CALL BCA; _______________________________________________ DENIED: March 3, 1994 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 12634 W. ECHARD, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. W. Echard of Sacramento, CA, appearing for Appellant. Donald R. Jayne, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, San Francisco, CA, counsel for Respondent. BORWICK, Board Judge. On July 12, 1993, Mr. Echard purchased a van from the General Service's Administration's Fleet Management Center. Subsequently he found the van had an inoperable air conditioning system and brakes that pulled to the right. Mr. Echard seeks an adjustment in the purchase price for the cost of repairs. He elected to proceed under the Small Claims procedure pursuant to Rule 13, as the amount sought is less than $10,000. Consequently, the panel chairman is issuing a single judge opinion. Rule 13(b). This decision is final and conclusive and shall not be set aside except in cases of fraud. 41 U.S.C. 608 (d)(1988). Findings of Fact On May 28, 1993, the Fresno, California Fleet Management Center of the General Services Administration issued a notice of vehicle sale for June 10, 1993, with inspection from June 3-9. Appeal File, Exhibit 1. One of the listed vehicles was a Ford Aerostar van which was described as follows: 022 VAN, 7 PASS. 1989 FORD AEROSTAR, 6 CYL,AT,PS,PB,AC S/N IFMCA11U3KZB61213 TAG:G41-76688 ODO:63,051 (4791863126#3803) Appeal File, Exhibit 1. The notice of sale warned bidders that: deficiencies, when known, have been noted in the item description; however, absence of any indicated deficiency does not mean the item may not have deficiencies. Id. The description warranty provided in pertinent part: ******CONDITION OF PROPERTY IS NOT WARRANTED****** . . . . 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 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. Id. On July 12, 1993, Mr. Echard purchased the van, having started the engine before the purchase. Appeal File, Exhibits 3, 5. On July 14, 1993, Mr. Echard wrote the Sales Contracting Officer that the air conditioning was inoperative, and that the steering pulled to the right when the brakes were applied. He asked the Sales Contracting Officer to "advise about needed repairs or adjustment." Appeal File, Exhibit 4. On August 30, he advised the Sales Contracting Officer that he had repaired the brakes for $150, and that he had recharged the air conditioning, but that the compressor would not hold a charge. Id. He requested the Sales Contracting Officer to "make a fair adjustment to my [charge card] and I will keep [the van]." Id. On September 27, 1993, the Sales Contracting Officer replied to Mr. Echard's letter of August 30, treating that letter as a claim. He denied the claim, noting that: there is no expressed or implied warranty concerning condition, in fact [the Description Warranty] stated that the Government does not warrant the condition of property being sold. The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed in the IFB will conform to its description; however, absence of any indicated deficiency does not mean this item may not have any deficiencies, when known, which [a]ffect the operability of the vehicle. Appeal File, Exhibit 5. That letter, while denying the claim, did not advise appellant of his appeal rights. Id. On October 4, Mr. Echard filed an appeal to this Board, electing the small claims procedure. On November 22, 1993, the Sales Contracting Officer issued what he termed his "final decision," which reiterated the substance of his letter of September 27, but this time advised Mr. Echard of his appeal rights. On November 12, Mr. Echard moved to close the record and for summary relief. On November 24, the Government advised the Board that "a final decision was issued by Respondent on November 22, 1993." Decision Respondent's communication of November 24 was meant to suggest a lack of Board jurisdiction as the appeal was from the defective contracting officer's decision of September 27. Respondent suggests we would have jurisdiction only from an appeal from the decision of November 22. This theory is incorrect. A defective contracting officer's decision which conveys the requisite finality and responds to appellant's contentions is a decision from which an appeal may be taken. Here, the decision of September 27 referenced Mr. Echard's claim and denied it. The defect--lack of notice of appeal rights-- merely precludes the running of the statutory period for initiating the case. Trans-Atlantic Industries Inc., GSBCA 10803, 91-1 BCA 23,412, at 117,457. We have jurisdiction of this appeal from the contracting officer's decision of September 27. We turn to the merits. Mr. Echard has not shown any right to recover. To recover, Mr. Echard must show that the mechanical problems experienced were known to the Government prior to the sale, and that information was not disclosed to prospective buyers. Dorothy & Al Audycki, GSBCA 9039, 88-3 BCA 21,112. Further, the only remedy for problems of this nature is for the buyer to notify the Government of the misdescription and return the vehicle for a refund of the purchase price within fifteen days. The buyer does not have the option to repair the van and seek the cost of repair. Id. Here, Mr. Echard has not shown that the Government knew of the alleged mechanical defects--the inoperable air conditioning and pulling brakes--when it offered the vehicle for sale. Indeed, Mr. Echard started the van during his inspection and could have discovered the inoperable air conditioner at that time. Further, the Government only warranted that the van would conform to the description and the description did not guarantee the condition of the air conditioning or brakes. Indeed, the condition of the vehicle was specifically not warranted. Decision The appeal is therefore DENIED. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge