GRANTED: February 28, 2013

GRANTED: February 28, 2013

CBCA 2748, 3237

EXPEDITERS WORLDWIDE USA, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

Cory Frederick, Vice President of Expediters Worldwide USA, Inc., Crescent City,

FL, appearing for Appellant.

Gabriel N. Steinberg, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services Administration,

Atlanta, GA, counsel for Respondent.

Before Board Judges STERN, STEEL and WALTERS.

WALTERS, Board Judge.

These appeals involve the default termination of a General Services Administration

(GSA) auction sales contract. Appellant, Expediters Worldwide USA, Inc. (Expediters),

seeks to overturn the default termination and to recover the $10,000 bid deposit it submitted

to respondent, GSA, in connection with its bid on a barge offered for sale through GSA’s

online auction process. GSA, in turn, seeks to retain that bid deposit and to recover an

additional $6858.25 as the balance of liquidated damages allegedly due. Expediters has

appealed contracting officer final decisions issued with respect to the default termination and

both the Government’s monetary claim and its own. For the reasons explained below, the

Board grants the appeals.

CBCA 2748, 3237

2

Background

GSA, through its GSA AuctionsK website, in September 2011, offered for sale under

sale lot number 41QSCI11449001, a barge obtained from the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) that NASA had used in conjunction with its Apollo and

Space Shuttle programs. The rather sizeable barge, which had been docked at the Stennis

Space Center (SSC) in Mississippi, was described in GSA’s solicitation (denoted as an

“invitation for bid”) in part as follows: “Poseidon Barge, Hull #YFNB-40, vessel length:

265 [feet], vessel beam: 52 [feet] . . . . The vessel has a covered deck and is in fair condition

for transit.” (Emphasis added.)

The present appeal involves a claim that the barge had been misdescribed, in that the

invitation for bid’s description failed to indicate the presence of 200,000 gallons of water

in the barge’s ballast tanks or what needed to be done with the water in order to render the

barge capable of “transit.” Although the invitation for bid’s description mentioned “ballast

tanks” on the vessel and stated that “corrosion preventative films/gels were applied in the

ballast tanks . . . in [its] 1997 dry dock,” it did not comment on whether any water

contamination issue might be created by the “corrosion preventative films/gels,” and it was

completely silent as to the presence or quantity of water within the ballast tanks or as to what

would have to be done in terms of ballast water removal in order to render the vessel capable

of transit away from its dock.

The invitation for bid provided bidders with the opportunity to inspect the barge, but

appellant did not avail itself of that opportunity. Nevertheless, it does not appear that a

reasonable pre-bid inspection would have alerted Expediters to the quantity of water present

in the barge’s ballast tanks or as to what a winning bidder would have to do with that water

in order to take delivery of the barge.

In this regard, Mr. Cory Frederick, Expediters’ vice president, testified that he was

able to view the barge at a later date – i.e., after Expediters’ contract had already been

terminated and re-auctioned, in conjunction with a post-sale inspection of the barge by the

second purchaser. At that time, Frederick testified, he could not see the water in the ballast

tanks, because the tanks were located in the hold of the barge underneath metal plates that

were bolted down. In an affidavit submitted with respondent’s post-hearing brief, NASA’s

Mr. Eric Taylor, the individual named in the instant invitation for bid as the “custodian point

of contact,” refers to “multiple manholes directly accessible from the main covered deck”

of the barge and urges: “[A]t least some of the manholes were supposed to be unbolted

and/or have the covers removed for inspection when the purchaser’s representatives

inspected Poseidon after the second sale.” Mr. Taylor, who did not participate personally

CBCA 2748, 3237

3

in any of the inspections, indicated that NASA’s Mr. Richard Harris would have to confirm

his impressions of what may have been visible on inspection. Mr. Harris had been the

NASA employee designated in the instant invitation for bid as the “inspection point of

contact.” In an affidavit submitted by respondent with a supplement to its posthearing brief,

Mr. Harris states: “[W]e removed all nuts that secured hatch covers. The potential bidders

could remove the covers and look down in the ballast tanks.” Mr. Harris does not say that

he was actually present for the pre-bid inspections in October 2011, nor does he indicate

whether bidders were told that the nuts were removed to allow them to view the ballast tanks

or whether, to his knowledge, anyone actually removed hatch covers for that purpose during

pre-bid inspections. Neither his affidavit nor that of Mr. Taylor indicates how difficult it

would have been to remove unbolted hatch covers.

