Evaluation Report

DESIGN CONSULTANCY SERVICES 63,000 SQ. FT. ICT BUILDING MONTEGO

BAY FREEZONE
BACK GROUND/INTRODUCTION
The Montego Bay Free Zone (MBFZ) operates within the legal framework of the Jamaica Export
Free Zone Act of 1982. MBFZ a subsidiary of the Port Authority of Jamaica (PAJ) operates the
Free Zone on behalf the PAJ. The principal role and function of the MBFZ is to facilitate
investment by local and overseas investors engaged in exports and business process outsourcing.
As a result of its mandate the MBFZ planned to construct a two storey Data Entry Building
(DEB)/Information Communication Building (ICT) approximately 5,853s.m. (63,000s.f.). It is
proposed that the building will have a footprint of 68.89m (226-0) x 42.67m (140- 0). Each
floor will be capable of being divided into multi tenant spaces each with their own sanitary
facilities. The building must be provided with handicapped friendly facilities on both levels. In
addition, provision must be made for tenants to add extra sanitary facilities if they require. The
purpose of this report is to show the process by which each firms technical competence and
financial proposal was evaluated and hence the recommendation for an award.
SCOPE OF SERVICE:

The following is the scope of the assignment that the respective consultants were asked to Bid on
and which will be undertaken by the successful Consultant:

The key elements of the work comprised the design and contract supervision of the
building in accordance to the above mentioned foot print.

In the first instance, the preliminary designs should indicate/illustrate how well this
facility will meet the current and future needs of the MBFZ/ Stakeholders. Secondly, the
contracted firm will manage the process of the design and construction of the said Data
Entry Building.
Normal Services

The following stages and duties comprise of the Consultants/ designers Normal
Services:
1.

Preliminary Design Stage

a)

The Consultant shall take the Clients instructions regarding the budget and the
applicable requirements necessary for the various operations, such as those for
projected space, equipment, operation procedures, security criteria,
communications, relationship and functions, and shall confirm their understanding
of such requirements and the project Brief to the Client.

b)

The Consultant shall prepare preliminary design layouts based on the Brief, as well
as, a list of illustrations designed items requested for the Project, and shall prepare
an implementation plan for execution for the Clients approval.

c)

The Consultant (with the assistance of the quantity surveyor, if required) shall
provide the Client with an overall estimate of cost based on the preliminary design
layouts, and obtain the Clients approval of this budgetary estimate.

2.

Provide a project schedule (Microsoft projects), incorporating both the proposed design
and construction period.

3.

Determination of ideal orientation, layout and size of DEB building and related facilities.
4. Determination of parking location and size, the traffic flow to and from the existing
MBFZ road network.
5. Determination of energy conservation design, additional capacity of power supply, waste
water and solid waste treatment if required.
6. Ideally the requirements should include provision for:
a) The space should be capable of being partitioned into 5,000sq ft to10,000 sq. ft
modules with easy accessibility to scale up to 20,000 sq ft or 30,000 sq ft should a client
wish to expand.
b) Each module should have separate facilities for electricity meter, air-conditioning,
bathroom and kitchenette
c) There should be elevator and disability access to the first floor, etc
d) Appropriate fire protection systems should be installed with interconnectivity for each
unit.

8.

The building design should be aesthetically pleasing with emphasis on modern energy
saving conservation features.

2.

Final Design Stage

a) The Consultants shall discuss with the Client any changes required and make such
modifications, as agreed, to the design layout and list electrical, fixtures and
equipment.
b) Based on the approved design layout, the Consultant shall prepare detailed tender
based on the GOJ standard bid document/construction drawings, schedules,
specifications, Bill of Quantities, Conditions of Contract and so forth as required,
setting out the requirements necessary for the construction component of the Project.
c) The Consultant (with the assistance of the other key design personnel, if required)
shall provide the Client with a more detailed and accurate statement of probable
project cost, and shall outline to the Client any major changes in the cost of
individual items from the outline statement of probable cost.
d) The Consultant shall prepare, submit and manage all application process as it relates
to obtaining all statutory approvals which maybe required under Jamaican Law,
which include but are not limited to approvals which maybe required from the St.
James Parish Council.
e) Attend the meeting of the National Contracts Commission (NCC) Sector Committee
to defend the recommendation.
f) Prepare an evaluation report on the technical aspects of the Tender that includes an
assessment of the tenderers suitability to carryout the works based on their tender
price, methodology of implementation, resources capabilities and relevant
experience. The report shall conclude by recommending a bid for the MBFZ/PAJs
approval

