Dawes remains dogged in pressing case of allegedly overpriced drill
Published:Monday | May 26, 2025 | 12:06 AMRuddy Mathison/Gleaner Writer
Opposition Spokesman on Health and Wellness Dr Alfred Dawes is unrelenting in expressing concerns over the cost of a neurosurgical drill purchased by the South East Regional Health Authority (SERHA), arguing that the device was significantly overpriced.
Dawes insisted that the Medtronic EM 800 neurosurgical drill, which was procured for $31 million, can be sourced for significantly less.
“We are aware of the exact brand, not another that can do the same work, but the same brand — the Medtronic EM 800 neurosurgical drill — we just found out that is the brand that was supplied,” he said. According to him, the drill can be obtained for “$3 million to $5 million”.
Medical Technologies Limited, the company that procured the drill, has disputed Dawes’ earlier assertions, clarifying in a statement on Wednesday that the drill in question was a new EM 800 series model, not the EM 200 model Dawes initially cited. Checks made by The Gleaner confirmed that the Medtronic EM 800 series multifunction drills, with basic attachments, can be purchased for between US$15,000 and US$30,000 but can escalate depending on additional attachments.
Dawes criticised the procurement process, stating, “At face value, it appears that the procurement rules were followed — a tender went out, registered bidders made their tenders, and then a selection committee selected the bid that offered whatever was needed for the best price. However, the problem came when they torpedoed the process by the internal estimates.”
He argued that “someone at SERHA” determined a fair value of $32 million for the drill, which he said undermined the process.
“I am privy to the bid document, and I know that three companies bid: one for $12 million, one for $31.5 million, and another for $50 million,” he said. Dawes claimed that the $12-million bid was rejected for lacking necessary attachments, leaving two bids for evaluation.
“I am extremely uncomfortable with that process, no matter how they will tell you that it is above board and the rules were followed at the initial stage,” Dawes stated.
He emphasised his support for the idea of acquiring the drill, acknowledging its life-saving potential.
“I fully support the doctors who said that this drill is an addition to the armamentarium that will save lives and make surgeries much easier as well as increase the number of persons who can benefit from surgeries.”
However, Dawes reiterated his concern about the cost.
COST OF SPENDING
“My issue, however, is the cost — we are spending $31 million that could have bought [a drill] for $10 million or $15 million. So yes, the cost is an issue, and not just the actual cost paid, but the opportunity cost of spending so much money on that drill,” he stressed.
Meanwhile, Tufton maintained his defence of the process, stating, “Once I am comfortable that the process has been followed, and I have no evidence to suggest otherwise, I am not going to get into the dance because that dance don’t suit me and the role of this Government.”
He added, “The role of the Government is to focus on the people, and Bustamante Hospital, in this case, gets what they require.”
Tufton maintained that his fiduciary responsibility lies with the process.
“The procurement process should address value for money, and to the extent that the rules were followed, it should give us, everyone, the assurance based on what was required and what was presented.”