UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

 

 

Commission File Number: 1-8929

 

ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code) 415/733-4000

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to the filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

(Check one): Large accelerated filer þ Accelerated filer o     Non-accelerated filer o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes o     No þ

 

As of April 30, 2006 (the last business day of registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter), non-affiliates of the registrant beneficially owned shares of the registrant’s common stock with an aggregate market value of $740,659,434, computed by reference to the price at which the common stock was last sold.

 

Number of shares of common stock outstanding as of November 30, 2006: 48,660,286.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Portions of the Proxy Statement to be used by the Company in connection with its 2007 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

ABM Industries Incorporated
Form 10-K
For the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2006

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

ABM Industries Incorporated (“ABM”) is a leading facility services contractor in the United States. With annual revenues in excess of $2.7 billion and approximately 75,000 employees, ABM and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting services for thousands of commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the United States and in British Columbia, Canada.

 

ABM was reincorporated in Delaware on March 19, 1985, as the successor to a business founded in California in 1909. The corporate headquarters of the Company is located at 160 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222, San Francisco, California 94111, and the Company’s telephone number at that location is (415) 733-4000.

 

The Company’s Website is www.abm.com. Through a link on the Investor Relations section of the Company’s Website, the following filings and amendments to those filings are made available free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC: (1) Annual Reports on Form 10-K, (2) Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, (3) Current Reports on Form 8-K and (4) filings by ABM’s directors and executive officers under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act.”) The Company also makes available on its Website and in print, free of charge, to those who request them its Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct & Ethics and the charters of its audit, compensation and governance committees.

 

Industry Information

 

The Company conducts business through a number of subsidiaries, which are grouped into five segments based on the nature of the business operations. The operating subsidiaries within each segment generally report to the same senior management. Referred to collectively as the “ABM Family of Services,” at October 31, 2006 the five segments were:

 

 

The business activities of the Company by industry segment, as they existed at October 31, 2006, are more fully described below.

 

n Janitorial. The Company performs janitorial services through a number of the Company’s subsidiaries, primarily operating under the names “ABM Janitorial Services” and “American Building Maintenance.” The Company provides a wide range of basic janitorial services for a variety of facilities, including commercial office buildings, industrial plants, financial institutions, retail stores, shopping centers, warehouses, airport terminals, health and educational facilities, stadiums and arenas, and government buildings. Services provided include floor cleaning and finishing, window washing, furniture polishing, carpet cleaning and dusting, as well as other building cleaning services. The Company’s Janitorial subsidiaries maintain 111 offices and operate in 48 states, the District of Columbia and one Canadian province. These subsidiaries operate under thousands of individually negotiated building maintenance contracts, nearly all of which are obtained by competitive bidding. The Company’s Janitorial contracts are either fixed price agreements or “cost-plus” (i.e., the customer agrees to reimburse the agreed upon amount of wages and benefits, payroll taxes, insurance charges and other expenses plus a profit percentage). Generally, profit margins on contracts tend to be inversely proportional to the size of the contract. In addition to services defined within the scope of the contract, the Company also generates sales from extra services (or “tags”), such as additional cleaning requirements, with extra services frequently providing higher margins. The majority of Janitorial contracts are for one- to three-year periods, but are subject to termination by either party after 30 to 90 days’ written notice and contain automatic renewal clauses.

 

n Parking. The Company provides parking services through a number of subsidiaries primarily operating under the names “Ampco System Parking,” “Ampco System Airport Parking” and “Ampco Express Airport Parking.” The Company’s Parking subsidiaries maintain 27 offices and operate in 28 states. The Company operates approximately 1,600 parking lots and garages, including, but not limited to, the following airports: Austin, Texas; Buffalo, New York; Denver, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii; Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota; Omaha, Nebraska; Orlando, Florida; San Jose, California. The Company also operates off-airport parking facilities in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Houston, Texas; and San Diego, California, and operates 17 parking shuttle bus service contracts. Approximately 42% of the parking lots and garages are leased and 58% are

operated through management contracts for third parties, nearly all of which are obtained by competitive bidding. The Company operated over 770,000 parking spaces as of October 31, 2006. Under leased lot arrangements, the Company leases the parking lot from the owner and is responsible for all expenses incurred, retains all revenues from monthly and transient parkers and pays rent to the owner per the terms and conditions of the lease. The lease terms generally range from one to 20 years and provide for payment of a fixed amount of rent, plus a percentage of revenue. The leases usually contain renewal options and may be terminated by the customer for various reasons including development of the real estate. Leases which expire may continue on a month-to-month basis. Under the management contracts, the Company manages the parking lot for the owner in exchange for a management fee, which could be a fixed fee, a performance-based fee such as a percentage of gross or net revenues, or a combination of both. Management contract terms are generally from one to three years, and often can be terminated without cause by the customer upon 30 days’ notice and may also contain renewal clauses. The revenue and expenses are passed through by the Company to the owner under the terms and conditions of the management contracts. More than half of the Company’s Parking revenues come from reimbursements of expenses.

 

n Security. The Company provides security services through a number of subsidiaries, primarily operating under the names “American Commercial Security Services,” “ACSS,” “ABM Security Services,” “SSA Security, Inc.,” “Security Services of America,” “Silverhawk Security Specialists” and “Elite Protection Services.” The Company provides security officers; investigative services; electronic monitoring of fire, life safety systems and access control devices; and security consulting services to a wide range of businesses. The Company’s Security subsidiaries maintain 61 offices and operate in 34 states and the District of Columbia. Sales are generally based on actual hours of service at contractually specified rates. The majority of Security contracts are for one-year periods, but are subject to termination by either party after 30 to 90 days’ written notice and contain automatic renewal clauses. Nearly all Security contracts are obtained by competitive bidding.

 

n Engineering. The Company provides engineering services through a number of subsidiaries, primarily operating under the name “ABM Engineering Services.” The Company provides facilities with on-site engineers to operate and maintain mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems utilizing in part computerized maintenance management systems. These services are designed to maintain equipment at optimal efficiency for customers such as high-rise office buildings, schools, computer centers, shopping malls, manufacturing facilities, museums and universities. The Company’s Engineering subsidiaries maintain 16 branches and operate in 40 states and the District of Columbia. The majority of Engineering contracts contain clauses under which the customer agrees to reimburse the full amount of wages, payroll taxes, insurance charges and other expenses plus a profit percentage. Additionally, the majority of Engineering contracts are for one-year periods, but are subject to termination by either party after 30 to 90 days’ written notice and may contain renewal clauses. Nearly all Engineering contracts are obtained by competitive bidding. ABM Engineering Services Company, a wholly owned subsidiary, has maintained ISO 9000 Certification since 1999, the only national engineering services provider of on-site operating engineers to earn this prestigious designation. ISO is a quality standard comprised of a rigorous set of guidelines and good business practices against which companies are evaluated through a comprehensive independent audit process.

 

The Company’s Engineering segment also provides facility services through a number of subsidiaries, primarily operating under the name “ABM Facility Services.” The Company provides customers with streamlined, centralized control and coordination of multiple facility service needs. This process is consistent with the greater competitive demands on corporate organizations to become more efficient in the business market today. By leveraging the core competencies of the Company’s other service offerings, the Company attempts to reduce overhead (such as redundant personnel) for its customers by providing multiple services under a single contract, with one contact and one invoice. Its National Service Call Center provides centralized dispatching, emergency services, accounting and related reports to financial institutions, high-tech companies and other customers regardless of industry or size.

 

n Lighting. The Company provides lighting services through a number of subsidiaries, primarily operating under the name “Amtech Lighting Services.” The Company provides relamping, fixture cleaning, energy retrofits and lighting maintenance service to a variety of commercial, industrial and retail facilities. The Company’s Lighting subsidiaries also repair and maintain electrical outdoor signage, and provide electrical service and repairs. The Company’s Lighting subsidiaries maintain 27 offices and operate in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Lighting contracts are either

fixed-price (long-term full service or maintenance only contracts), project work or time and materials based where the customer is billed according to actual hours of service and materials used at specified prices. Contracts range from one to six years, but the majority are subject to termination by either party after 30 to 90 days’ written notice and may contain renewal clauses. Nearly all Lighting contracts are obtained by competitive bidding.

 

Additional information relating to the Company’s industry segments appears in Note 18 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

 

Trademarks

 

The Company believes that it owns or is licensed to use all corporate names, tradenames, trademarks, service marks, copyrights, patents and trade secrets which are material to the Company’s operations.

 

Competition

 

The Company believes that each aspect of its business is highly competitive, and that such competition is based primarily on price and quality of service. The Company provides nearly all its services under contracts originally obtained through competitive bidding. The low cost of entry to the facility services business has led to strongly competitive markets made up of large numbers of mostly regional and local owner-operated companies, located in major cities throughout the United States and in British Columbia, Canada (with particularly intense competition in the janitorial business in the Southeast and South Central regions of the United States). The Company also competes with the operating divisions of a few large, diversified facility services and manufacturing companies on a national basis. Indirectly, the Company competes with building owners and tenants that can perform internally one or more of the services provided by the Company. These building owners and tenants might have a competitive advantage when the Company’s services are subject to sales tax and internal operations are not. Furthermore, competitors may have lower costs because privately owned companies operating in a limited geographic area may have significantly lower labor and overhead costs. These strong competitive pressures could inhibit the Company’s success in bidding for profitable business and its ability to increase prices even as costs rise, thereby reducing margins.

 

Sales and Marketing

 

The Company’s sales and marketing efforts are conducted by its corporate, subsidiary, regional, branch and district offices. Sales, marketing, management and operations personnel in each of these offices participate directly in selling and servicing customers. The broad geographic scope of these offices enables the Company to provide a full range of facility services through intercompany sales referrals, multi-service “bundled” sales and national account sales.

 

The Company has a broad customer base, including, but not limited to, commercial office buildings, industrial plants, financial institutions, retail stores, shopping centers, warehouses, airports, health and educational facilities, stadiums and arenas, and government buildings. No customer accounted for more than 5% of its revenues during the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006.

 

Employees

 

The Company employs approximately 75,000 persons, of whom the vast majority are service employees who perform janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting services. Approximately 29,000 of these employees are covered under collective bargaining agreements at the local level. There are about 4,000 employees with executive, managerial, supervisory, administrative, professional, sales, marketing or clerical responsibilities, or other office assignments.