In a counter-affidavit submitted by Mr. Frederick with appellant’s posthearing

rebuttal brief, he reiterated that, when he inspected the barge in early January 2012, “there

were no open or unbolted hatch or manholes” that would give visual “access to any of the

24 ballasting tanks.” Photographs of the Poseidon barge provided by Mr. Frederick with his

affidavit do not depict open or unbolted hatches or manholes in the deck. Both the Harris

and Taylor affidavits indicate that, if the barge were resting on the “dock lip,” there had to

be water in the ballast tanks. In this regard, the Taylor affidavit states: “A quick inspection

would reveal whether or not a vessel is ballasted down upon this ‘lip’.” The Taylor affidavit

is accompanied by photos of the dock lip. Expediters contends that the lip was not visible

with the barge moored to the dock, and points to the photos accompanying Mr. Frederick’s

counter-affidavit, in which the lip is not visible. Regardless of whether or not the lip was

visible, we cannot see that a pre-bid inspection would have disclosed the quantity of water

present in the tanks or what would be required to unseat the barge from the dock lip in order

to move it away from the dock.

The invitation for bid called for bid deposits of $10,000 to be received no later than

noon on October 3, 2011. Expediters, with its bid of $337,165, submitted its $10,000

deposit and ultimately was determined to be the high bidder. The GSA AuctionsK terms

and conditions, to which Expediters had agreed as part of the bidder registration process and

by submitting its bid, specifically required that, if the bid were accepted, Expediters was “to

pay for and remove the property by the dates and times specified in the contract award email

notification.” On October 4, 2011, GSA awarded appellant sales contract no.

GS04F11FBEE103 in the amount of $337,165. Notification of award was accomplished

by email message dated October 4, 2011, transmitted at 10:10 p.m., and in that message

Expediters was told that it was expected to make payment to GSA for the barge within two

business days and to remove it within ten business days of the date and time of the email

notification, i.e., by October 19, 2011.

CBCA 2748, 3237

4

By response email message transmitted on the afternoon of October 6, 2011,

Expediters advised the GSA contracting officer that it considered sale lot number

41QSCI11449001 to have been misdescribed. In this regard, Expediters contended that the

photos accompanying the invitation appeared to depict “two vessels side by side.” In the

email message, even though Expediters maintained that it had bid on what it purportedly

perceived as two vessels, it nevertheless offered to proceed with the purchase, but at a

reduced price of $150,000, in light of the alleged “misdescription.” The contracting officer

flatly rejected Expediters’ offer of a downward price adjustment within minutes of receiving

it, notified Expediters that it would be placed in default status if it failed to pay the balance

of the sales contract (i.e., $327,165) in full by the close of business, October 11, 2011, and

strongly encouraged appellant “to read the terms and conditions of the sale [contract].”

Several additional email communications were exchanged between Expediters and the

contracting officer on October 6, and the contacting officer made it plain that she would not

yield to Expediters’ request for a price adjustment and that her intent was to terminate

Expediters’ sales contract for default if payment of the balance due was not forthcoming by

the deadline of October 11 she had established.

Mr. Frederick, who had submitted the bid on behalf of Expediters, testified that,

based on the contracting officer’s warnings and his review of the auction contract terms, he

had decided to accede to GSA’s position, to pay the contract balance and take delivery of

the barge. To see what would be required to coordinate removal of the barge from its SSC

dock, he states, he attempted to contact NASA’s Mr. Taylor, but was unable to reach him.

Instead, he says, he was able to speak by telephone with Mr. Harris, the NASA “inspection

point of contact.” During their telephone conversation, which took place very early in the

morning on October 7, 2011, Mr. Frederick relates, Mr. Harris revealed to him not only that

there were 200,000 gallons of water contained in ballast tanks on the barge that would

require removal before the barge could be moved from the dock, but that the water was

“contaminated” with “hazardous chemicals.” According to Mr. Frederick, Mr. Harris further

explained that NASA had pumped the water into the barge’s ballast tanks in order to permit

the barge to be seated securely onto a shelf (the above-mentioned “dock lip”) that had been

designed to permit safe loading and unloading of sensitive cargo needed for the space

shuttle, including the shuttle’s booster rockets. The post-hearing Harris affidavit appears

to confirm the accuracy of Mr. Frederick’s testimony about his conversation with Mr. Harris:

“I recall saying, to potential bidders, that there was approximately 200,000 gallons of water

in the ballast and had been there about ten years. I also said there was some anti-rust

additive so there might be a chance of contamination.”

