DENIED: February 17, 2009 
CBCA 1315 
BOBBY ABERNETHY, 
Appellant, 
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
Respondent. 
Bobby Abernethy, pro se, Verona, VA. 
Kathleen K. Barksdale, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, 
Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent.
 
Before Board Judges BORWICK, VERGILIO , and KULLBERG.

KULLBERG, Board Judge.
 
Appellant, Mr. Bobby Abernethy, brings this appeal of his claim in the amount of 
$118.72 for the costs of repairs to a truck that he purchased at an auction under the terms of 
a General Services Administration (GSA) contract.  GSA, the respondent, moves for 
summary relief in this appeal on the grounds that the cost of such repairs is not recoverable 
under the terms of the warranty provisions in Mr. Abernethy’s contract.  We grant GSA’s 
motion and deny the appeal. 

   
        
 
   
   
  
  
 
   
 
  
   
    
 
 
   
2 CBCA 1315 
Facts 
On June 24, 2008, Mr. Abernethy purchased at Manheim’s Baltimore Washington 
Auto Auction in Elkridge, Maryland, under GSA contract GS03F08FBE6061 (contract), a 
2003 Chevrolet 2500K Suburban truck (truck) for $6800. Appeal File, Exhibits 1, 2, 5-7, 10, 
11.
1   The mileage shown on the truck’s odometer was 68,685 miles.  Exhibit 10.  
On the day of the purchase, Mr. Abernethy signed a bidder registration sheet which 
provided in relevant part the following: 
I, the undersigned, agree that any bids submitted by me will be 
subject to the General Sale Terms and Conditions (Standard 
Form 114C) and any Special Terms and Conditions applicable 
to this sale, copies of which I have received or have been made 
available to me.  It is my understanding that, if am a successful 
bidder, full payment is required by 5:00 pm on June 24, 2008 
and property is to be removed, after payment, by 5:00 pm, 
June 24, 2008. 
Exhibit 3. The terms and conditions for the vehicles to be sold, which included the truck Mr. 
Abernethy purchased, stated the following: 
The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the 
property listed in the invitation for bids will conform to its 
description. If a misdescription is determined before removal of 
the property, the Government will keep the property and refund 
any money paid.  If a misdescription is determined after 
removal, the Government will refund any money paid if the 
purchaser takes the property at his or her expense to a location 
specified by the Contracting Officer.   No refund will be made 
unless the purchaser submits a written notice to the Contracting 
Officer within 15 calendar days of the date of removal that the 
property is misdescribed and maintains the property in the same 
condition as when removed. After property has been removed, 
no refund will be made for shortages of property sold by the 
“LOT.”  This warranty is in place of all other guarantees and 
warranties, express or implied.   The Government does not 
All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. 
1 

    
   
    
 
  
 
      
  
 
 
3 CBCA 1315 
warrant the merchantability of the property or its fitness for any 
use or purpose.  The amount of recovery under this provision is 
limited to the purchase price of the misdescribed property.  The 
purchaser is not entitled to any payment for loss of profit or any 
other money damages, special, direct, indirect, or consequential. 
Exhibit 2.  The terms and conditions of the sale also stated: “Any oral statement or 
representation by any representative of the U.S. Government or its agent, changing or 
supplementing the offering or contract or any condition thereof, is unauthorized and shall 
constitute no right for the bidder or purchaser.”  Id. 
Upon starting the truck after purchasing it, Mr. Abernethy noticed a warning light on 
the dashboard, which indicated that the brake booster needed to be serviced.  Exhibits 8, 9. 
In order to correct the problem with the brake booster warning light, Mr. Abernethy had the 
truck’s instrument cluster reprogrammed on July 10, 2008, at a cost of $118.72,
2 and on 
July 11, 2008, he submitted a claim to the contracting officer for the cost of that repair. 
Exhibit 9.  The contracting officer’s decision dated July 23, 2008, denied the claim.  Exhibit 
1.  Mr. Abernethy timely appealed the denial of his claim.  
Discussion 
The Government has moved for summary relief in this appeal.  This Board recognizes 
the following when deciding such a motion: 
Summary relief is this “Board’s analogous procedure to 
summary judgment in court . . . .”  GE Capital Information 
Technology Solutions-Federal Systems v. General Services 
Administration, GSBCA 15467, 01-2 BCA ¶ 31,445, at 155,306. 
It is well recognized that granting summary judgment is only 
appropriate where there is no genuine issue of material fact. 
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). . . . 
The moving party has the initial responsibility of stating the 
basis for its motion and “identifying those portions of ‘the 
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and 
admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any,’ which it 
believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material 
2 Other repairs to the truck included replacing the brakes and rotors and repairing 
the power seat, but Mr. Abernethy submitted no claim for those repairs.  Exhibit 12. 

