Member Info for scardey_cat

I'm devastated asher7.

Wait for the explosion of buys in the low 70's, if it gets there. Should be an interesting morning, weapons at the ready! :-)

I expect next Omega RNS will be to notify shareholders of confirmed orders for Visitect antigen or ABC-19 antibody tests. Just have to ride a bit of SP volatilty in the meantime, but as Omega shareholders, we're used to that, right?

For whatever reason, Mologic are allowing Omega to sell the Mologic antigen test (rebranded as Visitect) for their own (Omega's) benefit. Whether that involves some kind of commission payment to Mologic, I don't know. But, it would be interesting to know what's in it for Mologic.

Yeh, they're producing Visitect antigen (Mologic antigen rebranded as Omega) and ABC-19 antibody, so, even though no confirmed orders yet, they must be pretty confident someone's going to buy them.

@Avizadum1
Last night's TT discussion was in connection with TT of the sovereign test. If the govt choose Mologic as the sovereign test, then one would expect no need / delay with TT, since it's already been done. If the govt choose something other than Mologic test (Avacta, for instance), then a further TT would be needed.

The presentation really drives home how much the landscape has changed for Avacta since March 2019. It gives you a real sense of the difficulties of funding their future programs faced, with numerous expected share dilutions along the way. The unexpected windfall of covid income (if I can be so crude) has truly transformed the companies fortunes and has probably advanced it's earnings potential by 3 to 5 years.

Just listened to the presentation. Hugely impressed with how 'on top of his brief' AS is and how well he articulates this. His ability to communicate complex scientific phenomena in layman's terms is such a great asset for Avacta. Can't be many AIM CEO's with this level of intelligence...very, very impressive.

What we need is CE and confirmation of additional manufacturing capacity in the UK, or overseas. An order would do wonders, or even a very strong hint of orders in the pipeline. Much better to have a slightly more arms-length relationship with the govt - you only have to look at Omega & Abingdon to know they just can't be trusted. This would hugely mitigate any downside over-reaction to Avacta not being chosen as the sovereign test.

Yes, I thought Shedz was being 'slightly economical...' :-). But it's a clause you would expect to see. It does give the option for Omega to use the govt equipment in the case where they do not require all the additional capacity. And, it would be quite unreasonable for the govt to not give it's consent in those circumstances.

gkb47, this is what the contract actually says:

2.2 The Supplier shall not be permitted to use the Machinery or Tooling to manufacture any Goods
or any other goods for supply to anyone other than the Authority without the Authority’s prior
written consent which it may withhold or issue subject to conditions in its absolute discretion. If
The Supplier is permitted to use the Machinery and/or Tooling to manufacture goods for supply
to third parties the Supplier may be required to pay the Authority an amount for each item
manufactured at the rate specified by the Authority from time to time.

Penance, it depends I suppose whether or not the test is Mologic. No TT needed if Mologic, TT needed if not Mologic. The timelines are detailed of pg 81 of the Omega contract (or, pg 83 of the GAD contract).

https://atamis-1928.cloudforce.com/sfc/p/#0O000000rwim/a/4J000000kI0H/EySZ28HhbGWp.KyQFExkrBzY54f6HXd6hOd1W5fDn3E

Target Dates from Pg 83 of Contract:
- Primary and Secondary manufacturing facilities work expected to be completed by early May
- Ancillary works TBC and may take longer
- Equipment installation target end May 2021 (dependent on OEM delivery schedule, which is expected to have variations, and availability of engineering support for installation and commissioning)
- Tech transfer expected to take 8-11 weeks once test to be manufactured is confirmed. Duration dependent on complexity of transfer.

One major advantage Avacta have, is that if there is a variant that escapes an 'N' test, then the developer will have a much longer lead time to come up with a new test / new antibody (3-6 months). Despite there being less of a possibility of a mutations in the 'N' protein, it is still a possibility, so would the govt want to commit to an 'N' sovereign test, knowing that it could be redundant for 3 to 6 months should such a mutation occur? Wouldn't they rather have a highly accurate 'S' test, which targets the parts of the 'S' protein less susceptible to mutations, knowing that Avacta can knock up another affimer in about one month, in a worse case scenario. Common sense dictates the Avacta route.

Of course, there is also an argument to be made for two sovereign tests...best 'S' test and best 'N' test, to cover all bases, until such time as Avacta/Mologic come up with the silver bullet S/N test.

@Radiagreen: I'm not sure it's decided yet, though I think there is every possibility that Avacta are in Phase 1 of the GAD contract (even though the contract states that Phase 1 should have completed by now, these timelines are not necessarily set in stone). For all we know Avacta are being fast-tracked through PD as we speak (with amended protocol re: frozen samples), or the govt just accept the 'alternative validation route' as described in the original £912m tender. Be nice to get some closure on this, it's been like participating in a year long game of Cluedo.

@beinthelead, just pointing out inconsistencies in the contract, in so far as, in one part of the contract it intimates that the test would not have passed PD at the time the contract was signed (as Muck pointed out) and yet para 3.7 completely contradicts this. As I said, it's difficult to draw any concrete conclusions from the GAD contract.

However, I agree with PAH that logic dictates it has to be Avacta. The CV results are just too impressive for it to be anybody else. Just need to get over this 'passing Porton Down' conundrum, but I'm sure if the govt want the test, they'll find a way to skirt around that.

Except for this bit Radiagreen:

"and have been confirmed as meeting the same standards and equivalence as the tests which had previously been performed on the Goods by Public Health England at Porton Down"

Also, Muck, para 3.7 seems to indicate that 'the Goods' will have already been tested at Porton Down. This contradicts the other references to Porton Down status that you mentioned. In my experience of govt contracts, they are never word perfect and are subject to the same slip-ups and inaccuracies as any other legal contract, so we just can't make too many solid conclusions from these contracts.

"3.7 The Supplier shall by the Long Stop Date and subject to the Supplier and Mologic having entered into the contracts referred to in clauses 2.3, 3.1.9, 3.1.10, and 3.1.11 where required by the Authority, ensure that agreed quantities of pre-Production samples and testing samples of the Goods (“Pre-Production Samples”) have been tested in accordance with testing procedures and test success criteria agreed with the Authority (which as a minimum shall be in accordance with the requirements of the MHRA for Product Authorisation and CE marking) and have been confirmed as meeting the same standards and equivalence as the tests which had previously been performed on the Goods by Public Health England at Porton Down, such samples to be manufactured in conformance with the Specification."

I noticed the PD references too Mick, but I just think that's in there as a coverall situation, so can't read too much into that.

"Vostick - what else would the redactions be?"

The redactions in para's 3.1.10 & 3.1.11 will be 'Mologic'. The one reference to Mologic in para 3.1.10 was left there in error. Mologic are identified as the legal manufacturer of the Goods, whereas GAD are the physical manufacture of the Goods...two distinct things. So, these two paragraphs are just setting the landscape of Mologic being subject to the same contracts / confidentialities as GAD (since it is GAD who are the legal party to the contract and not Mologic). There's no way that the Test Developer are directly referenced by name in this contract as there are numerous mentions of "when a suitable test developer has been identified" (and the like) within the contract.

Having said that, I think there is a more than reasonable chance that Avacta are currently involved in Phase 1 of the GAD contract. I also think it likely that GAD are doing the Phase 1 part of the contract, rather than Omega. It's not necessary to have both manufacturers doing Phase 1, unless of course there is more than one sovereign test.