Hospital migration plan abandoned

The government's three-year plan for the phased transfer of medical services from St Luke's Hospital to the new Mater Dei Hospital has been completely upset by appeal proceedings by two consortia which bid to supply medical equipment for the new hospital.

It is now likely that the transfer to the new hospital, originally meant to start next month and take three years, will be made in one phase in 2005.

A few months ago, the government published a three-year Lm2.9 million plan, prepared by Cyril Sweett Ltd and commissioned by the Foundation for Medical Services. The first sections to migrate from St Luke's were scheduled to be the outpatients services, the administration block and the engineering centre, which were to start operating from Tal-Qroqq next month.

Day care services and a number of hospital support services were to start being given from Mater Dei in the third quarter of 2004 and inpatient services were to be transferred in the third quarter of 2005.

Most of the plan now has to be revised: the planned transfer of the outpatients' services next month and that of other important services planned for next year have been put indefinitely on hold.

The priorities of the professional three-year migration plan were patient safety, minimal disruption, deliverability, early release of project benefits and efficiency.

The chief executive of the Foundation for Medical Services, Emanuel Attard, yesterday expressed frustration with the situation.

"We feel helpless and extremely frustrated indeed. Originally many thought the plans to initiate the transfer to the new hospital as from next month, starting with the outpatient services, was too ambitious. However, work was on schedule and we would have made it on time. But our plans have been completely disrupted by the appeal of some consortia competing for the medical equipment tender."

Mr Attard explained the complications which led to the disruption of the plan of transferring the hospital services from St Luke's to Mater Dei.

"Let me give an example: work on 70,000 square metres of the area of the new hospital was put on hold in view of the unavailability of the medical equipment. Since the medical equipment contractor is not onboard yet, the FMS had no option but to put certain work on site on hold."

Asked whether this could lead to FMS being faced with claims for delay from the contractors involved in the project, Mr Attard said: "The contractor is making claims but it is premature to quantify the outcome of these claims. That's why I feel frustrated. We have been working for many years and managed to overcome many obstacles only to be faced with something completely outside our jurisdiction."

Asked whether this meant that the migration plan was money down the drain, Mr Attard disagreed. "I wouldn't call it money down the drain," he said, "but it's true that a significant part of the plan has to start again from scratch.

"My personal opinion is that given the circumstances, the transfer of the hospital could take place in one phase stretched over six to seven months in 2005. If we really want the hospital to open in 2005, we cannot now have a transfer that will take years."

The contract under the spotlight is estimated to cost in the region of Lm20 million and was awarded to the mainly-Italian consortium INSO but two other competing consortia, Hospitalia and Simed, appealed the decision.

The history of the contract goes back to 2001 when FMS had issued a pre-qualification questionnaire for those interested in the contract for the supply of medical equipment. Following that process, in October of the same year the FMS had issued a tender which closed in February 2002.

After the adjudication process, in May of 2002 the FMS made its recommendation to the director of contracts. In due time the director issued a letter of intent. However, the chosen consortium was different from the one recommended by FMS. Two consortia appealed that decision earlier this year and for the first time a committee was set up specifically to hear the appeal.

According to the government migration plan published last year, the experts had proposed three options but the then selected option had been chosen because of seven advantages: it brought project benefits as early as possible, it kept inpatient acute services together, thus minimising risk to patients, it allowed more time for the procurement of the majority of medical equipment and IT, except for outpatients, and it allowed more time for reforms, organisational change and operational preparations.

The selected option also involved the lowest risk of the new building not being ready on time; it was the lowest cost option, and it had the greatest support of clinical staff.

"Obviously, we now have been left with no option but to go back to the drawing board," Mr Attard said.