See the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

See the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements including the Company's note on Other Comprehensive Income for a presentation of amounts reclassified to net income during the period.

 

See the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements including the Company's note on Other Comprehensive Income for a presentation of amounts reclassified to net income during the period.

 

See the accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – UNAUDITED

June 28, 2013

Basis of Presentation

Unless the context otherwise requires:

The accompanying consolidated financial statements and financial information included herein have been prepared pursuant to the interim period reporting requirements of Form 10-Q. Consequently, certain information and note disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States ("U.S. GAAP") have been condensed or omitted. Readers of this report should also read our consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2012 ("2012 Form 10-K") as well as Item 7— Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations , which is also included in our 2012 Form 10-K.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring adjustments) necessary for a fair presentation of our consolidated financial statements at June 28, 2013 and for the three and nine month periods ended June 28, 2013 and June 29, 2012 .

Our interim results of operations are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full fiscal year.

Please refer to Note 16 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our 2012 Form 10-K for the definitions of certain terms used herein.

Use of Estimates and Assumptions

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP requires us to employ estimates and make assumptions that affect the reported amounts of certain assets and liabilities; the revenues and expenses reported for the periods covered by the accompanying consolidated financial statements; and certain amounts disclosed in these Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Although such estimates and assumptions are based on management's most recent assessment of the underlying facts and circumstances utilizing the most current information available and past experience, actual results could differ significantly from those estimates and assumptions. Our estimates, judgments, and assumptions are evaluated periodically and adjusted accordingly. Please refer to Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our 2012 Form 10-K for a discussion of the significant estimates and assumptions affecting our consolidated financial statements.

Fair Value and Fair Value Measurements

Certain amounts included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements are presented at "fair value". Fair value is defined as the price that would be received from selling an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants as of the date fair value is determined (the "measurement date"). When determining fair value, we consider the principal or most advantageous market in which we would transact, and we consider only those assumptions we believe a typical market participant would consider when pricing an asset or liability. In measuring fair value, we use the following inputs in the order of priority indicated:

Level 1 - Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities;

Level 2 - Observable inputs other than quoted prices in active markets included in Level 1, such as (i) quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; (ii) quoted prices in markets that have insufficient volume or infrequent transactions (i.e., less active markets); and (iii) model-driven valuations in which all significant inputs are observable or can be derived principally from, or corroborated with, observable market data for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.

Level 3 - Unobservable inputs to the valuation methodology that are significant to the fair value measurement.

Please refer to Note 2 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our 2012 Form 10-K for a more complete discussion of the various amounts within the consolidated financial statements measured at fair value and the methods used to determine fair value.

New Accounting Standards

From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issues accounting standards updates (each being an "ASU") to its Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC"), which constitutes the primary source of U.S. GAAP. The Company regularly monitors ASUs as they are issued and considers their applicability to its business. All ASUs applicable to the Company are adopted by the due date and in the manner prescribed by the FASB. A discussion of those recently issued ASUs most likely to affect the presentation of the Company's consolidated financial statements follows.

In February 2013, the FASB adopted ASU No. 2013-02— Comprehensive Income. ASU 2013-02 requires an entity to provide information about the amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component. In addition, an entity is required to present, either on the face of the statement of earnings or in the notes, significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by the respective line items of net income, but only if the amount reclassified is required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified to net income in its entirety in the same reporting period. For other amounts that are not required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified in their entirety to net income in the same reporting period, an entity is required to cross-reference to other disclosures required under U.S. GAAP that provide additional detail about these amounts. ASU 2013-02 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2012. The adoption of ASU 2013-02 has not had a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

In July 2012, the FASB adopted ASU No. 2012-02— Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment. ASU 2012-02 amends Topic 350 of the FASB’s ASC regarding how entities test indefinite-lived intangible assets other than goodwill for possible impairment. ASU 2012-02 permits entities first to assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that an indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the quantitative impairment test pursuant to ASC Subtopic 350-30. If the entity determines that it is more likely than not that such asset is not impaired based on its qualitative assessment, no further testing is required. The amendments in ASU 2012-02 are effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. The adoption of ASU 2012-02 has not had a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Also in December 2011, the FASB adopted ASU No. 2011-11— Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. ASU 2011-11 amends Topic 210 of the ASC and requires entities to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of their financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on their respective financial positions. The scope of this ASU includes derivatives, sale and repurchase agreements, reverse sale and repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and securities lending agreements. Entities are required to apply the provisions of ASU 2011-11 for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013. The Company does not believe that the adoption of ASU 2011-11 will have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

