Opinion ID: 666055
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Volume IV--Integrated Logistics Support

Text: 129 Urban recognized that Latecoere's exceptional-rated Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) proposal was impressive, but said that ETC might eventually prepare a proposal as good as Latecoere's. Urban based this conclusion on the fact that ETC had proposed a higher cost for ILS than had Latecoere. The GAO did not affirm this rationale but instead asserted that the Solicitation did not require submission of logistics system documentation until after the award. Wyle, 1990 WL 293722 at  9. That assertion is not clearly supported by the record. See p. 1353, n. 7, above. 130 Even if the Solicitation did not require the offerors to submit a fully developed ILS proposal, Urban's justification for equating ETC's skeletal ILS proposal, with Latecoere's impressive proposal is irrational. His justification is based on nothing more than the assumption that, since ETC was planning to charge more for its ILS program when it finally got around to fleshing it out, its proposal necessarily would be as good as the impressive proposal Latecoere had already committed to provide. Taken to its logical conclusion, this reasoning would suggest that the most expensive proposal is always the best. Apparently, Urban ignored the distinct possibility that, once ETC got the contract, its profit incentive would tend to cause it to provide a bare bones ILS program. Urban's reasoning does not support his decision to equate Latecoere's and ETC's ILS proposals. 131