DENIED: August 20, 2020
CBCA 6724
3 DAUGHTERS PAINTING COMPANY, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Erik LaSalle of 3 Daughters Painting Company, LLC, Flower Mound, TX, appearing
for Appellant.
Kathleen K. Barksdale, Office of Regional Counsel , General Services Administration,
Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges VERGILIO, DRUMMOND, and LESTER.
DRUMMOND, Board Judge.
This appeal arises out of the purchase of a truck by appellant at an online auction
conducted by respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA).  Appellant seeks relief
from GSA’s default determination and effort to collect $12,650 that appellant bid pursuant
to GSA’s auction of a Ford F250SD truck.  We deny the appeal as GSA has demonstrated
that appellant was in default and has failed to prove grounds for relief. 


CBCA 6724 2
Findings of Fact
In March 2019, GSA gave notice of an auction for a used vehicle via its online
platform GSA Auctions.  Exhibit 1 at 1.  GSA posted a descriptive paragraph with its listing
that itemized many of the truck’s features and defects.  Id.  GSA’s listing included a warranty
and disclaimer, which read in relevant part: 
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.  There are times when access to the property may be limited due to
property being located in a restricted area. GSA will do all that it can to ensure
that photos and detailed descriptions are provided in these instances. 
. . . .
Description Warranty & Refunds
The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed on
GSA Auctions.gov will conform to its written description.  Features,
characteristics,  deficiencies, etc. not addressed in the description are excluded
from the warranty.  GSA further cautions bidders that GSA’s written
description represents GSA’s best effort to describe the item 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 regard to usage may occur. 
Claims of Mis-description
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 mis-description.  No verbal contact
with the custodian or the Sales Contracting Officer or any other federal official
will constitute a notice of mis-description. 
Appeal at 4. 

CBCA 6724 3
By registering with GSA Auctions, appellant became bound by GSA’s terms and
conditions, including a requirement that he tender payment in the event that he successfully
bid on an item.  Answer at 2.  Appellant claims that he called the listing office and made
several attempts to schedule an inspection during the bidding process but did not receive a
return call from the listing officer until the final day of the auction.  Complaint at 1. 
Appellant asserts that the listing officer assured him that GSA’s description of the vehicle
was accurate to the best of his knowledge.  Id.  Appellant chose to submit a $12,650 bid for
the vehicle without personally conducting an inspection.  Appeal at 1-2. 
On March 13, 2019, GSA selected appellant’s bid and awarded appellant contract
GS02F19FBE0970 for the purchase of the vehicle.  Notice of Appeal at 3.  Appellant
subsequently alleged that the truck’s dimensions were unsuitable for its purposes and claimed
that GSA’s description of the item was incorrect.  Complaint at 1.  Though appellant claims
that it spoke with GSA’s contracting officer about the situation, appellant did not mail a
written claim of the alleged mis-description to GSA until December 20, 2019.  Appellant’s
Response at 1; Appeal at 3.  GSA’s contracting officer issued a decision denying appellant’s
claim on January 2, 2020.  Appeal at 4.  Appellant timely filed an appeal with the Board.
Discussion
Appellant breached his contract with GSA by failing to pay for the vehicle it was
awarded according to the terms and conditions established by the auction.  See Ghulam H.
Syed v. General Services Administration, CBCA 426, 07-1 BCA ¶ 33,516 (finding breach
and applying liquidated damages where highest bidder for computer components failed to
provide payment).  This breach provides sufficient grounds for the default termination.
We acknowledge that appellant was given a very limited opportunity to inspect the
vehicle prior to submitting his final bid.  GSA warned in its warranty that “access to the
property may be limited due to property being located in a restricted area,” and that “GSA’s
written description represents GSA’s best effort to describe the item based on the information
provided to it by the owning agency.”   Appeal at 4.  When appellant chose to place a bid
without inspecting the vehicle he waived his right to assert that the vehicle was mis-
described.  See T.K. Hughes Auto Sales, Inc., v. General Services Administration, CBCA
5397, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,747 (“The Board will deny relief for a mis-description where ‘a bidder
conducts an inspection and fails to notice a problem, and when a bidder decides not to
conduct an inspection and so does not see a problem.” (quoting Hanke v. General Services
Administration, GSBCA 14097, 97-2 BCA ¶ 29,247)).

CBCA 6724 4
Decision
The appeal is DENIED.
 
  Jerome M. Drummond    
JEROME M. DRUMMOND
Board Judge
We concur:
_     Joseph A. Vergilio            Harold D. Lester, Jr.      
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge Board Judge