P3 - I don't think any of the parties involved are bastards - it's just a reality of commercial and political pressures.
All the bidders wanted to win and knew that cost would be an issue with a cash-strapped government.
The government are always under pressure to secure UK-based jobs (how many times has AW been supported) and so an AW product was always going to be part of the solution (although not putting all your eggs in one basket - or one aircraft type - given problems with other fleets over the years was probably a good idea).
Was it a good idea to go for an aircraft that hadn't been built or proven? Time will tell but if you have to have something from the AW stable and the 139 has already attracted criticism as a SAR aircraft, what choice do you have?
Remember that this whole process wasn't really a government idea, it was born out of a very ambitious Chief CG's desire to build an empire and aided by the Afghan-centric view of the MoD that decided that SAR wasn't core business.
Add in the fact that the Sea King was fast approaching its lifex with zero money for a replacement and you end up with a perfect storm where the easy option is to go for PFI, get SAR off the MoD books where spiralling costs of waging war are causing problems and generate /protect jobs in the UK.
The UK SAR contract provides a superb showcase for Bristow and they will do everything they can to make it work (or, cynically, to make it looks like it works) because the UK model could be sold to other governments around the world as a proven one. Again, this is just commercial reality.
So, no cock-ups, just situations conspiring to produce a decision from government to commercialise UK SAR rather than there being an overriding need to improve UK SAR by putting into the private sector.
That is what hurts the most, that mil SAR has done such a sterling job for so many years and just been consigned to the scrap heap without even being allowed to offer a home-grown solution.