In September 2011, the FASB issued No. ASU 2011-08— Intangibles-Goodwill and Other . ASU 2011-08 amends Topic 350 of the ASC and simplifies how entities test goodwill for possible impairment. Under this ASU, an entity has the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines it is not more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then performing the two-step impairment test is unnecessary. However, if an entity concludes otherwise, then it is required to perform the first step of the two-step impairment test by calculating the fair value of the reporting unit and comparing the fair value with the carrying amount of the reporting unit. Under this ASU, an entity has the option to bypass the qualitative assessment for any reporting unit in any period and proceed directly to performing the first step of the two-step goodwill impairment test. An entity may resume performing the qualitative assessment in any subsequent period. ASU 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company does not believe that the adoption of ASU 2011-08 will have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

Business Combinations

On May 28, 2013, we acquired Compass Technology Services, Inc. ("Compass"), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Compass is a provider of telecommunications professional and field services in the Southeastern U.S. and enhances the Company's capabilities in wireless telecommunications infrastructure design and construction.

On June 6, 2013, we acquired an additional 17.6% interest in Consulting Engineering Services (India) Private Limited (“CES”), a leading power, infrastructure, and civil engineering company headquartered in Delhi, India. This transaction brought the Company's ownership interest in CES to 87.6% . CES provides a range of solutions in infrastructure development, planning, engineering, and construction management.

Billed receivables consist of amounts invoiced to clients in accordance with the terms of our client contracts and are shown net of an allowance for doubtful accounts. We anticipate that substantially all of such billed amounts will be collected over the next twelve months.

Unbilled receivables and retentions receivable represent reimbursable costs and amounts earned and reimbursable under contracts in progress as of the respective balance sheet dates. Such amounts become billable according to the contract terms, which usually consider the passage of time, achievement of certain milestones, or completion of the project. We anticipate that substantially all of such unbilled amounts will be billed and collected over the next twelve months.

Claims receivable are included in "Receivables" in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets and represent certain costs incurred on contracts to the extent it is probable that such claims will result in additional contract revenue and the amount of such additional revenue can be reliably estimated.

JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – UNAUDITED

June 28, 2013

(continued)

Property, Equipment and Improvements, Net

Property, Equipment and Improvements, Net in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 28, 2013 and September 28, 2012 consisted of the following (in thousands):

 

 

Long-term Debt

The Company has a long-term, unsecured, revolving credit facility (the "2012 Facility") providing $1.21 billion of borrowing capacity with a syndicate of large, U.S. and international banks and financial institutions. The total amount outstanding under the 2012 Facility in the form of direct borrowings at June 28, 2013 was $432.3 million . Additionally, the Company has issued $10.8 million in letters of credit leaving $761.9 million of available borrowing capacity under the 2012 Facility at June 28, 2013 .

The 2012 Facility expires in March 2017 and permits the Company to borrow under three separate tranches in U.S. dollars, certain specified foreign currencies, and any other currency that may be approved in accordance with the terms of the 2012 Facility. Depending on the Company's consolidated leverage ratio, borrowings under the 2012 Facility will bear interest at either a eurocurrency rate plus a margin of between 0.875% and 1.225% or a base rate plus a margin of between 0% and 0.225% . The 2012 Facility also provides for a financial letter of credit subfacility of $300.0 million , permits performance letters of credit, and provides for a $50.0 million subfacility for swingline loans. Letters of credit are subject to fees based on the Company's consolidated leverage ratio at the time any such letter of credit is issued. The Company pays a facility fee of between 0.125% and 0.275% per annum depending on the Company's consolidated leverage ratio. Amounts outstanding under the 2012 Facility may be prepaid at the option of the Company without premium or penalty, subject to customary breakage fees in connection with the prepayment of eurocurrency loans. The 2012 Facility contains affirmative, negative, and financial covenants customary for financings of this type including, among other things, limitations on certain other indebtedness, loans and investments, liens, mergers, asset sales and transactions with affiliates. In addition, the 2012 Facility contains customary events of default. We were in compliance with our debt covenants at June 28, 2013 .

Revenue Accounting for Contracts / Accounting for Joint Ventures

In general, we recognize revenue at the time we provide services. Depending on the commercial terms of the contract, we recognize revenues either when costs are incurred, or using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting by relating contract costs incurred to date to the total estimated costs at completion. Contract losses are provided for in their entirety in the period they become known, without regard to the percentage-of-completion. For multiple contracts with a single customer we account for each contract separately. We also recognize as revenues costs associated with claims and unapproved change orders to the extent it is probable that such claims and change orders will result in additional contract revenue, and the amount of such additional revenue can be reliably estimated. A significant portion of the Company's revenue is earned on cost reimbursable contracts. The percentage of revenues realized by the Company by type of contract during fiscal 2012 can be found in Note 1 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our 2012 Form 10-K.

