is not possible to remove without replacing the top dash piece. I also allege that the 
hubcaps are rusted/broken, and this was not disclosed.”  Exhibit 10.  However, as this Board 
found in Steven A. Groshong v. General Services Administration, CBCA 1324, 09-1 BCA 
¶ 31,104, “brevity of description is not the same as misdescription.”  While repairs may be 
required on the vehicle Ms. Spicer purchased, there was no gross omission regarding 
functionality, failure to cite major missing parts, or restrictions with regard to its use. 
By failing to notify the contracting officer in writing of the alleged misdescription 
within the fifteen-day period, by authorizing various repairs to be made on the vehicle, and 
by driving the vehicle for 4600 miles, Ms. Spicer rendered the only remedy available to her 
null and void.  See generally Iristine Evans-Roddy v. General Services Administration, 

                                                                                                                        
 
 
 
  
 
      
   
    
    
   
  
 
   
 
 
  
  
     
    
 
  
     
   
4 CBCA 1532  
GSBCA 14882, 99-2 BCA ¶ 30,416.  As such, “[r]epair 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; see also Gavin L. Rouse v. General 
Services Administration, GSBCA 15993, 03-1 BCA ¶ 32,210; Dorothy Hallquist v. General 
Services Administration, GSBCA 15368, 01-1 BCA ¶ 31,397. 
Although appellant alleges that the GSA property custodian informed her that the 
vehicle was in excellent condition and generally well maintained, no relief is available to a 
buyer even if the buyer can prove that she was misled by site personnel as to the actual 
condition of the property.  Groshong. The Board looks to the terms and conditions on this 
issue and notes that: 
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 4. Thus, even if true as alleged, the statements made by the GSA property custodian 
to the effect that the car was in perfect running condition are 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.  
Appellant’s complaint does not implicate the accuracy of the vehicle description, but 
rather, the condition of the vehicle she bought.  Claude Kobasic v. General Services 
Administration, GSBCA 16456, 05-1 BCA ¶ 32,833 (2004); see also Danny R. Mitchell v. 
General Services Administration, GSBCA 16209, 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,551, reconsideration 
denied , 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,588. Appellant alleges that the vehicle is essentially inoperable and 
unsafe to drive (although she drove it for 4600 miles).  However, although GSA warrants that 
the items purchased are the items offered for sale, the Government does not warrant the 
merchantability of the property or its purpose and 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; Coleridge D. Henri v. General Services 
Administration, GSBCA 13991, 97-2 BCA ¶ 29,187, at 145,161.  The terms and conditions 
state that “[t]he purchaser is not entitled  to any payment for loss of profit or any other money 
damages – special, direct, indirect, or consequential.”  The buyer assumes the risk of 
purchasing a used vehicle through the auction process. Ward , 05-1 BCA at 32,881. 

                                                                                                                        
                                                              
5 CBCA 1532  
Decision
 
Respondent’s motion for summary relief is granted.  The appeal is DENIED .
 
_____________________________ 
CANDIDA S. STEEL 
Board Judge 
We Concur: 
________________________________ _____________________________ 
JEROME M. DRUMMOND H. CHUCK KULLBERG 
Board Judge Board Judge