CBCA 7692

DENIED: October 24, 2023 CBCA 7692 WESLEY McBRIDE, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. Wesley McBride, pro se, Accokeek, MD. Anthony M. Giannopoulos, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges BEARDSLEY (Chair), VERGILIO, and SULLIVAN. BEARDSLEY, Board Judge. This appeal arises out of the purchase of a vehicle from a General Services Administration (GSA) online auction. The appellant alleges that GSA misdescribed the vehicle by failing to disclose the fact that the vehicle had been in a major accident and was only eligible for a salvage title. GSA moved for summary judgment, asserting that the misdescription claim was untimely filed and that there was no misdescription. We grant GSA’s motion and deny the appeal because the misdescription claim was untimely filed. CBCA 7692 2 Background GSA posted a vehicle for sale on its online auction website, listing the vehicle in the “Cars, SUVs, Vans, Buses and Ambulances” section. The pertinent terms and conditions of the sale included the following “Claims of Mis-description” clause in addition to many clauses specifying that GSA did not warrant the condition of the property: Claims of Mis-description When items are awarded and payment has been received, regardless of the removal status (removal may or may not have occurred), the successful bidder must submit a written notice to the Sales Contracting Officer within 15 calendar days from the date of payment e-mail (the Purchaser’s Receipt). GSA specifically stated in the vehicle’s description that the “[v]ehicle [was] sold as is[,] where is[,] and may contain defects not immediately detectable,” and “[p]hysical inspection [was] highly recommended.” “Deficiencies, when known, have been indicated in the property descriptions. However, absence of any indicated deficiencies does not mean that none exists.” On November 10, 2022, the sales contracting officer/property disposal specialist1 awarded the vehicle to the appellant. On November 14, 2022, the appellant received his receipt for his purchase of the vehicle and arranged to pick up the vehicle on December 6, 2022. On December 8, 2022, more than fifteen days after receiving his receipt, the appellant submitted his claim, notifying the sales contracting officer that the vehicle had been misdescribed and that he wanted to return the vehicle for a refund. The appellant asserts that GSA misdescribed the vehicle because GSA failed to disclose the fact that the vehicle had been in a major accident, was repaired, and was only eligible for a salvage title.2 The appellant points to a CARFAX report in the appeal file to assert that GSA knew the condition of the vehicle at the time of the sale and knew the vehicle was only eligible for a salvage title, yet failed to list it under the “Salvage/Scrap Vehicles” 1 The appellant asserted that GSA did not identify the sales contracting officer, making it impossible for the appellant to timely file his claim. The auction listing and the November 10 notice of award, however, both identify the sales contracting officer. 2 Obtaining a new title in Maryland of a salvaged vehicle requires a safety inspection, and the new title will be branded according to the vehicle’s condition, such as “Rebuilt salvage.” https://www.dmv.org/md-maryland/salvaged-vehicles.php (last visited Oct. 23, 2023). CBCA 7692 3 section of the GSA auction website. The CARFAX report found in the appeal file, however, is dated February 11, 2023—several months after the sale of the vehicle. The appellant nevertheless argues that GSA would have known the condition of the vehicle if it had done minimal research, such as obtaining a CARFAX report. The appellant also asserts that GSA should have terminated the contract because the appellant did not pick up the vehicle timely. GSA filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the misdescription claim was untimely and that the appellant failed to establish a misdescription.