Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405




                       ___________________

                       DENIED:  May 3, 2006
                       ___________________


                           GSBCA 16600


                    WOOD'S AUTO & TRUCK, INC.,

                                        Appellant,

                                v.

                 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

                                        Respondent.

     Ashby G. Wood, President of Wood's Auto & Truck, Inc., Clinton, MD, appearing
for Appellant.

     Gabriel N. Steinberg, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration,
Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges PARKER, NEILL, and GOODMAN.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

     Appellant, Wood's Auto and Truck, Inc. has appealed the respondent General
Services Administration's (GSA) contracting officer's final decision regarding its purchase
of a vehicle through GSA's internet auction site.

                                                       Factual Background
                                
1.  The auction conducted on GSA's internet site was subject to Standard Form 114C,
General Sale Terms and Conditions, which contained the following provision:

     Oral Statements and Modifications
     Any oral statement or representation by any representative of the Government,
     changing or supplementing the Invitation or contract or any Condition thereof,
     is unauthorized and shall confer no right upon the Bidder or Purchaser.

Appeal File, Exhibit 1 at 2-3.

2.  The auction was also subject to the Sale of Government Property Online Sale Terms and
Conditions, Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 1-2, which contained the following provisions:
     Condition of Property
     . . . Deficiencies, when known, have been indicated in the property
     descriptions.  However, absence of any indicated deficiencies does not mean
     that none exists.

     Description Warranty
     The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed in
     the GSAAuctions.gov website 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/her expense to a location specified by the
     contracting officer following the Refund Claim Procedure described
     below. . . .  This warranty is in place of all other guaranties and  warranties,
     expressed or implied.  

     The Government does not warrant the merchantability of the property or its
     purpose.  The purchaser is not entitled to any payment for loss of profit or any
     other money damages - special, direct, indirect, or consequential. . . .

     Photographs 
     Photographs may not depict an exact representation of the bid item(s) and
     should not be relied upon in place of written item descriptions or as a
     substitute for physical inspection.
     Inspection 
     Bidders are invited, urged and cautioned to inspect the property prior to
     bidding.

3.  On March 4, 2004, GSA offered vehicles for sale on the internet auction site, including
the vehicle which was purchased by appellant.  The vehicle was described as follows:
     1992 DODGE RAM 350 VAN, VIN 2B5WB35Z4NK148812 8 CYL,
     AT,PS,AC,RA, 15 PASSENGER, MILEAGE 44673, NEEDS BATTERY,
     SIDE MIRRORS & TIRES.  OTHER REPAIRS MAY BE REQUIRED
     FROM WHAT IS LISTED IN THE DESCRIPTION. REPORT
     # 1510064034-0001.

Appellant's Record Submission, Contracting Officer Memorandum of  Position at 2.

4.  A picture of the vehicle was posted on the auction site.  Appellant's Record Submission,
Attachment A. 

5.  Appellant states that before submitting a bid, a representative called the GSA custodian 
to assess the vehicle's condition.  According to appellant, a person identifying himself as
Mr. Ruest "confirmed the van's mileage and that it needed mirrors, tires and a battery, and
stated that van had just come out of service and ran fine."  Appellant's Record Submission
at 1.  Respondent, citing its responses to appellant's discovery requests, asserts that
Mr. Ruest denies stating that the van had come out of service and ran fine.  Respondent's
Record Submission at 2. 

6.  Appellant was the successful bidder for the vehicle, and on March 11, 2004, it was
awarded the contract of purchase in the amount of $1725.  Appeal File, Exhibit 4.

7.  On March 15, 2004, appellant's payment was received.  Appeal File, Exhibit 5.

8.  On March 22, 2004, the vehicle was removed by appellant.  Appeal File, Exhibit 6.

9.  On March 30, 2004, the contracting officer received from appellant an undated letter via
fax, that stated:  

10.  By letter dated March 31, 2004, the contracting officer denied appellant's claim, stating
that the vehicle had been described as needing a battery and that "[o]ther repairs may be
required from what is listed in the description."  Appeal File, Exhibit 8.

