Good morning and welcome to Fluor's second quarter 2025 earnings conference call. Today's call is being recorded. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question- and- answer session will follow management's presentation. A replay of today's conference call will be available at approximately 10:30 A.M. Eastern Time today, accessible on Fluor's website at investor.fluor.com. The web replay will be available for 30 days. A telephone replay will also be available for seven days through a registration link, also accessible on Fluor's website at investor.fluor.com. At this time, for opening remarks, I would like to turn the call over to Jason Landkamer, Vice President, Investor Relations. Please go ahead, Mr. Landkamer. Thank you, Tiffany. Welcome to Fluor's 2025 second quarter earnings call. Jim Breuer, Fluor's Chief Executive Officer, and John Regan, Fluor's Chief Financial Officer, are with us today. Fluor issued its second quarter earnings release earlier this morning, and a slide presentation is posted on our website that we will reference for making prepared remarks. Before getting started, I would like to refer to our safe harbor note regarding forward-looking statements, which are summarized on slide two. During today's presentation, we will be making forward-looking statements which reflect our current analysis of existing trends and information. There is an inherent risk that actual results and experience could differ materially. You can find a discussion of our risk factors which could potentially contribute to such differences in our 2024 Form 10-K and our Form 10-Q, which was filed earlier today. During this call, we will discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of these amounts to the comparable GAAP measures are reflected in our earnings release and posted in the Investor Relations section of our website at investor.fluor.com. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Jim Breuer, Fluor's Chief Executive Officer. Jim. Thank you, Jason, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining today. Please turn to slide three. To start, I wanted to provide an update on our ownership of NuScale Class B shares. In the next few weeks, NuScale will convert 15 million shares into Class A securities. We see this as a positive step in returning value to our shareholders. As NuScale's largest shareholder and the only firm with NuScale EPC expertise, we continue to be excited about our investments and the opportunities to deploy NuScale technology in the power market. John will provide additional details in his remarks. Now let's turn to our operating review beginning on slide four. Revenue for the second quarter was $4 billion. Consolidated new awards for the second quarter were $1.8 billion and 72% reimbursable. In addition to these awards, we recognize $1.7 billion in positive backlog adjustments for scope changes on existing reimbursable work. For the first half of 2025, new awards worth $7.6 billion. With a book to burn PGM above osixe, total backlog remains around $28 billion, of which 80% is reimbursable. Moving to our business segments, please turn to slide six. Urban Solutions reported profit of $29 million in the second quarter. Results in this segment reflect a $54 million net impact of cost growth and expected recoveries on three infrastructure projects. I'll provide details on these charges in a moment. We also had lower take up in the quarter on a couple of mining and metals projects as timelines were extended, and we saw a slower than expected ramp up in revenue on a large life sciences project. New awards for the quarter were $856 million compared to $2.4 billion a year ago. This includes the full release for the Reko Diq copper and gold mining project in Pakistan and an incremental award for a life sciences project in the U.S. As a note, the Reko Diq award is a services only contract and therefore it excludes the typical CFM associated with similar large mining projects. Ending backlog in Urban now at $20.6 billion represents 73% of Fluor's total backlog. Now please turn to slide seven. During the quarter, we substantially completed the EPCM scope on two innovative colocation data centers in India for an important but confidential client. Prospects for the ATLS business in the second half of 2025 include a pharmaceutical facility and additional data center work under our MSA with a major technology provider. We remain excited about the opportunities in the semiconductor and data center markets over the longer- term. Near- term in semiconductors, our clients' investment intentions have not yet translated into meaningful new awards. In the data center market, clients are refining their capital spending plans to solve for short term demand in addition to addressing power and water needs for the ever increasing scale of projects. Having said that, we continue to deepen our relationships with data center clients as they express a need for our capabilities, large scale project acumen, and modularization expertise. In mining and metals, w hile the fundamentals for capital spending by our clients remain very strong, the immediate enthusiasm for major capital deployment is currently tempered by the potential impact of global trade uncertainty. During the quarter, we built upon our relationships with our traditional clients including Anglo American, Barrick, BHP, Freeport-McMoRan, and Rio Tinto. We also maintain our strong focus on execution and are