Mergers and Acquisitions	9 Months Ended
Jun. 28, 2015
Mergers and Acquisitions
Mergers and Acquisitions	3.Mergers and Acquisitions In the third quarter of fiscal 2015, we acquired Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC (“CEG”), headquartered in Middletown, New York. CEG is an environmental engineering and consulting firm focused on solid waste markets in the United States, and is included in our RME segment. The fair value of the purchase price for CEG was $15.9 million. Of this amount, $11.8 million was paid to the sellers and $4.1 million was the estimated fair value of contingent earn-out obligations, with a maximum of $9.8 million, based upon the achievement of specified financial objectives. In fiscal 2014, we made immaterial acquisitions that enhanced our service offerings and expanded our geographic presence in our WEI and RME reportable segments. Goodwill additions resulting from the above business combinations are primarily attributable to the existing workforce of the acquired companies and the synergies expected to arise after the acquisitions. Specifically, the goodwill addition related to the fiscal 2015 acquisition primarily represents the value of the workforce with distinct expertise in the solid waste market. The goodwill additions related to the fiscal 2014 acquisitions primarily represent the value of workforces with distinct expertise in the oil and gas and disaster preparedness markets. In addition, these acquired capabilities, when combined with our existing global consulting and engineering business, result in opportunities that allow us to provide services under contracts that could not have been pursued individually by either us or the acquired companies. The results of these acquisitions were included in the consolidated financial statements from their respective closing dates. None of the acquisitions were considered material, individually or in the aggregate, to our condensed consolidated financial statements. As a result, no pro forma information has been provided for the respective periods. Most of our acquisition agreements include contingent earn-out agreements, which are generally based on the achievement of future operating income thresholds. The contingent earn-out arrangements are based on our valuations of the acquired companies, and reduce the risk of overpaying for acquisitions if the projected financial results are not achieved. The fair values of any earn-out arrangements are included as part of the purchase price of the acquired companies on their respective acquisition dates. For each transaction, we estimate the fair value of contingent earn-out payments as part of the initial purchase price and record the estimated fair value of contingent consideration as a liability in “Estimated contingent earn-out liabilities” and “Long-term estimated contingent earn-out liabilities” on the consolidated balance sheets. We consider several factors when determining that contingent earn-out liabilities are part of the purchase price, including the following: (1) the valuation of our acquisitions is not supported solely by the initial consideration paid, and the contingent earn-out formula is a critical and material component of the valuation approach to determining the purchase price; and (2) the former owners of acquired companies that remain as key employees receive compensation other than contingent earn-out payments at a reasonable level compared with the compensation of our other key employees. The contingent earn-out payments are not affected by employment termination. We measure our contingent earn-out liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy (as described in “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2014). We use a probability-weighted discounted income approach as a valuation technique to convert future estimated cash flows to a single present value amount. The significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurements are operating income projections over the earn-out period (generally two or three years), and the probability outcome percentages we assign to each scenario. Significant increases or decreases to either of these inputs in isolation would result in a significantly higher or lower liability, with a higher liability capped by the contractual maximum of the contingent earn-out obligation. Ultimately, the liability will be equivalent to the amount paid, and the difference between the fair value estimate and amount paid will be recorded in earnings. The amount paid that is less than or equal to the contingent earn-out liability on the acquisition date is reflected as cash used in financing activities in our consolidated statements of cash flows. Any amount paid in excess of the contingent earn-out liability on the acquisition date is reflected as cash used in operating activities. We review and re-assess the estimated fair value of contingent consideration on a quarterly basis, and the updated fair value could differ materially from the previous estimates. Changes in the estimated fair value of our contingent earn-out liabilities related to the time component of the present value calculation are reported in interest expense. Adjustments to the estimated fair value related to changes in all other unobservable inputs are reported in operating income. During the first nine months of fiscal 2015, we recorded a decrease in our contingent earn-out liabilities and reported a related gain in operating income of $3.1 million. This gain resulted from an updated valuation of the contingent consideration liability for Caber Engineering, Inc. (“Caber”), which is part of our Oil, Gas & Energy reporting unit in the RME segment. The acquisition agreement for Caber included a contingent earn-out agreement based on the achievement of operating income thresholds (in Canadian dollars) in each of the first two years beginning on the acquisition date, which was in the first quarter of fiscal 2014. The maximum earn-out obligation over the two-year earn-out period was C$8.0 million (C$4.0 million in each year). These amounts could be earned on a pro-rata basis for operating income within a predetermined range in each year. Caber was required to meet a minimum operating income threshold