I am expecting an Invitation to Submit Final Tender is being issued this month. That sort of timing would mean that by the end of May it is more or less all over. At that point, an internal review and assurance process is due to take place. We should expect the award letters to go out around late August which triggers a stand still period (10 days? 3 weeks?) after which a public announcement will be made.

Lots 1, 2, and 4 are now whittled down to BHL and EEA (CHC).

Lot 3 (FW & UAV) was 2Excel, EEA, and Elbit but I have no idea if that has been reduced further at the final stage. Anyone know?

Forgive my naivety, and my wish to draw conclusions based on the wisdom of the other forum members, but I don't have much knowledge on UK SAR.

Is there a clear "favourite" to win the contract? I understand BHL have been running the UK SAR contract recently, and I believe have been doing a good job of it? Is there any reason why they wouldn't / shouldn't win the contract again this time around?

But then again, I believe EEA / CHC also run SAR in Ireland, so it's not as if they have no experience in the matter.

Any info and thoughts appreciated!

BHL do SAR in the UK, northern Norway, Netherlands and elsewhere. Incumbent contractor. Bristow SAR

CHC do SAR in Ireland, contracts about to start in parts of Norway, and elsewhere. They had the UK contract for 4 HMCG bases from 2007 to 2013 and 2 of those until 2015/17 (lower spec than current UK SAR). CHC SAR and EMS.

In 2018/19, Qinetiq's Post Implementation Report examined the implementation of the current contract. There wasn't much wrong.

The UK Govt have let about 20 contracts for SAR helicopters since 1971 and only 4 of those have been won by companies not called Bristow.

They do a very good job on the coal face, no doubting that.

The balance sheet on the other hand...

Are they providing the service they were contracted to provide, at the price that was agreed? If so, then that sheet is balanced. (How it affects the overall government finances is a different matter).

Awarding a contract to the lowest bidder does not necessarily result in the best value for money. If the contractor is unable to fulfil the contract, it may result in penalties to the contractor, but also results in the customer not getting the required level of service.

....and you cannot levy penalties on a company if they have gone bust!

A UK business with only £1.68bn of debt on the books. What could possibly go wrong?

https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...business-debt/

It was clear from the Bristow Group numbers during the early period of the contract that UK SAR was bringing in an important slice of reliable revenue without which the entire group may have had a very different future. As time went by it was clear that Baliff and co-conspirators were presenting an alternative reality in the books with things like SAR aircraft purchases being reported as shifted out impossibly far into the future. The way things turned out, that alternative reality must have stretched across the entire group.

With their six decades of experience of oil and gas ops, I am moderately confident in the ability of BHL and the usual suspects to take advantage of recent oil price changes.

you could always go with one of its competitors.


https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL4N2PK1GS

Anybody care to comment/speculate on rumours that CHC are no longer in the bid process?

"What is the Black Spot, Captain?"


Actually, the decisions should have been made by now for all the lots. Lot 1 - quick response helicopter, lot 2 - long range helicopter, lot 3 - FW and UAV, or lot 4 - combined.

My last estimate of the detailed timeline reads as follows.

Evaluation of Final Tenders - late May 2022 (so, decision made, but not declared to parties?)
Government Internal and Assurance Process - late May to late Aug 2022
Award Decision(s) Finalised - late Aug 2022
Standstill Letter(s) Issued - late Aug 2022
Contract(s) Completed With Supplier(s) - Sept 2022 (and announcement)

I am expecting the 'assurance process' to be in the traditions of the current government and take at least a month longer. However, the MCA/DfT have kept it on track so far which means they have already made their choices. These processes have certainly been known to leak in the past. :rolleyes: They have also been known to leak incorrectly. :E

CHC-out would mean Bristow win at least Lot 1 and Lot 2. The question then is Lot 3 (FW/UAV) or Lot 4 (Combined).

[Reminder.
There have been about 20 SAR helicopter contracts let by the UK government since 1971. Only three of those have been won by companies not called Bristow, or subsequently bought by Bristow.]

I'm hearing that too

It's official...

https://www.bristowgroup.com/news-me...rch-and-rescue

On Thursday, with no alternative competitors left, and knee-deep in political chaos that made any thought of a Government Assurance process ridiculous, the DfT/MCA abandoned the timetabled September announcement and awarded the UKSAR2G contract to Bristow and friends. The award is not yet in the government contract finder.

GOV.UK
Ministerial
Bristow
FlightGlobal
Vertical

Although the current 2015 to 2026 contract seemed like a ground-breaking step forward, UKSAR2G is actually the first time that this has been done thoroughly based on a proper data set.

At the start of this bid process, the DfT/MCA team provided an air rescue data set and a software solution accessible to bidders that allowed them to run models to simulate their aircraft and base solutions.

This contrasts with 2011-13 when bases were "in the vicinity of" the results from November 2011's "10 Base Solution" which, although allowing some flexibility around the 10 locations, was quite a fixed solution. It made improvisations based upon an aggregate life saving capability across the UK SRR. Like all of the solutions of 2011; GAPSAR and that Main contract; these were rushed solutions that were forced upon the department and their contractors by the collapse of the 25 year PFI earlier in the year. All credit to the DfT, MCA, BHL and CHC for making all that work well in super quick time. :ok:

That is not where we are now. Witness, back to 12 bases including a part-time element, three different aircraft types, bases with different numbers of aircraft. Why? There are people dying over there and they are dying in a certain way and THAT is the solution. But over here there are people dying in a different way, at different times, and in different groups and THIS is the solution. :ok:

In some districts, AW139 may not be a welcome downsize. In Scotland, lack of S-92 seems like a problem for large searches. If anyone thinks we're going from Lewis or Kinlochbervie to Lee-on-Solent for training, they can #*&%£*#. :mad: It will probably work out fine. :cool:

And all the new aircraft are relatively cheap ones. And there are enough S-92 left over to do Ireland. :E

Jim, why would you have to travel from Kinlochbervie to Lee-on-Solent for training?

They are building a synthetic training facility at Lee. A stakeholder engagement phase is expected so perhaps that is when the planned balance of online, synthetic and live training will emerge.

Let's hope the training facility actually gets built this time - ISTR one was promised at Inverness for the previous/current contract.

However - good news for Bristow and all those ex-mil guys and girls who have made UKSAR such a success.

Crab..

I would rather there were less ex- mil guys as they can't seem to fly higher than a 1000 feet on a TRANSIT to a tasking on a GIN CLEAR NIGHT at 2 in the fuc%@ng MORNING flying over villages in a fu*+@ng S92 :mad: :ugh: (As witnessed multiple times looking out of my window backed up by flightradar)


B.

Whatever height they fly, you are going to hear the S-92:)

Yes but there's hearing an S92 overhead, and hearing one along with having the house shake and the family being woken up, are two different things.

B.