leveraging our global capabilities from our traditional energy solutions offices to deliver high quality results on ongoing projects for the next few quarters. Our opportunities include additional scope on the Reko Diq project, copper work in Canada, green steel production in Europe, and aluminum recycling in the Middle East. We're also very excited about opportunities in the U.S. where we're already providing support and working on early engineering. These include several significant copper developments and a rare earth project in Wyoming. During the quarter, there were a number of announcements about the investment and development of mining projects in the U.S. including rare earth and critical minerals such as an opportunity for NP materials. We're also seeing interest in steel production. We have strong relationships with many of these companies and believe that this market will be a source of opportunity in the next few quarters. Moving to slide eight, as I mentioned, infrastructure experienced cost growth on three projects during the quarter. On Gordie Howe, cost increased in the second quarter as we experienced rework and additional efforts required to hand over both ports of entry. This project is now 97% complete and we expect substantial completion this fall. The 635 LBJ project experienced cost increases in construction materials as well as labor productivity impacts. This project is 78% complete with an expected substantial completion date in Q2 of 2026. Finally, on I-35 Phase II, the project experienced increased costs due to a subcontractor default, third party utility delays, and mitigation costs related to these delays. This project is 58% complete and targeting substantial completion in Q4 of 2026. To address the issues across these projects, w e have increased operations oversight and strengthened the execution teams. We're also taking action against certain subcontractors, including designers, for recovery of costs caused by their poor performance. Other projects in the infrastructure portfolio continue to perform to management expectations. For example, we are pleased to report that the Chicago Transit Authority Red Purple Line project opened up four stations and celebrated its first rider on July 19, and the Oak Hill Parkway project in Austin successfully completed a traffic switch to newly constructed roadways and bridges. Moving to Energy Solutions, please turn to slide nine. Segment profit was $15 million compared to $75 million a year ago. Results reflect reduced contributions due to projects nearing completion and the recognition of an unexpected $31 million arbitration ruling for a fabrication project completed by our Mexico joint venture in 2021. This impact is not reflected in our adjusted results. New awards for the quarter totaled $549 million. Prospects for the next few quarters are e xpected to be modest as the reload w e discussed for 2025 is taking longer than expected. This is due to a number of factors including reduced CapEx budgets, trade uncertainty, and soft battery and chemicals markets. We continue to engage in multiple power opportunities for the medium term that are aligned with our proven pursuit principles of fair and balanced risk allocation. This includes the improved market and policy environment surrounding nuclear power investments as well as selective opportunities in the gas-fired power generation market. Turning to slide 10, we are extremely proud of the multiple accomplishments on LNG Canada in recent months. We achieved RFSU on Train 1 in the quarter, and the client shipped the first cargo of LNG, meeting their announced timeline. This milestone marks a significant achievement for the LNG Canada organization and for our joint venture responsible for EPC execution. I congratulate the project team and the thousands of workers who helped build this facility. Most importantly, this is a watershed moment for Canada, who is now becoming a significant player in the increasingly important LNG market. Our team is now focused on achieving RFSU on Train 2, and in line with our previous comments regarding timing of resolution, I am pleased to report that our joint venture has recently reached a settlement agreement covering our COVID claims and other matters. Finally, this morning we announced an award to our joint venture to update the FEED package for a proposed Phase II expansion. If built, this expansion would potentially double the size of the facility. We look forward to supporting LNG Canada as they work towards a final investment decision. Moving on to slide 11, Mission Solutions reported a segment profit of $35 million for the second quarter compared to $41 million a year ago. Profits slightly declined due to a temporary stop work order for an existing project on Tinian Island. We look forward to the restart of the work in the near future. New awards of $363 million included short-term extensions at two DOE sites and additional funding for hurricane relief efforts. Ending backlog for the quarter was $2 billion. As a reminder, this excludes work reported under the equity method. For the balance of the year, we have the Portsmouth recompete and key prospects for projects that are supporting HALEU nuclear fuel efforts. We now expect the full release of work at the Savannah River Plutonium project in the first half of 2026, while we continue to work at full speed to progress engineering, long lead procurement, and early site work. Before I turn the call