Still not formulated your own argument then Lost at Sea?
Just in case you still don't understand - the RAF was asked by the MCA to provide technical assistance regarding the interim bid - to my knowledge this involved confirming that certain aircraft were suitable for the job, not actually selecting them, validating the performance claims of the manufacturer nor selecting the winning bidder.
When one bidder assumes the customer will accept more of the same basic service he has provided for many years and another bidder comes along with new shiny toys and the promise of better performance and capability - guess who MCA chose?
The SARH bids have been carefully scrutinised by a team of subject matter experts as far as technical issues go which is why so much of the bu** was noticed this time.
Gordon Brown has wasted so much public money the MoD's cock-ups look like very small beer in comparison.
How many times have all the military SAR machines been U/s? none! Oop North sometimes Lossie might go off state for a while and but it isn't that often. It's not the same as not being able to do the job because your aircraft doesn't have its claimed capability.
The systemic incompetence isn't at the front line, it is at the higher levels in MoD-land where countless Air Rank Officers vie for knighthoods and try to hold together a system that doesn't work (because the politicians have knackered it) long enough to hand over to the next sucker on the greasy pole.
All the 'anti-civvy rants', as you call them, are because I believe UK military SAR to be the best for the UK, a civilian company would never pay for what we can provide because they would never make any profit out of it.