in each year to earn any contingent consideration. These thresholds were C$4.0 million and C$4.6 million in years one and two, respectively. In order to earn the maximum contingent consideration, Caber would need to generate operating income of C$4.4 million in year one and C$5.1 million in year two. The determination of the fair value of the purchase price for Caber on the acquisition date included our estimate of the fair value of the related contingent earn-out obligation. This initial valuation was primarily based on probability-weighted internal estimates of Caber’s operating income during each earn-out period. As a result of these estimates, we calculated an initial fair value at the acquisition date of Caber’s contingent earn-out liability of C$6.5 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2014. In determining that Caber would earn 81% of the maximum potential earn-out, we considered several factors including Caber’s recent historical revenue and operating income levels and growth rates. We also considered the recent trend in Caber’s backlog level and the prospects for the oil and gas industry in Western Canada. Caber’s actual financial performance in the first earn-out period exceeded our original estimate at the acquisition date. As a result, in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we increased the related contingent consideration liability and recognized a loss of $1.0 million. This updated valuation included our assumption that Caber would earn the maximum amount of contingent consideration of C$4.0 million in the first earn-out period. In the second quarter of fiscal 2015, we completed our final calculation of the contingent consideration for the first earn-out period and paid contingent consideration of C$4.0 million (USD$3.2 million). At that time we also evaluated our estimate of Caber’s contingent consideration liability for the second earn-out period. This assessment included a review of the status of on-going projects in Caber’s backlog, and the inventory of prospective new contract awards. We also considered the status of the oil and gas industry in Western Canada, particularly in light of the recent decline in oil prices. As a result of this assessment, we concluded that Caber’s operating income in the second earn-out period would be lower than our original estimate at the acquisition date and our subsequent estimates through the first quarter of fiscal 2015. We concluded that Caber’s operating income for the second earn-out period, which ends in the first quarter of fiscal 2016, would be lower than the minimum requirement of C$4.6 million to earn any contingent consideration. Accordingly, in the second quarter of fiscal 2015, we reduced the Caber contingent earn-out liability to $0, which resulted in a gain of $3.1 million. In the third quarter and first nine months of fiscal 2014, we recorded net decreases in our contingent earn-out liabilities and reported related gains in operating income of $8.9 million and $34.9 million, respectively. The third quarter fiscal 2014 gain resulted from an updated valuation of the contingent consideration liability for American Environmental Group (“AEG”), which is part of our Waste Management Group reporting unit. The remaining fiscal 2014 gains primarily resulted from updated valuations of the contingent consideration liability for Parkland Pipeline (“Parkland”), which is part of our Oil, Gas & Energy reporting unit. Both of these reporting units are in our RME segment. The acquisition agreement for AEG included a contingent earn-out agreement based on the achievement of operating income thresholds in each of the first two years beginning on the acquisition date. The maximum earn-out obligation over the two-year earn-out period was $27.1 million ($11.3 million annually plus a $4.5 million one-time payment based on minimum operating income in each year). The annual amounts could be earned primarily on a pro-rata basis for operating income within a predetermined range in each year. To a lesser extent, additional earn-out consideration could be earned for operating income above the high-end of the range up to the contractual maximum of $27.1 million. AEG was required to meet a minimum operating income threshold in each year in order to earn any contingent consideration. These minimum thresholds were $10.0 million and $11.0 million in years one and two, respectively. In order to earn the maximum contingent consideration, AEG would need to achieve operating income of $17.5 million in year one and $18.5 million in year two. In addition, if AEG achieved operating income of at least $9.0 million during both earn-out periods, AEG would receive $4.5 million at the end of the second earn-out period. The determination of the fair value of the purchase price for AEG on the acquisition date included our estimate of the fair value of the related contingent earn-out obligation. This initial valuation was primarily based on probability-weighted internal estimates of AEG’s operating income during each earn-out period. As a result of these estimates, we calculated an initial fair value at the acquisition date of AEG’s contingent earn-out liability of $21.5 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. In determining that AEG would attain 79% of the maximum potential earn-out we considered several factors including AEG’s recent historical revenue and operating income levels and growth rates. We also considered the recent trend in AEG’s backlog level and the prospects for the solid waste industry in the United States. AEG’s first earn-out period ended on the last day of the first quarter of fiscal 2014. As a result, during the first quarter of fiscal 2014, we performed a preliminary calculation of the contingent consideration for the first earn-out period and concluded that AEG’s operating income in that period would be higher than both our original estimate at the acquisition date and our previous quarterly estimates. As a result, we increased the contingent earn-out liability for the first earn-out period, which resulted in an additional expense of $1.0 million. The contingent consideration of $9.1 million for the first earn-out period was paid in the second quarter of fiscal 2014. During