Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. (SPE604-25-R-0401)

B-423744,B-423744.2,B-423744.3 Dec 10, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., a small business of Tulsa, Oklahoma, protests the award of contracts to Penn Oak Services, LLC, a small business of Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and NRG Business Marketing, LLC, a small business of Houston, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE604-25-R-0401 by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the supply of natural gas to Department of Defense and federal civilian installations in California. The protester contends that neither Penn Oak nor NRG should have been found by the agency to be technically acceptable, and the evaluation is unreasonable. The protester also argues that the agency engaged in improper and misleading discussions. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. File: B-423744; B-423744.2; B-423744.3 Date: December 10, 2025 David S. Black, Esq., John M. McAdams III, Esq., and Tanner N. Slaughter, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Daniel Douglass, Esq., and Toni Steptoe, Esq., Defense Logistics Agency, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's rating of awardees as technically acceptable is sustained where the record produced by the agency fails to demonstrate that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency improperly engaged in discussions regarding technical proposals where the agency intended to conduct a reverse auction is denied where the solicitation did not prohibit the agency from both having discussions with offerors and conducting a reverse auction for final price submissions. 3. Protest that discussions were not meaningful because the agency did not discuss the protester's initial price is denied where the protester has not shown that the agency was required to advise the protester its price was high prior to conducting a reverse auction. DECISION Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., a small business of Tulsa, Oklahoma, protests the award of contracts to Penn Oak Services, LLC, a small business of Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and NRG Business Marketing, LLC, a small business of Houston, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPE604-25-R-0401 by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the supply of natural gas to Department of Defense and federal civilian installations in California. The protester contends that neither Penn Oak nor NRG should have been found by the agency to be technically acceptable, and the evaluation is unreasonable. The protester also argues that the agency engaged in improper and misleading discussions. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on February 18, 2025, using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 procedures, and anticipated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with a 2-year period of performance to supply natural gas in the DLA Energy western region (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington). Contracting Officer's Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 3, 27. Offerors could propose performance for some or all 17 contract line item numbers (CLINs) for natural gas requirements at various locations, however, some CLINs were standalone and other CLINs were combined so that they would be awarded together to a single contractor. RFP at 3; AR, Tab 5, RFP Attachment IV – Solicitation Schedule at 1-2. This protest relates only to CLIN 15 and combined CLINs 16 and 17 for the supply of natural gas to customers in California. For some CLINs, the awardees would work through local distribution companies (LDCs), which are the local public utility operating in the area that transports gas over its own distribution lines. RFP at 10. The RFP identified three evaluation criteria: technical compliance, past performance, and price. RFP at 38. For each CLIN or combined CLINs, award was to be made to the responsible offeror with the lowest price whose proposal was rated as acceptable under the non-price factors.[1] Id. at 37.