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.
Great posts AJ... Much respect
All, just wanted to post for all to see the rules on the losing offeror(s) filing a protest after notification of contract award.
To be timely filed at GAO, a disappointed offeror must file its protest within ten (10) calendar days after “the basis for the protest is known or should have been known, whichever is earlier” OR within five (5) calendar days of a debriefing that is requested and required, whichever is later. Three (3) days after award, certain procurements (FAR Part 15) require the Agency to provide a debriefing. If a debriefing is required, you must submit a written request for a debrief within three (3) calendar days of the date of notification of award.
The contract was awarded on the 18th of April. If a protest has occurred (not uncommon for a contract this size) , we should be seeing it pop up on the protest docket on GAOs website.
Unless the solicitation number shows up on the website, all comments by posters claiming protest are either nonfactual and aimed at affecting/manipulating stock price, or the release of material "inside" information. Both are illegal.
I just checked the publicly available Gao protest site that details open/closed protests. No protest is shown. Either you have inside material information and are telling the truth, or you're lying. Which is it? Either way you've proven your integrity... Or lack there of.
BTW, as I mentioned, protests aren't a big deal. They happen a lot. I wouldnt be surprised if another bidder protested a contract award of this size.
Stents, I can't answer in PM. When revenue starts being generated is tough to say without actually seeing the contract and performance schedule. Navy extended the current contractor for a year, usually accomplished as a risk reduction during transition or to cover down for a potential protest/ recompete...most likely the former. If I was the program manager I'd be thinking 3 to 6 months to allow for stand up, air worthiness, etc and then full performance starting after. IMO though, the contract will enable billing for ALL approved activities associated on a monthly basis depending on invoices submitted and approved through DCMA (defense contract management agency). Hope that helps.
... One more thing to add. Given the scarcity of refueling options out there and increasing demand...coupled with proven performance in the coming year, TMPS is setting a foundation for additional contracts that can be Sole Source rather than competed. Once they get this foundational business, and have capital resources available to leverage future DoD and foreign military sales deals without needing to source funds through loans or share offers... Goodnight it could get ridiculous.
Whiz, let me add on to this. I mentioned a while back that the Navy is very good at going sole source when they have the opportunity. The fact that this was competed and TMPS was the best deal for the Navy, with all the research they do prior to award, speaks volumes. Does TMPS need to perform? Absolutely. Does the Navy think TMPS can perform? $121M multiyear/multi delivery order contract should give a clue.... Just sayin.
You're welcome Buckeye! I'll try to post more on thoughts and give you my perspective. I'd love to have time to trade this knowing the ups and downs that will be coming due to OTC mentalities, day traders limit sets, additional news, and bashers playing on emotions... But in the long run I have a very strong feeling this stock is a game changer.... Some say zip code changer. I'm prior military and love that I own a small part of a business that's supporting our country and has a huge potential for financial greatness. Can't say that about a lot of these pennies.
Just want to chime in on the 8k and folk's concerns:
1. Great news validated... All longs and newcomers should be looking forward to a bright future
2. Government NEVER provides funds upfront so of course any company will require funding to enable work stated in the contract/work statement. How a small business gets that funding is typically through loans, preferred share offers, or other debt offerings. TMPS now has a DoD contract that is guaranteed enabling favorable terms. Im assuming this is a cost plus contract where TMPS will be reimbursed for direct/indirect expenses and allowed reasonable profit. This was all worked during award process.
3. ALL gov contracts run the risk of protest. Protest period lasts 10 days so we'll know shortly if there is one.
4. Protest is no big deal if it occurs. DoD procurement process has so much dang red tape during source selection that the award made will almost certainly pass GAO scrutiny. In all my years I've seen one protest upheld that required a recompete... And that was due to fraud and a biased selection process. I'm not seeing that here.
5. Shareholders need to recognize this is a first step on a still long process to take a small business and turn it into a potential monster. The need is real in refueling and this contract provides and unbelievable foundation to expand and grow. Potential is ridiculous in this one.
Uh huh... Just like Lockheed's over $300M army award is disingenuous. "potential" is always used by the media when describing max ceiling of government contract. Or is this a pump for Lockheed too?
"Lockheed Gets Potential $363M Army Contract for Multiple Launch Rocket Systems"
https://www.govconwire.com/2019/04/lockheed-gets-potential-363m-army-contract-for-multiple-launch-rocket-systems/
I'm very excited that the DD paid off. Good luck to all the current holders and others looking to jump in! From my experience in govt business, possibilities for TMPS are pretty ridiculous with the firm foundation this contract establishes.
Wrong.... If navy thought there was no way a competitor could offer value based on information known they would have gone sole source. Air worthiness steps would be part of TMPS proposal.
Just spoke with a contracting friend. They confirmed my thinking. Navy is hedging with the 1 year extension for 1 of 2 reasons. 1st....new provider and there needs to be a sufficient transition time to reduce risk during transition. The release doesn't say how many options are in the 12 month period either... It could be set up for 4 options of 3 months each. 2nd scenario, navy is hedging against a potential protest after award in March. If GAO upholds a protest, it usually takes a full 12 months to redo contract award. Who is protesting is the question! Either situation is positive if you think about it. My bet is that they may be expecting a protest from incumbent because govt typically doesn't worry about protests from smaller incapable contractors. Navy contracting is renowned for getting who they want and do a ton of sole source actions. The fact that a competitive contract is happening and a 12 month risk reduction hedge has been awarded is very interesting! Again... All IMO.
Folks, I will reach out to some contracting officer friends I know (non navy) and provide back info concerning scenerios a 1 year sole source contract mod would happen 2 months before the follow on competitive contract is awarded. I have ideas but don't want to post conjecture. Key words I picked up on were "at this time...." Interesting to say the least! I'll post back tomorrow.
I think that if omegas capacity is still limited, a sub contract should at the very least be in the cards... IMO
Extensions are commonplace and are typically built into back ends of contracts allowing govt to finish up follow on contract. It could be good news if omega has always been the sole commercial provider with limited competition and the Navy wasn't expecting a good competition in their source selection timeline, or it could mean the contracting folks have taken too long, are behind schedule, and just need more time....these are government workers we're talking about... I can say that because I am one;)
Sounds like a typical foreign mitary sales contract with multiple CLINs for different countries to execute against. Whats very interesting is that if Omega wins and needs more capacity, TASH can easily be a subcontractor for them to provide more planes/hours....if they have a good relationship. Im assuming since the Navy reached out for what's called an EN to TASH directly during source selection that a teaming arrangement between omega and tash wasn't settled before submission of proposals for the new contract. That's not bad, but it does bring additional questions and optimistic thoughts to my mind.
Should have no relevance to source selection activities. Despite what some folks think, ceos are clueless as to direction of selection until right before public announcement. If he's resigning and an announcement is made tomorrow on contract and TASH didn't get it, then there's causality associated.
The gov will look at financial health, or ability to perform for the period of the contract... That means a look at BS, IS, cash reserves, operating income, direct, indirect costs, debts, etc. Gov has offices and contracting officers that scrub company health to ensure a contract isn't awarded to a potentially bankrupt or in the future potentially insolvent company. They do not pay attention to reporting status.
You're welcome Abba. The good news is the Navy didn't go sole source to the current provider... They could have accomplished this if market research and results of extensive requests for information showed no other offerors were capable of performing to the requirements identified by the Navy. Competition is good...gets the Navy a fair price and provides opportunities to other offerors that may be better suited to deliver...in this case hopefully TMPS.
Folks... Thought I'd help everybody out. As a DoD finance person who works with contracting all the time, a 6 month extension can mean multiple things but most often it means more time is needed to finalize contract award. Most contracts have a 6 MO extension clause for this purpose. Source selection can take a while and the process is VERY guarded. The extension is neither good nor bad... It just is. Im a shareholder btw.