11.  On September 17, 2004, the contracting officer received another letter by fax from
appellant which stated that the government custodian had informed appellant before purchase
that the vehicle had just come out of service and the vehicle "ran fine."  Appeal File, Exhibit
9.  Additionally the letter stated:

     We hired a local auction company to remove the van from [the GSA] facility
     and resell it.  This was when we were first made aware the van did not run and
     was missing (among other items) the electronic control unit.

     Since the van was inoperable, we hired another party to transport it to its
     facility in Clinton, MD. . . .

     Over the years we have been in business, we have purchased literally hundreds
     of vehicles from governmental sources, but nothing could have prepared us for
     what we saw when the van finally arrived at our dealership.  It was nowhere
     near the condition represented in the photographs or verbally.

     The paint is off all three doors and much of the right side body, the left fender,
     and the rusting roof.  In short, the vehicle needs to be stripped and repainted.

     The left front inner-fender is severely rusted, one of the holes larger than one's
     fist.

     The heater hoses have been routed and spliced in order to bypass the heater
     core.  This would indicate that some one was aware of leaks and /or other
     problems with the heating/cooling system.

     It is missing the ECU computer and possibly other necessary parts.
 
     The letter concluded by claiming misdescription of the condition of the vehicle,
asserting that the vehicle was grossly misrepresented in its photographic images and written
and verbal descriptions.  Appellant requested a full refund of the purchase price and
reimbursement for all additional money invested.  Appeal File, Exhibit 9.

12.  Appellant also asserts that the interior of the vehicle has been altered, with cage dividers
and steel bars riveted across the windows.  Appellant's Record Submission at 2.

13.  The contracting officer issued a final decision dated November 22, 2004, concluding that
no misdescription had occurred and denying the claim.  Appeal File, Exhibit 13.

14.  Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal dated February 12, 2005, requesting a full refund of
the purchase price and reimbursement of $2800 that it subsequently spent for repairs.

15.  The parties elected to proceed on the written record and filed record submissions.

                            Discussion

     GSAAuctions, like other on-line auctions, are governed by rules prescribed by the
organization which conducts them.  The rules of this auction are contained in the terms and
conditions promulgated by GSA.  When GSA accepted appellant's  bid, these rules became
the terms and conditions of the contract between the agency and the buyer.  Larry J.
McKinney v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16720, 05-2 BCA   33,119;  Darren
R. Gentilquore v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 16705, 05-2 BCA   33,117.

     Appellant maintains that he is entitled to rely on the auction catalog photograph of the
vehicle he purchased and the GSA custodian's alleged statement that the vehicle had just
come out of service and "ran fine."  The GSA custodian asserts that he did not make this
statement.  

     The terms and conditions of the auction made plain that a prospective bidder could
not rely on either photographs or oral statements of government representatives as to the
condition of an item offered for sale.  Actual physical inspection of such items was
recommended and invited by the agency.  Appellant did not make such an inspection, which
would have revealed the matters about which he complained.  See Danny R. Mitchell v.
General Services Administration, GSBCA 16209, 04-1 BCA   32,551, at 160,995.  As
appellant was informed of these matters of by a third party hired to remove the vehicle, they 
were clearly visible and would have been discovered by appellant, an auto and truck dealer,
had it inspected the vehicle before the auction.

     Appellant also asserts that the vehicle was misdescribed.  The terms and conditions
warrant "that the property listed in the GSAAuctions.gov website will conform to its
description."  The description on the website may have been incomplete, but it was not a
misdescription.  The website said only that the vehicle was a Dodge Van with a certain
vehicle identification number, eight cylinder engine, 44673 miles, needing a battery, side
mirrors and tires, and other repairs may be required.

     Appellant does not allege that any element within this description is inaccurate.  Thus,
the website description - the only thing that GSA warranted - was not a misdescription. 
McKinney;  See Kenneth G. Hanke v. General Services Administration, GSBCA 14097, 97-2
BCA   29,247, at 145,490-91. 
                            Decision
                                
     The appeal is DENIED.



                                   __________________________________
                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                   Board Judge

We concur:



___________________________________     __________________________________
ROBERT W. PARKER                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
Board Judge                             Board Judge