Time
It is the intention of the PAJ to have the project completed within an eighteen month
period inclusive of design. Firms are required to submit a detailed work-plan with their
proposal in MS projectelectronically and hard copy
EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
An advertisement for Expression of Interest was placed in both the Gleaner and the Jamaica
Observer 2011 August 17 & 21. See Appendix 1 for content

Eight Expressions of Interest were received August 26, 2011 from the following interested
firms. The information submitted was assessed in accordance with the criteria stated in the
invitation. See Appendix 1 for assessment

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

APEC CONSULTANTS LIMITED

HUE LYEW CHIN ENGINEERING LIMITED
HAROLD MORRISON & WOODSTOCK
ADeB CONSULTANT LIMITED
Tya DESIGNS
CH TOMLINSON LTD. & ASSOCIATES
CLIFTON YAP ARCHITECTS
KINGSLAND SCOTT BAUER ASSOCIATES

INVITATION
The seven of the eight consultants shortlisted were formally invited to submit proposals for
providing consultancy services regarding the design and supervision of the construction of
the Information, Communication and Technology building/development.
The Consultants shortlisted were as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

APEC Consultants Limited

Hue Lyew Chin Engineering Limited
Harold Morrison & Woodstock
ADeB Consultants Limited
Tya Designs
Clifton Yap Architects
Kingsland Scott Bauer Associates

See Appendix 1 for details on the assessment of expression of interest.

Subsequent to the invitation of shortlisted Consultants, requests were made by at least two of
the invitees for the PAJ to reconsider the removal of the condition restricting shortlisted
consultants from joining with other shortlisted consultants. The PAJ after careful
consideration agreed and the condition was relaxed. (See Appendix 9 for Consultants
requests)

PROCUREMENT PROCESS
The bid process was carried out in accordance with the Local Competitive Procedures as
set out in volume 2 of the Government of Jamaicas Handbook of Public Sector
Procurement. The table below sets out the steps to date in the procurement process:

Table 1: Procurement Activities

Activity
1. Copy of Advertisement for Expression of
Interest
2. Record of the Opening of Expressions of
Interest
3. Assessment of Expressions of Interest
See Appendix 1
1. Invitation to Shortlisted Consultants
2. RFP Collection Record
See Appendix 2
1. Opening of Technical Proposal Records
See Appendix 3
1. Opening of Financial Proposal Record
2. Financial Proposals submission Record
See Appendix 4
1. Tax Compliance Certificates (TCC) Appendix
for Local Consultants 4
2. KSBA Tax Compliance
See Appendix 5
1. Technical and Financial Analysis Report
See Appendix 6
1. Addenda
See Appendix 7
1. Request for Proposal
2. Tech 5 Form
See Appendix 8
1. Correspondence
See Appendix 9

Date
Gleaner and the Jamaica Observer
2011 August 17 & 21.

2011 November 28
2012 January 25
2012 June 11

ADDENDA TO BID
Three (3) addenda were issued during the bid period both electronically and hard copies. The
addenda issued are as indicated in table 2.

Table 2: Addenda
Item
Date
Addendum 1 2011-12-12

Description
Extension of the bid submission date from December 29, 2011
to January 13, 2012

Addendum 2 2012-01-10

Extension of the bid submission date from January 13, 2012 to

January 25, 2012
Addendum 3 2012-01-16
Revised Site Location Plan (Electronic email)
Copies of the addenda are enclosed at Appendix 7.
OPENING OF PROPOSALS
On opening of the Tender Box five responses/envelopes were deposited/received by the
stipulated date and time of Wednesday 2012 January 25 at 2:00 pm local time. See Appendix
3 for the details on time and date of submission of proposals by consultants or their
representatives.
The proposals were removed from the Tender Box and later opened in the First Floor
Conference Room in no particular order commencing at 2:20 pm. The contents of each
envelop were removed and noted on the prescribed Bid Opening Form. (See Appendix 3 for
full details) The Proposals were checked for Completeness, Tax Compliance and submission
of a sealed financial proposal pursuant to the Instructions to Bidders. Table 3 contained the
names of the persons who made up the Bid Opening Committee and the department they
represent. (See Table 4 for the names of consultants that submitted bids)

