The FI part of SAR-H bids was always (since Day 1) a seperate costed evolution requested of the Bidders to permit the Customer to ultimately decide the way forward - ie. within SAR-H or by some other means (note too that Cyprus SAR was seperated right from the outset despite the logic for its inclusion) - cost was never just the issue but no doubt will assist the final decision. If it has been decided to withdraw the FI option from the SAR-H final bids - my opinion is that this will improve the UK solution's chances of success rather than weaken it.
As for the IPT capitulating on every Bidder driven cost saving argument - one reply - tosh! The job of the bidders is to try and meet the requirement and accurately cost against it. If some of the important details are worthy of amendment to meet the Customer's likely budget - well its incumbent on any bidder to point out ways of improving things. Certainly the IPT has to remain open to supported arguments by bidders to show that if a way forward is too expensive then cheaper options should be discussed. Thats the whole nature of the EU competitive dialogue process - value for money! Ultimately the IPT and wider Customer community will decide (not the bidders) if something or some aspect of their requirement remains affordable or not against the best and final bids from the competitors and the project budget available.
Finally - its a good point - there is inevitably some voting mileage in a UK centric project such as SAR-H versus overseas military expenditure - that has in part driven the basing policy decison ie keep the present lot whatever the economics/operational usefulness - has the government the backbone to make the right decisions - you decide!!
Cheers