Shortly after learning of this situation, Mr. Frederick, by email message transmitted

at 6:48 a.m. on October 7, 2011, notified the contracting officer that Expediters considered

the presence of 200,000 gallons of contaminated water within the barge to be an additional

CBCA 2748, 3237

5

instance of “misrepresentation” by the Government, since NASA had been aware of the

large quantity of water prior to the auction sale and had failed to disclose its existence. The

email message indicated that, because removal of the water from the barge was necessary

in order for Expediters to be able to take delivery of the barge and move it away from the

dock and into the river, and since removal and disposal of the purportedly contaminated

water in accordance with “EPA guidelines” (presumably he was referring to guidelines

issued to implement the Clean Water Act) could entail considerable cost, Expediters

expected NASA to perform such water removal at its own expense and at no cost to

Expediters.

Upon receipt of this message from Mr. Frederick, the contracting officer contacted

NASA and forwarded a copy of Mr. Frederick’s message, seeking a response. An internal

NASA email communication from a NASA official distributing the Frederick message

reads, in part:

I need to speak with you concerning [Expediters’ message] below. I just got

of[f] the phone with GSA and the sale of Poseidon may go south because of

purchaser’s claim. Like to set up a telecom between you and GSA Region 9

to resolve issue as soon as possible around 9:30 am CT. NASA should cease

all conversations with the purchaser. GSA handles any disputes.

The same NASA official also forwarded the Frederick message to NASA’s Mr. Taylor, with

the following request:

Per our teleconference call a few moments ago, can you please respond to the

claim from the purchaser – that NASA misrepresented the description for the

Poseidon Barge sale (below). In your response, please explain why the water

is loaded in the barge and to his claim “removal of the water would be big

money if disposed of by EPA guidelines, because Hazardous chemical was

also pumped into the water by NASA.” Also, address the removal of the

water by NASA and anything else you consider pertinent.

GSA needs your statement to dispute the purchaser’s claim because the

purchaser is trying to back out of the sales contract.

A detailed response was provided to the requesting NASA official and to the GSA

contracting officer by email message on the afternoon of October 7, 2011. The response,

issued by a Mr. Farley Davis, who appears to have been Mr. Taylor’s supervisor at NASA,

states:

CBCA 2748, 3237

6

The location at SSC where Poseidon is currently moored is considered a safe

harbor to protect it from hurricanes and other tropical events. The water level

in the SSC canal system is carefully controlled, which prevents sudden and/or

large magnitude changes. Part of the preparations to protect NASA barge

Poseidon here during hurricane season includes ballasting the stern lip down

onto a compatible recess in the dock. This is achieved by filling one or more

of the ballast tanks with water from the canal by using the ballast pumps on

board. The appropriate amount of water is required to be removed from these

tanks not only to remove it from the dock, but to allow the proper vessel draft

to navigate through the SSC canal system and the East Pearl River.

Referencing the email from Mrs. Janette Gordon SSC/RA02 that you received

earlier today, permission has been verified to allow pumping of the required

ballast water into the SSC canal system, with the precautions noted. With this

permission, it will take approximately 1-2 days to remove the ballast water

utilizing the ballast pumps on board, assuming the generators and ballast

pumps function. I suggest that enough ballast water be removed to lift the

stern lip from the dock and to provide the appropriate even keel draft to transit

out of the SSC canal system and through the SSC lock. As a best practice,

that would minimize the amount of ballast water discharged into the SSC

canal system. The purchaser shall determine and provide the means to

appropriately ballast Poseidon for transit in the East Pearl River and beyond.

Therefore, there are no unexpected costs imparted to the purchaser regarding

removal of the ballast water. NASA/MSFC/AS42 does have the capability to

remove the ballast water while Poseidon is at the SSC dock, if required.

[Emphasis added.]

The surfaces of the ballast tanks that contain the water were last treated with

a common marine corrosion preventative, Eureka Fluid Film Gel BW, in 1999

at its last shipyard/retrofit period. Poseidon completed service for the Space

Shuttle Program in September 2001, and was retired to its current location

shortly thereafter. For many reasons and at many times since, Poseidon has

been ballasted, de-ballasted, and moved within the SSC canal system. The

source of the water currently in the ballast tanks was taken in from the SSC

canal system.

Curiously, this NASA response was not forwarded to or shared with Expediters. Instead,

the GSA contracting officer furnished the following terse response to Mr. Frederick’s

message:

CBCA 2748, 3237

7

The water is not contaminated.

You are still required to have your payment submitted by close of business on

Tuesday [October 11, 2011].

I will not discuss this any further with you. You will have the right to appeal

this decision before the Civil Board of Appeals.[1]

GSA will not accept any further excuses.

