Good day, and welcome to the Quanta Services First Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. Today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Kip Rupp. Please go ahead, sir.

Great. Thank you, Taylor, and welcome, everyone, to the Quanta Services' conference call to review first quarter 2015 results. Before I turn the call over to management, I have the normal housekeeping details to run through. If you would like to have Quanta news releases and other information emailed to you when they occur, please sign up for email information alerts by going to the Investors & Media section of the Quanta Services website at quantaservices.com. You can also access Quanta's latest earnings releases and other investor material such as press releases, SEC filings, presentations, videos, audio-cast, conference calls and stock price information with the Quanta Services Investor Relations app, which is available for iPhone, iPad and Android mobile devices for free at Apple's App Store and Google Play. A replay of today's call will be available on Quanta's website at quantaservices.com. In addition, a telephonic recorded instant replay will be available for the next 7 days, 24 hours a day, that can be accessed as set forth in the press release. Please remember that information reported on this call speaks only as of today, April 30, 2015. Therefore, you are advised that any time-sensitive information may no longer be accurate as of the time of any replay of this call. This conference call will include forward-looking statements intended to qualify under the safe harbor from liability established by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include all statements reflecting Quanta's expectations, intentions, assumptions or beliefs about future events or performance that do not solely relate to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict or beyond Quanta's control. And actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied, in any forward-looking statements. For additional information concerning some of the risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could affect Quanta's forward-looking statements, please refer to the company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, and its other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which may be obtained on Quanta's website or through the SEC's website at sec.gov. Management cautions that you should not place undue reliance on Quanta's forward-looking statements. And Quanta does not undertake and disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements based on new information, future events or otherwise, and disclaims any written or oral statements made by any third party regarding the subject matter of this call. With that, I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Jim O'Neil, Quanta's President and CEO. Jim?

Thank you, Kip, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Quanta Services First Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. I will start the call with an operational overview before turning it over to Derrick Jensen, Quanta's Chief Financial Officer, who will provide a detailed review of our first quarter results. Following Derrick's comments, we welcome your questions. Revenues in the first quarter increased approximately 7% as compared to last year's first quarter. However, earnings per share came in below our expectations. Our earnings shortfall was due to several factors. The largest contributor was various weather dynamics occurring throughout Canada on several major electric transmission projects. We experienced an early fall in Alberta, continuous heavy snow in Newfoundland and dense fog in northern Saskatchewan. In our previous estimates for the quarter, we had considered weather effects on these projects. However, in each of these areas, the impact to our production was more prolonged than expected. Other factors that impacted our first quarter results, as well as details about our annual guidance, which we revised downward to take into account the first quarter results, will be covered by Derrick in detail in his commentary. Despite the challenging quarter, we believe the industry drivers that have fueled the electric power segment's growth over the past several years have not changed and will continue for at least the next several years. For example, according to a report released last week from the WIRES Group, since 2010, U.S. transmission investment has ranged from $10 billion to $16 billion per year. And despite year-to-year fluctuations, transmission spending is forecasted to remain at high levels through the year 2030. Our utility customers have made significant investment in their electric power infrastructure throughout North America, and we expect continued strong levels of investment by utilities in transmission and distribution…

