The Company may receive manufacturer rebates resulting from equipment sales. In addition, the Company receives volume discounts and other incentives from certain of its suppliers. Except for products in transit or products awaiting configuration at a Company facility, the Company generally does not maintain large inventory balances. Both of the Company's primary vendors have instituted changes in their price protection and inventory management programs as a direct result of changes in such policies by manufacturers. Specifically, the vendors have (i) limited price protection to that provided by the manufacturer, generally less than 30 days; and (ii) restricted product returns, other than defective returns, to a percentage (the percentage varies depending on the vendor and when the return is made) of product purchased, during a defined period, at the lower of the invoiced price or the current price, subject to the specific manufacturer's requirements and restrictions. There can be no assurances that any such rebates, discounts or incentives will continue at current levels, if at all. Further adverse modification, restriction or reduction in such programs could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.
Except for the MTA Contract entered into in December 1997 (see below), there are no ongoing written commitments by customers to purchase products from the Company, and all product sales are made on a purchase-order basis. The Company's increased selectivity in selling product resulted in an increase in gross profit margin attributable to product sales in the second quarter of 2001 as compared to the second quarter of 2000.
The Company offers business consulting, infrastructure design, managed services, business continuity planning, and security. The Company also offers enterprise solutions including remote network management and call center support, as well as professional development. Services revenue is recognized as such services are performed. Most of the Company's services are billed on a time-and-materials basis. The Company's professional development and services are fee-based on a per-course basis. Generally, the Company's service arrangements with its customers may be terminated by such customers with limited advance notice and without significant penalty. The most significant cost relating to the services component of the Company's business is personnel costs which consist of salaries, benefits, payroll-related expenses and training and recruiting costs. Thus, the financial performance of the Company's service business is based primarily upon billing margins (billable hourly rates less the costs to the Company of such service personnel on an hourly basis) and utilization rates (billable hours divided by paid hours). The future success of the services component of the Company's business will depend in large part upon its ability to maintain high utilization rates at profitable billing margins.
The Company believes that its ability to provide a broad range of technical services and its long-term relationships with large clients positions the Company to grow the services component of its business. As such, the Company anticipates that an increasing percentage of its gross profits in the future will be derived from the services component of its business. During the three-month period ended June 30, 2001, services revenue, before special charges, produced approximately 85.7% of the Company's total gross profit compared to 78.2% during the same period in 2000. However, the Company believes that product sales will continue to generate a portion of the Company's gross profit for the foreseeable future.
The Company's net sales, gross profit, operating income and losses and net income and losses have varied substantially from quarter to quarter and are expected to continue to do so in the future. Many factors, some of which are not within the Company's control, have contributed and may in the future contribute to fluctuations in operating results. These factors include: the transition from product reseller to IT professional services firm and all expected and unexpected costs and events related to such transition; intense competition from other IT service providers; the Company's dependence upon a limited number of key clients for a significant portion of its business; the short-term nature of the Company's customers' commitments; patterns of capital spending by customers; the timing, size, and mix of product and service orders and deliveries; the timing and size of new projects; pricing changes in response to various competitive factors; market factors affecting the availability of qualified technical personnel; timing and customer acceptance of new product and service offerings; changes in trends affecting outsourcing of IT services; disruption in sources of supply; changes in product, personnel, and other operating costs; deficiencies in the design and operation of the Company's internal control structure as identified by the Company and its independent accountants; and industry and general economic conditions. Operating results have been and may in the future also be affected by the cost, timing and other effects of acquisitions, including the mix of revenues of acquired companies. Past operating results and period-to-period comparisons are not necessarily an indication of future operating performance.
The Company's operating results have been and will continue to be impacted by changes in technical personnel billing and utilization rates. Many of the Company's costs, particularly costs associated with services revenue, such as administrative support personnel and facilities costs, are fixed costs. The Company's expense levels are based in part on expectations of future revenues. As the Company's business shifts from product-related sales to services, expense levels may exceed total gross profits as the Company invests in the expansion of its service offerings. If the Company successfully expands its service offerings, periods of variability in utilization may continue to occur. The Company may incur greater technical training costs during such periods.
