DENIED: September 15, 2015
CBCA 4673
AMIR AGHDAM,
Appellant,
v.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent.
Amir Aghdam, pro se, Irvine, CA.
Keaton Norquist, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration,
San Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges GOODMAN, WALTERS, and LESTER.
GOODMAN, Board Judge.
Appellant filed this appeal from the contracting officer’s decision denying his claim
for costs incurred in repairing a vehicle purchased at an agency auction.  Respondent has
moved for summary relief.  As we find no material facts in dispute, and that appellant is not
entitled to relief as a matter of law, we grant respondent’s motion and deny the appeal.
Background
On January 15, 2015, appellant purchased a Ford Focus sedan (the vehicle) at auction
from respondent.  The vehicle was sold pursuant to terms and conditions of Standard Form
114C.  Clause 2 of that form states: 


CBCA 4673 2
Unless otherwise provided in the invitation, all property listed therein is
offered for sale “as is” and “where is.”  Unless otherwise indicated in the
invitation, the Government makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the
quantity, kind, character, quality, weight, size or description of any of the
property, or its fitness for any use or purpose.
In addition, the terms of sale stated:
LIMITED DESCRIPTION WARRANTY
Clause No. 2 of Standard Form 114C is deleted and replaced by this Limited
Description Warranty.  The Government warrants to the original purchaser that
the property listed in the Invitation for Bids will conform to its description.
Condition is not guaranteed.
Bidders were allowed to inspect the vehicles the day before the auction and the day
of the auction before the auction occurred.
The description of the vehicle included, among other information, the make, model,
year, color, VIN number, mileage, and that the tires had a tread depth of 5/32 inches or less. 
The description did not mention the condition of the transmission.
Appellant asserts that after he purchased the vehicle, he discovered that the
transmission required repair.  He sought $4350 from respondent to repair the transmission,
based upon estimates he received for the repair work.
Respondent’s contracting officer denied the claim, stating that the vehicle was not
misdescribed, and therefore there was no breach of the limited warranty description.
Discussion
Summary relief is appropriate only 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.  Any doubt on whether summary relief is appropriate is to be
resolved against the moving party.  The moving party shoulders the burden of proving that
no genuine issue of material fact exists.  Sullivan v. General Services Administration,
CBCA 936, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,820.

CBCA 4673 3
In this case, respondent has met its burden.  The vehicle was sold “as is.”  The only
warranty contained in the general sales terms and conditions was that the vehicle would be
properly described.  The fact that the vehicle was accurately described by year, make, model,
and VIN number satisfies the warranty of description.  Farnam v. Department of the
Treasury, CBCA 2870, 12-2 BCA ¶ 35,159; Ibarra v. Department of Homeland Security,
CBCA 1986, 10-2 BCA ¶ 34,573.  That appellant had to pay for repairs to fix problems that
were not specified does not obligate respondent to reimburse appellant for these repairs.
Farnam; Spicer v. General Services Administration, CBCA 1532, 09-2 BCA ¶ 34,195
(purchase price could not be refunded or purchaser reimbursed for repairs to vehicle sold “as
is”).
Decision
Respondent’s motion for summary relief is granted.  The appeal is DENIED.
______________________
ALLAN H. GOODMAN
Board Judge
We concur:
_______________________ _______________________
RICHARD C. WALTERS HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge Board Judge