Member Info for scardey_cat

Just found out b i t c h y is a banned word :-)

"Have a look at page 83. Equipment isn’t expected to be installed until end of May, assuming the availability of engineering support. We’ve now seen a contract with Toyota to get involved, so you can assume they’re behind. This GAD contract mentions Omega (professional stuff) and says that tech transfer will take 8-11 weeks."

Pl, good spot that on Page 83. I expect the reference to Omega on Page 83 should read GAD/Mologic. I think the GAD contract is a copy and paste jobby from the Omega contract, since the same 'Omega' reference occurs on Page 83 of their contract. If you do a search on the GAD contract for 'Omega', it doesn't find the 'Omega' reference, since it's in some kind of different typeset, hence the 'secretary' missing it.

On a different theme, I was thinking about the Abingdon situation yesterday. I think Avacta have done well to secure capacity with them. My thoughts are that ABDX were approached by the govt for manufacturing capacity, but they said "No, thanks, you've already shafted us on the ABC-19 antibody test and we don't fancy having our pants pulled down again on this one." Would explain why the govt are being are being a bit *****y about not paying them the £5mil they are owed.

Reading the last 100 posts on here, it seems to me people are expecting an Scottish Election RNS. Probably along the lines of AS saying "Scotland is expected to leave the Union shortly".

Be nice to get back to some Avacta stuff.

PAH, I'm coming around to the idea that Avacta are quite possibly in Phase 1 of the GAD contract. The timelines do fit in quite well...Mologic partnership RNS 8th Feb...GAD contract signed 12th Feb. And if the govt are yet to pull the trigger to progress to Phase 2 of the contract, this would explain AS's hesitancy/inability to commit to a known manufacturing availabilty. What a dreamy RNS we might be looking at here.

"It's the fact the Govt has put in the option of licencing out the manufacture IP that got me thinking. It would also be a job creator in low income nations too..."

Bella, I think the govt have given themselves the option of licensing the IP out, only in the case where a Replacement Supplier is needed. For instance, if the GAD factory is destroyed by an earthquake, the govt can appoint a replacement supplier to fulfill the order for the goods (11.6.2). Kind of a force majeure thing.

[11.6 Each Party keeps ownership of its own Existing IPR. The Supplier gives the Authority a nonexclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, transferable worldwide licence to use, change and sub-license the Supplier’s Existing IPR to enable it to both:
11.6.1 receive and use the Goods and
11.6.2 make use of the goods and deliverables provided by a Replacement Supplier]

Colin sure knows how to put a dampner on things. Glad I sold a good chunk today on the spike. Buy back cheaper on Monday.

"A quick clarification (because we read your tweets and we’re a bit worried someone will buy a Tesla over the weekend!): Today’s Contracts Finder release does not reflect a change in the contract – it’s a disclosure of the *redacted* version of the contract."

Should be us within the next 30 beers sheikhman.

We might not want govt having access to our IP via this contract. Look at this for a cheeky clause!

11.6 Each Party keeps ownership of its own Existing IPR. The Supplier gives the Authority a nonexclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, transferable worldwide licence to use, change and sub-license the Supplier’s Existing IPR to enable it to both:
11.6.1 receive and use the Goods and
11.6.2 make use of the goods and deliverables provided by a Replacement Supplier
11.7 Any New IPR created under the Contract ( including any New IPR created by Mologic) is owned by the Authority. The Authority gives the Supplier a licence to use any Existing IPR and New IPR for the purpose of fulfilling its obligations during the Contract Period.

PL, I think you were right about it being a mistake that Mologics name was not redacted in 3.1.10. I also think the redacted words in 3.1.10 & 3.1.11 are Mologic, Mologic and Mologic. You have to read that contract understanding that all those paragraphs are instructions specifically to GAD. I think those two paragraphs are just ensuring Mologic are subject to the same conditions as GAD.

I think paragraph 3.7 is testament to that:

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...

Quick off the mark there TEMPLAR.

https://www.finddx.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Mologic_Ag-Public-Report_v1-20210423.pdf

Sample type, antigen test Nasal (AN) (n=645) or NMT (n=20)

Hope you're right PAH00, but not sure CE mark has anything to do with it.

Also interesting to note that GAD would seem to account for approx 62.5% of govt manufacturing capacity and Omega 37.5%:

Omega award: £50M-£374M
GAD award: £50M-£1B

Comparing the equivalent Omega redacted contract (£374mil), I notice that paragraphs 3.1.10 & 3.1.11 are omitted from the Omega contract. So, the question is, why would those two paragraphs feature in the Mologic/GAD contract, but not in the Omega contract? Assuming GAD & Omega will be making the same sovereign test, one would think those two paragraphs would be applicable to both manufacturers.

Quick follow up on that...

Looking at the signature page, both contracts were signed within 3 days of each other. So, the exclusion of paragraphs 3.1.10 & 3.1.11 from the Omega contract can't be accounted for by some miscellaneous update to the contract that occurred over time. So, to me it suggests that the IP paragraphs are associated with some internal relationship between GAD and Mologic, otherwise it would also feature in the Omega contract.

Comparing the equivalent Omega redacted contract (£374mil), I notice that paragraphs 3.1.10 & 3.1.11 are omitted from the Omega contract. So, the question is, why would those two paragraphs feature in the Mologic/GAD contract, but not in the Omega contract? Assuming GAD & Omega will be making the same sovereign test, one would think those two paragraphs would be applicable to both manufacturers. It's a real brain teaser.

Mologic contract:
https://atamis-1928.cloudforce.com/sfc/p/#0O000000rwim/a/4J000000kI0I/7JhImQT1H1UrqPqg4p59bRgE4blKhAA7Z4WmPeWJCZE

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

Looks like some of ODX profits from yesterday, making it's way back here.

I imagine Toyota might have a few spare vehicles knocking about that can take their engineers beyond the Derbyshire border.

It does tend to move things along a bit when your CEO is a Knight of the Realm (Lord Paul Drayson).

"Looks like the govt really is going to help build a UK (world leading) diagnostics industry."

Coughing up the £5 million quid they owe ABDX would be a good start!

Just wondering how this new test validation process will affect things. Does everybody have to start all over again?