over to John, I want to provide an update on our view of the overall business environment. Please turn to slide 12. In our last call, I mentioned that some clients were forging ahead with their time to market prospects, while others were exercising caution as their businesses are more sensitive to economic factors. Over the past couple of months, we've seen more clients continue to take a wait and see approach due to a variety of reasons, including ongoing trade policy discussions and developments, cost escalation, and interest rates. In a few cases, we've seen project cancellations or extended deferrals. What does that mean for Fluor? It means that we are at a point in the cycle of short term hesitation on our way to longer- term opportunity. We believe that the hesitation to release full EPC investments will subside once there is certainty in trade agreements and on their impact on client end markets, project costs, and importantly, the rebalancing of the supply chain. Furthermore, and specifically in the U.S., once the effects of the recently enacted pro growth policies materialize, we expect clients to accelerate domestic investment in many of our end markets, such as manufacturing, semiconductors, data centers, power, mining, metals, and national security. With that, let me turn the call over to John for the financial update. John, thanks Jim, and good morning everyone. Today I'll cover our results for the second quarter and go over the revised guidance for the balance of the year. Please turn to slide 14 and the financial highlights. Jim already referenced revenue and new awards in the quarter, but as you can see, our consolidated segment profit for Q2 was $78 million. Our GAAP results notably reflect a $3.2 billion pre-tax mark-to-market gain for NuScale with a related tax impact of $757 million. It also includes a $31 million unfavorable arbitration ruling related to our JV in Mexico for a job completed long ago. It includes a $13 million deferral PGM associated with the $1.7 billion in backlog adjustments that Jim described. From a cash flow perspective, the cash payment for settlement of the NTTA matter that we accrued in Q4 amounted to $33 million. With respect to the $13 million deferral of PGM, I'd remind you in Q1 we saw an acceleration of PGM associated with some de-scopes. The $13 million this quarter represents the inverse of that, but is unrelated to the same projects impacting Q1. Adjusted EBITDA for Q2 was $96 million compared to $165 million a year ago. Our adjusted EPS was $0.43 compared to $0.85 in 2024. The reconciliation to GAAP figures can be found on our earnings release, but adjusted EBITDA includes the infrastructure charges but not the Energy Solutions arbitration matter. G&A for the quarter was $52 million, similar to the $50 million reported a year ago. However, results for this quarter reflect lower performance-based compensation offset by the recognition of some severance costs and a slight increase in our reserve for legacy legal claims. The restructuring activities principally relate to reductions in headcount in several non-U.S. Energy Solutions offices. Although we accrued the expected costs in Q2, the funding of the underlying obligations will occur across the back half of 2025. We continue to actively review our overhead footprint in light of our needs and scale of operations. This year f or example, we right-sized our efforts in global sustainability compliance and reporting as a result of the CSRD deferral. On another note, weakness in the dollar contributed to an FX impact of $41 million in the quarter. This was uncharacteristically large, but irrespective of its size, was also excluded from our adjusted results. Net interest income in Q2 is unchanged from last quarter at $17 million but compares to $38 million a year ago. This reduction results from lower cash balances for projects nearing completion, particularly at LNG Canada. Our share repurchases also impact a year-over-year decrease, as did the slowdown at our joint venture in Mexico. As a reminder, at the JV in Mexico we have some unique credit protection features, including an ability to ramp down execution activities and to novate subcontractor obligations in the event of non-payment. With delays in payment, w e unfortunately had to invoke some of those rights this quarter, which impacted the quarter from both PGM and interest income and does trickle into the additional effects in the back half of 2025 that are embedded within the revised guidance. Moving to slide 15, at June 30th we had $2.3 billion of cash and marketable securities compared to $2.5 billion at March 31st. Operating cash flow for the quarter fell short of our expectations with an outflow of $21 million compared to cash generation of $282 million a year ago. This shortfall versus expectation was a result of a number of factors: increases in working capital on several large projects for a variety of factors, funding of some of the cost growth in the infrastructure space, and the timing of AR collections in Mission Solutions and at our joint venture in Mexico. As a reminder, the 2024 cash flow number reflected the resumption of dividends from LNGC and significant mobilization receipts for two then early-stage projects. As an update on our legacy projects, in Q2 we provided $44 million of funding. Our original expectation of funding about $200 million on legacy projects for all of 2025 holds true, although we now anticipate some more