calendar 2014, which corresponds to AEG’s second earn-out period, adverse weather conditions hindered AEG’s ability to complete its project field work. As a result, in the third quarter of fiscal 2014, we updated our projection of AEG’s operating income for its second earn-out period. This assessment included a review of the status of on-going projects in AEG’s backlog, and the inventory of prospective new contract awards. As a result of this assessment, we concluded that AEG’s operating income in the second earn-out period would be significantly lower than our original estimate at the acquisition date, would fall below the minimum operating income threshold, but would still exceed $9.0 million of operating income in order to earn the additional tranche. As a result, we reduced the contingent earn-out liability, which resulted in a gain of $8.9 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2014. The acquisition agreement for Parkland included a contingent earn-out agreement based on the achievement of operating income thresholds (in Canadian dollars) in each of the first three years beginning on the acquisition date, which was in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. The maximum earn-out obligation over the three-year earn-out period was C$56.0 million (C$12.0 million, C$22.0 million and C$22.0 million in earn-out years one, two and three, respectively). These amounts could be earned primarily on a pro-rata basis for operating income within a predetermined range in each year. To a lesser extent, additional earn-out consideration could be earned for operating income above the high-end of the range up to the contractual maximum of C$56.0 million. Parkland was required to meet a minimum operating income threshold in each year in order to earn any contingent consideration. These thresholds were C$34.7 million, C$38.2 million and C$41.9 million in years one, two and three, respectively. In order to earn the maximum contingent consideration, Parkland would need to generate operating income of C$42.5 million in year one, C$46.4 million in year two, and C$50.6 million in year three. The determination of the fair value of the purchase price for Parkland on the acquisition date included our estimate of the fair value of the related contingent earn-out obligation. This initial valuation was primarily based on probability-weighted internal estimates of Parkland’s operating income during each earn-out period. As a result of these estimates, we calculated an initial fair value at the acquisition date of Parkland’s contingent earn-out liability of C$46.8 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. In determining that Parkland would attain 84% of the maximum potential earn-out, we considered several factors including Parkland’s recent historical revenue and operating income levels and growth rates, the recent trend in Parkland’s backlog level, and the prospects for the midstream oil and gas industry in Western Canada. In fiscal 2014, we recorded decreases in our contingent earn-out liability for Parkland and reported related net gains in operating income of $44.6 million. These gains resulted from Parkland’s actual and projected post-acquisition performance falling below our initial expectations concerning the likelihood and timing of achieving the relevant operating income thresholds. The remaining difference compared to the initial value was due to currency translation, and the related liability was $0 at the end of fiscal 2014. In the second quarter of fiscal 2014, we updated the estimated cost to complete a large fixed-price contract at Parkland, and determined that the project would be break-even compared to the significant profit estimated the previous quarter when the project was initiated. As a result, during the second quarter of fiscal 2014 we reversed $5.3 million of profit previously recognized on the project. This variance, and our updated estimate that the revenue for the remainder of the project would produce no operating income, resulted in our conclusion that Parkland’s operating income in the first and second earn-out periods would fall below the minimum operating income thresholds in each such year. As a result, we reduced the contingent earn-out liability for the first and second earn-out periods to $0, which resulted in gains totaling $24.7 million ($5.6 million and $19.1 million in the first and second quarters of fiscal 2014, respectively). In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we updated our projection of Parkland’s operating income for the third earn-out period. This assessment included a review of the projects in Parkland’s backlog, the inventory of prospective new contract awards, and the forecast for economic activity in the Western Canada oil and gas sector. As a result of this assessment, we concluded that Parkland’s operating income in the third earn-out period would be lower than our original estimate at the acquisition date and would fall below the minimum operating income threshold. As a result, we reduced the remaining contingent earn-out liability balance for the third earn-out period to $0, which resulted in a gain of $19.9 million. Each time we determined that Caber’s, AEG’s and Parkland’s operating income would be lower than our original estimate at the acquisition date, we also evaluated the related goodwill for potential impairment. In each case, we determined that the lower income projections were the result of temporary events, and did not negatively impact the reporting unit’s longer term performance or result in a goodwill impairment. At June 28, 2015, there was a total maximum of $30.4 million of outstanding contingent consideration related to acquisitions. Of this amount, $4.1 million was estimated as the fair value and accrued on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. For the nine months ended June 28, 2015, we made $3.2 million of earn-out payments to former owners, and reported this amount as cash used in financing activities. For the nine months ended June 29, 2014, we made $20.6 million of earn-out payments to former owners. Of this amount, we reported $18.7 million as cash used in financing activities and $1.9 million as cash used in operating activities.