SUMMISSION OF PROPOSALS:
Five submissions were received at the date and time stipulated 2012 January 25 at 2:00pm.
The consultants and their associates that submitted proposals are as follows:

APEC Consultants Ltd - registered architectural, planning, engineers and quantity

surveying firm submitted a proposal in association with Hue Lyew Chin, Stoppi
Cainey Bloomfield and Omni Services Company Limited

ADeB Consultants Ltd. registered professional engineering firm.

Tya Designs -registered sole proprietor in association, a group of qualified

consultants/firms.

Carl C. Chen & Associates (Clifton Yap Architects- Lead architects withdrew from
team and joined with ADeB Consultants Ltd) is registered chartered architectural firm in
association with Cornerstone Design Ltd and design consultants.

Kingsland Scott Bauer Associates- USA based professionally registered architectural

firm in association with LLI Engineering (USA), Westech, Synergy Design Studio and
Richard Pouchet Associates

Members of the PAJ Bid Opening Committee are as stated in Table 3 below:
Table 3 Bid/Proposal Opening Committee
Name

Department

Juleen Pryce

Group Internal Audit, Assurance & Risk Management

Services
Richard Roberts Legal, Regulatory & Corporate Affairs
Marlon Wright
Finance & Information Services
Daniel Evans
Engineering & Port Development
Leonard Bailey Engineering & Port Development
Consultants representatives present at the opening of proposals are as stated in Table 4 below:
Table 4 List of Bidders Representatives
Name of Bidder
Naneka Logan
Dimitri Gooden

Representative
KINGSLAND SCOTT BAUER ASSOCIATES (KSBA
KSBA

Damian Scott
Adrian Campbell
Carl C. Chen
Christopher Whyms-Stone
Christopher Lue

KSBA
CARL C. CHEN & ASSOCITES
CARL C. CHEN & ASSOCITES
CARL C. CHEN & ASSOCITES

Tya DESIGN

EVALUATION

Criteria, sub-criteria, and point system for the evaluation of Full Technical Proposals were as
follows:
Points
(i)

Specific experience of the Consultants relevant to the assignment:

(ii)

Adequacy of the proposed methodology and work plan

in responding to the Terms of Reference:

[ 10]

a) Technical approach and methodology

b) Work plan
c) Organization and staffing
Total points for criterion (ii):

[20]
[10]
[10]
[40]

(iii) Key professional staff qualifications and competence for the assignment:
a) Team Leader
b) Architect
c) Civil/Structural Engineer
d) Electrical Engineer
e) Mechanical Engineer
f) Quantity Surveyor

[15]
[10]
[10]
[10]
[10]
Total points for criterion (iii):

[05]
[60]

The number of points to be assigned to each of the above positions or disciplines shall be determined
considering the following three sub-criteria and relevant percentage weights:
1) General qualifications
2) Adequacy for the assignment
3) Experience in region and language

[30%]
[60%]
[10%]
Total weight:

100%

The minimum technical score required to pass is: 85 Points

The formula for determining the financial scores is the following:
Sf = 100 x Fm / F, in which Sf is the financial score, Fm is the lowest price and F the price of the
proposal under consideration.
The weights given to the Technical and Financial Proposals are:
T = 0.6 and
P = 0.4

Pursuant to Clause 5.7 of the Instructions to Consultants states that in case of QCBS,. the firm
achieving the highest combined technical and financial score will be invited for negotiations.
See Appendix 6 detailed evaluation of the technical and financial proposals.

The technical evaluation took in consideration based on the criteria above the consultants
specific years of experience as an operating entity, adequacy of the proposed methodology and
work plan with special considerations with respect to the proposed organization and staffing,
work plan if consistent with proposed activities, technical approach and methodology which
should be reflective of the understanding of the projects Terms of Reference. The evaluation
also addressed the proposed project teams general qualification, adequacy of this qualification to
the assignment, years of experience and experience in the region.

