Replies to post #27109 on Tempus Applied Solutions Holdings Inc fka TMPS

[AJH92]

I've stated consistently for 16 months that there is more than enough work for any contractor that has military capable tanker aircraft for the multiple reasons stated here - and that isn't going to change for the next 25 to 50 years:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=150706831

I was surprised that Omega didn't get a contract as well for 2020 when the $TMPS contract was announced in April 2019 and it first became clear that there had been a competitive bidding process that $TMPS was always going to win on the technical merit of its fleet's capability.

The contract has not yet been terminated - see my comments here along with all the options as I see it:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=150706831

I agree that there is likely to be further discussion between the USN and $TMPS before the "intends to" is made actual.

In an event, the USN can't just turn around and hand a contract to Omega without a protest from $TMPS - except for any possible short-term extension options that may be in the small print of extant contracts.

[LongCA]

I have done some reading today, and I am by no means an expert in this area, so I am hoping someone can comment on this:

What I have read is that there are two reasons for termination, and neither of these were mentioned in the 8k--termination for cause and termination for convenience.

I also read about "corrective actions" and from my reading those appear to be specific issues that need to be dealt with by the contractor.

But in this case, the "Navy has informed TriStar Air LLC that a decision has been made to take corrective action." As written, the Navy is the one to take corrective action, not TMPS, the contractor. We can analysis this all day and still end up needing clarification in a filing, but I am interested in your thoughts on this.

[bob4uall]

Here's where I'm a bit flabbergasted.

I wish I were only a bit flabbergasted!

I have to spin out a bunch of ignorant theories because I want to try to make sense out of the process when disclosure of what is really happening is not forthcoming.

Oh well, the 8-K could have been a lot worse.

So here’s another totally uninformed guess: Maybe the Navy does not want to destroy one of only a few air-to-air refuelers.

The GAO never got to rule on whether there was anything improper because the Navy pulled the case from them. We do not know the Navy’s motives, but why should they do that if the GAO is charged with that responsibility. They were the ones who rightfully should decide if rules were broken. Not the Navy, I presume, or why is GAO even hearing protests?

Maybe the Navy has learned that the loss would strain Omega too much, so after hearing technicalities that would give them an excuse to reconsider, they did.

If so, this “corrective action” would give TMPS a piece of the pie.

The market isn’t convinced yet, or we would have been looking at a bigger loss than we had.

Just a thought.