Max Con - the Consultavia company appears to be a one-man band who has no modern SAR experience - this is probably why the Military were asked.
Lost at Sea - I made the point that Bristows ran the SAR operation not the MCA, the MCA had operational control of the 4 flights. With no aviation expertise, the MCA would have little choice but to accept that whatever the contractors told them was the true state of affairs - you said they lied not me but I wonder if the MCA really understood the difference in operational capability between the first standby (full autopilot) and any replacement aircraft brought in (usually no autopilot) and therefore not suitable to overwater night or IMC SAROps.
The SAR H IPT is a mix of Mil, civ and MCA and therefore there is knowledge of CivSAR and direct consultation is very likely to have taken place.
You clearly don't understand the process since the (4 now 3) bidders are the ones to decide basing, aircraft types, training, manning etc, not the IPT. The consortia are made up from various companies, all of whom have a very clear working knowledge of modern SAR technology.
Interestingly, the RAF were not offered the chance to construct an all-mil bid by way of a comparison.
Now the bids have been submitted (several by each consortium to cover different options) the IPT uses all manner of subject matter experts to score the bids - the technical issues regarding aircraft capability have been assessed by current RAF SAR operators (mainly SAR Standards).
Once the scoring is completed then the winning bidder shoud emerge.
Is that clear and propaganda-free enough for you?
My argument is that UK SAR should stay military (or the 2/3 that it is at the moment) for all of the reasons I have detailed in many posts - what exactly is your argument (other than you just don't like my attitude)?