DENIED: August 3, 2017
CBCA 5626
GODWIN ANAGU,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Godwin Anagu, pro se, Culver City, CA.
Mark Ezersky, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, San
Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges GOODMAN, VERGILIO, and LESTER.
GOODMAN, Board Judge.
This appeal arises from a contract entered into between appellant, Godwin Anagu, and 
respondent General Services Administration (GSA), when appellant placed the winning bid
on a 2009 Ford Escape (vehicle) listed on the GSA Auctions website.  After taking delivery
of the vehicle, appellant filed a claim seeking to return the vehicle for a full refund in the
amount of $9600, or alternatively, a price adjustment of $2758.34 for repair costs. 
Respondent’s contracting officer issued a decision denying the claim, and appellant appealed. 
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, and thereafter the parties filed additional submissions. 
We treat the motion as a motion for summary relief and deny the appeal.


CBCA 5626 2
Findings of Fact
The advertisement on the GSA Auctions website specified the auctioneer, Norwalk
Auto Auction in Norwalk, California, and provided a contact name and phone number for
the auctioneer to coordinate pre-bid inspection of listed items and removal of items by the
winning bidders.  Exhibit 3 at 1.1  The advertisement stated that the auction was subject to
the Fleet Terms and Conditions and the General Sale Terms and Conditions, both of which
were binding on bidders.  Exhibit 3 at 1 and 7.
The relevant GSA Fleet Terms and Conditions of Sale provide: 
Condition of Property
The following replaces Clause No. 2 of the General Terms and Conditions
of the Standard Form (SF) 114C: Condition of 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.
. . . .
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 this 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 regards to usage may occur.  The Government does not
warrant the merchantability of the property or its purpose.
Exhibit 3 at 8-9. The relevant General Sale Terms and Conditions provide: 
1. INSPECTION
1  All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted.

CBCA 5626 3
The Bidder is invited, urged, and cautioned to inspect the property prior to
submitting a bid. Property will be available for inspection at the places and
times specified in the Invitation.
Exhibit 3 at 12.
In addition to the terms and conditions, several other notifications indicate that the
vehicle’s condition was not warranted.  Both the vehicle’s auction advertisement and the Sale
Contract Purchase Receipt stated “MAY OR MAY NOT NEED REPAIRS.”  Exhibit 3 at
1; Exhibit 4 at 1.  Further, the Sale Contract Purchase Receipt stated “as-is.”  Exhibit 4 at 1. 
Lastly, an inspection report may indicate whether a vehicle may or may not need repairs. 
While appellant requested an inspection report at delivery, he did not request a report prior
to placing a bid.  Exhibit 14 at 6. 
On August 31, 2016, appellant placed a winning bid in the amount of $9600 for the
vehicle listed on GSA Auctions.  Exhibit 3 at 1, 5.  Appellant did not inspect the vehicle
before placing his bid.  Exhibit 12 at 6-7.  
Appellant alleges that “while the bid window was open, I called the number and
person provided several times to find out when to inspect the car.  The phone rang on end
[and] was not picked [up].  It also did not provide an answering system.”  Exhibit 16 at 4. 
The auctioneer’s employees deny receiving a call from appellant about inspecting the vehicle. 
Exhibit 8 at 1-3.  Appellant’s call record indicates that his calls to the auctioneer–twice on
August 31 and once on September 1–were made after he submitted his winning bid and the
auction closed.  Id.; Exhibit 16 at 8-9.
Appellant paid for and removed the vehicle from the auction site on September 2,
2016.  Exhibits 8 at 1-3; 4 at 2.  While taking delivery, appellant noticed various issues with
the vehicle and requested an inspection report.  Exhibit 8 at 3-7.  An auction house employee
informed appellant that he had to request the report from GSA.  Id.
By email message dated September 5, 2016, appellant advised the contracting officer
that the vehicle had signs of flood damage as well as various mechanical and hazardous
defects.  Appellant stated the defects included a steering column that shakes when the car is
driven, a mold or mildew smell, a ventilation system that blows sand and dust particles, and
body panels and crevices filled with sand.  Exhibit 5 at 1.  He also noted that the vehicle
failed a smog test.  Id. 