In December 1997, the Company entered into a four-year, $20.4 million contract (the "MTA Contract") with New York City Transit, an agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York (the "MTA") to furnish and install local and wide-area computer network components including network and telecommunications hardware, software and cabling throughout the MTA's over 200 locations. The aggregate amount of this contract was subsequently increased to $20.6 million. The Company is the prime contractor on this project and is responsible for project management, systems procurement, and installation. The work is grouped in contiguous locations and payment is predicated upon achieving specific milestone events. In the event of default, in addition to all other remedies at law, the MTA reserves the right to terminate the services of the Company and complete the MTA Contract itself at the Company's cost. In the event of unexcused delay by the Company, the Company may be obligated to pay, as liquidated damages, the sum of $100 to $200 per day, per site. While the Company believes it is currently performing in accordance with the contract terms, there can be no assurance that any such events of default or unexcused delays will not occur. In addition, the MTA Contract is a fixed unit price contract, and the quantities are approximate, for which the MTA has expressly reserved the right, for each item, to direct the amount of equipment and related installation be increased, decreased, or omitted entirely on 30 days notice. The MTA has the right to suspend the work on 10 days notice for up to 90 days and/or terminate the contract, at any time, on notice, paying only for the work performed to the date of termination. Historically, the project has been subject to the prevailing wage rate and classification for telecommunications workers, as determined by the New York City Comptroller's Office, over which the Company has no control, and which is generally adjusted in June of each year and may be so adjusted in the future.
On July 19, 2000, the MTA advised the Company of a determination by the Bureau of Labor Law (the "Bureau") of the New York City Comptroller's Office, communicated to the MTA by letter from the Bureau dated June 22, 2000, that, as of July 1, 2000, the labor classification for all low voltage cabling carrying voice, data, video or any combination thereof is electrician. The Bureau's determination is based on a New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division decision dated May 18, 2000. The workers currently and historically used by the Company to perform cabling work have been classified as telecommunications workers. The Company believes it is probable the Bureau's determination will apply to the Company's cabling activities under the contract, thereby likely requiring the reclassification of its telecommunications workers retroactive to July 1, 2000. Since the prevailing wage for electricians is substantially higher than that for telecommunications workers, the Company expects to incur materially increased labor costs as a result of the Bureau's determination. On October 16, 2000, the MTA Project Manager denied the Company's request for a change order to compensate the Company for the increased costs it expects to incur in connection with the reclassification of certain of its telecommunications workers as electricians. On January 19, 2001, the Company initiated a "dispute" within the meaning of the applicable federal regulations governing the MTA Contract by filing a complaint with the United States Department of Labor. In its complaint, the Company requests that the Department of Labor adjudicate this dispute, and either issue a determination affirming that the prevailing wage rate for telecommunications workers, as originally specified by the MTA, is the applicable rate for this project, or directing the MTA to compensate the Company for the change in wage classification made during the performance of the contract in violation of federal regulations. By letter dated March 12, 2001, the Department of Labor advised the Company that, without knowing which, if any, federal wage decision was included in the MTA Contract, it is unable to make a determination that any violation of federal labor law has occurred. The Company is corresponding with the Department in an effort to advance the Department's consideration of this matter. There can be no assurance the Company will be successful, either in whole or in part, in its efforts with respect to the prevailing wage rate.
The Company has performed services and supplied products to the MTA since the inception of the MTA Contract. The work performed to date at MTA sites has required greater than originally estimated labor and other costs to complete. In May 1999, the Company submitted a formal request to the MTA for equitable adjustment in the amount of approximately $1.5 million and for a time extension. This request was supplemented with a further submission in October 1999. In January 2000, the Project Manager for the MTA Contract denied the Company's request, thereby triggering the Company's right under the contract to appeal the Project Manager's denial to the MTA's Dispute Resolution Office (the "DRO"). The Company filed its Notice of Appeal with the DRO in February 2000, and pursuant to the DRO's request, filed further written submissions and participated in an arbitral session with the DRO subsequent thereto. In November 2000, the DRO rendered a written decision denying in full the Company's Request for Equitable Adjustment and Time Extension.
