Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I have a couple of times but to no avail
Not sure if this is overly meaningful but interesting maybe.
If you go to the link below, TriStar Air LLC has an updated “expiration date” as a vendor (on Govtribe) that is now listed as the day after the revised bid due date for the Navy RFP...7/24/20.
Ive mentioned before that I think TriStar/Tempus wins this contract (again) and then sells the planes...maybe I’m reading too much into it but it is interesting that they are “current” as a viable vendor up until the day after the RFP is now due...thoughts?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/govtribe.com/vendors/tristar-air-llc-887b6/amp
Updated response date on beta.sam
posted today.
Pushed out to July 23 for responses now.
(Hope this post meets AJ’s standards, god forbid)
Update 30 June 2020
This update provides amendment 0004 to the solicitation, which extends the proposal due date to 23 July 2020 at 11:00 a.m. EDT and extends the deadline to request a “Drop-Off Request Code” to 20 July 2020 at 11:00 a.m. EDT.
If a “Drop-off Request Code” was previously received and expires prior to the proposal due date, offerors shall request a new code in accordance with the solicitation by the new deadline of 20 July 2020 at 11:00 a.m. EDT.
In accordance with Section L, all proposals must be submitted via DoD SAFE; proposals submitted by any means other than DoD SAFE will not be accepted or reviewed. If an offeror fails to request a “Drop-Off Request Code” by the deadline, the Government will not issue a “Drop-Off Request Code” to the offeror and the offeror will not be able to submit a proposal to the Government through DoD SAFE.
...and by the way, there aren’t many on the OTC that can and have filed a 10k as detailed and thorough as the one John filed...his track record speaks for itself...bet the jockey not the horse
First post but long time observer.
Jake, nice post with actual data to back it up.
Given John hasn’t released anything outside of the $2m accrued liability 8k in terms of recent communication, I would not be surprised to see some gems released and coupled with the 10q. Acquisition updates, revenue increases > $8.7m, or other, as in merger etc.
Good luck should be a fun week,
Awe
Full email:
On Monday, June 22, 2020, 2:45 AM, Paul Atkin <Paul.Atkin@bruntingthorpe.com> wrote:
I’m afraid that I do not know. I am not involved in the aircraft as they are being dealt with by others outside of our organisation, I can’t really add anything. Sorry!
Kind Regards
Paul
FWIW...From GM at Bruntingthorpe today after me asking about the status of the TriStars again.
<Paul.Atkin@bruntingthorpe.com> wrote:
I’m afraid that I do not know. I am not involved in the aircraft as they are being dealt with by others outside of our organisation, I can’t really add anything. Sorry!
Kind Regards
Paul
You sure did - thanks, and nice calls this past week on the stock movement.
For the folks that think the runway is too short at Bruntingthorpe or the cars are piling up there so much so (due to Cox Automotive takeover) that the RAF TriStars will have no way out of there...
The Man at the helm here, Johan Eliasch, has friends in places that can make this proving ground stop their new initiatives on a dime if it means flying 3-4 RAF TriStars out of Brunty when needed.
Happy Father’s Day all; will be an interesting next month for sure.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7268677/Prince-Andrew-appoints-Swedish-billionaire-friend-director-Palace-project.html
I smell a contract and then sale of TMPS. Welcome back
Thanks for the share.
If TMPS pulls this off and gets “another” award, I think they have a buyer waiting in the wings. They have made it clear they’re not here to run a company but rather take the private equity route; buy the asset, sell the asset within 3 years for 10x, 15x 20x etc...matter of time, right? ;)
Looks like some more minor updates on the beta.sam site as of 6/11. One thing I hadn’t noticed before is the updated inactive date which was once listed as 1/21, is now listed as 7/23/20...with the bids due on 7/6/20, I wonder if the updated inactive date has any correlation to when the Navy intends to award this...just a thought.
Have a good weekend all.
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/378f84ceb4074b41bedcf294bc77c871/view
34 days until proposals are due...faster than I thought it would be!
