DENIED:  March 7, 2007 
CBCA 426 
GHULAM H. SYED, 
Appellant, 
v.
 
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
Respondent. 
Ghulam H. Syed, pro se, Elmhurst, NY. 
Sandra Balmer, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent.
 
Before Board Judges PARKER , BORWICK, and DEGRAFF .
 
PARKER , Board Judge.
 
The General Services Administration (GSA) has filed a motion for summary relief in 
connection with Ghulam H. Syed’s appeal of a GSA contracting officer’s decision assessing 
liquidated damages.  The liquidated damages were assessed as a result of Mr. Syed’s failure 
to pay for some used computer equipment for which he was the high bidder at a GSA online 
auction.  For the reasons discussed below, we grant GSA’s motion and deny the appeal. 

        
 
    
      
  
  
  
 
    
   
 
 
  
 
 
  
    
  
  
2 CBCA 426 
Findings of Fact 
The facts are undisputed. Mr. Syed’s bid of $35 was the highest for some used 
computer equipment sold at auction in August 2005 by GSA on the agency’s website, 
www.gsaauctions.gov.  In order to participate in the electronic auction, Mr. Syed had 
registered by providing various personal and credit information, and by accepting the terms 
and conditions of the sale. 
Among the terms and conditions he accepted were the following: 
Notification of Sale Results. Successful bidders will be notified by email and 
must contact the regional sales office within 2 business days from the date the 
email notification was sent.  Bid results will not be furnished via telephone or 
fax.  It is the bidder’s responsibility to follow-up on the status of his/her bid 
and to ensure that his/her email address and all registration data are kept 
accurate and up to date. . . . 
Payment and Removal.   Property must be paid for within 2 business days and 
property removed within 10 business days from the time & date of the email 
notification of sale results, unless otherwise specified in contract. 
. . . . 
Default . Bidders are cautioned to bid only on items they are prepared to pay 
for and remove in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this sale. 
Failure to pay for and remove all items awarded within the specified time 
could result in termination of the contract.  The bidder will also be subject to 
paying liquidated damages. . . . 
If, after the award, the Purchaser breaches the contract by failure to 
make payment within the time allowed by the contract . . . the Purchaser 
shall lose all right, title, and interest which he/she might otherwise have 
acquired in and to such property as to which a default has occurred.  The 
Purchaser agrees that in the event he/she fails to pay for the property or 
remove the same in the prescribed period(s) of time, the Government shall 
be entitled to retain (or collect) as liquidated damages a sum equal to the 
greater of (a) 20 percent of the purchase price of the item(s) as to which 
the default occurred, or (b) $200 whichever is greater[.] 
Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 3-4. 

  
 
    
 
   
 
    
   
     
  
  
   
  
    
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
3 CBCA 426 
On August 23, 2005, GSA notified Mr. Syed by email that he had been awarded the 
contract for the computer equipment and that payment was due by August 26, 2005.  The 
email message also informed Mr. Syed that the property was to be removed by September 8, 
2005.  Appeal File, Exhibit 5. 
Having received no payment by August 26, GSA’s contracting officer attempted to 
reach Mr. Syed by telephone, but was unable to do so because Mr. Syed had not included his 
telephone number in the information submitted to GSA. The contracting officer, on her own, 
extended the deadline for payment until August 30.  Appeal File, Exhibits 4, 12. 
When no payment was received by August 30, the contracting officer issued a 
Termination of Contract Notice, placed Mr. Syed’s account in default, and assessed 
liquidated damages in the amount of $200, using the formula set forth in the terms and 
conditions.  Appeal File, Exhibit 6. 
On September 1, Mr. Syed called the GSA sales office and provided his credit card 
information and telephone number. When the contracting officer received the information, 
she called Mr. Syed to explain that he was already in default and that she would not accept 
his attempted payment.  Appeal File, Exhibit 12. 
Mr. Syed appealed the contracting officer’s decision assessing liquidated damages and 
claimed $50,000 in damages of his own.  According to Mr. Syed, GSA punished  him for his 
actions on this procurement by also barring his wife, Tanvir Syed, from participating in GSA 
online auctions. 
In February 2003, Mrs. Syed had been placed in default, assessed liquidated damages, 
and placed on a defaulted bidder’s list in connection with the failed purchase of a vehicle at 
a GSA online auction.  On May 12, 2003, after considering an explanation from Mrs. Syed, 
GSA’s contracting officer rescinded the default and the request for liquidated damages.  As 
a result of Mr. Syed’s allegations in this appeal concerning his wife’s inability to bid in GSA 
online auctions, GSA investigated Mrs. Syed’s situation and found that in 2003 GSA had 
inadvertently failed to remove Mrs. Syed’s name from the list of defaulted bidders.  GSA 
promptly removed her name from the list on March 13, 2006.  GSA Statement of 
Uncontested Facts at 4. 
Discussion 
Summary relief is appropriate when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law, based on undisputed material facts.  The moving party bears the burden of 
demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact.  All justifiable inferences must 

  
       
 
 
 
    
 
 
            
  
 
      
  
      
   
4 CBCA 426 
be drawn in favor of the nonmovant. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); 
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986). 
Based on undisputed facts, GSA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  When 
GSA accepted Mr. Syed’s bid, the terms and conditions of the online auction became part 
of a contract between the agency and the buyer.  Darren R. Gentilquore v. General Services 
Administration, GSBCA 16705, 05-2 BCA ¶ 33,117.  It is undisputed that Mr. Syed: 
(1) agreed to the terms and conditions of the electronic auction, (2) submitted the winning 
bid, and (3) failed to pay for the items after being notified by email that his bid had been 
accepted.  The contracting officer even tried to call Mr. Syed, but she could not reach him 
because he had failed to provide his telephone number.  The terms and conditions of the sale 
stated that successful bidders would be notified by email, not by telephone or fax, and that 
failure to pay for and remove the items within the prescribed time periods would result in 
an assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of $200 or twenty percent of the 
purchase price, whichever is greater. 
Mr. Syed’s failure to pay for the computer equipment was a breach of the contract, 
and the contracting officer’s assessment of liquidated damages was proper.  Although 
appellant’s computer problems might possibly have prevented him from receiving the 
contracting officer’s electronic mail message, under the contract’s terms and conditions, it 
was the bidder’s responsibility to “follow-up on the status of his/her bid.”  Joon Soo Kyong 
v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16692, 06-01 BCA ¶ 33,209.  The Government 
followed the contract to the letter -- Mr. Syed did not. 
With regard to Mr. Syed’s allegation that GSA punished him by preventing his wife 
from participating in GSA online auctions, the facts do not support Mr. Syed’s allegation. 
Mrs. Syed was placed on the default list in May 2003 -- more than two years before the 
auction that Mr. Syed participated in was even held.  In any event, to the extent Mr. Syed is 
alleging some sort of tortious conduct by GSA, the Board lacks jurisdiction to consider the 
matter.  Danny R. Mitchell v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16122, 04-1 BCA 
¶ 32,511. 

   
5 CBCA 426 
Decision 
Based on undisputed material facts, GSA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 
Accordingly, GSA’s motion for summary relief is granted, and the appeal is DENIED. 
_________________________ 
ROBERT PARKER 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
___________________________ _________________________ 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK MARTHA H. DEGRAFF 
Board Judge Board Judge