3.Mergers and Acquisitions

In the third quarter of fiscal 2015, we acquired Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC (“CEG”), headquartered in Middletown, New York. CEG is an environmental engineering and consulting firm focused on solid waste markets in the United States, and is included in our RME segment. The fair value of the purchase price for CEG was $15.9 million. Of this amount, $11.8 million was paid to the sellers and $4.1 million was the estimated fair value of contingent earn-out obligations, with a maximum of $9.8 million, based upon the achievement of specified financial objectives. In fiscal 2014, we made immaterial acquisitions that enhanced our service offerings and expanded our geographic presence in our WEI and RME reportable segments.

Goodwill additions resulting from the above business combinations are primarily attributable to the existing workforce of the acquired companies and the synergies expected to arise after the acquisitions. Specifically, the goodwill addition related to the fiscal 2015 acquisition primarily represents the value of the workforce with distinct expertise in the solid waste market. The goodwill additions related to the fiscal 2014 acquisitions primarily represent the value of workforces with distinct expertise in the oil and gas and disaster preparedness markets. In addition, these acquired capabilities, when combined with our existing global consulting and engineering business, result in opportunities that allow us to provide services under contracts that could not have been pursued individually by either us or the acquired companies. The results of these acquisitions were included in the consolidated financial statements from their respective closing dates. None of the acquisitions were considered material, individually or in the aggregate, to our condensed consolidated financial statements. As a result, no pro forma information has been provided for the respective periods.