funding in 2026 based on the revised project estimates. Also, some of the claims associated with the recovery for these jobs will likely extend into 2026, which has a bearing on our OCF for this year. On the capital allocation front, we bought 4 million shares in the second quarter, spending $153 million. In light of our revised operating cash flow guidance, we are expecting to slow the repurchase cadence in second half 2025. Based on current projections, we expect total repurchases to be between $450 million- $500 million versus the $600 million for all of 2025 communicated after quarter one. At our investor day, we implied roughly $1 billion of stock repurchases across the planning cycle. Even at this reduced tempo, we still outpaced the straight-line effect of that target and we are not revising that figure. As a reminder, all of these repurchase expectations come on the back of our base operations, not through any SMR monetization, more on that in the outlook. That said, there are a number of important milestones in the next 90 days which will address the contingency wedge of my cash forecast wheel from Investor Day, which itself subsumes several items such as litigation, tax disputes, and other matters. The final outcome of these matters over the next quarter will influence where we land within that repurchase range. Coming back to LNG C, the JV remains focused on the completion of Train 2 and the remaining open punch list items, with future releases of dividends to the JV partners tied to the completion of Train 2 and the normal progression of the warranty period. The COVID settlement agreement largely mirrors the expectations we had embedded in earlier forecasts, but it does provide more insight into when the JV will be able to collect for such items and make future dividends to its partners. For several quarters we've described our efforts to monetize our ownership of NuScale within the strategic sale pursuit. Most of the discussions centered around how to convey the fee shares without converting them into the registered securities. With NuScale stock performance in the last few months, we see it as increasingly difficult for the strategic buying community to consummate a transaction at fair value. Accordingly, we are more embracing of a stock market facing solution which can be better accomplished with the conversion into Class A shares. As Jim mentioned, we expect to complete a 15 million share conversion of NuScale shares this month. We further expect to unveil our monetization plan over the next quarter, but I don't want to be too specific on how or when at this juncture. In the meantime, the conversion will go a long way to utilizing the tax credits that I've mentioned before. In any event, we still expect to use NuScale to contribute to our capital return objectives across the planning cycle. Moving to the outlook on slide 16, we are revising our 2025 adjusted EBITDA guidance to $475 million- $525 million and our adjusted EPS guidance to $1.95- $2.15. As you think about this revised guidance, the big factor causing the decrease are the hesitancy prevailing in the market and the related impact to book and burn, plus the decrease associated with infra and the slowdown in Mexico. Roughly with similarly equivalent weighting, our expectations for operating cash flow now range from $200 million- $250 million for the full year or $500 million- $550 million for the second half of the year. This reflects the lower guidance range for EBITDA and the timing of expected claims recovery for the infrastructure projects, but excludes the effects, if any, on legal settlements. Key assumptions and expectations for 2025 include a new awards outlook of $13 billion- $15 billion. As we now expect the release for SRPTF, our largest prospect for 2025, will extend into the first half of 2026. New awards are also expected to be impacted by the economic observations that Jim made earlier. We see revenue growth of approximately 5% to 10% compared against 2024 alongside the other guidance listed on the slide. Our expectations for calendar 2025 segment margins are unchanged except for Urban where we now expect a range of approximately 2.5%- 3.5%, largely reflective of Q2 results. Tiffany, we're now ready f or our first question. At this time, if you would like to ask a question, press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question, press star one. Your first question comes from the line of Andy Kaplowitz with Citi. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning everyone. Hey Andy. Good morning. Jim. I know you talked about delays in project decisions. Maybe just talk about if I look at the bookings environment these days, you know, you've seen a little bit of s tabilization in the tariff environment. Have you seen any sort of stabilization, stabilization in customer conversations. I know John just talked about the $13 billion- $15 billion in new awards for this year. Should we be thinking that you really don't turn back to backward growth in first half 2026? Is that the sort of goal at this point? Where is that going to come from besides the plutonium project? Thank you, Andy, for the question. You hit several points there. Let me try to hit them in order. As far as the trade policy topic, it is having a significant impact on client sentiment and their willingness to make long-term investment decisions. We have seen some clarity, as you say. There were some announcements around Japan, E.U. I personally would like to see more progress in the conversations with China, with Canada, with Mexico. Those three countries are very relevant to our world. I think we're still seeing a developing story around tariffs. All you n eed to do is read the headlines for the last few days. I think what our clients are looking for is a little more stability and certainty around where that's going to go in terms of several things. One, project costs, but almost equally important, how is that supply chain going to rebalance? We're having these conversations with our active clients and our bids right now as the tariff matrix, if you will, on one axis, countries, on a different axis, the commodities, as that matrix continues to evolve, how do we shift and pivot and mitigate those risks on projects? That is an ongoing story. That has not fully sorted itself out. We hope that it does in the near future. Our clients need that stability. These are big decisions, big investments. Now, as far as the opportunities for the near term, we feel very strong that we're pursuing our work in the right markets. If you look at what we presented in April at our Investor Day, we said we would be focusing on mining and there's a big push for mining work both in the U.S. and internationally. We said we would focus on advanced manufacturing, data centers, and life sciences, and there's a lot of activity there. We talked about power, we talked about selective LNG. You saw the announcement on Phase II. Phase II, the FEED that we announced, that's going to take some time, but it can be a really, really good opportunity for next year. In mission national security, DOE work, of course, SRPPF is the largest opportunity, but it's not the only opportunity we're pursuing there. Even though there's softness in some of the ES markets, namely chemicals, which is, we're very strong in chemicals, we're still pursuing a couple of interesting chemicals opportunities. I think, Andy, the portfolio is similar. I think we're seeing things slowing down a little bit. There's some hesitation today. The opportunities will come from those markets that I just mentioned to you. Helpful. John, I know you didn't w ant to talk too much about the NuScale conversion, but obviously it's a topic du jour these days. Maybe just the mechanics of the $15 million. Do you take a tax gain when t hat Class B converts to A, and can you offset that? If you just step back, I think you talked about sort of r esolving it over the next quarter. Obviously we've talked about this for a very long time, d o we think that you get more o f a resolution here over the next q uarter or so, as you said? We get more of an update. Than we got today? Yeah, without question, Andy, several things in there on the tax and then the credit utilization. Absolutely, a s I said in the prepared remarks, we do have a tax gain associated w ith the step up y ou can, it'll all come to fruition when we make the conversion. You should generally think about the tax gain being roughly equivalent to whatever their screen price is on that day multiplied by the 15 million shares. We will be able to shield substantially all of that through the tax credit profile that we have. Not much in the way of. ash leakage associated with the conversion. The monetization itself becomes one of not trying to top the market but trying to do it in a way that captures a lot of the value without taking a steep discount associated with it. We've got a long time to get that done. I know there's a lot of anxiousness in the market for that to happen yesterday, but we're going to continue to be measured about it. Appreciate the color, guys. Your next question comes from the line of Jamie Cook with Truist Securities. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Sorry, another follow up question on NuScale. Just to make sure I understand, beyond this 15 million shares, I mean I think that was, it's a good start, but people probably expected more shares just given where NuScale stock is. Is this the path going forward and has the conversation with the strategic buyer, is that dead? I'm just trying to think through, is this the way forward or are there other alternatives besides this to continue to reduce, you know, your percentage of ownership in NuScale? My second question, Jim, obviously we want to be sensitive, you know, on LNG Canada, you know, and I guess it's a positive you made agreement on the COVID claims. Any more color you can add there on how positive, what it implies for cash flow? Sorry, last, what's the $1.7 billion in positive backlog adjustments? Thanks. Maybe I'll start, Jamie, and then I'll pass it on to John. On LNGC, yeah, we're very pleased with the settlement of a COVID claim. As I think, John, you mentioned, there's no significant change to management expectations as a result of that change order. Right. Anyways, you go ahead on the NuScale question. Yeah. On the NuScale front, Jamie, I think the $15 million has a lot of applicability. One, it does go a long way toward consuming the tax credits, as we just talked about. Two, it does demonstrate the path to the B, to a conversion. Importantly, we're expecting a monetization of those figures to more than cover our initial investment in NuScale. It suggests that the remaining approximately 111 million shares or so a re all u pside opportunity from that initial investment. Now, admittedly it doesn't cover cost of capital over that period of time that we've invested