Update today on beta Sam....looks like proposals are due 7/6/20
UPDATE: 2 June 2020
In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), Specialized and Proven Aircraft Program (PMA- 226), Contracted Air Services (CAS) program is requesting proposals for CAS Aerial Refueling Services. The resulting contract is for CAS Aerial Refueling Services through contractor owned, operated, and maintained aerial refueling aircraft to the Department of the Navy (DoN) for Fleet and Test customers for Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) services to multiple aircraft types in order to satisfy fleet training, operational, Test and Evaluation (T&E), and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) requirements. The resulting vehicle will be a Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Multiple Award Contract (MAC). The planned ordering period will have a base ordering period for four (4) years 364 days, and one (1) four (4) years 364 days Option ordering period for a total ordering period of nine (9) years 363 days, if the option period is exercised. No single task order will have a period of performance greater than 4 years 364 days. This acquisition will be awarded on the basis of full and open competition.
The proposal submission deadline is Monday, 6 July 2020 at 1100 Eastern Time (ET).
In accordance with the Procurement Integrity Act, 41 U.S.C. § 2101-2107, interested parties are reminded that their organizations are prohibited from obtaining any source selection information before the award of this contract. In addition to both criminal and civil penalties for individuals, the Procurement Integrity Act also provides administrative actions which include, but are not limited to, cancellation of the procurement if has not yet been awarded, rescission of the awarded contract, and the initiation of a suspension or debarment proceeding. To ensure compliance with the Procurement Integrity Act, interested parties are strongly encouraged to limit all communications related to this procurement (i.e. N00421-20-R-0094) to the Contracting Officer and the Contract Specialist listed within the solicitation; interested parties are strongly encouraged to refrain from discussing any information related to this procurement with any other Government personnel.
Primary POC:
Lauren Wright (lauren.wright@navy.mil)
Alternate POCs:
David Silverstone (david.silverstone@navy.mil)
Catrina Vitez (catrina.vitez@navy.mil)
Good luck to you as well; hard to argue with that approach
I read it as the MAC is still planned but no longer written for TMPS with now removing small business set aside (for whatever reasons). Additionally it seems like we are almost back to square one since the formal RFP has not even been released so add a couple few months for everyone to respond to it when it is released in the coming weeks then another couple few months for the Navy to make an award. My guess is we wait until at least early next year to hear of an award. I’m no expert but that’s my interpretation and guess.
Looks like this is new and no longer small business set aside. Time for a big gun to take those planes off of TriStar’s hands.
Amazing how slow this whole process is
Buck, I hope ur right! GL
Update from Paul Atkin, GM of biz dev at Bruntingthorpe...
I reached out to Paul today knowing he couldn’t advise on any commercial prospects regarding the TriStars but point blank asked him if they would be scrapped...I want to share this because I want to be transparent with you all.
Interpret it the way you wish...the last paragraph is what we need answers on.
Hoping AJ or anyone else can debunk it.
—————————————————
From Paul Atkin:
A lot has changed over the last couple of months as the company has been sold and, unfortunately for you and other aviation enthusiasts, they have little interest in the aviation side of the business. Our website now has the following statement on it:
“Please note that, following an acquisition of C.Walton Ltd by Cox Automotive, the Aviation business and Cold War Jets Museum at the Bruntingthorpe site are now closed and will not re-open.
It is recognised that this may be concerning news to some aviation enthusiasts. Cox Automotive is an automotive services business who do not work within the aerospace sector. One of the previous owners of C.Walton Ltd, Mr David Walton, is currently investigating the construction of new buildings adjacent to the LPG ‘Q Shed’ to house some of the collection and safeguard their future on land excluded from the Cox Automotive lease. News of any progress on this front will be released by Mr Walton as and when available.
Subject to the COVID-19 situation at the time, it remains the intention of Cox Automotive to hold the planned Cold War Jets Fast Taxi Day in August. Further information on this will be released much closer to the date.”
I’m afraid that I believe the Tristars are likely to be scrapped and unfortunately, there will not be any chance for you to see the Tristars even once the virus has subsided. The only chance might be if we do hold the August Fast Taxi day, although this is by no means confirmed yet.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news
Kind Regards
Paul
A lot of the posts here have been about Omega and TMPS sharing this MAC. I’m saying Omega is not even allowed to bid on this MAC; they have their potential 24 month extension and that’s it. I don’t believe that has come up on this board. GL
Lastly and then I’ll stop talking to myself, if Omega doesn’t qualify to even bid on the MAC, I presume they cannot protest any award related to the MAC. So, was the MAC specifically written for TriStar Air LLC and perhaps the 3rd bidder from last year’s RFP process? Omega got their potential 24 month extension but IMO, they are not part of this potential MAC at all. Look forward to hearing other’s thoughts on this. GL
For example, last year Omega’s 12 month extension with potential value of >$90m for the 12 months.