 

Environmental Matters

 

The Company’s operations are subject to various federal, state and/or local laws regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, such as discharge into soil, water and air, and the generation, handling, storage, transportation and disposal of waste and hazardous substances. These laws generally have the effect of increasing costs and potential liabilities associated with the conduct of the Company’s operations, although historically they have not had a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

 

The executive officers of ABM as of December 22, 2006 were as follows:

 

 

(Cautionary Statements Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995)

 

The disclosure and analysis in this Annual Report on Form 10-K contain some forward-looking statements that set forth anticipated results based on management’s plans and assumptions. From time to time, the Company also provides forward-looking statements in other written materials released to the public, as well as oral forward-looking statements. Such statements give the Company’s current expectations or forecasts of future events; they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. In particular, these include statements relating to future actions, future performance or results of current and anticipated sales efforts, expenses, and the outcome of contingencies and other uncertainties, such as legal proceedings, and financial results. Management tries, wherever possible, to identify such statements by using words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “project” and similar expressions.

 

Set forth below are factors that the Company thinks, individually or in the aggregate, could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from past results or those anticipated, estimated or projected. The Company notes these factors for investors as permitted by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Investors should understand that it is not possible to predict or identify all such factors. Consequently, the following should not be considered to be a complete list of all potential risks or uncertainties.

 

A change in the frequency or severity of claims against the Company, a deterioration in claims management, the cancellation or non-renewal of the Company’s primary insurance policies, or a change in our customer’s insurance needs could adversely affect the Company’s results.  Many customers, particularly institutional owners and large property management companies, prefer to do business with contractors, such as the Company, with significant financial resources, who can provide substantial insurance coverage. In fact, historically many of our clients have chosen to obtain insurance coverage for their risks associated with our services, by being named as additional insureds under our master liability insurance policies. In addition, pursuant to our management and service contracts, we charge certain clients an allocated portion of our insurance-related costs, including workers’ compensation insurance, at rates that, because of the scale of our operations and claims experience, we believe are competitive. A material change in insurance costs due to a change in the number of claims, claims costs or premiums paid by us could have a material effect on our operating income. While the Company attempts to establish adequate self-insurance reserves using actuarial studies, unanticipated increases in the frequency or severity of claims against the Company would have an adverse financial impact. Also, where the Company self-insures, a deterioration in claims management, whether by the Company or by a third party claims administrator, could lead to delays in settling claims thereby increasing claim costs, particularly in the workers’ compensation area. In addition, catastrophic uninsured claims against the Company or the inability or refusal of the Company’s insurance carriers to pay otherwise insured claims would have a material adverse financial impact on the Company. Furthermore, should the Company be unable to renew its umbrella and other commercial insurance policies at competitive rates or should our customers choose not to have the Company obtain insurance, it would have an adverse impact on the Company’s business.

 

A change in actuarial analysis could affect the Company’s results.  The Company uses an independent actuary to evaluate estimated claim costs and liabilities no less frequently than annually to ensure that its self-insurance reserves are appropriate. Trend analysis is complex and highly subjective. The interpretation of trends requires the knowledge of all factors affecting the trends that may or may not be reflective of adverse developments (e.g., changes in regulatory requirements and changes in reserving methodology). Actuaries may vary in the manner in which they derive their estimates and these differences could lead to variations in actuarial estimates that cause changes in the Company’s insurance reserves not related to changes in its claims experience. Changes in insurance reserves as a result of an actuarial review can cause swings in operating results that are unrelated to the Company’s ongoing business. In addition, because of the time required for the actuarial analysis, the Company may not learn of a deterioration in claims, particularly claims administered by a third party, until additional costs have been incurred or are projected. Because the Company bases its pricing in part on its estimated insurance costs, the Company’s prices could be higher or lower than they otherwise might be if better information were available resulting in a competitive disadvantage in the former case and reduced margins or unprofitable contracts in the latter.

 

The Company’s technology environment may be inadequate to support growth.  Although the

Company employs a centralized accounting system, the Company relies on a number of legacy information technology systems, particularly its payroll system, as well as manual processes, to conduct its operations. These systems and processes may be unable to provide adequate support for the business and create additional reliance upon manual rather than system controls, particularly as the Company expands. This could result, for instance, in delays in meeting payroll obligations, in difficulty calculating and tracking appropriate governmental withholding and other payroll regulatory obligations, and in higher internal and external expenses to work around these systems. Additionally, the current technology environment may be unable to support the integration of acquired businesses and anticipated internal growth. Effective October 2006, the Company entered into an outsourcing agreement with IBM to provide information technology services. With IBM’s support, the Company expects to implement a new payroll system in 2008. The project approach, scope, cost and schedule are currently being developed. The Company may also upgrade its accounting system, which would include the consolidation of multiple databases, the potential replacement of custom systems and business process redesign to facilitate the implementation of shared-service functions across the Company. If it decides to do so, software version incompatibility may require concurrent rather than sequential projects to achieve the required integration between the two systems or entail additional costs associated with consecutive implementation of the new payroll system and an accounting system upgrade. Additionally, a data warehouse/analytics solution will be necessary to address historic data and reporting requirements for payroll and accounting. Supporting multiple concurrent projects may result in resource constraints and the inability to complete projects on schedule. The Company may also experience problems in transitioning to the new systems and/or additional expenditures may be required. For the first six months of that contract, IBM is providing support in the current technology environment and will assist the Company in selecting new technology or upgrading current technology. While the Company believes that IBM’s experience and expertise will lead to improvements in its technology environment, the risks associated with outsourcing include the dependence upon a third party for essential aspects of the Company’s business and risks to the security and integrity of the Company’s data in the hands of third parties. The Company may also have potentially less control over costs associated with necessary systems when they are supported by a third party, as well as potentially less responsiveness from vendors than employees.

 

Acquisition activity could slow or be unsuccessful.  A significant portion of the Company’s historic growth has come through acquisitions and the Company expects to continue to acquire businesses in the future as part of its growth strategy. A slowdown in acquisitions could lead to a slower growth rate. Because new contracts frequently involve start-up costs, sales associated with acquired operations generally have higher margins than new sales associated with internal growth. Therefore a slowdown in acquisition activity could lead to constant or lower margins, as well as lower revenue growth. There can be no assurance that any acquisition that the Company makes in the future will provide the Company with the benefits that were anticipated when entering the transaction. The process of integrating an acquired business may create unforeseen difficulties and expenses. The areas in which the Company may face risks include:

 

 

The Company could experience labor disputes that could lead to loss of sales or expense variations.  At October 31, 2006, approximately 39% of the Company’s employees were subject to various local collective bargaining agreements. Some collective bargaining agreements will expire or become subject to renegotiation during fiscal year 2007. In addition, the Company may face union organizing drives. When one or more of the Company’s major collective bargaining agreements becomes subject to renegotiation or when

the Company faces union organizing drives, the Company and the union may disagree on important issues which, in turn, could lead to a strike, work slowdown or other job actions at one or more of the Company’s locations. A strike, work slowdown or other job action could in some cases disrupt the Company from providing its services, resulting in reduced revenue. If declines in customer service occur or if the Company’s customers are targeted for sympathy strikes by other unionized workers during union organizing drives, contract cancellations could result. The result of negotiating a first time agreement or renegotiating an existing collective bargaining agreement could be a substantial increase in labor and benefits expenses that the Company could be unable to pass through to its customers for some period of time, if at all.

 

A decline in commercial office building occupancy and rental rates could affect the Company’s sales and profitability.  The Company’s sales directly depend on commercial real estate occupancy levels and the rental income of building owners. Decreases in occupancy levels and rental income reduce demand and also create pricing pressures on building maintenance and other services provided by the Company. In certain geographic areas and service segments, the Company’s most profitable sales are known as tag jobs, which are services performed for tenants in buildings in which it performs building services for the property owner or management company. A decline in occupancy rates could result in a decline in fees paid by landlords, as well as tenant work, which would lower sales and margins. In addition, in those areas of its business where the Company’s workers are unionized, decreases in sales can be accompanied by relative increases in labor costs if the Company is obligated by collective bargaining agreements to retain workers with seniority and consequently higher compensation levels and cannot pass through these costs to customers.

 

The financial difficulties or bankruptcy of one or more of the Company’s major customers could adversely affect results.  The Company’s ability to collect its accounts receivable and future sales depend, in part, on the financial strength of its customers. The Company estimates an allowance for accounts it does not consider collectible and this allowance adversely impacts profitability. In the event customers experience financial difficulty, and particularly if bankruptcy results, profitability is further impacted by the Company’s failure to collect accounts receivable in excess of the estimated allowance. Additionally, the Company’s future sales would be reduced by the loss of these customers.

 

The Company’s success depends on its ability to preserve its long-term relationships with its customers.  The Company’s contracts with its customers can generally be terminated upon relatively short notice. However, the business associated with long-term relationships is generally more profitable than that from short-term relationships because the Company incurs start-up costs with many new contracts, particularly for training, operating equipment and uniforms. Once these costs are expensed or fully depreciated over the appropriate periods, the underlying contracts become more profitable. Therefore, the Company’s loss of long-term customers could have an adverse impact on its profitability even if the Company generates equivalent sales from new customers.

 

The Company is subject to intense competition that can constrain its ability to gain business and its profitability.  The Company believes that each aspect of its business is highly competitive, and that such competition is based primarily on price and quality of service. The Company provides nearly all its services under contracts originally obtained through competitive bidding. The low cost of entry to the facility services business has led to strongly competitive markets consisting primarily of regional and local owner-operated companies, with particularly intense competition in the janitorial business in the Southeast and South Central regions of the United States. The Company also competes with the operating divisions of a few large, diversified facility services and manufacturing companies on a national basis. Indirectly, the Company competes with building owners and tenants that can perform internally one or more of the services provided by the Company. These building owners and tenants might have a competitive advantage in locations where the Company’s services are subject to sales tax and internal operations are not. Furthermore, competitors may have lower costs because privately owned companies operating in a limited geographic area may have significantly lower labor and overhead costs. These strong competitive pressures could inhibit the Company’s success in bidding for profitable business and its ability to increase prices even as costs rise, thereby reducing margins. Further, if the Company’s sales decline, the Company may not be able to reduce its expenses correspondingly.

 

An increase in costs that the Company cannot pass on to customers could affect profitability.  The Company negotiates many contracts under which its customers agree to pay certain costs at rates set by the Company, particularly workers’ compensation and other insurance coverage where the Company self insures

much of its risk. If the Company’s actual costs exceed the rates set by the Company, then the Company’s profitability may decline unless it can negotiate increases in these rates. In addition, if the Company’s costs, particularly workers’ compensation and other insurance costs, exceed those of its competitors, the Company may lose business unless it establishes rates that do not fully cover its costs.

 

Natural disasters or acts of terrorism could disrupt the Company in providing services.  Storms, earthquakes, or other natural disasters or acts of terrorism may result in reduced sales or property damage. Disasters may also cause economic dislocations throughout the country. In addition, natural disasters or acts of terrorism may increase the volatility of the Company’s results, either due to increased costs caused by the disaster with partial or no corresponding compensation from customers, or, alternatively, increased sales and profitability related to tag jobs, special projects and other higher margin work necessitated by the disaster. In addition, a significant portion of the Company’s Parking sales is tied to the numbers of airline passengers and hotel guests and Parking results could be adversely affected if people curtail business and personal travel.

 

The Company incurs significant accounting and other control costs that reduce its profitability.  As a publicly traded corporation, the Company incurs certain costs to comply with regulatory requirements. The process of complying with the internal control over financial reporting certification requirement of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was more costly than anticipated, requiring additional personnel and outside advisory services, as well as additional accounting and legal expenses. If regulatory requirements were to become more stringent or if controls thought to be effective later fail, the Company may be forced to make additional expenditures, the amounts of which could be material.

 

Most of the Company’s competitors are privately owned so these costs can be a competitive disadvantage for the Company. Should the Company’s sales decline or if the Company is unsuccessful at increasing prices to cover higher expenditures for internal controls and audits, its costs associated with regulatory compliance will rise as a percentage of sales.

 

Other issues and uncertainties may include:

 

 

The Company believes that it has the human and financial resources for business success, but future profit and cash flow can be adversely (or advantageously) influenced by a number of factors, including those listed above, any and all of which are inherently difficult to forecast. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

 

None.

 

The Company has corporate, subsidiary, regional, branch or district offices in over 240 locations throughout the United States and in British Columbia, Canada. Twelve of these facilities are owned by the Company. At October 31, 2006, the real estate owned by the Company had an aggregate net book value of $2.3 million and was located in: Phoenix, Arizona; Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida; Portland, Oregon; Houston and San Antonio, Texas; and Kennewick, Seattle, Spokane and Tacoma, Washington.

Rental payments under long and short-term lease agreements amounted to $95.9 million for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006. Of this amount, $62.5 million in rental expense was attributable to public parking lots and garages leased and operated by Parking. The remaining expense was for the rental or lease of office space, computers, operating equipment and motor vehicles.

 

The Company is involved in various claims and legal proceedings of a nature considered normal to its business, as well as from time to time in additional matters. The Company records accruals for contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. These accruals are adjusted periodically as assessments change or additional information becomes available.

 

The Company is a defendant in the following purported class action suits related to alleged violations of federal or California wage-and-hour laws: (1) The consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services (“ACSS”) filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (“L.A. Superior Ct.”); (2) Augustus and Hernandez v. ACSS filed on February 23, 2006, in L.A. Superior Ct.; (3) Bucio, Morales and Salcedo v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco; (4) the recently consolidated cases of Batiz v. ACSS and Heine v. ACSS, filed on June 7, 2006 and August 9, 2006, respectively, in the U.S. District Court of California, Central District; (5) Martinez, Lopez, Rodriguez and Godoy v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on November 28, 2006 in L.A. Superior Ct and (6) Joaquin Diaz v. Ampco System Parking filed on December 5, 2006, in L.A. Superior Ct. The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current or former employees of ABM subsidiaries who allege, among other things, that they were required to work “off the clock,” were not paid for all overtime and were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The plaintiffs generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and that class certification is unlikely, and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself. Given the nature and preliminary status of these wage-and-hour claims, the Company cannot yet determine the amount or a reasonable range of potential loss in these matters, if any.

 

In September, 2006, the Company received $80.0 million in settlement of its previously reported litigation against its business interruption carrier, Zurich Insurance Company (“Zurich”), for losses related to the destruction of the World Trade Center complex in New York, which was the Company’s largest single job-site at the time of its destruction on September 11, 2001.

 

The Company uses an independent actuary to evaluate the Company’s estimated claim costs and liabilities no less frequently than annually. The 2004 actuarial report completed in November 2004 indicated that there were adverse developments in the Company’s insurance reserves primarily related to workers’ compensation claims in the State of California during the four-year period ended October 31, 2003, for which the Company recorded a charge of $17.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2004. The Company believes a substantial portion of the $17.2 million, as well as other costs incurred by the Company in its insurance claims was related to poor claims management by a third party administrator that no longer performs these services for the Company. In addition, the Company believes that poor claims administration in certain other states, particularly New York, led to higher costs for the Company. The Company has filed a claim against its former third party administrator for its damages related to claims mismanagement. The Company is actively pursuing this claim, which is subject to arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. The three-person arbitration panel has been designated and discovery is underway, including examination of a sample of claims by insurance experts.

 

In August 2005, ABM filed an action for declaratory relief, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in U.S. District Court in The Northern District of California against its insurance carriers, Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich American”) and National Union Fire Insurance Company relating to the carriers’ failure to provide coverage for ABM and one of its Parking subsidiaries. In September 2006, the Company settled its claims against Zurich American for $400,000. Zurich American had provided $850,000 in coverage. In September 2006, the Company lost a motion for summary adjudication filed by National Union on the issue of the duty to defend. The Company is appealing that ruling. ABM’s claim includes “bad faith” allegations based upon the settlement of the underlying litigation with IAH-JFK Airport Parking Co., LLC in early 2006. ABM seeks to recover

legal fees and $5.3 million in settlement costs in the underlying litigation.

 

While the Company accrues amounts it believes are adequate to address any liabilities related to litigation that the Company believes will result in a probable loss, the ultimate resolution of such matters is always uncertain. It is possible that litigation or other proceedings brought against the Company in the future could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operations.

 

Not applicable.

 

Market Information and Dividends

 

ABM’s common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The following table sets forth the high and low intra-day prices of ABM’s common stock on the New York Stock Exchange and quarterly cash dividends declared on common shares for the periods indicated:

 

 

To the Company’s knowledge, there are no current factors that are likely to materially limit the Company’s ability to pay comparable dividends for the foreseeable future.

 

Stockholders

 

At November 30, 2006, there were 3,669 registered holders of ABM’s common stock.

 

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

 

(1) On March 29, 2006, ABM’s Board of Directors authorized the purchase of up to 2,000,000 shares of ABM’s outstanding common stock at any time through October 31, 2006. The authorization expired with 571,500 shares remaining.

 

The following selected financial data is derived from the Company’s consolidated financial statements for each of the years in the five-year period ended October 31, 2006. It should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto, as well as “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” (“MD&A”), which are included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

(1) The World Trade Center formerly represented the Company’s largest job-site; its destruction on September 11, 2001 has directly and indirectly impacted subsequent Company results. Amounts for 2006, 2005 and 2002 consist of gains in connection with World Trade Center insurance claims.

 

(2) Operating expenses for 2006 and 2005 included benefits of $14.1 million and $8.2 million, respectively, from the reduction of the Company’s self-insurance reserves. Operating expenses for 2004 included a $17.2 million insurance charge resulting from adverse developments in the Company’s California worker’s compensation claims. See Note 2 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

 

(3) Selling, general and administrative expenses included losses related to three major lawsuits against the Company totaling $12.8 million in 2005. There were no significant litigation losses in the other years presented. In addition, Selling, general and administrative expenses for 2006 included $3.3 million of incremental costs associated with outsourcing the management of the Company’s information technology infrastructure and support services. No other year presented included a similar charge.

 

(4) Due to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, “Share-Based Payment’’ effective November 1, 2005, which required the recognition of compensation expense associated with stock awards, selling, general and administrative expenses in 2006 included share-based compensation expense of $3.2 million. No other years presented included share-based compensation expense except for $42,000 of compensation expense recorded in 2005 due to the accelerated vesting of options in connection with an employee termination.

 

(5) Stockholders’ equity per common share is calculated by dividing stockholders’ equity at the end of the fiscal year by the number of shares of common stock outstanding at that date. This calculation may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies.

 

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements of the Company and the notes thereto contained in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.” All information in the discussion and references to the years are based on the Company’s fiscal year that ends on October 31.

 

Overview

 

ABM Industries Incorporated (“ABM”) and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) provide janitorial, parking, security, engineering and lighting services for thousands of commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in hundreds of cities throughout the United States and in British Columbia, Canada. The largest segment of the Company’s business is Janitorial which generated over 57% of the Company’s sales and other income (hereinafter called “Sales”) and over 69% of its operating profit before corporate expenses for 2006. The Company also previously provided mechanical and elevator services. (See “Divestitures and Results from Discontinued Operations.”)

 

The Company’s Sales are substantially based on the performance of labor-intensive services at contractually specified prices. Janitorial and other maintenance service contracts are either fixed-price or “cost-plus” (i.e., the customer agrees to reimburse the agreed upon amount of wages and benefits, payroll taxes, insurance charges and other expenses plus a profit percentage), or are time and materials based. In addition to services defined within the scope of the contract, the Company also generates Sales from extra services (or “tags”), such as additional cleaning requirements or emergency repair services, with extra services frequently providing higher margins. The quarterly profitability of fixed-price contracts is impacted by the variability of the number of work days in the quarter.

 

The majority of the Company’s contracts are for one-year periods, but are subject to termination by either party after 30 to 90 days’ written notice. Upon renewal of the contract, the Company may renegotiate the price although competitive pressures and customers’ price sensitivity could inhibit the Company’s ability to pass on cost increases. Such cost increases include, but are not limited to, labor costs, workers’ compensation and other insurance costs, any applicable payroll taxes and fuel costs. However, for some renewals the Company is able to restructure the scope and terms of the contract to maintain profit margin.

 

Sales have historically been the major source of cash for the Company, while payroll expenses, which are substantially related to Sales, have been the largest use of cash. Hence operating cash flows significantly depend on the Sales level and timing of collections, as well as the quality of the customer accounts receivable. The timing and level of the payments to suppliers and other vendors, as well as the magnitude of self-insured claims, also affect operating cash flows. The Company’s management views operating cash flows as a good indicator of financial strength. Strong operating cash flows provide opportunities for growth both internally and through acquisitions.

 

The Company’s growth in Sales in 2006 from 2005 is significantly attributable to internal growth. Internal growth in Sales represents not only Sales from new customers, but also expanded services or increases in the scope of work for existing customers. In the long run, achieving the desired levels of Sales and profitability will depend on the Company’s ability to gain and retain, at acceptable profit margins, more customers than it loses, pass on cost increases to customers, and keep overall costs down to remain competitive, particularly against privately owned companies that typically have the lower cost advantage. The Company’s most recent acquisitions also contributed to the growth in sales in 2006. These acquisitions are described in Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

 

In the short-term, management is focused on pursuing new business and integrating its most recent acquisitions. In the long-term, management continues to focus the Company’s financial and management resources on those businesses it can grow to be a leading national service provider.

 

Liquidity and Capital Resources

 

 

 

 

Funds provided from operations and bank borrowings have historically been the sources for meeting working capital requirements, financing capital expenditures and acquisitions, and paying cash dividends. As of October 31, 2006 and 2005, the Company’s cash and cash equivalents totaled $134.0 million and $56.8 million, respectively. Net cash provided by continuing operations contributed $130.4 million in 2006 and cash from common stock issuances contributed an additional $16.2 million. As described under “Insurance Claims Related to the Destruction of the World Trade Center (“WTC”) in New York on September 11, 2001” below, the Company received $80.0 million in cash during the fourth quarter of 2006 from the settlement of the WTC insurance claims, which is included in cash provided by operations. Cash used in investing and financing activities partially offset these amounts with $21.6 million used for dividend payments, $26.0 million used to purchase shares of ABM common stock, $14.1 million used for additions to property, plant, and equipment, and $10.0 million used for acquisitions, including $5.4 million of initial payments for the purchase of operations of Brandywine Building Services, Inc. (“Brandywine”) acquired on November 1, 2005, Fargo Security, Inc. (“Fargo”) acquired on November 27, 2005 and Protector Security Services (“Protector”) acquired on December 11, 2005.

 

Working Capital.  Working capital increased by $66.1 million to $312.5 million at October 31, 2006 from $246.4 million at October 31, 2005, which is primarily due to the income generated during 2006, including the $45.1 million after-tax gain on the WTC insurance claim, although the cash used in investing and financing activities partially offset the impact. Trade accounts receivable is the largest component of working capital and totaled $384.0 million at October 31, 2006 compared to $345.1 million at October 31, 2005. These amounts were net of allowances for doubtful accounts and sales totaling $8.0 million and $7.9 million at October 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively. At October 31, 2006, accounts receivable that were over 90 days past due had increased by $5.6 million to $32.8 million (8.4% of the total outstanding) from $27.2 million (7.7% of the total outstanding) at October 31, 2005 as a result of a slow down of customer payments.

 

Cash Flows from Operating Activities.  Continuing operations provided net cash of $130.4 million, $44.8 million and $64.4 million in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Cash flows from continuing operations increased in 2006 from 2005 primarily due to the $80.0 million received in settlement of WTC insurance claims, although payments in 2006 of litigation settlements that were pending at October 31, 2005 reduced cash flow from continuing operations. Cash flows from operating activities were also affected by the timing of other recurring payments. Cash from continuing operations decreased in 2005 from 2004 primarily due to higher tax payments made in 2005 compared to 2004. In addition, cash flows from operating activities for 2005 included a $5.0 million litigation loss and increased deferred cost on projects not completed at the end of the year at Lighting. These increases were offset in part by $4.4 million in proceeds from the sale of a leasehold interest for an off-airport parking facility.

 

Cash Flows from Investing Activities.  Net cash used in investing activities in 2006, 2005 and 2004 was $21.8 million, $13.1 million and $60.8 million, respectively. In 2005, the Company received $32.3 million from the sales of the operating assets of the Mechanical segment (see “Results from Discontinued Operations”). The Company used $16.9 million less cash to purchase businesses in 2006 compared to 2005, and $3.7 million less cash to purchase property, plant, and equipment. The decrease in net cash used in investing activities in 2005 compared to 2004 was primarily due to the $32.3 million from the Mechanical sale in 2005 and the $27.3 million decrease in the cash used in the purchase of businesses in 2005 compared to 2004, although

additions to property, plant and equipment (mostly communication and information technologies) were $6.3 million higher in 2005 than in 2004.

 

Cash Flows from Financing Activities.  Net cash used in financing activities was $31.3 million, $30.9 million, $20.5 million in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively. In 2006 compared to 2005, the Company purchased $5.4 million less ABM common stock although it issued $4.9 million less ABM common stock through the Company’s stock option and employee stock purchase plans. The Company purchased $20.2 million more ABM common stock in 2005 compared to 2004, although it also issued $11.1 million more ABM common stock under the Company’s stock option and employee stock purchase plans.

 

Line of Credit.  In May 2005, ABM entered into a $300 million syndicated line of credit scheduled to expire in May 2010. No compensating balances are required under the facility and the interest rate is determined at the time of borrowing based on the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) plus a spread of 0.375% to 1.125% or, for overnight borrowings, at the prime rate or, for overnight to one week, at the Interbank Offered Rate (“IBOR”) plus a spread of 0.375% to 1.125%. The spreads for LIBOR and IBOR borrowings are based on the Company’s leverage ratio. The facility calls for a non-use fee payable quarterly, in arrears, of 0.125%, based on the average daily unused portion. For purposes of this calculation, irrevocable standby letters of credit issued primarily in conjunction with the Company’s self-insurance program plus cash borrowings are considered to be outstanding amounts. As of October 31, 2006 and 2005, the total outstanding amounts under the facility were $98.7 million and $84.4 million, respectively, in the form of standby letters of credit.

 

The facility includes usual and customary covenants for a credit facility of this type, including covenants limiting liens, dispositions, fundamental changes, investments, indebtedness, and certain transactions and payments. In addition, the facility also requires that the Company satisfy three financial covenants: (1) a fixed charge coverage ratio greater than or equal to 1.50 to 1.0 at fiscal quarter-end; (2) a leverage ratio of less than or equal to 3.25 to 1.0 at fiscal quarter-end; and (3) consolidated net worth greater than or equal to the sum of (i) $341.9 million, (ii) an amount equal to 50% of the consolidated net income earned in each full fiscal quarter ending after May 25, 2005 (with no deduction for a net loss in any such fiscal quarter) and (iii) an amount equal to 100% of the aggregate increases in stockholders’ equity of ABM after May 25, 2005 by reason of the issuance and sale of capital stock or other equity interests of ABM, including upon any conversion of debt securities of ABM into such capital stock or other equity interests, but excluding by reason of the issuance and sale of capital stock pursuant to the Company’s employee stock purchase plans, employee stock option plans and similar programs. At October 31, 2006, the Company was in compliance with all covenants.

 

Cash Requirements

 

The Company is contractually obligated to make future payments under non-cancelable operating lease agreements for various facilities, vehicles and other equipment. As of October 31, 2006, future contractual payments were as follows:

 

 

Additionally, the Company has the following commercial commitments and other long-term liabilities:

 

 

The Company uses surety bonds, principally performance and payment bonds, to guarantee performance under various customer contracts in the normal course of business. These bonds typically remain in force for one to five years and may include optional renewal periods. At October 31, 2006, outstanding surety bonds totaled approximately $54.5 million. The Company does not believe these bonds will be required to be drawn upon.

 

The Company has three unfunded defined benefit plans, an unfunded post-retirement benefit plan and an unfunded deferred compensation plan that are described in Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. At October 31, 2006, the liability reflected on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet for these five plans totaled $22.3 million, with the amount expected to be paid over the next 20 years estimated at $32.6 million. With the exception of the deferred compensation plan, the liability for which is reflected on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet at the amount of compensation deferred plus accrued interest, the plan liabilities at that date assume future annual compensation increases of 3.50% (for those plans affected by compensation changes) and have been discounted at 5.75%, a rate based on Moody’s Investor Services AA-rated long-term corporate bonds (i.e., 20 years). Because the deferred compensation plan liability reflects the actual obligation of the Company and the post-retirement benefit plan and the three defined benefit plans have been frozen, variations in assumptions would be unlikely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition and operating performance. The Company expects to fund payments required under the plans from operating cash as payments are due to participants.

 

Not included in the unfunded employee benefit plans in the table above are union-sponsored multi-employer defined benefit plans under which certain union employees of the Company are covered. These plans are not administered by the Company and contributions are determined in accordance with provisions of negotiated labor contracts. Contributions paid for these plans were $34.5 million, $34.4 million and $33.5 million in 2006, 2005 and 2004, respectively.

 

The Company self-insures certain insurable risks such as general liability, automobile, property damage, and workers’ compensation. Commercial policies are obtained to provide for $150.0 million of coverage for certain risk exposures above the self-insured retention limits (i.e., deductibles). For claims incurred after November 1, 2002, substantially all of the self-insured retentions increased from $0.5 million per occurrence (inclusive of legal fees) to $1.0 million per occurrence (exclusive of legal fees) except for California workers’ compensation insurance which increased to $2.0 million per occurrence from April 14, 2003 to April 14, 2005, when it returned to $1.0 million per occurrence, plus an additional $1.0 million annually in the aggregate. The estimated liability for claims incurred but unpaid at October 31, 2006 and 2005 was $195.2 million and $198.6 million, respectively. The Company retains an outside actuary to provide an actuarial estimate of its insurance reserves no less frequently than annually.

 

The self-insurance claims paid in 2006, 2005 and 2004 were $57.4 million, $55.2 million and $60.7 million, respectively. Claim payments vary based on the frequency and/or severity of claims incurred and timing of the settlements and therefore may have an uneven impact on the Company’s cash balances.

 

On September 29, 2006, the Company entered into a Master Professional Services Agreement (the “Services Agreement”) with International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) that became effective October 1, 2006, pursuant to which IBM will provide to the Company substantially all of the information technology infrastructure and services provided in 2006 by in-house equipment and personnel. By transferring these functions to IBM, the Company expects to reduce the risks associated with performing these information technology functions in-house and upgrade the information technology infrastructure to support growth and strategic business initiatives.

 

The services that IBM will provide include data center, server, network and workstation operations, as well as help desk, applications management and support, and disaster recovery services. The base fee for these services is approximately $117 million over the initial term of 7 years and 3 months. ABM and IBM may expand the services covered by the Service Agreement at rates set forth in the Services Agreement, or later agreed to by the parties, which would increase costs. As of October 31, 2006, future contractual payments were as follows:

The Company expects to pay approximately $35 million in taxes in the first quarter of fiscal 2007 related to the $80.0 million gain on the WTC insurance claim described below.

 

The Company also completed its evaluation of its legacy payroll system and expects to implement in 2008 a new payroll system, which will include payroll, human resources, and benefits applications. The Company expects to spend approximately $10 million during fiscal 2007 and the first quarter of fiscal 2008 on planning and implementation costs. The project commenced in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2006.

 

The Company believes that the current cash and cash equivalents, cash generated from operations and the line of credit will be sufficient to meet the Company’s cash requirements for the long term including cash required for acquisitions.

 

Insurance Claims Related to the Destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001

 

The Company had commercial insurance policies covering business interruption, property damage and other losses related to the World Trade Center complex in New York, which was the Company’s largest single job-site at the time of its destruction on September 11, 2001 with annual Sales of approximately $75.0 million. The Company had been engaged in protracted litigation with Zurich Insurance Company (“Zurich”), its business interruption insurance carrier, to recover its losses of business profits. This litigation was settled on August 15, 2006 for $80.0 million and the proceeds were received in September 2006. Under Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) Issue No. 01-10, “Accounting for the Impact of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” the Company recognized the $80.0 million settlement into income from continuing operations in the fourth quarter of 2006. Including the $80.0 million, the Company received from Zurich $95.2 million in accumulated payments for its commercial insurance policy covering business interruption, property damage, and other losses related to the World Trade Center complex and no additional claims remain pending.

 

Environmental Matters

 

The Company’s operations are subject to various federal, state and/or local laws regulating the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, such as discharge into soil, water and air, and the generation, handling, storage, transportation and disposal of waste and hazardous substances. These laws generally have the effect of increasing costs and potential liabilities associated with the conduct of the Company’s operations, although historically they have not had a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition, from time to time the Company is involved in environmental issues at certain of its locations or in connection with its operations. While it is difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of any of these matters, based on information currently available, management believes that none of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

 

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

 

The Company is party to a variety of agreements under which it may be obligated to indemnify the other party for certain matters. Primarily, these agreements are standard indemnification arrangements in its ordinary course of business. Pursuant to these arrangements, the Company may agree to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse the indemnified parties for losses suffered or incurred by the indemnified party, generally its customers, in connection with any claims arising out of the services that the Company provides. The Company also incurs costs to defend lawsuits or settle claims related to these indemnification arrangements and in most cases these costs are paid from its insurance program. The term of these indemnification arrangements is generally perpetual. Although the Company attempts to place limits on this indemnification reasonably related to the size of the contract, the maximum obligation may not be explicitly stated and, as a result, the maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these arrangements is not determinable.

 

ABM’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws may require it to indemnify Company directors and officers against liabilities that may arise by reason of their status as such and to advance their expenses incurred as a result of any legal proceeding against them as to which they could be indemnified. ABM has also entered into indemnification agreements with its directors to this effect. The overall amount of these obligations cannot be reasonably estimated, however, the Company believes that any loss under these obligations would not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company currently has directors’ and officers’ insurance, which has a deductible of up to $1.0 million.

Effect of Inflation

 

The low rates of inflation experienced in recent years have had no material impact on the financial statements of the Company. The Company attempts to recover increased costs by increasing sales prices to the extent permitted by contracts and competition.

 

Acquisitions

 

The operating results of businesses acquired during the periods presented have been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements from their respective dates of acquisition. Acquisitions made during the three years ended October 31, 2006 are discussed in Note 12 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” and contributed approximately $235.4 million (8.7%) to 2006 Sales.

 

Divestitures and Results from Discontinued Operations

 

On June 2, 2005, the Company sold substantially all of the operating assets of CommAir Mechanical Services, which represented the Company’s Mechanical segment, to Carrier Corporation (“Carrier”). The operating assets sold included customer contracts, accounts receivable, inventories, facility leases and other assets, as well as rights to the name “CommAir Mechanical Services.” The consideration paid was $32.0 million in cash, subject to certain adjustments, and Carrier’s assumption of trade payables and accrued liabilities. The Company realized a pre-tax gain of $21.4 million ($13.1 million after tax) on the sale of these assets in 2005.

 

On July 31, 2005, the Company sold the remaining operating assets of Mechanical, consisting of its water treatment business, to San Joaquin Chemicals, Incorporated for $0.5 million, of which $0.25 million was paid in cash and $0.25 million in the form of a note, which was paid in October 2005. The operating assets sold included customer contracts and inventories. The Company realized a pre-tax gain of $0.3 million ($0.2 million after tax) on the sale of these assets in 2005.

 

On August 15, 2003, the Company sold substantially all of the operating assets of Amtech Elevator Services, Inc., which represented the Company’s Elevator segment, to Otis Elevator Company. In June 2005, the Company settled litigation that arose from and was directly related to the operations of Elevator prior to its disposal. An estimated liability of $0.5 million for several Elevator commercial litigation matters had been recorded on the date of disposal. The settlement was less than the estimated liability by $0.2 million, pre-tax. This difference was recorded as income from discontinued operations in 2005. In addition, a $0.9 million benefit was recorded in gain on sale of discontinued operations in 2005, which resulted from the correction of the overstatement of income taxes provided for the gain on sale of assets of the Elevator segment.

 

The operating results of Mechanical for 2005 and 2004 and the Elevator adjustments in 2005 are shown below. Operating results for 2005 for the portion of Mechanical’s business sold to Carrier are for the period beginning November 1, 2004 through the date of sale, June 2, 2005. Operating results for 2005 for Mechanical’s water treatment business are for the period beginning November 1, 2004 through the date of sale, July 31, 2005.

 

Results of Continuing Operations

 

COMPARISON OF 2006 TO 2005 — CONTINUING OPERATIONS

 

 

Income from continuing operations.  Income from continuing operations in 2006 increased 114.0% to $93.2 million ($1.88 per diluted share) from $43.6 million (0.86 per diluted share) in 2005. The increase was primarily due to the $80.0 million ($45.1 million, after-tax) recognized into income in the fourth quarter of 2006 for the settlement of the WTC insurance claims. All operating segments, except Lighting, showed improvement in operating income. In addition, in 2006 the Company recognized a benefit that was $5.9 million ($3.6 million after-tax) higher than 2005 from the reduction of the Company’s self insurance reserves ($14.1 million benefit in 2006 and $8.2 million in 2005) related to prior years’ insurance claims. These improvements were partially offset by a $3.3 million ($2.0 million after-tax) charge related to outsourcing the management of the Company’s information technology infrastructure and support services in October 2006, $3.2 million ($2.6 million after-tax) of share-based compensation costs as a result of the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123R effective November 1, 2005, and $2.4 million ($1.5 million after-tax) of professional fees associated with the Audit Committee’s independent investigation of prior year accounting at a subsidiary in the Company’s Security segment, Security Services America (“SSA”). Income from continuing operations in 2005 included $12.8 million ($7.8 million, after-tax) of losses from three major lawsuits, and a $3.4 million ($2.1 million after-tax) charge for a reserve provided for the amount the Company believed it overpaid Security Services of America, LLC (“SSA LLC”), which reserve was reduced by $1.0 million ($0.6 million after-tax) in 2006. Also included in 2005 was a $4.3 million ($2.6 million after-tax) gain on sale of a leasehold interest of an off-airport parking facility by Parking, a $2.7 million income tax benefit resulting from a state tax audit settlement and a $1.2 million ($0.7 million after-tax) gain on a WTC indemnity payment.

 

Revenues.  Revenues in 2006 of $2,792.7 million increased by $204.9 million or 7.9% from $2,587.8 million in 2005. The primary reason for the increase was the growth in Sales which increased by $126.1 million or 4.9% in 2006 from 2005. Acquisitions completed in 2005 and 2006 contributed $27.8 million to the Sales increase. Additionally, Parking’s reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses from managed parking lot clients were $32.0 million higher. The remainder of the Sales increase was primarily due to new business, primarily in Janitorial, Security and Engineering. The $80.0 million gain from the settlement of the WTC insurance claim also positively impacted revenues.

 

Operating Expenses and Cost of Goods Sold.  As a percentage of Sales, gross profit (Sales minus operating expenses and cost of goods sold) was 10.7% in 2006 compared to 10.6% in 2005. The improvement in the margin was due to lower insurance expense and slightly higher margin contributions from Janitorial in 2006 compared to 2005, partially offset by the $32.0 million in additional reimbursements in 2006 compared to 2005 for out-of-pocket expenses from managed parking lot clients for which Parking had no margin benefit.

 

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses.  Selling, general and administrative expenses were $207.1 million in 2006, compared to $204.1 million in 2005. The increase was primarily due to a $3.3 million charge related to outsourcing the management of Company’s information technology infrastructure and support services, $3.2 million of share-based compensation costs, a $2.6 million increase in payroll and payroll related costs due to annual salary increases and additional staff, $2.4 million of professional fees associated with the Audit Committee’s independent investigation of prior year accounting at SSA, and additional expenses from acquisitions made in 2005 and 2006.

These increases were partially offset by a $2.6 million reduction in documentation and testing costs associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley certification effort in 2006 compared to the same period of 2005. In 2005, the Company recorded $12.8 million of pre-tax losses from three major lawsuits, and the $3.4 million charge for a reserve provided for the amount the Company believed it overpaid SSA LLC. The $3.4 million reserve was reduced by $1.0 million in 2006.

 

Interest Expense.  Interest expense, which includes loan amortization and commitment fees for the revolving credit facility, was 44.0% lower in 2006 compared to 2005 because the amortization of the initiation costs of the new line of credit, which are being amortized over its term of five years, is lower than the amortization of the initiation costs incurred for the old line of credit, which had a three-year term.

 

Income Taxes.  The effective tax rates were 40.9% and 32.4% for 2006 and 2005, respectively. The increase in 2006 was primarily due to a higher estimated state income tax rate and the effect of the non-deductible incentive stock option expense included in pre-tax income. The increase in the state income tax rate in 2006 was largely due to the higher tax rates in the jurisdictions where the WTC settlement gain was subject to state income taxation. An income tax expense of $34.9 million was recorded in the fourth quarter of 2006 attributable to the WTC settlement gain. A $1.1 million income tax benefit, mostly from the reversal of state tax liabilities for closed years, was recorded in 2006. However, this was offset by $1.1 million in income tax expense primarily arising from the adjustment of the valuation allowance for state net operating loss carryforwards and the adjustment of the income tax liability accounts after filing the 2005 tax returns and amendments of prior year returns. A $2.7 million income tax benefit was recorded in the second quarter of 2005 resulting from the favorable settlement of the audit of prior years’ state tax returns (tax years 2000 to 2003).

 

Segment Information

 

Under the criteria of SFAS No. 131, “Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information,” Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering, and Lighting are reportable segments. The operating results of the former Mechanical segment are reported separately under discontinued operations and are excluded from the table below. (See Divestitures and Results from Discontinued Operations.) Corporate expenses are not allocated.

 

 

Janitorial.  Janitorial Sales increased by $38.2 million, or 2.5%, in 2006 compared to 2005. The Sales increase is primarily attributable to additional Sales of $22.5 million from acquisitions in 2005 and 2006 including Brandywine Building Services, Inc., (“Brandywine”), Initial Contract Services, Inc., Baltimore (“Initial Baltimore”) and Colin Service Systems, Inc. (“Colin”), affecting both the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions. Sales also increased in the Northern California, Northwest, North and South Central and Southwest regions due to new business, expansion of services to existing customers, and price adjustments to pass through a portion of union cost increases. These increases were partially offset by reductions in Sales from the loss of accounts in the Midwest and Northeast regions.

 

Operating profit increased by $13.8 million, or 20.4%, in 2006 compared to 2005, primarily due to higher Sales and improved margins from the Northern California, Northwest, South Central and Southwest regions, which were partially offset by lower profit in the Midwest and North Central regions, both caused by scope reductions, competitive pressure and in the case of the Midwest region, loss of accounts. The Brandywine, Initial Baltimore and Colin acquisitions contributed $2.5 million additional profit. In 2005, the Company incurred a $5.0 million litigation loss; however, it recognized a $1.3 million benefit from the reduction of insurance reserves.

Parking.  Parking Sales increased by $30.1 million, or 7.4%, while operating profit increased $3.1 million, or 29.7%, in 2006 compared to 2005. The increase in Sales was primarily due to a $32.0 million increase in reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses from managed parking lot clients, new contracts, and higher fees received from managed parking lots. These improvements were partially offset by a reduction in lease revenue principally due to the October 2005 sale of a leasehold interest in an off-airport facility that had contributed $6.5 million in Sales in 2005. The increase in operating profit was principally due to the absence of $6.9 million of litigation losses and the partially offsetting $4.3 million gain from the sale of the leasehold interest of the off-airport parking facility, and $1.4 million benefit from the reduction of insurance reserves, all of which impacted 2005. In addition, insurance expense was lower in 2006 compared to 2005 although it included a $0.4 million charge for adverse developments pertaining to prior years. A new revenue control and reporting system increased 2006 operating expenses.

 

Security.  Security Sales increased $13.6 million, or 4.6%, in 2006 compared to 2005, primarily due to Sales from new business, although these new sales were partially offset by lost Sales associated with the loss of a major customer account in June 2005. Operating profit increased $1.2 million, or 40.1%, in 2006 compared to 2005. Results in 2005 included a $3.4 million charge for a reserve provided for the amount the Company believed it overpaid SSA LLC, as well as a $0.4 million bad debt provision for a customer that declared bankruptcy in April 2005, a $0.3 million charge to correct the understatement of payroll and payroll-related 2004 expenses and higher overtime expenses related to operations acquired from SSA LLC. However, the benefit of not incurring these charges and a $1.0 million reduction in the SSA LLC reserve in 2006 were partially offset by lower margins on new contracts, annual salary increases and increases in workers’ compensation, legal fees and settlements.

 

Engineering.  Engineering Sales increased $46.4 million, or 19.5%, during 2006 compared to 2005 due to successful sales initiatives resulting in new business and the expansion of services to existing customers across the country, most significantly in the Mid-Atlantic, Northern California, and Eastern regions. Operating profits increased $2.5 million, or 17.9%, during 2006 compared to 2005 due to increased Sales, offset by the increase in sub-contracting and insurance expense, and higher management headcount necessary to support the growth in business.

 

Lighting.  Lighting Sales and operating profit decreased $3.2 million, or 2.8%, and $2.4 million, or 63.9%, respectively, in 2006 compared to 2005. The Sales decrease was primarily due to a $4.3 million decrease in special project business. The decrease in operating profit was primarily due to the decrease in sales and higher subcontractor and fuel costs, which negatively impacted fixed price contracts.

 

Corporate.  Corporate recognized $80.0 million in revenues in 2006 for the settlement of WTC insurance claims. Corporate expenses in 2006 increased by $4.1 million, or 11.7%, compared to 2005 mainly due to the $3.3 million charge related to outsourcing the management of the Company’s information technology infrastructure and support services, $3.2 million of share-based compensation costs, $2.4 million of professional fees associated with the Audit Committee’s independent investigation of prior year accounting at SSA, annual salary increases, costs of additional staffing, and higher legal expenses. These increases were partially offset by $9.0 million of additional reductions in insurance reserves recorded in Corporate in 2006 ($14.5 million) than in 2005 ($5.5 million). While virtually all insurance claims arise from the operating segments, these reductions were included in unallocated Corporate expenses. In addition, documentation and testing costs associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley certification effort were $2.6 million lower in 2006 than in 2005.

COMPARISON OF 2005 TO 2004 — CONTINUING OPERATIONS

 

 

Income from continuing operations.  Income from continuing operations in 2005 increased 46.9% to $43.6 million ($0.86 per diluted share) from $29.6 million ($0.59 per diluted share) in 2004 primarily due to 2005 including an $8.2 million ($5.0 million after-tax) benefit from the reduction of the Company’s self-insurance reserves and 2004 including a $17.2 million ($10.4 million after-tax) increase in self-insurance reserves as described below. All operating segments, except Security, showed improvement in operating income. Additionally, income from continuing operations in 2005 included a $4.3 million pre-tax gain on sale of a leasehold interest of an off-airport parking facility by Parking, $2.7 million of income tax benefit resulting from a state tax audit settlement and $1.2 million gain on a WTC indemnity payment. These positive developments were partially offset by a $13.0 million increase in litigation losses and $11.6 million of higher professional fees related to compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley internal controls certification requirement. In addition, there was one more workday in 2005 compared to 2004.

 

The $17.2 million insurance charge recorded by Corporate in 2004 resulted from adverse developments in the Company’s California workers’ compensation claims believed to be related to poor claims management by a third party administrator. The $8.2 million insurance benefit had two components. The 2005 actuarial report covering substantially all of the Company’s general liability and workers’ compensation reserves was completed in the third quarter of 2005 and showed favorable developments in the Company’s California workers’ compensation and general and auto liability claims, offset in part by adverse developments in the Company’s workers’ compensation claims outside of California. This resulted in a $5.5 million reduction in reserves recorded by Corporate, of which $1.4 million was attributable to a correction of an overstatement of reserves at October 31, 2004. The 2005 actuarial reports covering the rest of the Company’s self-insurance reserves, including low deductible self-insurance programs that cover general liability expenses at malls, special event facilities and airport shuttles, as well as workers’ compensation for certain employees in certain states, were completed in the fourth quarter of 2005 resulting in the reduction of these reserves by $2.7 million. The $2.7 million was recorded by Janitorial and Parking.

 

Revenues.  Revenues in 2005 of $2,587.8 million increased by $212.7 million or 9.0% from $2,375.1 million in 2004. Substantially all of the increase was the growth in Sales which increased by $211.5 million or 8.9% in 2005 from 2004. Acquisitions completed in 2004 and 2005 contributed $126.7 million to the Sales increase. The remainder of the Sales increase was primarily due to new business in all operating segments, expansion of services with existing Janitorial and Engineering customers and the $4.3 million gain on sale of the leasehold interest by Parking.

 

Operating Expenses and Cost of Goods Sold.  As a percentage of Sales, gross profit was 10.6% in 2005 compared to 9.2% in 2004. The increase in margins was primarily due to the $8.2 million insurance expense benefit in 2005 and the $17.2 million insurance charge in 2004. Results for 2005 also include the $4.3 million gain on sale of the leasehold interest by Parking, termination of unprofitable contracts and favorably renegotiated contracts at Parking and Janitorial operating profit improvements in 2005 in the majority of regions, particularly the Northeast, where higher tag sales provided higher margins. Partially offsetting these were higher reimbursements in 2005 for out-of-pocket expenses from managed parking lot clients for which Parking had no margin benefit, higher overtime costs in Security that cannot be passed through to clients, and one more workday in 2005 compared to 2004 which unfavorably impacted fixed-price contracts in Janitorial. The total insurance expense recorded by the operating segments in 2005 was flat compared to 2004.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses.  Selling, general and administrative expenses were $204.1 million in 2005, compared to $167.0 million in 2004. The increase was primarily due to the $13.0 million increase in litigation losses, $11.6 million of higher professional fees related to the Sarbanes-Oxley internal control compliance requirement in 2005, $7.7 million selling, general and administrative expenses attributable to the operations associated with acquisitions completed in 2004 and 2005 (including the $3.4 million estimated overpayment in connection with the subcontracting arrangement with SSA LLC) and the expanded sales force at Lighting and Security, as well as annual salary increases. These increases were partially offset by the decrease in bad debt expense primarily because of the elimination of specific reserves on customer accounts where billing disputes have been settled.

 

Intangible Amortization.  Intangible amortization was $5.7 million in 2005 compared to $4.5 million in 2004. The higher amortization was due to intangibles acquired in business combinations completed in 2004 and 2005, partially offset by lower amortization on acquisitions completed in 2003 resulting from the use of sum-of-the-years-digits method for amortization of customer relationship intangible assets.

 

Interest Expense.  Interest expense, which includes loan amortization and commitment fees for the revolving credit facility, was $0.9 million in 2005 and $1.0 million 2004.

 

Income Taxes.  The effective tax rate was 32.4% for 2005, compared to 34.1% for 2004. A $2.7 million income tax benefit was recorded in the second quarter of 2005 resulting from the favorable settlement of the audit of prior years’ state tax returns (tax years 2000 to 2003) in May 2005. An estimated liability was accrued in prior years for the separate income tax returns filed with that state for the years under audit because the intercompany charges were not supported by a recent formal transfer pricing study. The estimated liability was greater than the settlement amount. The income tax provision for continuing operations for 2004 included a tax benefit of $1.3 million principally from adjusting the income tax liability accounts after filing the 2003 income tax returns and from filing amended tax returns primarily to claim higher tax credits. The effective tax rate for 2005 also reflects a slightly lower estimated state tax rate based on actual state tax returns for 2004.

 

Segment Information

 

Under the criteria of SFAS No. 131, “Disclosures about Segments of an Enterprise and Related Information,” Janitorial, Parking, Security, Engineering, and Lighting are reportable segments. Corporate expenses are not allocated.