Mr. Frederick, during the hearing, testified that he was prepared to proceed with the

contract, to pay the balance of Expediters’ bid and retrieve the barge, provided the

Government agreed to take care of removing the water from the barge’s ballast tanks at

government cost, and had so indicated in his message of October 7 to the contracting officer.

It was because the contracting officer failed to respond to his demand regarding water

removal and did not advise him that NASA had stated it had the capability of removing the

ballast water, he said, that Expediters believed that it could not go forward with contract

payment and with removal of the barge and thus did not do so.2

By letter to Expediters dated October 12, 2011, the contracting officer furnished

Expediters with a termination of contract notice, advising Expediters that the contract was

terminated for default, that the $10,000 bid deposit was being retained in partial satisfaction

of liquidated damages, and that the balance of liquidated damages, $6858.253, was due

within thirty days of receipt of the termination notice. The notice discussed alternative

1

It seems the contracting officer intended a possible appeal to this Board.

2

In his affidavit, NASA’s Mr. Taylor makes clear not only that NASA had the

capability of draining the water from the ballast tanks, but that NASA always intended to

do so and would have brought in personnel from remote NASA facilities to accomplish the

water removal: “The ‘one to two days’ [Mr. Davis had advised would have been] required

to remove the water was not determined [by Mr. Davis] by the amount of water to be

removed, but by logistics. The removal required personnel from Marshall Space Flight

Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, AL or personnel from the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAP)

near New Orleans, LA. This required planning and travel. The personnel at SSC were only

tasked to provide access to the property and the barge as required.”

3

The contract specified as liquidated damages due the Government in the event of

a contractor default an amount equal to 5% of the contract award. Here, 5% of the $337,165

award equals $16,858.25.

CBCA 2748, 3237

8

means of making payment of the $6858.25 and advised that Expediters’ file had been turned

over to the GSA finance office for further collection action.

The contracting officer, on December 14, 2011, issued a final decision under the

Contract Disputes Act (CDA). That decision addressed the default termination and the

related government claim for the $6858.25 liquidated damages balance. Expediters timely

filed its appeal from that decision to this Board, and the Board docketed the appeal as CBCA

2748. The matter proceeded to a hearing,4 which was conducted on October 16, 2012.

Subsequently, at the Board’s suggestion in order to avert a possible jurisdictional issue,5

Expediters submitted its own claim to the contracting officer for a refund of the $10,000 bid

deposit, and the contracting officer, by letter dated January 28, 2013, issued a second final

decision denying that claim. Expediters timely filed an appeal of that denial, and the Board

docketed the appeal as CBCA 3237, consolidating it with CBCA 2748.

Discussion

The terms and conditions of the parties’ contract provide the following with respect

to the Government’s warranty as to the accuracy and adequacy of its description of auctioned

property and a bidder’s claims to refunds for alleged misdescription:

Description Warranty & Refunds

The Government warrants to the original purchaser that the property listed in

the GSAAuctions.gov website will conform to its written description.

Features, characteristics, deficiencies, etc. not addressed in the description are

4

The hearing was conducted by telephone, with only Expediters’ Mr. Frederick

presenting oral testimony. GSA chose to proceed with its case solely on the written record,

which consisted of the appeal file and documents contained in two supplemental binders

offered by the parties without objection. Subsequently, a January 28, 2013, contracting

officer final decision and the Taylor affidavit which it incorporated (both documents

included with respondent’s posthearing brief) were added to the record of the consolidated

appeals, as were the Harris affidavit and the affidavit and photographs provided by Mr.

Frederick.

5

The Board’s suggestion was prompted by the decision of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609

F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010), which discusses the obligation of a contractor to submit its own

CDA claim for liquidated damages withheld, notwithstanding that the initial claim to

liquidated damages is that of the Government.

CBCA 2748, 3237

excluded from this warranty. GSA further cautions bidders that GSA’s written

description represents GSA’s best effort to describe the item based on the

information provided to it by the owning agency. Therefore, gross omissions

regarding the functionality of items, failure to cite major missing parts and/or

restrictions with regards to usage may occur.

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.

....

Refunds Claim Procedures

Please be advised that refunds are not a frequent practice of GSA Auctions.

A request for refund must be substantiated in writing to the Sales Contracting

Officer for issues regarding mis-described property, missing property and

voluntary defaults within 15 calendar days from the date of payment.

Refund Amount

The refund is limited to the purchase price of the misdescribed property.

Claims of Misdescription.

If items have been awarded but not paid for and the successful bidder feels that

the property is mis-described, he/she must follow these procedures: A written

claim needs to be submitted to the Sales Contracting Officer within 15

calendar days from the date of award requesting release of contractual

obligation for reasons satisfying that of a mis-description. No verbal contact

with the custodian or the Sales Contracting Officer or any other federal official

will constitute a notice of misdescription.

