_________________________________ DENIED: August 28, 1996 __________________________________ GSBCA 13601 RAYMOND BROWN AND VICKI BROWN, Appellants, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Raymond Brown and Vicki Brown, pro se, Aurora, CO. Leigh Ann Holt, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Denver, CO, counsel for Respondent. PARKER, Board Judge. Appellants purchased a 1992 Ford Bronco at a General Services Administration (GSA) vehicle auction. Four months later, the vehicle needed a transmission repair and appellants claimed the cost of the repair. The GSA contracting officer denied the claim and this appeal ensued. Appellants have elected to utilize the Board's small claims procedure. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the appeal. Findings of Fact Appellants attended a GSA vehicle auction held in Casper, Wyoming on June 29, 1995. At the auction, potential bidders were provided a document entitled "Special Terms and Conditions of Sale." That document stated as follows: IMPORTANT - Please read before bidding CONDITION OF PROPERTY IS NOT WARRANTED . . . . Description Warranty: 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/her own 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. . . . This warranty is in place of all other guarantees and warranties, expressed or implied. The Government does not 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. . . . Deficiencies, when known, have been indicated in the item description. However, the absence of any indicated deficiencies does not mean the item is without deficiencies. Bidders are cautioned to inspect before bidding. Appeal File, Exhibit 12. Appellants purchased a 1992 Ford Bronco for $13,300. Approximately four months and 4,000 miles later, the transmission failed. According to the company which repaired the transmission, the problem was most likely caused by an "after market" drain plug which had been installed in the front face of the torque converter during a previous repair. Notice of Appeal, Exhibit 2. According to agency repair records, however, the vehicle had never had a transmission repair. Appeal File, Exhibit 6. Discussion Appellants believe that GSA should pay (or at least split with appellants) the repair bill because GSA improperly repaired the vehicle while it was in GSA's possession. Unfortunately for appellants, this is not a valid basis for recovery. The terms of the auction were very clear: the Government warranted only that the vehicle purchased would conform to its description, in this case a 1992 Ford Bronco. The Government made no warranty whatsoever as to the condition of the vehicle. There can be no recovery for misdescription here because appellants received the vehicle exactly as described in the bid documents. As to deficiencies, the terms and conditions of sale provided that, when known, such deficiencies would be indicated. Buyers were also warned, however, that "the absence of any indicated deficiencies does not mean that the item is without deficiencies." Thus, even assuming that the Government did have the transmission improperly repaired at some point (contrary to the repair records), there is no basis for recovery because there is no evidence that the Government knew either that the repair had been done improperly, or that the transmission was in some way defective. Decision Government vehicle auctions are, by their very nature, risky affairs. Here, appellants purchased a vehicle which did not live up to their expectations for reliability. Under the rules of the sale, however, this was a risk to be borne by the purchaser, not the Government. Accordingly, the appeal is DENIED. _______________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge