I doubt they will go after the previous contractor as somewhere in the system an RAF NCO/Officer would have had the responsibility of 'auditing' the contractor's activity, probably on an annual basis. This would have been part of the quality assurance and since that has lamentably failed, some awkward questions would be asked about the RAF's oversight.
You can imagine the headlines: "RAF learn nothing from Haddon-Cave and have been flying 14 year olds in death-trap aircraft, so dangerous that the entire fleet has now been grounded" when in reality the situation has been brought about by HC and a somewhat belated decision to use a much higher airworthiness yardstick.
As regards the recovery, unfortunately the RAF/MoD are so set in their ways (which are effective for large complex jet aircraft) that I don't really think they know how to deal with any organisation that is not set up like an expensive defence contractor.
I think the overall task would be better off split into two:
1. the Recovery, in which they should think out of the box and in addition to the UK, look to recruit individuals from across Europe as there are many composite light aircraft designed and manufactured on the continent. It would be necessary to appoint an overall technical head of the operation who would then coordinate the teams, plus possibly to sacrifice one airframe on which the 'hired-hands' would be shown the approved repair techniques for the Viking, so that they could all use their existing composite aircraft skills to the same method/standards. This of course would require moving outside the current 'comfort zone' a little and forming a team rather than going to one 'name brand' UK based supplier. They would have to be paid a rate that is enough for them to leave whatever they are doing now and go to this temporary job, and the RAF would have to recruit enough to really be able to recover 'in parallel' rather than the serial process they seem to be set on at the moment.
2. Continued airworthiness. Once the Recovery team has got them back up to the required standard, then the longer-term continued airworthiness (i.e. keeping them in that state) could be taken on by a smaller number of people or one organisation (aren't Tutors also relatively simple, composite light aircraft made by Grob? so the RAF does have some technical expertise available to them outside of the VGS and civvy clubs).
It all depends on how imaginative/motivated/funded the effort is. So I'm not holding my breath from the 'progress' so far
Flug