   
       
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
    
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
  
  
4 CBCA 1315 
fact.”  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).  The 
nonmoving party is then required to “go beyond the pleadings 
and . . . designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine 
issue for trial.’”  Id. at 324. 
Navigant SatoTravel v. General Services Administration, CBCA 449, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,821, 
at 167,403. 
The issue in this appeal is whether the terms of the contract under which Mr. 
Abernethy purchased the truck allows reimbursement for the $118.72 that he spent on 
reprogramming the truck’s instrument cluster.  Under the terms of the warranty that applied 
to the sale of the truck, Mr. Abernethy did not have “the option of undertaking repairs . . . 
and then obtaining payment from GSA for the cost of the repairs.”  Gaven L. Rouse v. 
General Services Administration, GSBCA 15993, 03-1 BCA ¶ 32,210, at 159,301.  The 
terms of the warranty for the truck were limited to circumstances in which a refund of the 
purchase price could be requested upon notifying the contracting officer and returning the 
vehicle in the same condition within fifteen days of the date of purchase.  Mr. Abernethy has 
represented that he was offered the opportunity by the contracting officer to return the truck 
before it was repaired, but he declined to do so.  Appellant’s Response to Motion for 
Summary Relief at 1. The contracting officer, therefore, properly denied Mr. Abernethy’s 
claim in that no additional damages such as the cost of repairs were allowed under the terms 
of the warranty.  Patrick C. Sullivan v. General Services Administration, CBCA 936, 08-1 
BCA ¶ 33,820, at 167,400. 
Mr. Abernethy contends that the brake booster warning light on the truck’s dashboard 
was a safety defect that should have been repaired before the sale.  Exhibit 12.  This Board 
has recognized that the purchaser of a used vehicle at a GSA auction assumes the risk that 
repairs may be necessary and has no right to expect reimbursement for unexpected repairs. 
See Joseph M. Hutchinson v. General Services Administration, CBCA 752, 08-1 
BCA ¶ 33,804, at 167,340.  The contract provided no warranty as to merchantability or 
fitness for purpose of the truck. As discussed above, Mr. Abernethy’s remedies under the 
warranty provisions of the contract did not include recovery of the cost of repairs.  While Mr. 
Abernethy may have expected that the brake booster warning light should have been 
remedied before the auction, the contract made no warranty as to the condition of the vehicle, 
and no recovery is allowed for that reason. 
Finally, Mr. Abernethy has alleged that after he advised the contracting officer of the 
problem with the brake booster warning light, he asked her “if she would pay to fix the 
vehicle since it was a safety problem . . . . [and] [s]he said she would if it wasn’t too much.” 
Appellant’s Response to Motion for Summary Relief at 1. The contracting officer was 

  
     
  
 
  
  
       
    
      
______________________ 
_______________________ _______________________ 
 
5 CBCA 1315 
subject to the terms and conditions of Mr. Abernethy’s contract, which specifically stated that 
verbal modifications to the contract, which included its warranty provisions, were 
unauthorized.  See Coleridge D. Henri v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 13991, 
97-2 BCA ¶ 29,187, at 145,162.  The terms and conditions of the contract’s warranty 
provision limited Mr. Abernethy’s remedies to those previously discussed, and the 
contracting officer’s alleged assurance that the Government would pay for repairs, depending 
upon the cost, would not only have been unauthorized under the terms of the contract, but 
also, “could well represent an illegal expenditure of Government funds.”  Magdi A. Risk v. 
General Services Administration, GSBCA 13572, 96-2 BCA ¶ 28,401, at 141,820.  Even if 
the contracting officer’s statements were true as alleged by Mr. Abernethy, those statements 
could not have obligated the Government to pay for any of Mr. Abernethy’s claimed repairs, 
and there is, consequently, no material issue of fact that GSA assumed any obligation to pay 
for repairs to his truck. 
We find, therefore, that there is no material issue of fact as to the matters at issue in 
this case.  The cost of the repairs subsequent to the purchase of the truck are not covered by 
the warranty provisions of the contract.  In the absence of any material issue of fact as to Mr. 
Abernethy’s entitlement to recover his repair costs in this appeal, we grant GSA’s motion for 
summary relief.  
Decision 
The Government’s motion for summary relief is granted.  The appeal is DENIED . 
H. CHUCK KULLBERG 
Board Judge 
We concur: 
ANTHONY S. BORWICK JOSEPH A. VERGILIO 
Board Judge Board Judge