[Protests of VA Solicitations for Equipment Maintenance]

A firm protested eight Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) solicitations for computerized tomography scanner maintenance services, contending that: (1) the solicitations were overly restrictive, since their liquidated damages clauses imposed cost-prohibitive penalties for equipment downtime; (2) VA improperly included both liquidated damages and excess procurement costs provisions in the solicitations; and (3) the solicitations' definition of equipment downtime was ambiguous. GAO held that: (1) the liquidated damages provisions did not create unreasonable liability for the contractor and had no relationship to actual costs; (2) VA properly included both liquidated damages and excess reprocurement costs provisions, since it could incur actual costs in both categories; and (3) the protester's contention that the solicitations were ambiguous regarding equipment downtime was without merit. Accordingly, the protest was denied.