By Jayvee Vallejera and Mar-Vic Cagurangan
Approximately half a million dollars’ worth of medical equipment are languishing in a storage after the General Services Agency rejected the Guam Fire Department's retroactive procurement request.
Documents indicated that the fire department scrambled to complete the sole-source procurement process—which has drawn out for 10 months before it was thumbed down by GSA last month—after the equipment had already been delivered.
The procurement in question refers to Stryker’s Lucas devices for mechanical chest compressions in emergency cases. Different documents showed discrepancies in the product’s price, ranging from $420,258.16 to $561,688.
The department's procurement attempt raised questions about the process involved in placing the order.
The fire department began the official procurement process in February after the devices were shipped in November 2025.
An anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint with the Office of Public Accountability, calling for an investigation into the botched transaction between GFD and Stryker.
“The Hotline Committee will meet to discuss its recommendation,” Public Auditor Benjamin Cruz said. “I have referred the complaint to the 2027 Audit Plan Committee to determine if we should include it on or 2027 audit plan.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The well-documented complaint, which was also sent to the Guam Ethics Commission and the Office of the Attorney General, includes email threads among department officials including Fire Chief Daren D. Burrier, Assistant Fire Chief Michael F. Uncangco, Fire Prevention Bureau Chief Edward Artero, and Matthew Mako, Stryker's account manager.
Burrier acknowledged receiving the Pacific Island Times’ request for comment. The Pacific Island Times also reached out to Stryker for comment.
In an email to Stryker after GSA’s rejection of the GFD’s procurement request, Burrier told the vendor: “Government of Guam procurement laws prevent us from procuring any equipment sent to the Guam Fire Department by error, without our knowledge and without a purchase order.”
He asked Stryker to retrieve the equipment, which he said remained unopened
in storage.
The anonymous whistleblower told OPA that records warrant an investigation into the mishandled order and to determine who authorized the shipment and why GFD continued attempting to complete the purchase for months after delivery.
ADVERTISEMENT
Records indicated that GFD’s formal requisition was generated on July 31, 2025, for $452,801.20.
“The chronology warrants examination because the records show that Burrier and Uncangco knew equipment had already been delivered while the government procurement process remained incomplete, and both participated in subsequent efforts to obtain the documentation necessary to complete the acquisition,” the whistleblower said.
In October 2025, Mako advised Burrier that prices would soon increase and suggested that a signed Stryker purchase order form be used to retain price quote while GFD awaited an official purchase order.
Mako told officials that the purchase order form was “not a commitment to buy” and Burrier had returned it intending to hold the price while the government procurement process was being routed.
ADVERTISEMENT
GFD began receiving Stryker invoices in late October 2025, and GFD began receiving the equipment the following month.
On Nov. 6, 2025, Burrier notified Mako in an email: “We received the Lucas devices yesterday. Will we be getting the rest soon?”
In January 2026, Stryker pressed GFD for the payment of $420,094.34, which the vendor said was overdue.
On Feb. 3, 2026, Uncangco advised Stryker that “GFD had identified funding for the items listed in the invoices and will begin the procurement process as soon as possible.”
In March, Burrier asked for an updated sole-source documentation and a current quotation so the department could process the purchase.
Documents show similar efforts continued through the spring and summer generating revised quotations, proposed equipment exchanges and configuration changes.
In August, Burrier advised Stryker that the government process was in the “final stages,” with the requisition pending with the General Services Agency for the anticipated issuance of a government purchase order that never came.
GSA said the procurement request submission came late.
The complaint asked investigators to determine whether procurement rules were followed and whether the transaction entails criminal or civil liability.
It was not clear as of this writing if the vendor has responded to Burrier's instruction to retrieve the items.
Subscribe to
our digital
monthly issue