Most of our acquisition agreements include contingent earn-out agreements, which are generally based on the achievement of future operating income thresholds. The contingent earn-out arrangements are based on our valuations of the acquired companies, and reduce the risk of overpaying for acquisitions if the projected financial results are not achieved. The fair values of any earn-out arrangements are included as part of the purchase price of the acquired companies on their respective acquisition dates. For each transaction, we estimate the fair value of contingent earn-out payments as part of the initial purchase price and record the estimated fair value of contingent consideration as a liability in “Estimated contingent earn-out liabilities” and “Long-term estimated contingent earn-out liabilities” on the consolidated balance sheets. We consider several factors when determining that contingent earn-out liabilities are part of the purchase price, including the following: (1) the valuation of our acquisitions is not supported solely by the initial consideration paid, and the contingent earn-out formula is a critical and material component of the valuation approach to determining the purchase price; and (2) the former owners of acquired companies that remain as key employees receive compensation other than contingent earn-out payments at a reasonable level compared with the compensation of our other key employees. The contingent earn-out payments are not affected by employment termination.

We measure our contingent earn-out liabilities at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs classified within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy (as described in “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2014). We use a probability-weighted discounted income approach as a valuation technique to convert future estimated cash flows to a single present value amount. The significant unobservable inputs used in the fair value measurements are operating income projections over the earn-out period (generally two or three years), and the probability outcome percentages we assign to each scenario. Significant increases or decreases to either of these inputs in isolation would result in a significantly higher or lower liability, with a higher liability capped by the contractual maximum of the contingent earn-out obligation. Ultimately, the liability will be equivalent to the amount paid, and the difference between the fair value estimate and amount paid will be recorded in earnings. The amount paid that is less than or equal to the contingent earn-out liability on the acquisition date is reflected as cash used in financing activities in our consolidated statements of cash flows. Any amount paid in excess of the contingent earn-out liability on the acquisition date is reflected as cash used in operating activities.

We review and re-assess the estimated fair value of contingent consideration on a quarterly basis, and the updated fair value could differ materially from the previous estimates. Changes in the estimated fair value of our contingent earn-out liabilities related to the time component of the present value calculation are reported in interest expense. Adjustments to the estimated fair value related to changes in all other unobservable inputs are reported in operating income. During the first nine months of fiscal 2015, we recorded a decrease in our contingent earn-out liabilities and reported a related gain in operating income of $3.1 million. This gain resulted from an updated valuation of the contingent consideration liability for Caber Engineering, Inc. (“Caber”), which is part of our Oil, Gas & Energy reporting unit in the RME segment.

The acquisition agreement for Caber included a contingent earn-out agreement based on the achievement of operating income thresholds (in Canadian dollars) in each of the first two years beginning on the acquisition date, which was in the first quarter of fiscal 2014. The maximum earn-out obligation over the two-year earn-out period was C$8.0 million (C$4.0 million in each year). These amounts could be earned on a pro-rata basis for operating income within a predetermined range in each year. Caber was required to meet a minimum operating income threshold in each year to earn any contingent consideration. These thresholds were C$4.0 million and C$4.6 million in years one and two, respectively. In order to earn the maximum contingent consideration, Caber would need to generate operating income of C$4.4 million in year one and C$5.1 million in year two.

The determination of the fair value of the purchase price for Caber on the acquisition date included our estimate of the fair value of the related contingent earn-out obligation. This initial valuation was primarily based on probability-weighted internal estimates of Caber’s operating income during each earn-out period. As a result of these estimates, we calculated an initial fair value at the acquisition date of Caber’s contingent earn-out liability of C$6.5 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2014. In determining that Caber would earn 81% of the maximum potential earn-out, we considered several factors including Caber’s recent historical revenue and operating income levels and growth rates. We also considered the recent trend in Caber’s backlog level and the prospects for the oil and gas industry in Western Canada.