in them, but we do recoup that initial investment through this transaction. I think, as I said in my prepared remarks, you know, we do see it increasingly difficult for the strategic buying community to transact at this relative screen price, you know, for the $111 million shares. It's a big number for someone to swallow. If we can get this monetized through the normal stock market mechanisms, then that might harbing the way we're going t o do this moving forward. Okay, that's helpful. Sorry. On the $1.7 billion backlog adjustment, anything you can add there? Yeah, I missed that, Jamie. Those were adjustments to ongoing work on reimbursable work. A lot of it is CFM. If you recall last quarter we had the reverse effect on different projects. They're not the same projects, but it's an unusually high CFM and backlog adjustment number. That's why we felt it was important to disclose it. I think, John, it resulted in a deferral of PGM to the tune of about $13 million in the quarter. Yeah, that's correct. That's just going through the normal POC calculation. It's not abandoned profit, profit that we'll scoop up later in the year or across the execution profile of those projects. It was all reimbursable work. It was mostly urban, I think. Yes, it was all Urban Solutions. Okay, thank you. Again, if you would like to ask a question, press star, then the number one on your telephone keypad. Your next question comes from the line of Andy Wittmann with Baird. Please go ahead. Okay, great, thanks. I just want to build on the last one because I think for many people these accounting things about delayed profit and CFM, customer furnished materials, and gross profit margins, these are complicated topics. Last quarter, and I think you said it was a chemical project, you descoped it, that allowed you to recognize profit. This quarter, different projects, it sounds like you didn't have the CFM and now you do have the CFM, so that increases your backlog. The profit recognition is the opposite of that. You're delaying it now and you'll get it in the future. I just wanted to kind of say it another way for everyone's benefit because these are complicated topics. John, do I have that pretty close to right or not? Good morning, Andy. Yeah, I think it was you that w as probing on this in Q1 and yeah, you've got it nailed. Okay. All right. I guess my other question, where do I want to go next here? Andy, while you're thinking about it. In its simplest terms, the project has equivalent profitability before and after the additional scope, similar, a little bit more, but generally speaking, similar. It's just saying that as those furnished materials haven't yet landed, when they land, that's when I'll take up the profit. What we saw was the percentage of complete from an accounting perspective go s lightly backwards as a consequence of the additional scope. I don't know if that's helpful or not, but. Yep, makes sense. Because it's large, the Urban revenue burn, because now you're recognizing the customer furnished materials through that segment, your revenue burn, all else equal, would go up. There are other moving pieces, but that's what people otherwise should expect, right? Yeah. Fair. My next question is kind of related to this, but in mining you said that the copper mine here is services only. It's a little bit unusual. I guess historically you've booked EPCM on that, which would have come with customer furnished materials. Here, you're just getting the services. The implication there is that this should be higher margin work. I don't know if you could get some subjective commentary on how we as the investment community should think about what these margins are. I think historically when you've had the EPCM it's been like, you know, kind of 3%, maybe 4% margin stuff because there's a lot of pass through. Here you don't have that. What's the profit profile that we should think of on a project like this one? I think your assessment is correct in this particular case, given the nature of the scope of work. We did not take CFM. The magnitude of effort from us is similar to a traditional project. You can assume that the magnitude of services and therefore the magnitude of margin is very similar to a project that would otherwise have attracted CFM. I think your estimation of the margin percentages is correct. If this had been a fully CFM p roject. Maybe put differently, the services margin is akin to what it would be on the services margin on a different mining project. Okay, and then just final question for me on LNGC Phase II, obviously the FEED here puts you in a good position. The execution on Phase I, frankly, puts you in probably a pretty good position here for Phase II. Obviously, going back many years now that Phase I was done on a largely fixed price basis and through COVID and through all this, you guys have negotiated yourself to a pretty good position through all these things. Congratulations on that. I think investors are going to turn their attention to what the risk profile could be and should be or might be for Phase II. I understand that contract has not been inked and I know that just given that that is a negotiation that has to evolve here still. What can you tell investors about how you're thinking about that as you sit here today, what you're willing to do, recognizing the general success you had on Phase I and how that might be applicable to how investors should be thinking about Phase II? Thanks. Thank