Don't confuse what has been on offer with previous contracts with what might just come on the 'lowest bidder' contract since the MCA don't care what happens with accommodation as long as they can show pictures of shiny aircraft waiting to save lives at each flight.
Whilst on the subject of cash - how is it that a company who have already been operating 4 UK SAR flights can be undercut by 20%? Surely they should have a good idea of what it will and won't cost to run UKSAR.
Are we going to be faced with a similar comedy to the recent railway fiasco where Virgin had to point out that First had got their sums badly wrong and the contract award had to be reversed?
It is the same contract drones from the DfT who were responsible for that who will be scrutinising and awarding the SAR contract - if they award it to someone who has 'got their sums wrong' we could be faced with a failed service after a year or two, no military option to save the day, and a taxpayer-funded bailout of that mysterious 20%.
Or perhaps we will see the BAE school of contract management - bid 50% of what the contract will cost, identify some errors in the contract spec but keep schtum until it is signed and ensure that any modifications to the contract are subject to the contractor's rates - suddenly a small amendment costs the other 50% but it's not their fault.