Tiger Natural Gas v. DLA Energy: Documentation as a Protest-Outcome Driver
In Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. (B-423744; B-423744.2; B-423744.3), dated December 10, 2025, GAO sustained a protest in part because the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Energy did not produce an evaluation record sufficient to show that the awardees’ “technically acceptable” ratings were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The decision reinforces that, even in an acceptable/unacceptable framework, the government must be able to document why an offer meets material prerequisites.
DLA conducted the procurement under FAR part 15 for multiple IDIQ awards to supply natural gas, and this protest concerned California CLIN 15 and combined CLINs 16 and 17. Award was to the lowest-priced responsible offeror rated acceptable under technical compliance and past performance. For customers served through local distribution companies (LDCs), offerors had to show 12 months of recent LDC-related supply/transportation experience and provide evidence of authorization to do business on the proposed LDCs. The RFP also permitted contractor team arrangements.
Tiger challenged awards to Penn Oak and NRG on the theory that they lacked required LDC authorization and/or experience. As to Penn Oak, the agency asserted that a teammate (Mercuria) supplied the relevant authorization and experience, but GAO found that the proposal and evaluation content needed to test that assertion was heavily redacted, and the post-protest declaration lacked sufficient detail about what was verified and how the requirement was satisfied. GAO reached the same conclusion for NRG: key technical information was redacted and the agency’s explanation did not reconcile gaps and inconsistencies in how authorization was purportedly established.
GAO’s treatment of over-redaction is the decision’s most transferable lesson. Because a protective order was in place, proprietary and source-selection-sensitive information could have been produced to admitted counsel without giving the protester a competitive advantage. When the record is effectively unreviewable, GAO will not assume the evaluation was reasonable.
GAO denied Tiger’s objections to discussions and the reverse auction. The RFP allowed reverse auctioning as the pricing technique during discussions and did not prohibit non-price discussions. GAO also reiterated that agencies generally need not tell an offeror its price is “high” unless the price is found unreasonable or unacceptable.
GAO recommended reevaluation and a new source selection (with reopened discussions if needed), termination for convenience if the outcome changes, and reimbursement of protest costs. For contractors, the practical takeaway is to treat third-party authorizations and teammate reliance as “protest-ready” topics, and build a verifiable evidentiary trail tied to the solicitation’s prerequisites.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only, does not constitute legal advice, and is not a substitute for consulting qualified counsel on specific facts.