CBCA 5626 4
At the request of the contracting officer, appellant obtained and submitted a repair
estimate.2  Exhibit 11 at 6.  The contracting officer reviewed the estimate and contacted the
vehicle’s former fleet manager, who stated that the vehicle had not been subjected to flood
conditions.  Exhibit 6 at 1.  On September 26, 2016, the contracting officer offered to adjust
the contract price by $764.36.  The contracting officer indicated that the adjustment
addressed the left axle leak repair, which caused the shaky steering column.  Exhibit 13 at 1. 
Appellant rejected the offer.
Appellant contacted the contracting officer again by email message dated October 3,
2016.  In addition to the defects listed on the repair estimate, appellant stated that the gas
tank was malfunctioning, that the vehicle was misdescribed, and that mileage should have
been disclosed, as the vehicle had 34,000 miles on the odometer.  Appellant alleged that if
the auction house had offered a date or time for inspection, he would have uncovered the
misdescription.  Exhibit 11 at 3. 
In an October 17 email response, the contracting officer requested a written statement
with a final summary of all claim items.  Exhibit 11 at 1.  After receiving the final summary,
the contracting officer issued a decision dated November 10, 2016 denying the claim. 
Exhibit 14 at 4-5.  The contracting officer’s denial cited both the GSA Fleet Terms and
Conditions of Sale and the General Sale Terms and Conditions.  Exhibit 14 at 4-5. 
Appellant also maintains that he never received adequate documentation necessary
to transfer title.  Appellant did not raise this issue until January 26, 2017, almost three months
after taking possession of the vehicle, and after the contracting officer issued a decision on
his claim.  Therefore, the alleged lack of adequate documentation was not presented to the
contracting officer for decision.  Respondent asserts that appellant received adequate
documentation when he took delivery of the vehicle.  Exhibit 17 at 2-3.  Additionally, on
June 30, 2017, respondent provided appellant via UPS with duplicate originals of the
documents required to transfer title.  Respondent has further agreed to make duplicate
original copies available for physical pick up at the auction house until August 24, 2017,
which appellant indicated would be acceptable.  Respondent’s Additional Information in
Response to the Board’s July 17, 2017 Order at 2;  Appellant’s Response to Respondent’s
Response and Additional Information at 4.
2  Appellant indicated in an email message dated September 15, 2016 that the  estimate
did not include costs to repair the  “cracked windscreen, door panel strip and other
[unspecified items].”  Exhibit 11 at 5.

CBCA 5626 5
Appellant appealed the contracting officer’s decision to this Board on February 5,
2017.  On May 5, 2017, GSA filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
Discussion
We have jurisdiction to decide this timely appeal under the Contract Disputes Act,
41 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7109 (2012).  When appellant registered and placed a bid on the auction,
he agreed to the terms and conditions of GSA Auctions, including the GSA Fleet Terms and
Conditions and the General Sale Terms and Conditions.  This case is evaluated under those
terms and conditions, which are binding on the parties.  Shchupak v. General Services
Administration, CBCA 4380, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,901, at 175,508.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and the parties have referred to
materials outside the pleadings in their submissions.  Accordingly, we treat the motion as a
motion for summary relief.  See Ibarra v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA 1986,
10-2 BCA ¶ 34,573, at 170,457-58  (citing Metlakatla Indian Community v. Department of
Health and Human Services, CBCA 282-ISDA, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,279); see also Systems
Management & Research Technologies Corp. v. Department of Energy, CBCA 4068,
15-1 BCA ¶ 35,976, at 175,790.  Granting 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.”  Ibarra, 10-2 BCA
at 170,458.
The only warranty provided by the General Sales Terms and Conditions is that the
vehicle will “conform to its written description.”  A successful misdescription claim may be
brought if the Government makes an affirmative and inaccurate representation about the
vehicle’s condition.  
Appellant alleges that multiple mechanical and cosmetic defects were not specified
prior to delivery.  However, in this case, the terms and conditions disclaim any warranty of
condition–no warranty for the vehicle’s condition exists in the contract.  The GSA Fleet
Terms and Conditions of Sale explicitly state that the condition of the vehicle is not
warranted.  The lack of warranty as to condition is further indicated in the vehicle’s auction
advertisement and the sale contract purchase receipt, which both stated “MAY OR MAY
NOT NEED REPAIRS,” and again in the “as-is” disclosure on the Sale Contract Purchase
Receipt.  Additionally, the GSA Fleet Terms and Conditions of Sale explicitly warn that
“gross omissions regarding the functionality of items, failures to cite major missing parts
and/or restrictions with regards to usage may occur” and further provide that the Government
disclaims any warranty of merchantability.  The government  is not obligated to reimburse

CBCA 5626 6
appellant for repairs that are not specified prior to delivery.3  Aghdam v. General Services
Administration, CBCA 4673, 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,104, at 176,268 (“That appellant had to pay for
repairs to fix problems that were not specified does not obligate respondent to reimburse
appellant for these repairs.”); see also Spicer v. General Services Administration, CBCA
1532, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,195, at 168,994 (denying repair reimbursement or a refund of purchase
price for a vehicle sold “as is”). 
In cases where the vehicle is sold “as is,” the warranty of description is satisfied when
the advertisement provides an accurate year, make, model, and VIN number.  Farnam v.
Department of the Treasury, CBCA 2870, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,159, at 172,542; see also Ibarra,
CBCA 1986, 10-2 BCA at 170,458.  Respondent has met its burden since no genuine issue
of material fact exists, as the vehicle here was accurately described by year, make, model,
and VIN number, and thus satisfies the warranty of description. 
Appellant has no remedy as the vehicle was not misdescribed.  Therefore, the
appellant is not entitled to repair costs or a refund.
Decision
The respondent’s motion to dismiss, treated as a motion for summary relief, is granted. 
The appeal is DENIED.
__________________________
ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge
We concur:
______________________________ ______________________________
JOSEPH A. VERGILIO HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge Board Judge
3   While the contracting officer offered appellant monetary compensation to address
appellant’s claim for a shaky steering column, respondent was not obligated to pay for this
condition based on the terms and conditions of the contract.