Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation, LLC (B-423414; B-423414.2)

You should not care.

Category: EIS, GSA Schedule, contract administration, interested party

Date: 30 June 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423414%2Cb-423414.2

Manhattan Telecommunications Corporation, LLC (MetTel), a small business incumbent, protested the Social Security Administration’s procurement of telecommunications services—primarily toll-free telephone services—through the issuance of a task order to Four Points Technology LLC under a GSA Schedule BPA for AWS cloud-based contact center services. MetTel alleged the agency improperly failed to compete the requirement or justify a sole-source award, and challenged SSA’s partial move of services from MetTel to Four Points. MetTel further claimed Four Points’ GSA contract did not cover the required services and contested eligibility under FCC regulations. GAO dismissed all grounds, finding MetTel was not an interested party and that its claims involved either contract administration or failed on legal and factual grounds.

MetTel held an EIS task order to provide SSA with telecom services. In 2024, SSA placed an order under its Four Points AWS BPA for Amazon Connect cloud services (with telephony features) to support agency requirements. Upon notification that toll-free workloads were moving from MetTel to the new AWS-based provider, MetTel filed its protest, alleging a de facto cancellation, sole-source contracting violations, and Four Points’ ineligibility. SSA explained the MetTel contract was not exclusive and the new task order was a lawful issuance under an existing BPA, not a sole-source award. MetTel conceded it lacked a GSA Schedule covering cloud services and did not compete for the relevant BPA:

• Contract administration challenge: GAO lacks jurisdiction over disputes about contract administration unless tied to an award defect; here, SSA’s contract was not exclusive and the transition did not involve a procurement defect.
• Factual and legal sufficiency of protest grounds: MetTel’s protest was predicated on faulty facts about the award (SSA ordered from Four Points, not AWS) and flawed legal assumptions regarding competition and scope, and was dismissed for failing to state a viable protest ground.
• Interested party status: MetTel admitted it was ineligible for the protested cloud services order as it did not hold the required GSA schedule contract, so lacked standing to pursue the protest, as only eligible offerors can protest within GAO jurisdiction.

Protest dismissed.

Digest

Protester is not an interested party to challenge the issuance of a task order against a General Services Administration schedule contract when the protester does not hold a schedule contract for the commercial cloud services sought by the agency.