Also notice there is no asterisk next to Omega’s name denoting small business like there was when TriStar Air LLC was awarded the contract last year. So how can Omega bid on the MAC if it is small business set aside?
NAVY
Omega Aerial Refueling Services Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, is awarded $92,370,920 for modification P00024 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, cost-type contract (N00019-13-D-0010). This modification provides for additional aerial refueling services in support of the Department of the Navy, other Department of Defense agencies, and Foreign Military Sales customers during missions ranging from basic training to multi-national exercises. Work will be performed in Riverside, California (50 percent); Brunswick, Georgia (40 percent); and various locations outside the continental U.S. (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in March 2020. No funds are being obligated at time of award, funds will be obligated on individual delivery orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.
Omega protested that TMPS did not qualify as a small business when the Navy awarded the $121m contract to TMPS last year and as we know now Omega’s attorneys referenced >$32m in annual revenues for TMPS.
With the MAC now being a “total small business set-aside” opportunity, how can Omega qualify to bid on this? Their revenues far exceed anything close to TMPS’. They can’t be classified as a small business at all. What am I missing?
Thanks AJ. I don’t think the inactive date of 1/8/21 is a new update to the record. I believe it was updated on 12/17/19, the time of the last update. I just hadn’t thought about how technically this potential award of the MAC could take awhile (they the end of the year) although the Navy did state the planned award would happen by 3/31/20.
Hopefully we see some more tangible updates to this opp soon.
Thanks again
After the protest it was announced Omega received a 12 month extension with another 12 month option on top of that. The Navy also said there was a separate competitive RFP (the MAC) that would be awarded sometime by 3/31/20 same verbiage they used last year when TMPS won the award. On the Sam.gov website it says the “inactive” date for this competitive MAC is 1/8/21...in theory, with Omega being under contract for at least the next 12 months, the Navy has all year to figure this out and award the MAC if at all. Do others see that as a possibility?
Todd Boehly, 20% owner of the LA Dodgers and founder of Eldridge Industries is also a 7.1% owner of TMPS. Wiki page and form 13G link below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldridge_Industries
https://seekingalpha.com/filing/4105533
I’m with you and I wasn’t trying to bash with my posts this weekend but just trying to better understand what is real and what is not.
I Like seeing those large buys come in at 20 cents. I still believe the big investors in TMPS are too smart to let this opp slip away. Also the way they execute financial transactions is too smart imo to not eventually generate value. Doesn’t one of the owners of the LA Dodgers have a stake in this whole thing (I forget the name of his private equity firm right now) then the billionaires invested here on top of it? Lots of smart and rich folks who know how to make money. Let’s see what happens, good luck all
Seems like Phoenix never lost the contract
https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2018/06/04/Navy-extends-contract-with-Phoenix-Air-for-electronic-warfare-training/4411528120039/
Also I see Terry is now a publisher at Tarbell org
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-terry-33135b75
Quite a different profession than the one he used to have
We need some sing of positive developments here fast.
AJ
Been doing some digging on the extant contracts...the USN 2016 award of $25M you have listed I believe was awarded to Tempus Jets but then in September of 2016 the below happened. Aren’t these the same contract therefore TMPS has no existing contract for $25m with the Navy (just trying to better understand...looks like another award but another protest...not 100% sure of the final outcome)
Interior Botched $25M Plane Contract For Navy, GAO Says
By Bryan Koenig
Share us on:
Law360, Washington (November 4, 2016, 7:08 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Department of the Interior let a contractor get away with submitting information for one plane while proposing to use another for a $25 million U.S. Navy electronic warfare testing contract, the Government Accountability Office said in a bid protest decision made public Friday.
The GAO sustained the protest by incumbent contractor Phoenix Air Group Inc., finding both that awardee Tempus Jets Inc. was credited for meeting acceptability criteria even though the plane information didn't match and that Phoenix's own proposal was dinged for criteria it couldn't have known about.
Tempus' $24.7 million bid had been chosen to replace Phoenix — whose own bid for the November 2015 solicitation was priced at $28 million — even though one of the aircraft questionnaire forms Tempus provided did not actually cover the plane intended as its "second on-call" jet, according to the decision.