 

 

Janitorial.  Janitorial Sales increased by $82.7 million, or 5.7%, in 2005 compared to 2004. The acquisitions of the Northeast United States Division of Initial Contract Services, Inc. (“Initial Northeast”), Initial Baltimore and Colin contributed $66.2 million to the increase in Sales with the impact showing in the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast regions. In addition, the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Northern California, Northwest, South Central and Southwest regions all increased Sales due to new business, expansion of services to existing customers and price adjustments to pass through a portion of union cost increases. The increases were partially offset by reductions in Sales from lost accounts in the Northeast and Southeast regions.

 

Operating profit increased by $7.2 million, or 11.9%, in 2005 compared to 2004. The increase was primarily due to the operating profit improvements in the majority of the regions, a $1.3 million benefit from the reduction of insurance expense due to the reduction of self-insurance reserves for workers’ compensation for certain employees, and a $0.8 million operating profit contribution from the two Initial and Colin acquisitions. These positive developments were partially offset by a $6.2 million increase in litigation losses and one more workday in 2005 compared to 2004 which unfavorably impacted fixed-price contracts.

Of the regions that showed operating profit improvement, the Northeast region showed the most improvement, earning a profit in 2005 compared to a loss in 2004. The improvement was due to higher tag sales, which provided higher margins, tight control of labor cost, especially in Manhattan, higher prices on some renegotiated contracts, lower bad debt expense and the impact of acquisitions. The other regions showed operating profit improvement primarily due to higher Sales and higher margins on existing jobs resulting from lower costs.

 

Parking.  Parking Sales increased $25.4 million, or 6.6%, while operating profit increased $1.0 million, or 10.6%, in 2005 compared to 2004. Of the $25.4 million Sales increase, $15.7 million represented higher reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses from managed parking lot clients for which Parking had no margin benefit. Sales for the period also benefited from the sale of the leasehold interest of an off-airport parking facility resulting in a gain of $4.3 million. New contracts and increased traffic at airport locations throughout the year contributed to the remainder of the Sales increase. The increase in operating profits was primarily due to the $4.3 million gain, a $1.4 million benefit from the reduction of self-insurance reserves for airport shuttle claims, the impact of new contracts, termination of unprofitable contracts and higher margins on renegotiated contracts, as well as improvements at airport locations due to increased air traffic across the country. Partially offsetting these improvements was a $6.9 million increase in litigation losses and the cost of implementing a new revenue reporting system.

 

Security.  Security Sales increased $69.6 million, or 31.0%, in 2005 compared to 2004 primarily due to the 2004 and 2005 acquisitions of operations from SSA LLC, Sentinel Guard Systems (“Sentinel”) and Amguard Security and Patrol Services (“Amguard”), which contributed $60.5 million to the Sales increase. The remainder of the Sales increase was attributable to the net effect of new business, partially offset by the loss of a major contract in Seattle at the end of June 2005. Operating profits decreased $5.9 million, or 65.7%, primarily due to the $7.2 million decline in operating profit from the operations acquired from SSA LLC. The decline resulted from increased overtime expenses that could not be passed through to the clients, lower margins on new contracts, a $3.4 million charge for a reserve provided for the amount the Company estimated it overpaid SSA LLC in connection with the subcontracting arrangement with SSA LLC. Of the $3.4 million charge, $2.8 million was attributable to overpayment in 2004. The Company intends to continue to vigorously pursue collection. Also included in SSA LLC’s operating profit for 2005 was a $0.3 million charge to correct the understatement of payroll and payroll related expenses in 2004 and a $1.1 million benefit from correcting the overstatement of insurance expense in 2004. Additionally, the other operating units of Security incurred higher costs of an expanded sales force. Partially offsetting these declines were $1.1 million of profit contribution from Sentinel and Amguard and the net effect of new business.

 

Engineering.  Engineering Sales increased $29.6 million, or 14.2%, in 2005 compared to 2004 due to successful sales initiatives resulting in new business and the expansion of services to existing customers across the country, mostly in the Southern California, Northern California and Eastern regions. Operating profits increased $2.1 million, or 17.4%, during 2005 compared to 2004 primarily due to higher Sales, partially offset by higher state unemployment insurance expense in California and settlement of an employee claim.

 

Lighting.  Lighting Sales increased $4.1 million, or 3.7%, in 2005 compared to 2004, while operating profit increased $1.0 million, or 34.8%. The growth in Sales was primarily due to increased project and service business in the Southwest and Northwest regions, partially offset by a decrease in project business in the Northcentral region, lost service contracts and the impact of several hurricanes in the fourth quarter of 2005. The increase in operating profit was primarily due to increased Sales and a $0.9 million reduction of bad debt expense primarily related to reversals of specific reserves determined no longer to be required, partially offset by increased costs associated with an expanded sales force.

 

Corporate.  Corporate expenses decreased by $12.7 million, or 26.5%, in 2005 compared to 2004 mainly due to the difference between the $17.2 million increase in self-insurance reserves in 2004 and the $5.5 million decrease in self-insurance reserves in 2005. While virtually all insurance claims arise from the operating segments, the $5.5 million decrease in self-insurance reserves in 2005 and $17.2 million increase in reserves in 2004 were included in unallocated corporate expenses. Had the Company allocated these insurance adjustments among the operating segments, the reported pre-tax operating profits of the operating segments, as a whole, would have been increased by $5.5 million in 2005 and decreased $17.2 million in 2004, with an equal and offsetting change to unallocated Corporate expenses and therefore no change to consolidated pre-tax earnings for either year. The favorable impact of the insurance adjustments on 2005 was

partially offset by $11.6 million of higher professional fees in 2005 related to the Sarbanes-Oxley internal controls certification requirement.

 

Share-Based Compensation

 

Effective November 1, 2005, the Company began recording compensation expense associated with share-based payment awards in accordance with SFAS No. 123R as interpreted by SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107 (“SAB No. 107”). Prior to November 1, 2005, the Company accounted for stock options according to the provisions of Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” and related interpretations, and therefore no related compensation expense was recorded for awards granted with no intrinsic value. The Company adopted the modified prospective transition method provided for under SFAS No. 123R, and, consequently, has not retroactively adjusted results from prior periods. Under this transition method, compensation cost associated with share-based payment awards recognized in 2006 included: 1) amortization related to the remaining unvested portion of all stock option awards granted for the fiscal years beginning November 1, 1995 and ending October 31, 2005, based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the original provisions of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation;” and 2) amortization related to all share-based payment awards granted November 1, 2005 or after, based on the grant-date fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 123R. The compensation cost is included in selling, general and administrative expenses.

 

The total compensation cost related to the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2006 Equity Plan”) options recognized during the year ended October 31, 2006, was $10,173. As of October 31, 2006, there was $478,134 of total unrecognized compensation cost (net of estimated forfeitures) related to the 2006 Equity Plan unvested options which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average vesting period of 2.35 years.

 

The total compensation cost related to the 2006 Equity Plan restricted stock units recognized during the year ended October 31, 2006, was $73,381. As of October 31, 2006, there was $3.4 million of total unrecognized compensation cost (net of estimated forfeitures) related to restricted stock units which is expected to be recognized over a weighted- average vesting period of 2.35 years on a straight-line basis.

 

The total compensation cost related to the 2006 Equity Plan performance shares recognized during the year ended October 31, 2006, was $84,590. As of October 31, 2006, there was $1.9 million of total unrecognized compensation cost (net of estimated forfeitures) related to performance shares which is expected to be recognized over a weighted- average vesting period of 1.24 years on a straight-line basis.

 

The total compensation cost related to the “Time-Vested” Incentive Stock Option Plan (the “Time-Vested Plan”) options recognized during the year ended October 31, 2006, was $1.4 million. As of October 31, 2006, there was $2.6 million of total unrecognized compensation cost (net of estimated forfeitures) related to the Time-Vested Plan unvested options which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average vesting period of 1.86 years.

 

The total compensation cost related to the 1996 and 2002 “Price-Vested” Performance Stock Option Plans (the “Price-Vested Plans”) options recognized during the year ended October 31, 2006, was $0.7 million. As of October 31, 2006, there was $3.6 million of total unrecognized compensation cost (net of estimated forfeitures) related to the Price-Vested Plans unvested options which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average vesting period of 3.25 years.

 

The total compensation cost related to the Executive Stock Option Plan (also known as the “Age-Vested” Career Stock Option Plan) (the “Age-Vested Plan”) options recognized during the year ended October 31, 2006, was $0.1 million. As of October 31, 2006, there was $0.7 million of total unrecognized compensation cost (net of estimated forfeitures) related to the Age-Vested Plan unvested options which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average vesting period of 5.22 years.

 

The total compensation cost related to the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan recognized during the year ended October 31, 2006, was $0.8 million. Because of changes to the 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan beginning in the third quarter of 2006, the value of the awards is no longer treated as share-based compensation and no share-based compensation expense was recognized under this Plan after May 1, 2006.

 

The Company estimates the fair value of each option award on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option valuation model. The Company uses an outside expert to determine the assumptions used in the

option valuation model. The Company estimates forfeiture rates based on historical data and adjusts the rates periodically. The adjustment of the forfeiture rate may result in a cumulative adjustment in any period the forfeiture rate estimate is changed. During the year ended October 31, 2006, no adjustment was necessary.

 

Adoption of Accounting Standards

 

Effective November 1, 2005, the Company began recording compensation expense associated with share-based payment awards in accordance with SFAS No. 123R as interpreted by SEC Staff SAB No. 107 as described above.

 

In May 2005, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 154, “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections” (“SFAS No. 154”). SFAS No. 154 replaces APB Opinion No. 20, “Accounting Changes” (“Opinion No. 20”) and SFAS No. 3, “Reporting Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements.” SFAS No. 154 applies to all voluntary changes in accounting principles, and changes the requirements for accounting for and reporting of a change in accounting principles. SFAS No. 154 requires retrospective application to prior periods’ financial statements of a voluntary change in accounting principles unless it is impracticable. Opinion No. 20 previously required that most voluntary changes in accounting principles be recognized by including in net income of the period of the change the cumulative effect of changing to the new accounting principle. SFAS No. 154 also requires that a change in method of depreciation, amortization or depletion for long-lived, nonfinancial assets be accounted for as a change in accounting estimate that is effected by a change in accounting principle. Opinion No. 20 previously required that such a change be reported as a change in accounting principle. SFAS 154 is effective for accounting changes and corrections of errors made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005. Earlier application is permitted for accounting changes and corrections of errors made in fiscal years beginning after June 1, 2005. The Company began to apply SFAS No. 154 effective November 1, 2005.