15
In March 2001, the Company appealed the DRO’s denial of the Company’s Request to the New York Supreme Court. The Court held a hearing on the Company’s appeal on May 23, 2001. As of the date hereof, the Court has not yet rendered a ruling in this matter. There can be no assurance the Company will be successful, either in whole or in part, in its efforts to obtain the adjustment of the requested extension.
Historically, the Company had estimated that project costs would approximate project revenues and, accordingly, had recognized no gross profit on the contract. Due to the determination by the Bureau communicated to the Company on July 19, 2000, as well as lower than anticipated gross margins on networking activities and higher than expected costs of completion, the Company revised its estimated costs for the project during the 2000 second quarter. As a result, in the second quarter of 2000, the Company took a charge of $4.4 million for costs projected in excess of the contract value. This charge represents the Company's current estimated loss on the MTA project. As of June 30, 2001, approximately 70% of the value of the contract was completed.
In January 2000, the Company invested $1.8 million in exchange for 3,101,000 shares of Series A Convertible Participating Preferred Stock (the "Series A Financing") in a private internet start-up - nex-i.com Inc. ("nex-i.com"). The investment represented approximately 30% of nex-i.com equity on an "as converted" basis. The Company recorded it share of losses to the extent of its investment based upon its preferred stock funding interest. On July 27, 2000, nex-i.com received $12,100,000 in a Series B Convertible Participating Preferred Stock financing (the "Series B Financing"), in which the Company did not participate. Following the Series B Financing, the Company's investment in nex-i.com represented approximately 15% of nex-i.com equity on an "as converted" basis. In connection with the Series B Financing, and in consideration of the Company's release of nex-i.com from certain commercial commitments to the Company made at the time of the Series A Financing, the Company received 100,000 warrants to purchase shares of nex-i.com Series B Convertible Participating Preferred Stock at an exercise price ranging from $1.50 to $1.85 per share (the "warrants"). In February 2001, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eureka Broadband Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Eureka"), merged with and into nex-i.com, in connection with which merger the Company received preferred stock of various classes in Eureka in exchange for the Company's Series A Convertible Participating Preferred Stock in nex-i.com and the warrants. Coincident to and as a condition of the merger, the Company was required to lend $382,098 to Eureka in exchange for a convertible promissory note, which has since been converted into common stock of Eureka. The Company also committed to invest an additional $832,098 in Eureka under certain conditions, which were not met. In consideration of the Company's investment in Eureka, Eureka committed to purchase a minimum of $145,621 of the Company's network monitoring, cabling, field engineering and other services during the first twelve months following the closing of the merger and a minimum of $182,100 of such services during the second twelve months following the closing. Eureka also committed to use good faith efforts to ultimately purchase a minimum of $500,00 of the Company's services during the twenty-four month period following the closing. In July 2001, Eureka announced that it had consummated an additional $20 million financing, in which the Company did not participate. This additional financing resulted in the Company having a 1.5% ownership interest in Eureka, which is now being accounted for under the cost basis method of accounting.
The Company's interests in Eureka are subject to two agreements among Eureka and its shareholders. The rights and restrictions set forth in the two agreements are not deemed by the Company to be material. The restrictions include a limitation on transfer of the Company's equity interest in Eureka in certain circumstances and the requirements to sell the equity interest when a transfer is approved by a vote of the interest holders. In addition, the Company, upon the agreement of a substantial amount of other interest holders, has the right to demand that the Company's equity interest be registered under the Securities Act of 1933, and the right, without other interest holders, to have the Company's equity interest included in certain other registrations under such Act.
16
As previously disclosed by the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on July 16, 2001, the Company announced that on July 3, 2001, the Company entered into an Agreement with EDS Information Services L.L.C. ("EDS") relating to the potential transfer of certain employees of the Company to EDS and payments therefor by EDS to the Company in connection with a customer's selection of EDS as its new provider of Help Desk Services currently being furnished to the customer by the Company. Other services currently being provided by the Company to the customer, including deskside and network support services, are not being transferred to EDS and currently remain unaffected. The Agreement became effective July 12, 2001, the date the Company received notice from its customer. Under the Agreement, the Company will be entitled to receive from EDS in 2001 a minimum one-time payment of $405,000, but the actual payment may exceed this amount. The Company currently anticipates that the customer's transfer of its Help Desk business to EDS will result in a monthly reduction, commencing as early as August 2001, of up to approximately $400,000 and $60,000 in the Company's revenue and operating income, respectively.
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements are included in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q which are not historical and are "forward-looking," within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and may be identified by such terms as "expect," "believe," "may," "will," and "intend" or similar terms. These forward-looking statements may include, without limitation, statements regarding the growth in the IT markets, the continuation of the trends favoring outsourcing of management information systems ("MIS") functions by large and mid-sized companies, possible future higher margins in the services component of the Company's business, the timing of the development and implementation of the Company's new service offerings and the utilization of such services by the Company's customers, and trends in future operating performance. Such forward-looking statements include risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to: (i) the repositioning of the Company as an IT professional services firm and all expected and unexpected costs and events related to such repositioning, including, among other things (a) the substantial variability of the Company's quarterly operating results caused by a variety of factors, some of which are not within the Company's control, (b) intense competition from other IT service providers, (c) the short-term nature of the Company's customers' commitments, (d) patterns of capital spending by the Company's customers, (e) the timing, size and mix of product and service orders and deliveries, (f) the timing and size of new projects, (g) pricing changes in response to various competitive factors, (h) market factors affecting the availability of qualified technical personnel, (i) the timing and customer acceptance of new product and service offerings, (j) changes in trends affecting outsourcing of IT services, (k) disruption in sources of supply, (l) changes in product, personnel and other operating costs, and (m) industry and general economic conditions; (ii) changes in technical personnel billing and utilization rates; (iii) the intense competition in the markets for the Company's products and services; (iv) the ability to develop, market, provide, and achieve market acceptance of new service offerings to new and existing customers; (v) the Company's ability to attract, hire, train, and retain qualified technical personnel; (vi) the Company's substantial reliance on a concentrated number of key customers; (vii) uncertainties relating to potential acquisitions, if any, made by the Company, such as the Company's ability to integrate acquired operations and to retain key customers and personnel of the acquired business; (viii) the Company's reliance on the continued services of key executive officers and salespersons; and (ix) material risks and uncertainties associated with the MTA Contract. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results to differ materially from results expressed or implied by forward-looking statements contained in the document. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this document.
17
Recently Issued Accounting Standards
In December 1999, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued Staff Accounting Bulletin ("SAB") No. 101 "Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements." This SAB summarizes certain of the SEC staff's views in applying generally accepted accounting principles to revenue recognition in financial statements. Adoption of SAB No. 101 did not have a material effect on the Company's results of operations.
In July 2001, the Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (SFAS) No. 141, "Business Combinations," which supersedes Accounting Principles Board (APB) Opinion No. 16. SFAS No. 141 requires all business combinations initiated after June 30, 2001 be accounted for under the purchase method. In addition, SFAS No. 141 establishes criteria for the recognition of intangible assets separately from goodwill. The Company does not expect the adoption of SFAS No. 141 will have a material effect on the Company's results of operations, financial position or cash flow.
Also in July 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," which supersedes APB Opinion No. 17. Under SFAS No. 142 goodwill and indefinite lived intangible assets will no longer be amortized, but rather will be tested for impairment at least annually. In addition, the amortization period of intangible assets with finite lives will no longer be limited to 40 years. SFAS No. 142 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2001, which for the Company means the standard will be adopted on January 1, 2002. The Company is currently assessing the impact of SFAS No. 142 on its results of operations.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Cash and cash equivalents at June 30, 2001 were $20.7 million, compared to $17.2 million at December 31, 2000, an increase of $3.5 million. Working capital at June 30, 2001 was $26.5 million as compared to $26.3 million at December 31, 2000, representing an increase of $0.2 million.
Since its inception, the Company has funded its operations primarily from cash generated by operations, as well as with funds from borrowings under a credit facility and the net proceeds from the Company's public offerings. The Company's credit agreement with the First Union National Bank expired on December 31, 2000 and was not renewed.
The increase during the second quarter in cash from operating activities reflected primarily a decrease in Company accounts receivable of approximately $5.8 million. The Company's days sales outstanding in accounts receivable increased from 65 days at December 31, 2000 to 69 days at June 30, 2001. Cash used in investing activities included the Company's capital expenditures for the first six months of 2001 of $266,000 primarily for the purchase of computer equipment and software used by the Company and the Company's previous loan to Eureka of $382,000.
18
Cash provided and utilized by financing activities included $51,000 for employee stock purchases, reduced by a $11,000 repayment of capital lease obligations.
The Company's Employee Stock Purchase Plan was approved by the Company's shareholders in May 1998. During 1998, 80,888 shares of common stock were sold to employees under the plan for approximately $509,000, an average price of $6.29 per share. During 1999, employees purchased an additional 49,691 shares under the plan for approximately $177,000, an average price of $3.54 per share. During 2000, 33,548 shares of common stock were sold to employees under the plan for approximately $117, 000, an average price of $3.51 per share. During the first three months of 2001, employees purchased 19,341 shares of stock for approximately $30,000, at an average price of $1.52 per share. The Company has issued an aggregate of 183,468 shares since the inception of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan at an average price of $4.54 per share, receiving total proceeds of approximately $832,000. During the second quarter of 2001, employees purchased 16,274 shares of stock for approximately $21,000, at an average price of $1.27 per share. The Company has issued an aggregate of 199,742 shares since the inception of the Employee Stock Purchase Plan at an average price of $4.27 per share, receiving total proceeds of approximately $853,000.
The Company purchases certain inventory and equipment through a financing arrangement with IBM Credit Corporation. At June 30, 2001, there was an outstanding balance of approximately $0.6 million to IBM Credit Corporation under this arrangement. Obligations under this financing arrangement are collateralized by substantially all of the assets of the Company.
The Company believes that its available funds, together with existing and anticipated credit facilities, will be adequate to satisfy its current and planned operations for at least the next 12 months.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Not applicable.
19
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
On June 29, 2001, the Company settled its lawsuit against Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation ("Polo"), filed by the Company against Polo on February 16, 2000 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (Morris County), and both parties released all claims against the other, including a $4.7 million counterclaim filed by Polo against the Company on July 7, 2000, in consideration of a payment by Polo to the Company of $375,000, which the Company received on June 29, 2001. The Company had filed its lawsuit against Polo for collection of an overdue receivable in the amount of $893,330.
In connection with the Company's ongoing disputes with the MTA concerning a contract entered into with the MTA in December 1997, the Company filed certain legal proceedings as discussed in Part I, Item 2 of this Report (Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations) at pp.14-16.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote by Securities Holders.
The Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the Company (the "Meeting") was held on May 18, 2001.
There were present at the Meeting in person or by proxy shareholders holding an aggregate of 6,294,431 shares of Common Stock of a total number of 6,568,425 shares of Common Stock issued, outstanding and entitled to vote at the Meeting. The results of the vote taken at the Meeting with respect to each nominee for director were as follows:
Nominees For Withheld
- -------- --- --------
Stan Gang 6,245,259 49,172
Michael Gang 6,243,259 51,172
Ira Cohen 6,245,259 49,172
Thomas F. Dorazio 6,245,259 49,172
Doreen A. Wright 6,245,259 49,172
A vote of the shareholders was taken at the Meeting on the proposal to approve and ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent accountants of the Company for the year ending December 31, 2001. Of the 6,294,431 shares of Common Stock present at the Meeting in person or by proxy, 6,260,079 shares of Common Stock were voted in favor of such proposal, 28,836 shares of Common Stock were voted against such proposal, 5,556 shares abstained from voting and there were no broker non-votes.
20
Item 6. Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K.
(a) Exhibits.
None.
(b) Reports on Form 8-K.
No reports on Form 8-K were filed during the quarter for which this report on Form 10-Q is filed.
21
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
ALPHANET SOLUTIONS, INC.
STAN GANG
Date: August 3, 2001 By: ______________________________
Stan Gang
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
WILLIAM S. MEDVE
Date: August 3, 2001 By: ______________________________
William S. Medve Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
22