As a consequence the Technical Evaluation results and ranking of the consultants proposals are
as indicated in the Table 5 below:
TABLE 5
CONSULTANT NAME

APEC

ADeB

Tya

CARL CHEN

KINGSLAND
SCOTT

EVALUATOR1
EVALUATOR2
EVALUATOR3
EVALUATOR4

105

91

107

102

99

107

93

104

101

98

98

89

104

102

95

105

92

105

102

99

TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE

104

91

105

102

98

RANK

The minimum technical score require to pass is 85 points.

Evidenced by the results stated in Table 1 above all firm technical proposals met the minimum
requirement and as a consequence were notified in accordance to Clause 5.4 of the Instruction to
Consultants in the Request for Proposals (RFP).

The evaluation matrix at Appendix 6 sets out the evaluation criteria and scoring regime that were
used to conduct the evaluation including the average and individual scores sheet of each
evaluator. The results indicate that all firms have the technical capacity and competence to
provide the services stated in the scope of work and therefore the final outcome will be
contingent on the quality and magnitude of their financial proposals.
As previously indicated the technical scores were sent to the consultants disclosing all results but
only identifying the score of the specific recipient. See Appendix 9 for letter of notification on
evaluation result.
Table 6 below provided the results of the weighted technical scores for all five proposals.
TABLE 6
Technical (Quality) Weighted
Consultant
Tya Design
APEC Consultants
Carl Chen & Associates

Tech Score

Weighted Quality Score

105

105 x 60
110
104 x 60
110
102 x 60
110
98 x 60
110
91 x 60
110

104
102
98

Kingsland Scott Bauer Assocs.

91

ADeB Consultants

57.3
56.7
55.4
53.4
49.7

Each firm was sent invitation letter advising them of the score awarded for technical
competence, the date, time and place for opening of the financial proposals. The financial
proposals which were in the possession of the Group Internal Audit for safe keeping were
retrieved and presented to all present at the opening for inspection in order to verify the integrity
of the sealed envelopes prior to opening.

Table7 Financial Proposal Opening Committee

Name

Department

10

Ainsworth Haughton
Raquel Forbes
Kimara Simms
Daniel Evans
Leonard Bailey

Group Internal Audit, Assurance & Risk Management

Services
Legal, Regulatory & Corporate Affairs
Finance & Information Services
Engineering & Port Development
Engineering & Port Development

Table 8 List of Consultants Representatives

Representative
Christopher Lue
Christopher Shaw

Name of Consultants
Tya Design
APEC Consultants

Philmore

APEC Consultants
Carl Chen & Associates
Kingsland Scott Bauer Assocs.
ADeB Consultants

Carl C. Chen
None
None

The following financial proposal were opened and read out from the respective firms/consultants
including the announcement of the PAJs engineers estimate:
$88,526,250.00

1. Tya Design

$46,000,000.00

2. APEC Consultants

$51,350,000.00

3. Carl Chen Associates

US$471,757.00 or J$40,939,072.46

4. Kingsland Scott Bauer Assocs.

$49,909,016.00

5. ADeB Consultants

US$550,000.00 or J$48,950,000.00
@exchange rate US$1=J$89.00

The Port Authority

The PAJs estimate was later revised using the BOJ rate of exchange at the time and date of
opening of the Consultants Technical Proposals. As a result the revised estimate engineering
estimate using an exchange rate of 1 US$ = J$86.78 is J$47,729,000.00.
See Appendix 4 for details regarding the Financial Proposals.
Table 9 below provided the results of the weighted scores for all five financial proposals.

11

TABLE 9
Cost Score Weighting
Financial Offer
Financial Score
Tya Design
APEC Consultants
Carl Chen Associates
Kingsland Scott Bauer
Assocs.
ADeB Consultants

88,526,250.00
46,000,000.00
51,350,000.00
US$471,757.00
or
J$40,939,072.46
49,909,016.00

40,939,072.46x40
88526250
40,939,072.46x40
46000000
40,939,072.46x40
51530000
40,939,072.46x40
40,939,072
40,939,072.46x40
49,909,016

Weighted
Financial
Score
18.50
35.60
31.89
40.00

32.81

Table 8 below provided the results of the weighted combined technical and financial scores for
all five proposals.
TABLE 10
Weighted
Quality Score
57.3

Weighted
Financial Score

Total Score

18.50

75.8

APEC Consultants

56.7

35.60

92.3

Carl Chen & Associates

55.4

31.89

87.3

Kingsland Scott Bauer Assocs.