Interior had argued that only the "make and model" were "integral," and thus the plane Federal Aviation Administration registration number mix-up wouldn't have impacted the award. The GAO said, however, that deeming Tempus acceptable for having provided the information of a different plane was "unreasonable and inconsistent" with the request for proposals, or RFP.
"The RFP expressly required offerors to identify each aircraft by its unique FAA registration number. The RFP also required specific information for each of those aircraft, such as its total hours of service for the airframe and for each engine, the most recent weight and balance test, and all modifications to the aircraft," the GAO said. "Tempus proposal identified a specific aircraft, but then provided information about a different aircraft. As a result, the conclusion that Tempus' proposal was acceptable under the offer acceptability criteria was unreasonable, so we sustain this ground of protest."
Phoenix had contested its rejection once before only for the GAO to dismiss the protest as academic when Interior said it was reevaluating the proposals. Upon that reevaluation, the contract once again went to Tempus, and Phoenix filed the current challenge.
Also sustained in the decision published Friday was Phoenix's protest of its own evaluation on the one- to five-year, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract on which only Phoenix and Tempus put in offers. Specifically, Phoenix had argued it was knocked for not providing specific information, even though the need for that information was never laid out in the solicitation.
According to the partially redacted decision, dated Sept. 26, Phoenix thought it merely had to provide general comments on the capabilities of its planes and pilots, only to be judged as having needed to provide "specific comments" on "particular specifications" that were left out. Interior arguments that Phoenix was simply disagreeing with how it was evaluated, and that the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation, were rejected.
"We do not think that a reasonable offeror should have understood from the stated evaluation criteria, or from the information requested in the offeror capability form, that specific responses to each of the specifications in RFP Sections A and B and a property management plan were important proposal elements," the GAO said. "Accordingly, we sustain the protest because the application of these unstated evaluation criteria significantly lowered the assessment of Phoenix's proposal."
Moving forward, the GAO recommended Interior take another look at the proposals, consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation, and tweak the solicitation as needed if the unstated criteria "reflect the intended evaluation." If amended, the bidders should be given a chance to submit revised offers, the GAO said. It also recommended that Phoenix be comped its protest costs.
Phoenix counsel Barbara S. Kinosky of Centre Law and Consulting LLC said Friday that she and her client were excited about the ruling. As for why a Navy contract was solicited through Interior, Kinosky said she didn't know, although she told Law360 this appears to be the first time Interior has ever bought aircraft.
Kinosky also noted that while Phoenix has the physical planes in its possession, Tempus does not, and instead its bid was predicated on buying the jets after the award. Awarding the contract anyway, she said, "was very surprising."
Representatives for Tempus and the DOI did not immediately respond Friday to press inquiries.
Paul N. Wengert and Tania Calhoun with the GAO's Office of the General Counsel worked on preparing the decision.
Phoenix is represented by David R. Warner, Barbara S. Kinosky, Marina Burton Blickley and Wojciech Z. Kornacki with Centre Law and Consulting LLC.
Tempus Jets is represented by Daniel R. Weckstein, Anthony J. Mazzeo and Blake R. Christopher of Vandeventer Black LLP.
Saw the below rumor listed on Fightercontrol message board (Brize = Bruntingthorpe)
“At the start of this year members of another company were on base at Brize asking for anyone with experience on tristars to help get the aircraft airworthy again from bruntingthorpe and fly them to Boscombe down for conversion to water bombers?”
Not sure if anyone has seen this or heard about it.
I’ve emailed CFO Johan again recently to see if he can tell me if TMPS is still in the A2A refueling business, unlikely to hear back. Seems like they either are pursuing A2A ops, like most of us think, or just maybe, they are selling the planes to someone else who will take on the burden of getting them airworthy and use them as potential water bombers?
Would love to get confirmation if TMPS was represented at industry day back in September!
Yep well said.
still find this interesting. 100% FUNDED and 100% COMPLETE...$3.8M Cap Standup
https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/delivery-order-n0042119d0034-n0042119f0708#updates-table
To your point, certainly looks like the Navy is in MAC award mode...my guess is by end of week we hear something.
Very fair point
That’s a lot of downward pressure on the Ask.
Well the longer this award goes without naming a recipient the more this gets bundled with the US TRANSCOM initiative which means another year of waiting. Hope the Navy follows through now