Caber’s actual financial performance in the first earn-out period exceeded our original estimate at the acquisition date. As a result, in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we increased the related contingent consideration liability and recognized a loss of $1.0 million. This updated valuation included our assumption that Caber would earn the maximum amount of contingent consideration of C$4.0 million in the first earn-out period. In the second quarter of fiscal 2015, we completed our final calculation of the contingent consideration for the first earn-out period and paid contingent consideration of C$4.0 million (USD$3.2 million). At that time we also evaluated our estimate of Caber’s contingent consideration liability for the second earn-out period. This assessment included a review of the status of on-going projects in Caber’s backlog, and the inventory of prospective new contract awards. We also considered the status of the oil and gas industry in Western Canada, particularly in light of the recent decline in oil prices. As a result of this assessment, we concluded that Caber’s operating income in the second earn-out period would be lower than our original estimate at the acquisition date and our subsequent estimates through the first quarter of fiscal 2015. We concluded that Caber’s operating income for the second earn-out period, which ends in the first quarter of fiscal 2016, would be lower than the minimum requirement of C$4.6 million to earn any contingent consideration. Accordingly, in the second quarter of fiscal 2015, we reduced the Caber contingent earn-out liability to $0, which resulted in a gain of $3.1 million.

In the third quarter and first nine months of fiscal 2014, we recorded net decreases in our contingent earn-out liabilities and reported related gains in operating income of $8.9 million and $34.9 million, respectively. The third quarter fiscal 2014 gain resulted from an updated valuation of the contingent consideration liability for American Environmental Group (“AEG”), which is part of our Waste Management Group reporting unit. The remaining fiscal 2014 gains primarily resulted from updated valuations of the contingent consideration liability for Parkland Pipeline (“Parkland”), which is part of our Oil, Gas & Energy reporting unit. Both of these reporting units are in our RME segment.

The acquisition agreement for AEG included a contingent earn-out agreement based on the achievement of operating income thresholds in each of the first two years beginning on the acquisition date. The maximum earn-out obligation over the two-year earn-out period was $27.1 million ($11.3 million annually plus a $4.5 million one-time payment based on minimum operating income in each year). The annual amounts could be earned primarily on a pro-rata basis for operating income within a predetermined range in each year. To a lesser extent, additional earn-out consideration could be earned for operating income above the high-end of the range up to the contractual maximum of $27.1 million. AEG was required to meet a minimum operating income threshold in each year in order to earn any contingent consideration. These minimum thresholds were $10.0 million and $11.0 million in years one and two, respectively. In order to earn the maximum contingent consideration, AEG would need to achieve operating income of $17.5 million in year one and $18.5 million in year two. In addition, if AEG achieved operating income of at least $9.0 million during both earn-out periods, AEG would receive $4.5 million at the end of the second earn-out period.

The determination of the fair value of the purchase price for AEG on the acquisition date included our estimate of the fair value of the related contingent earn-out obligation. This initial valuation was primarily based on probability-weighted internal estimates of AEG’s operating income during each earn-out period. As a result of these estimates, we calculated an initial fair value at the acquisition date of AEG’s contingent earn-out liability of $21.5 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. In determining that AEG would attain 79% of the maximum potential earn-out we considered several factors including AEG’s recent historical revenue and operating income levels and growth rates. We also considered the recent trend in AEG’s backlog level and the prospects for the solid waste industry in the United States.

AEG’s first earn-out period ended on the last day of the first quarter of fiscal 2014. As a result, during the first quarter of fiscal 2014, we performed a preliminary calculation of the contingent consideration for the first earn-out period and concluded that AEG’s operating income in that period would be higher than both our original estimate at the acquisition date and our previous quarterly estimates. As a result, we increased the contingent earn-out liability for the first earn-out period, which resulted in an additional expense of $1.0 million. The contingent consideration of $9.1 million for the first earn-out period was paid in the second quarter of fiscal 2014.

During calendar 2014, which corresponds to AEG’s second earn-out period, adverse weather conditions hindered AEG’s ability to complete its project field work. As a result, in the third quarter of fiscal 2014, we updated our projection of AEG’s operating income for its second earn-out period. This assessment included a review of the status of on-going projects in AEG’s backlog, and the inventory of prospective new contract awards. As a result of this assessment, we concluded that AEG’s operating income in the second earn-out period would be significantly lower than our original estimate at the acquisition date, would fall below the minimum operating income threshold, but would still exceed $9.0 million of operating income in order to earn the additional tranche. As a result, we reduced the contingent earn-out liability, which resulted in a gain of $8.9 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2014.