you, Andy. That's a very relevant question. Appreciate that. Absolutely, we are well positioned with our partner for Phase II. I think our performance on Phase I has proven that we can deliver on a large, complex project with the right execution, contractual, and commercial model. I will tell you that Phase II will have largely lump sum elements to it. You're right, we're having those discussions with the client right now. I don't want to get too far ahead of myself. Part of the FEED update is a negotiation of the contract. The advantage here, though, Andy, is there are so many positive learnings from Phase I. If you look at what has transpired on Phase I, we have a proven project delivery model, the self-performed part, the part that we relied on, third-party contractors and vendors. We have established working relationships with the local unions, the First Nations, extremely important in this case, the local government community. We're going to use, to a large extent, the same subcontractors and vendors that were used in Phase I. By the way, on Phase II, for those who are interested in engineering, 80% of a design is replicated. We have that design, we're tweaking it in the FEED outdoor, but 80% is replicated and we have extensive experience in self-performed construction in Canada. All these ingredients, and let me add another ingredient, we have a very collaborative, good relationship with the client. We put all these ingredients together. We are confident that at the end of the planning period, if the project gets funded and moves forward, we're going to come up with a contract that reflects those learnings, has the proper allocation of responsibilities between the JV and the clients, and we're going to end up with a better contract and a better execution plan than Phase I in a way that we're going to be confident that Phase II is going to be a very successful project. Thank you. Your next question comes from Michael Dudas with Vertical Research. Please go ahead. Good morning, gentlemen. Morning, Mike. Jim, maybe you could share some further thoughts on the infrastructure projects. Obviously, they keep the creep i nto the process here. Where do we stand? I know you talked about it at rule of completion, but some of the i ssues behind that and other projects that maybe we hadn't seen the LA X. I guess that wasn't mentioned. Is this ring, how ring-fenced is this as we kind of move t hrough the planning period over the next 6-12 months. Good morning, Michael. Yeah, I would say that we're disappointed with the results in the quarter on these three projects. As I said in my remarks, the impacts were caused for a variety of reasons specifically limited to the three projects. Whether it's design errors by third parties, material escalation, or labor challenges, we are addressing very aggressively these issues and have taken actions both on the execution front and on the recovery from third parties. Yes, it is true that unfortunately we are still experiencing some pain from projects that were bid many years ago with different pursuit principles and cover targets. Having said that, we are committed to finishing them as safely and as expeditiously as possible. Michael, we've learned valuable lessons that have shaped and will continue to shape our strategies going forward. Specifically for these three projects, as I quoted in my remarks, one of them is essentially almost done, one of them is well advanced, the other one's about 58%. You got 97%, 78%, and 58%, and we're going to be tracking them very closely to make sure we keep them within the current forecast. Yeah, Mike, I just might add to that. You know, the current results reflect the probable recoveries, and the possible recoveries are substantially larger than we embedded into the project forecast. Just as we did earlier this decade across Gordy and across LAX, where things haven't been our fault, going to fight real hard to reach n equitable outcome on those things as well. The story here is not done f rom an upside perspective. Just as we've done before, we'll continue to ply away at that. I appreciate that. Jim, as you assess the second half of the year, maybe into 2026, can. You share how relative to a normalized l evel on project performance and executing against the margin, how that's been saved to these three projects. Mexican project, and you know, that may be success relative to the deferrals from some clients. Do you expect that could lead a bit more into 2026 as some of it t hese issues have to sort through? Michael, so the project performance outside of the three infrastructure projects and the slowdown in Mexico is going very well, as I think we alluded to earlier. There's some reimbursable work that is just burning a little bit slower than initially anticipated. That's just a pace issue, it's not a performance issue. We had the SAW2 due to the additional backlog adjustments. I would say that by and large the rest of the portfolio is doing very well, in some cases exceeding initial expectations. As far as the outlook for the rest of this year and next year, I think it just depends on whether the economic environment settles down. I think some of the prospects we're pursuing have a high certainty of going forward regardless. In other cases, clients really need that certainty. If you look at some of the commodities that may be affected by tariffs, whether it's steel or copper, even rebar that's tied to the steel market, piping, electrical equipment that comes from overseas, these are pretty significant inputs to projects and clients are looking for certainty on cost and on origin of supply. I think we do need to see the market settle down a little bit and have some further clarity to be able to properly predict when exactly those projects are going to start taking off. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, John. Thanks, Mike. Your next question comes from the line of Judah Aronovitz with UBS. Please go ahead. Good morning. Thank you for taking my question. Just wanted to ask about the long-term target, the trend 15% EBITDA CAGR with the reduction in guidance for 2025, I guess how are you thinking about that target now implies a pretty big acceleration. Is it fair to say that we're trending towards the lower end? If not, what gives you confidence in re acceleration? Thanks, Judah, for the question. We feel pretty good about our strategy. Judah, if you go back to what we presented in April at Investor Day, those same markets are poised to do a lot of growth, to experience a lot of growth in the coming years in the planning cycle. Yes, we're seeing a greater extent of hesitation today than we would have predicted two or three months ago. We're hopeful that that hesitation is short term and that the clarity will take place and therefore the decisions for investments will accelerate as the economy here is doing well. In general, the world economy is progressing in a positive manner. You see the bill recently enacted here that has some very targeted and strong policy endorsements around certain industries where we feel strongly we can play a big role. Europe is starting to show some level of increased economic activity. In Mexico, Judah, Mexico had elections late last year. It's very normal that in the initial cycle of the Mexican presidential six year term, the initial cycle is a little slow and then the country starts picking up and we, as you know, we have a presence in Mexico. We've been very successful there. If you add up all these ingredients, I think we feel pretty good about the strategy and the long-term objectives of a four year planning cycle. We just need some short term clarity so that this distraction and this uncertainty at least gets reduced. I don't know if it's going to be eliminated completely, but at least significantly reduced so that we can see some decisions going forward. Yeah, I definitely think that the one big beautiful bill should create some tailwinds domestically, and it's in all the markets that we're playing in. Jim covered them in his prepared remarks. You know, just basically go down the line where we operate. I think from a strategy perspective and across the planning cycle, don't see a need to pivot at this point. You know, I think as the trade policy settles, as our customers are better able to assess their end markets, I think we're going to have a lot more clarity in the coming quarters. Okay, and are you already having conversations kind of around the bill? Yeah, I mean, how are customers thinking about prospects maybe across copper, domestic mining, manufacturing, pharma, life sciences? Are you hearing that from customers already? Judah, we are hearing it's a little early. The bills just passed a few weeks ago. These things take time. Even before the bill, we were already talking to these customers. I don't want to give you the impression that just after the bill we started to talk to new customers. If you look at rare earth in the U.S., we have relationships with two clients that are working in that space. If you look at copper in the U.S., we have a long-standing relationship and have a lot of project work under our belts, very successful project work domestically and internationally with the largest copper producer in the U.S. We are doing a very large life sciences project, so we have a strong resume there. Yes, our existing clients will benefit from the bill and those incentives and favorable conditions. I just think it's not about flipping the switch and it happens overnight. I think it takes a little bit of time. It's helpful to the i ndustries that specifically get called out in the bill, more generally, things like more ability to deduct interest, R&D expenditure deductions, and bonus depreciation are kind of agnostic as to industries, but they all feed into, you know, feeding machine from a capital investment perspective. We think that's going to b e a net positive in the quarters to come. Okay, fair enough. Just a clarification question on the LNG, the exchange order. It sounds like maybe it won't impact margin, but what about the cash flow? I don't know if I heard that right. Thank you. Yeah, that's exactly what I was intimating in the prepared remarks. The JV structure there creates a little additional nuance. The JV itself needs to collect the money attendant to the amendment and then subsequently make dividends. As pertains to Fluor, the operating cash flow will come to us when the dividends are made. The JV collecting it is important for our staff and they should have additional clarity by virtue of the amendments. That concludes our question- and- answer session. I will now turn the call back over to Jim Breuer for closing remarks. Thank you, operator, and many thanks to all of you for participating in our call today. We appreciate your interest in Fluor and thank you again for your time. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining. You may now disconnect.