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

 

In June 2006, the FASB issued EITF No. 06-3, “How Taxes Collected from Customers and Remitted to Governmental Authorities Should Be Presented in the Income Statement” (“EITF 06-3”). EITF 06-3 requires companies to disclose the presentation of any tax assessed by a governmental authority that is directly imposed on a revenue-producing transaction between a seller and a customer (e.g., sales and use tax) as either gross or net in the accounting principles included in the notes to the financial statements. EITF 06-3 will be effective beginning with the second quarter of 2007.

 

In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Financial Interpretation No. 48, “Accounting for Uncertain Tax Positions” (“FIN 48”). FIN 48 provides guidance on the accounting for and disclosure of tax positions accounted for in accordance with SFAS No. 109. FIN 48 requires that the effects of a tax position be initially recognized when it is “more likely than not” (which is defined as a greater than 50 percent chance) that the position will be sustained upon examination by the taxing authorities. In addition, FIN 48 requires additional disclosures regarding tax positions. FIN 48 is effective for the Company beginning fiscal 2008. The Company is presently assessing the impact of FIN 48 to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

 

In September 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108 (“SAB No. 108”), “Considering the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements.” The guidance in SAB No. 108 requires Companies to base their materiality evaluations on all relevant quantitative and qualitative factors. This involves quantifying the impact of correcting all misstatements, including both the carryover and reversing effects of prior year misstatements, on the current year financial statements. The implementation of SAB No. 108 will not have any impact on the Company’s evaluation as the Company is substantially following guidance provided in SAB No. 108. SAB No. 108 will be effective beginning in the first quarter of 2007.

 

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157,“Fair Value Measurements” (“SFAS No. 157”). SFAS No. 157 was issued to provide guidance and consistency for comparability in fair value measurements and for expanded disclosures about fair value measurements. The Company does not anticipate that SFAS No. 157 will have an impact on the financial position, results of operations or disclosures in the Company’s financial statements. SFAS No. 157 will be effective beginning in fiscal year 2008.

 

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans — an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)” (“SFAS No. 158”). SFAS No. 158 requires an employer

to recognize the overfunded or underfunded status of a defined benefit postretirement plan as an asset or liability in its statement of financial position and to recognize changes in that funded status in the year in which the changes occur through comprehensive income. SFAS No. 158 also requires an employer to measure the funded status of a plan as of the date of its year end statement of financial position. The Company does not anticipate that SFAS No. 158 will have a material impact on its financial position and results of operations. SFAS No. 158 will be effective for fiscal year ending October 31, 2007.

 

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

 

The preparation of consolidated financial statements requires the Company to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, sales and expenses. On an ongoing basis, the Company evaluates its estimates, including those related to self-insurance reserves, allowance for doubtful accounts, sales allowance, valuation allowance for the net deferred income tax asset, estimate of useful life of intangible assets, impairment of goodwill and other intangibles, and contingencies and litigation liabilities. The Company bases its estimates on historical experience, independent valuations and various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

 

The Company believes the following critical accounting policies govern its more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of its consolidated financial statements.

 

Self-Insurance Reserves.  Certain insurable risks such as general liability, automobile property damage and workers’ compensation are self-insured by the Company. However, commercial policies are obtained to provide coverage for certain risk exposures subject to specified limits. Accruals for claims under the Company’s self-insurance program are recorded on a claim-incurred basis. The Company uses an independent actuary to evaluate the Company’s estimated claim costs and liabilities no less frequently than annually and accrues self-insurance reserves in an amount that is equal to the actuarial point estimate.

 

Using the annual actuarial report, management develops annual insurance costs for each operation, expressed as a rate per $100 of exposure (labor and revenue) to estimate insurance costs. Additionally, management monitors new claims and claim development to assess the adequacy of the insurance reserves. The estimated future charge is intended to reflect the recent experience and trends. Trend analysis is complex and highly subjective. The interpretation of trends requires the knowledge of all factors affecting the trends that may or may not be reflective of adverse developments (e.g., changes in regulatory requirements and changes in reserving methodology). If the trends suggest that the frequency or severity of claims incurred increased, the Company might be required to record additional expenses for self-insurance liabilities. Additionally, the Company uses third party service providers to administer its claims and the performance of the service providers and transfers between administrators can impact the cost of claims and accordingly the amounts reflected in insurance reserves.

 

Allowance for Doubtful Accounts.  Trade accounts receivable arise from services provided to the Company’s customers and are generally due and payable on terms varying from receipt of the invoice to net thirty days. The Company records an allowance for doubtful accounts to provide for losses on accounts receivable due to customers’ inability to pay. The allowance is typically estimated based on an analysis of the historical rate of credit losses or write-offs (due to a customer bankruptcy or failure of a former customer to pay) and specific customer concerns. The accuracy of the estimate is dependent on the future rate of credit losses being consistent with the historical rate. Changes in the financial condition of customers or adverse developments in negotiations or legal proceedings to obtain payment could result in the actual loss exceeding the estimated allowance. If the rate of future credit losses is greater than the historical rate, then the allowance for doubtful accounts may not be sufficient to provide for actual credit losses. Alternatively, if the rate of future credit losses is less than the historical rate, then the allowance for doubtful accounts will be in excess of actual credit losses. The Company does not believe that it has any material exposure due to either industry or regional concentrations of credit risk.

 

Sales Allowance.  Sales allowance is an estimate for losses on customer receivables resulting from customer credits (e.g., vacancy credits for fixed-price contracts, customer discounts, job cancellations and breakage cost). The sales allowance estimate is based on an analysis of the historical rate of sales adjustments (credit memos, net of re-bills). The accuracy of the estimate is dependent on the rate of future sales adjustments being consistent with the historical rate. If the

rate of future sales adjustments is greater than the historical rate, then the sales allowance may not be sufficient to provide for actual sales adjustments. Alternatively, if the rate of future sales adjustments is less than the historical rate, then the sales allowance will be in excess of actual sales adjustments.

 

Deferred Income Tax Asset and Valuation Allowance.  Deferred income taxes reflect the impact of temporary differences between the amount of assets and liabilities recognized for financial reporting purposes and such amounts recognized for tax purposes. These deferred taxes are measured using tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. If the enacted rates in future years differ from the rates expected to apply, an adjustment of the net deferred tax assets will be required. Additionally, if management determines it is more likely than not that a portion of the net deferred tax asset will not be realized, a valuation allowance is recorded. At October 31, 2006, the net deferred tax asset was $86.1 million, net of a $1.5 million valuation allowance related to state net operating loss carryforwards. Should future income be less than anticipated, the net deferred tax asset may not be fully recoverable.

 

Other Intangible Assets Other Than Goodwill.  The Company engages a third party valuation firm to independently appraise the value of intangible assets acquired in larger sized business combinations. For smaller acquisitions, the Company performs an internal valuation of the intangible assets using the discounted cash flow technique. Acquired customer relationship intangible assets are being amortized using the sum-of-the-years-digits method over their useful lives consistent with the estimated useful life considerations used in the determination of their fair values. The accelerated method of amortization reflects the pattern in which the economic benefits of the customer relationship intangible asset are expected to be realized. Trademarks and trade names are being amortized over their useful lives using the straight-line method. Other intangible assets, consisting principally of contract rights, are being amortized over the contract periods using the straight-line method. At least annually, in the fourth quarter, the Company evaluates the remaining useful lives of its intangible assets to determine whether events and circumstances warrant a revision to the remaining period of amortization. If the estimate of an asset’s remaining useful life changes, the remaining carrying amount of the intangible asset would be amortized over the revised remaining useful life. In addition, the remaining unamortized book value of intangibles is reviewed for impairment in accordance with SFAS No. 144, “Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-lived Assets” (“SFAS No. 144”). The first step of an impairment test under SFAS No. 144 is a comparison of the future cash flows, undiscounted, to the remaining book value of the intangible. If the future cash flows are insufficient to recover the remaining book value, a fair value of the asset, depending on its size, will be independently or internally determined and compared to the book value to determine if an impairment exists.

 

Goodwill. In accordance with SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangibles” (“SFAS No. 142”) goodwill is no longer amortized. Rather, the Company performs goodwill impairment tests on at least an annual basis, in the fourth quarter, using the two-step process prescribed in SFAS No. 142. The first step is to evaluate for potential impairment by comparing the reporting unit’s fair value with its book value. If the first step indicates potential impairment, the required second step allocates the fair value of the reporting unit to its assets and liabilities, including recognized and unrecognized intangibles. If the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill is lower than its carrying amount, goodwill is impaired and written down to its implied fair value. As of October 31, 2006, no impairment of the Company’s goodwill carrying value has been indicated.

 

Contingencies and Litigation. ABM and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in certain proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, including certain environmental matters. Litigation outcomes are often difficult to predict and often are resolved over long periods of time. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple possible outcomes that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties. Loss contingencies are recorded as liabilities in the consolidated financial statements when it is both: (1) probable or known that a liability has been incurred and (2) the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. If the reasonable estimate of the loss is a range and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is recorded as a liability. So long as the Company believes that a loss in litigation is not probable, then no liability will be recorded unless the parties agree upon a settlement, which may occur because the Company wishes to avoid the costs of litigation.

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
ABM Industries Incorporated:

 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of ABM Industries Incorporated and subsidiaries as of October 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended October 31, 2006. In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have audited the related financial statement schedule II. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule based on our audits.

 

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of ABM Industries Incorporated and subsidiaries as of October 31, 2006 and 2005, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended October 31, 2006, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Also in our opinion, the related financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein.

 

As discussed in note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, effective November 1, 2005, the Company adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R), Share-Based Payments.

 

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the effectiveness of ABM Industries Incorporated’s internal control over financial reporting as of October 31, 2006, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated December 21, 2006 expressed an unqualified opinion on management’s assessment of, and the effective operation of, internal control over financial reporting.

 

 /s/ KPMG LLP

KPMG LLP

 

San Francisco, California

December 21, 2006

Report of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
ABM Industries Incorporated:

 

We have audited management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (Item 9A(b)), that ABM Industries Incorporated maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of October 31, 2006, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). ABM Industries Incorporated’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment and an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

 

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that ABM Industries Incorporated maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of October 31, 2006, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Also, in our opinion, ABM Industries Incorporated maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of October 31, 2006, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

 

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheets of ABM Industries Incorporated and subsidiaries as of October 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended October 31, 2006, and our report dated December 21, 2006 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.

 

 /s/ KPMG LLP

KPMG LLP

 

San Francisco, California

December 21, 2006

ABM Industries Incorporated and Subsidiaries

 

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

 

     The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

ABM Industries Incorporated and Subsidiaries

 

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

 

     The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

ABM Industries Incorporated and Subsidiaries