The acquisition agreement for Parkland included a contingent earn-out agreement based on the achievement of operating income thresholds (in Canadian dollars) in each of the first three years beginning on the acquisition date, which was in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. The maximum earn-out obligation over the three-year earn-out period was C$56.0 million (C$12.0 million, C$22.0 million and C$22.0 million in earn-out years one, two and three, respectively). These amounts could be earned primarily on a pro-rata basis for operating income within a predetermined range in each year. To a lesser extent, additional earn-out consideration could be earned for operating income above the high-end of the range up to the contractual maximum of C$56.0 million. Parkland was required to meet a minimum operating income threshold in each year in order to earn any contingent consideration. These thresholds were C$34.7 million, C$38.2 million and C$41.9 million in years one, two and three, respectively. In order to earn the maximum contingent consideration, Parkland would need to generate operating income of C$42.5 million in year one, C$46.4 million in year two, and C$50.6 million in year three.

The determination of the fair value of the purchase price for Parkland on the acquisition date included our estimate of the fair value of the related contingent earn-out obligation. This initial valuation was primarily based on probability-weighted internal estimates of Parkland’s operating income during each earn-out period. As a result of these estimates, we calculated an initial fair value at the acquisition date of Parkland’s contingent earn-out liability of C$46.8 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2013. In determining that Parkland would attain 84% of the maximum potential earn-out, we considered several factors including Parkland’s recent historical revenue and operating income levels and growth rates, the recent trend in Parkland’s backlog level, and the prospects for the midstream oil and gas industry in Western Canada.

In fiscal 2014, we recorded decreases in our contingent earn-out liability for Parkland and reported related net gains in operating income of $44.6 million. These gains resulted from Parkland’s actual and projected post-acquisition performance falling below our initial expectations concerning the likelihood and timing of achieving the relevant operating income thresholds. The remaining difference compared to the initial value was due to currency translation, and the related liability was $0 at the end of fiscal 2014.

In the second quarter of fiscal 2014, we updated the estimated cost to complete a large fixed-price contract at Parkland, and determined that the project would be break-even compared to the significant profit estimated the previous quarter when the project was initiated. As a result, during the second quarter of fiscal 2014 we reversed $5.3 million of profit previously recognized on the project. This variance, and our updated estimate that the revenue for the remainder of the project would produce no operating income, resulted in our conclusion that Parkland’s operating income in the first and second earn-out periods would fall below the minimum operating income thresholds in each such year. As a result, we reduced the contingent earn-out liability for the first and second earn-out periods to $0, which resulted in gains totaling $24.7 million ($5.6 million and $19.1 million in the first and second quarters of fiscal 2014, respectively).

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, we updated our projection of Parkland’s operating income for the third earn-out period. This assessment included a review of the projects in Parkland’s backlog, the inventory of prospective new contract awards, and the forecast for economic activity in the Western Canada oil and gas sector. As a result of this assessment, we concluded that Parkland’s operating income in the third earn-out period would be lower than our original estimate at the acquisition date and would fall below the minimum operating income threshold. As a result, we reduced the remaining contingent earn-out liability balance for the third earn-out period to $0, which resulted in a gain of $19.9 million.

Each time we determined that Caber’s, AEG’s and Parkland’s operating income would be lower than our original estimate at the acquisition date, we also evaluated the related goodwill for potential impairment. In each case, we determined that the lower income projections were the result of temporary events, and did not negatively impact the reporting unit’s longer term performance or result in a goodwill impairment.

At June 28, 2015, there was a total maximum of $30.4 million of outstanding contingent consideration related to acquisitions. Of this amount, $4.1 million was estimated as the fair value and accrued on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. For the nine months ended June 28, 2015, we made $3.2 million of earn-out payments to former owners, and reported this amount as cash used in financing activities. For the nine months ended June 29, 2014, we made $20.6 million of earn-out payments to former owners. Of this amount, we reported $18.7 million as cash used in financing activities and $1.9 million as cash used in operating activities.