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 award email notification. If property has been

removed and the claim is accepted by the Sales Contracting Officer, the

purchaser must maintain the property in the purchased condition and return it

at their [sic] expense to the location designated by the Sales Contracting

Officer.

9

CBCA 2748, 3237

10

Expediters asserts that the omission of information about the quantity and content of

the barge’s ballast tank water from the description in the invitation for bid constituted a

misdescription6 and that it is entitled to a refund of its bid deposit on this basis. This claim

of misdescription was timely, i.e., Expediters furnished written notice of the claim to the

cognizant GSA sales contracting officer within the fifteen calendar day period required.

The description of the Poseidon barge in the invitation for bid did not disclose that

the winning bidder would have to contend with 200,000 gallons of ballast tank water, and,

as indicated above, such information would not have been readily discernible from a

reasonable pre-bid site inspection had Expediters chosen to perform one. Also, the

invitation for bid did not indicate that, in order to remove sufficient water from the ballast

tanks to allow for the barge’s transit into the river, NASA-specified “precautions” for ballast

water pumping would have to be followed, to limit the quantity of water discharged into the

canal. Indeed, what was ultimately made clear from the post-hearing Taylor affidavit is that

the removal of ballast water from the barge’s tanks would have required not only NASA

permission, but also direct involvement of NASA personnel who would have to be brought

to Mississippi from a remote NASA facility in either Huntsville, Alabama, or New Orleans,

Louisiana, in order to perform or to oversee the pumping operation.

The GSA contracting officer did not share with Expediters her knowledge of NASA’s

requirements for ballast pumping and of NASA’s concern about the need to “minimize the

amount of ballast water discharged into the SSC canal system.” Moreover, she chose to

ignore Expediter’s express demand for assistance from NASA in the barge removal process,

and failed to disclose to Expediters that NASA would have the capability itself to drain the

water from the ballast tanks. In this manner, she created the clear impression that Expediters

would be left entirely on its own to deal with the ballast tank water. In short, Mr. Frederick

was kept in the dark about everything that would be required and the assistance that would

have been forthcoming from NASA – assistance, it seems, NASA always intended to

provide7 – in order for Expediters to be able to take delivery of the barge and move it away

from the SSC dock.

6

Expediters no longer is pursuing its original “misdecription” allegation, that

pertaining to whether the auction was for two vessels rather than one.

7

Mr. Taylor states in this regard: “There was never any attempt [by NASA] to

conceal onboard water. There was always the intent [by NASA] to discharge the water

required to release Poseidon from the dock so that it could be relocated.”

CBCA 2748, 3237

11

Because critical information concerning restrictions on the purchaser’s ability to take

possession and make immediate use of the barge had been omitted from the invitation for

bid description of the barge, the description of the barge as being in “fair condition for

transit” constituted a misdescription that would entitle Expediters to a full refund of its

$10,000 bid deposit. The present case is unlike the situation where a bidder is simply

dissatisfied with the condition of an auctioned vehicle, but nevertheless is able to take

possession of it and remove it. E.g., Steven A. Groshong v. GSA, CBCA 1324, 09-1 BCA

¶ 34,104 (Board rejected a claim of misdescription, where the bidder removed an auctioned

automobile from the Government lot and was able to drive it to a tire dealer, to replace

purportedly bald tires, and then home 1139 miles, despite several other alleged mechanical

deficiencies).

Furthermore, under the circumstances here, where the GSA contracting officer

demanded immediate payment and removal of the vessel without furnishing the information

and guidance needed to accomplish that removal and without responding meaningfully to

Expediters’ inquiry about what NASA would do about the ballast water, it was entirely

inappropriate and in breach of the implied duty of cooperation inherent in all contracts, for

the agency to proceed to terminate Expediters’ contract for default and to retain that deposit.

See CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. v. Department of Energy, CBCA 1187, 08-2 BCA

¶ 34,002, at 168,152 (citing S.A. Healy Co. v. United States, 576 F.2d 299, 306 (Ct. Cl.

1978), and cases cited therein).8

8

Respondent, while submitting two post-hearing affidavits of NASA employees, did

not furnish an affidavit of the GSA contracting officer. Thus, her actions have never been

explained or justified.

CBCA 2748, 3237

12

Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are GRANTED.

_________________________

RICHARD C. WALTERS

Board Judge

We concur:

_______________________

JAMES L. STERN

Board Judge

_________________________

CANDIDA S. STEEL

Board Judge