[Protest of ARS Contract Award for Hardware and Software Maintenance Support]

A firm protested an Agricultural Research Service (ARS) contract award for hardware and software maintenance support services, contending that: (1) the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) did not license or authorize the awardee to service its products; and (2) ARS did not disclose in the solicitation the relative importance of various bonus line items. GAO held that: (1) the solicitation did not require the awardee to be licensed or authorized by OEM; (2) it would not review the awardee's responsibility, since it was a matter of contract administration and not subject to GAO review; (3) there was no evidence that the awardee did not meet the solicitation's definitive responsibility criteria; (4) the protester was not prejudiced by ARS failure to disclose the weights given to various nonmandatory line items, since the awardee would have been the low bidder; and (5) the solicitation specified that bidders offering all line items would be deemed more advantageous to the government. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.