53.4

40.00

93.4

ADeB Consultants

49.7

32.81

82.5

CONSULTANT NAME
Tya Design

ADeB CONSULTANT LTD

12

The firm is a registered Jamaican engineering firm whose history began in January 1964 with a
staff compliment of thirty persons. The firm specialized in the area of civil, structural, electrical,
mechanical and other technical activities such as construction supervision, project planning etc.
After careful assessment of the Proposals Submitted by ADeB Consultants they were awarded a
combined weighted score of 82.5 points. The firm was awarded an average score of 91 points out
of maximum of 110 points and was ranked 5 th for their technical proposal out of the five
proposals received.
The Proposal from ADeB Consultants failed to supply specific information as follows:

The organizational chart presented did not indicate a civil/structural engineer for
the project. Notwithstanding an assumption was made based on the Tech 5 Form
presented. (See Appendix 8)

Of the six team members listed by ADeB only three presented information
confirming professional membership/affiliation. The failure to furnished the
required information outlined in the Bid Data Sheet under general qualification
resulted in the firm being awarded 13.8 points out of possible 18 points.
A

further

review

of

the

Tender

Document

did

not

indicate

any

obligation/requirement of the procuring entity to request clarification relating to

the specific teams and the lack thereof of the requested information.. The firm
also scored an average of 6.1 and 13 from a possible 10 points and 13 from 20
points for Work Plan and Technical Approach and Methodology respectively. The
financial proposal submitted by ADeB exceeded the PAJ estimate by 4.5%. See
Appendix 6 for evaluation criteria and the full breakdown of on the areas of
evaluation.

Tya DESIGNS

13

A registered sole proprietor in association with Future Cities International, a registered Canadian
multidisciplinary firm of urban planners, architects and interior designers, N.O Whyte and Associates
with expertise in Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering and Project Management. All cost associated
activities will be overseen by Davidson and Hanna a chartered quantity surveying consulting firm.

Analysis of the Proposals Submitted by Tya Designs earned them a combined

weighted score of 75.8 points which is due substantially to the price offered to
execute the services. The firm was awarded an average score of 105 points out of
maximum of 110 points. The Proposal submitted by Tya Designs was very
detailed, comprehensive and compliant to the RFP. The firm was ranked 1 th for
their technical proposal out of the five proposals received. The offer submitted by
Tya Designs was the highest and exceed the PAJs engineering estimate by 85.4%.
For further detail on the technical evaluation see Appendix 6.

CARL C. CHEN & ASSOCIATES (CLIFTON YAP ARCHITECTS)

Clifton Yap Architects was initially shortlisted as a result of meeting the criteria outlined in a call for
Expression of Interest. The firm subsequently requested permission to withdraw from the team of
consultants shortlisted and joint with another shortlisted firm. The request was considered by the PAJ and
permission granted. The remaining consultants from that group led by Carl C. Chen & Associates were
deemed qualified and were allowed to submit Proposals for the execution of the assignment.
The proposal was submitted in association with the following times:

Corner Stone, Design Ltd (Registered Architect)

Michael Robinson and Associates (Chartered QS)

SMADA Consultants (Consulting Engineering)

14

Information gleaned from the proposal indicated that Carl C. Chen and Associates is a registered
architectural firm practicing in Jamaica since 1965 with a wide range of experience working in
Jamaica and oversea.
Carl Chen & Associates was awarded a weighted combined score of 87.3% and as result was ranked 3 rd
among the list of consultants which submitted proposals. Also this firm was awarded an average score

of 102 points out of maximum of 110 points following detail assessment/ evaluation of the
information furnished in their proposal. The proposal demonstrated that the firm has clear and
comprehensive understanding of the terms of reference and that the team members have
significant experiences in the design and supervision of project of this magnitude and
complexity. The offer submitted by this firm was the second highest and exceed the PAJs
engineering estimate by 7.6 %. For further detail on the technical evaluation see Appendix 6.
Notwithstanding the ranking of this firm proposal they failed to submit other cost breakdown as
required in the RFP that would be extremely critical for negotiation and formed the basis on
which additional services could be requested by the PAJ. There the proposal submitted by Carl
Chen & Associates will not be considered for negotiation.