Certain cost-reimbursable contracts include incentive-fee arrangements. The incentive fees in such contracts can be based on a variety of factors but the most common are the achievement of target completion dates, target costs, and/or other

performance criteria. Failure to meet these targets can result in unrealized incentive fees. We recognize incentive fees based on expected results using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting. As the contract progresses and more information becomes available, the estimate of the anticipated incentive fee that will be earned is revised as necessary. We bill incentive fees based on the terms and conditions of the individual contracts. In certain situations, we are allowed to bill a portion of the incentive fees over the performance period of the contract. In other situations, we are allowed to bill incentive fees only after the target criterion has been achieved. Incentive fees which have been recognized but not billed are included in receivables in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets .

Certain cost-reimbursable contracts with government customers as well as certain commercial clients provide that contract costs are subject to audit and adjustment. In this situation, revenues are recorded at the time services are performed based upon the amounts we expect to realize upon completion of the contracts. Revenues are not recognized for non-recoverable costs. In those situations where an audit indicates that we may have billed a client for costs not allowable under the terms of the contract, we estimate the amount of such nonbillable costs and adjust our revenues accordingly .

When we are directly responsible for subcontractor labor or third-party materials and equipment, we reflect the costs of such items in both revenues and costs. On those projects where the client elects to pay for such items directly and we have no associated responsibility for such items, these amounts are not reflected in either revenues or costs .

The following table sets forth pass-through costs included in revenues for each of the three and nine months ended June 28, 2013 and June 29, 2012 (in thousands):

 

As is common to the industry, we execute certain contracts jointly with third parties through various forms of joint ventures and consortiums. Although the joint ventures own and hold the contracts with the clients, the services required by the contracts are typically performed by us and our joint venture partners, or by other subcontractors under subcontracting agreements with the joint ventures. The assets of our joint ventures, therefore, consist almost entirely of cash and receivables (representing amounts due from clients), and the liabilities of our joint ventures consist almost entirely of amounts due to the joint venture partners (for services provided by the partners to the joint ventures under their individual subcontracts) and other subcontractors. In general, at any given time, the equity of our joint ventures represents the undistributed profits earned on contracts the joint ventures hold with clients. Very few of our joint ventures have employees. None of our joint ventures have third-party debt or credit facilities. Our joint ventures, therefore, are simply mechanisms used to deliver engineering and construction services to clients. Rarely do they, in and of themselves, present any risk of loss to us or to our partners separate from those that we would carry if we were performing the contract on our own. Under U.S. GAAP, our share of losses associated with the contracts held by the joint ventures, if and when they occur, has always been reflected in our Consolidated Financial Statements .

Certain of our joint ventures meet the definition of a "variable interest entity" ("VIE"). As defined in U.S. GAAP, a VIE is a legal entity in which equity investors do not have sufficient equity at risk for the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support or, as a group, the holders of the equity investment at risk lack any one of the following three characteristics: (i) the power, through voting rights or similar rights, to direct the activities of a legal entity that most significantly impact the entity's economic performance; (ii) the obligation to absorb the expected losses of the legal entity; or (iii) the right to receive the expected residual returns of the legal entity. Accordingly, entities issuing consolidated financial statements (i.e., a "reporting entity") shall consolidate a VIE if the reporting entity has a "controlling financial interest" in the VIE, as demonstrated by the reporting entity having both (i) the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the VIE's economic performance; and (ii) the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the obligation to absorb losses of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE .

In evaluating our VIEs for possible consolidation, we perform a qualitative analysis to determine whether or not we have a "controlling financial interest" in the VIE as defined by U.S. GAAP. We consolidate only those VIEs over which we have a controlling financial interest. For the Company’s unconsolidated joint ventures, we use the equity method of accounting. The Company does not currently participate in any significant VIEs in which it has a controlling financial interest .

JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – UNAUDITED

June 28, 2013

(continued)

Disclosures About Defined Pension Benefit Obligations

The following table presents the components of net periodic benefit cost recognized in earnings during each of the three and nine month periods ended June 28, 2013 and June 29, 2012 (in thousands):

 

Included in the above table are amounts relating to a U.S. pension plan, the participating employees of which are assigned to, and work exclusively on, a specific operating contract with the U.S. federal government. It is the expectation of the parties to this contract that the cost of this pension plan will be fully reimbursed by the U.S. federal government pursuant to applicable cost accounting standards. The underfunded amount for this pension plan is included in "Other Noncurrent Assets" in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 28, 2013 . Net periodic pension costs for this pension plan for the three and nine months ended June 28, 2013 were $3.5 million and $10.5 million , respectively, and for the three and nine months ended June 29, 2012 were $5.2 million and $15.5 million , respectively. Amounts related to the amortization of previously unrecognized items for this pension plan for the three and nine months ended June 28, 2013 were $0.9 million and $2.7 million , respectively, and for the three and nine months ended June 29, 2012 were $1.9 million and $5.7 million , respectively .

