Lost at Sea - the RAF gave advice on the interim contract but did not scrutinise the details of the bids - hence, bull!!!!! claims by the bidders made it past the MCA who naively trusted the contractors to tell the truth.
But on the 25th March you said "All I said was that due to the fact the MCA couldn't get unbiased advice from industry (Bristows, CHC or others) because they all had vested interests, the MoD were asked for guidance and expertise in examining the interim contract."
So the guidance and expertise in EXAMINING the contract you talked about has now turned into "advice". Bit of a change of tune isn't it old chap! Or are you trying to distance yourself from the fact that the "advice" given by your experts was pretty poor especially if they didn't even look at the range of the aircraft! Can you tell us what the "advice" was based on?????? Did they actually "examine" the aircraft at all????
Once again your your posts are inconsistent.... 
The present bids for SARH have been properly scrutinised by the RAF
I'm going to remember that for your post 2012 rant!!!! 
we suffer from systemic incompetence
Not something you want in a top quality SAR cover really, is it? But it's one hell of an admission!
both our aircraft were serviceable throughout the day and night yesterday for the 7.5 hours of training and SAROPs we did and they are both still there this morning
I feel that congratulations are in order, quite an achievement nowadays! 