APEC CONSULTANTS LIMITED

APEC Consultants Limited is a registered multidisciplinary firm offering professional services in
the fields of planning, architecture, engineering, quantity surveying, interior design and property
management. The firm proposed to undertake the assignment in association with Hue Lyew
Chin Engineering Consultant a registered civil and structural engineers which was previously
shortlisted and was granted permission to join with another shortlisted firm, Stoppi Caimey
Bloomfield Chartered Quantity Surveying and Omni Services company Limited a registered
electrical & mechanical consultant Engineers.
The cumulative experience and qualification of the proposal personnel have resulted in the
submission made by APEC being awarded an average score of 104 out of a maximum of 110
points. The information furnished by APEC demonstrated the firm has the relevant experience in

15

the design and management of project of similar nature and magnitude. After detailed assessment
of Technical Approach and methodology the firm/proposal got a score of 16.8 point out of a
maximum score of 20 points. APEC Consultants was awarded a weighted combined score of
92.3% and as result was ranked 2nd among the list of consultants which submitted proposals. The
proposed offer from APEC was 3.6% below the PAJ internal engineering estimate.
For further detail on the technical evaluation see Appendix 6
KINGSLAND SCOTT BAUER ASSCOIATES (KSBA)
KSBA a USA registered architectural firm whose submission indicates that they provide full
architectural design services that includes space planning, interior design and project
management services. The firm was founded in 1984 and has indicated that they have worked
for a variety of clients including major corporations, manufacturers, state and federal
government, non-profit organization and educational institutions.
The firm proposes to carry out the project in association with Synergy Design Systems, LLI
Engineering Inc. a USA based company providing design services in the areas of electrical,
mechanical, piping and structural engineering services, Westech Limited headed by Desmond
Flowers, a registered engineering firm has completed over 145 projects in Jamaica and the
Caribbean and Richard Pouchet Associates is a 22 years old company of chartered quantity
surveyors completed the team
Kingsland Scott Bauer Associates was awarded a weighted combined score of 93.4% and as a result is
ranked 1st among the list of consultants which submitted proposals. This result is due substantially to firm
financial proposal/offer as the they were awarded an average score 98 points out of maximum of 110

points following detail assessment/ evaluation of the information furnished in their technical
proposal. The proposal provided information which demonstrated that the firm has a more than
satisfactory understanding of the scope of works to be undertaken including significant
experiences in the design and supervision of projects of similar nature and magnitude. This firm
submitted the lowest offer and was 14.2 % below PAJs engineering estimate.

16

Out of an abundance of caution the legal opinion was sought on a point of eligibility
notwithstanding this consultant being ranked 1st as result of combined scores for financial and
technical evaluations. After due consideration the consultant was disqualified pursuant to Section
15(1) of the Architects Registration Act which states that subject to section 16, with effect from
such date as the Minister may by order specify, no person unless he is a registered architect shall,
in Jamaica carry on the practice of architecture
The consultant was written to by letter dated 2012 July 2 in this regard to provide evidence or
proof of registration in accordance with the Act and that response to the request be furnished by
2012 July 4 to which we have not received a reply as at 2012 July 24. Also prior to making this
request the list/registrar which comprised the names of architects currently registered under the
Act was obtained and was perused. No evidence of registration of the architects and principal
partners in the firm KINGSLAND SCOTT BAUER ASSOCIATES was seen on the list
For further detail on the technical and financial evaluation see Appendix 6

CONCLUSION
In the assessment of the evaluators it was determined that all submissions received demonstrated
that each consulting entity has the requisite experiences and competence to undertake the works
outlined in terms of reference from a technical prospective. Therefore, the recommendation of an
award will be contingent on the successful conclusion of a negotiation with the first ranked
Consultant pursuant to Clause 6 of Instructions to Consultants in the Request for Proposal.
In accordance to Clause 5.7 and the QCBS the firm achieving the highest combined technical
and financial score will be invited for negotiation.

17

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Port Authority of Jamaica invite Kingsland
Scott Bauer Associates for negotiation to provide consultancy services in keeping with the
terms of reference as outlined in the Request for Proposal including any other arrived positions
resulting from those talks for the bid amount of US$471,757.00 or its
J$40,939,072.46.

18

equivalent of