The following table presents certain information regarding Company cash contributions to our pension plans for the first nine months of fiscal fiscal 2013 (in thousands):

 

 

Earnings Per Share and Certain Related Information

The following table (i) reconciles the denominator used to compute basic earnings per share ("EPS") to the denominator used to compute diluted EPS for the three and nine months ended June 28, 2013 and June 29, 2012 ; (ii) provides information regarding the number of non-qualified stock options and shares of restricted stock that were antidilutive and therefore disregarded in calculating the weighted average number of shares outstanding used in computing diluted EPS; and (iii) provides the number of shares of common stock issued from the exercise of stock options and the release of restricted stock (in thousands):

 

Commitments and Contingencies

In the normal course of business, we are subject to certain contractual guarantees and litigation. The guarantees to which we are a party generally relate to project schedules and plant performance. Most of the litigation in which we are involved has us as a defendant in workers' compensation; personal injury; environmental; employment/labor; professional liability; and other similar lawsuits.

We maintain insurance coverage for various aspects of our business and operations. Our insurance programs have varying coverage limits and maximums, and insurance companies may seek to not pay any claims we might make. We have also elected to retain a portion of losses that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. As a result, we may be subject to future liability for which we are only partially insured or completely uninsured. We intend to mitigate any such future liability by continuing to exercise prudent business judgment in negotiating the terms and

conditions of our contracts. Our insurers are also subject to business risk and, as a result, one or more of them may be unable to fulfill their insurance obligations due to insolvency or otherwise.

Additionally, as a contractor providing services to the U.S. federal government and several of its agencies, we are subject to many levels of audits, investigations, and claims by, or on behalf of, the U.S. federal government with respect to our contract performance, pricing, costs, cost allocations, and procurement practices. Furthermore, our income, franchise, and similar tax returns and filings are also subject to audit and investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, most states within the U.S. as well as by various government agencies representing jurisdictions outside the U.S.

We record in our Consolidated Balance Sheets amounts representing our estimated liability relating to such claims, guarantees, litigation, and audits and investigations. We perform an analysis to determine the level of reserves to establish for insurance-related claims that are known and have been asserted against us, and for insurance-related claims that are believed to have been incurred based on actuarial analysis, but have not yet been reported to our claims administrators as of the respective balance sheet dates. We include any adjustments to such insurance reserves in our consolidated results of operations.

Management believes, after consultation with counsel, that such guarantees, litigation, U.S. government contract-related audits, investigations and claims, and income tax audits and investigations should not have any material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

In March 2008, one of Jacobs' subsidiaries, Carter & Burgess Inc. ("C&B"), filed suit against the City of Victorville in Superior Court in California, for amounts due and owing C&B regarding C&B's engineering and design of a cogeneration facility. In May 2009, the City of Victorville filed a cross-complaint against C&B and Jacobs alleging breach of contract, professional negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. The City's fraud and punitive damage allegations were dismissed. The case was tried in Riverside Superior Court, California and in December 2010, a jury returned a verdict against C&B for approximately $52 million in damages. An appeal was filed with the Court of Appeal, State of California, Fourth Appellate District, and, during the pendency of that appeal, interest accrued on the judgment at the statutory rate of 10% . Prior to the hearing on the appeal, the case was settled. The Company's insurers have funded this settlement, subject to a reservation of rights.  The former shareholders of C&B have agreed to advance any amounts paid by the Company to the insurers plus attorneys' fees.  While the former shareholders have not agreed to liability, the Company is confident in its right to indemnification against such shareholders.  The Company does not expect this matter to have any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.

On January 20, 2010, Clark County Nevada filed suit against Jacobs and two of its subsidiaries asserting claims arising out of certain construction projects to which Clark County Nevada was the owner and for which Jacobs' subsidiaries served as the project management consultant. Clark County's lawsuit against Jacobs followed years of litigation and arbitration between Clark County and its construction contractor on the applicable projects which had ended unsuccessfully for Clark County and resulted in Clark County paying more than $60 million in settlement and awards. Jacobs denies liability and has been vigorously defending against the County's claims and will continue to do so. In September 2012, the parties agreed to dismiss the litigation in U.S. District Court and proceed, in lieu thereof, in arbitration before three arbitrators. It is anticipated that a hearing on the merits will take place in September 2013. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.

The Company is a defendant in numerous matters pending in North Carolina's Superior Courts arising out of a June 9, 2009 natural gas explosion at a ConAgra Foods Inc. plant in Garner, Wake County, North Carolina. The claims that have been brought against the Company include wrongful death claims, personal injury claims and a claim for property losses to the plant property itself. The Company has settled many of the personal injury claims and is vigorously defending the remaining claims and believes it has meritorious defenses. In addition, the Company believes it has adequate insurance coverage as well as a right to indemnification from ConAgra. Accordingly, the Company does not expect these matters to have any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.