Thanks, Jim, and good morning, everyone. Today, we announced revenues of $1.89 billion for the first quarter of 2015 compared to $1.76 billion in the prior year's first quarter, reflecting an increase of 7.1% in quarter-over-quarter revenues. Net income attributable to common stock for the quarter was $53.5 million or $0.25 per diluted share as compared to $54.4 million or $0.25 per diluted share in the first quarter of last year. Included in net income attributable to common stock for the first quarter of 2014 was an aggregate $38.8 million or $25.8 million net of tax of incremental selling, general and administrative expense associated with an adverse arbitration decision regarding a contract dispute on a directional drilling project that occurred in 2010. The net impact of this decision on our first quarter 2014 results was a $0.12 reduction in diluted earnings per share. Adjusted diluted earnings per share, which excludes this and certain other items as presented in today's press release, was $0.31 for the first quarter of 2015 as compared to adjusted diluted earnings per share of $0.44 for the first quarter of 2014. Before I get into the broader financial discussion, I'd like to provide a bit more color on our performance against expectations for the quarter. Our lower-than-expected results can be categorized primarily in 3 components: the largest component is the impact on production of the various weather factors in Canada, which Jim noted in his comments. Our previous first quarter guidance of $0.31 to $0.37 per diluted share considered these factors. However, the number of days of productivity impacted for certain projects was as much as 2 to 3x our original estimates. We would estimate that these impacts were roughly half of the shortfall against our expectations for the quarter. An additional project-related variance was a…

[Operator Instructions] We'll take our first question from Tahira Afzal with KeyBanc.

Jim, first question for you. Given the confidence you have on your -- the momentum in your core markets, clearly, your stock is undervalued. So as you look at the opportunity with the fiber optic sale and really how you see investments, would your stock not be the best investment? And when we look at that $800 million in net proceeds you'll be getting from there, would it -- can you at least try to give us a bit of an idea of how much of a chunk of that could potentially go towards the acquisition at this point -- sorry, towards repurchases at this point?

Yes, I'm going to let Derrick talk about that briefly. I'll just say that the uses of capital, we've got the significant amount of working capital to fund on pipeline projects. There's M&A activity and certainly, there's an opportunity to buy back stock. So I don't think there's going to be much change in use of capital, at least the strategy for our uses of capital, but I'll let Derrick add some additional commentary.

Yes, Tahira, I agree with Jim's comments. I mean, although we do see opportunities there, you can see with our original repurchase program that we've used a good portion of that all the way through the first quarter of this year. And we have $225 million remaining under that program to date. So we obviously see that being one of the uses of capital and a good use of capital. Having said that, M&A and investments we still believe are significant contributor, and in fact, we believe create greater long-term value. And so we will still be looking at that. We still consider ourselves to be an acquisitive company. But I think it will be a combination of those things, is what you'll see. And we'll be opportunistic at how we balance those based upon the M&A and investment-type pipeline, looking back and forth between that versus capital repurchase. The other thing I'll comment that although we announced the transaction today, it's still subject to regulatory approval, and there's a timing issue to when that may close. And although we anticipate a very low risk to closing, there is still a bit of risk to that. And I think that she -- we will be, in our minds, a little premature to make a significant move in a permanent capital play until we see how that plays out.

Fair enough, folks. Second question is in regards to the electric transmission side. Clearly, there are some very large projects still out there, as you mentioned. As revenues slow down because these projects are being delayed, can you still see backlog grow as some of these hit by the end of the year? Or does it seem like on the electric T&D side, we are now looking at maybe backlog investing flattish?

I think that you can have quarter-over-quarter fluctuations in backlog, Tahira. But it should remain strong and even grow, if we get some pent-up backlog because we can't get through the construction delay. Because of construction delays typically projects aren't awarded until they get the permitting cleared and the projects moved to construction. So delays in backlog in revenues kind of work hand in hand with one another. But I do think that certainly, the multi-year outlook is really -- is strong. What's happening is we're getting a lot of -- our work is starting to move toward the Northeast U.S. and into Eastern Canada. That's where you typically have harder -- our customers have more difficult times permitting lines, primarily because of the customer population and density, but we do think that we'll break through here as we move into '16. And there are other opportunities in the Southeast U.S. and the Western U.S., particularly to deal with the intermittency of renewables, where permitting has historically been easier in the western states. So we see a lot of opportunity out there for growth. How backlog plays out: It should remain strong and grow over a multi-year period.

And we'll take our next question from Adam Thalhimer with BB&T Capital Markets. Adam Robert Thalhimer - BB&T Capital Markets, Research Division: Now that we're a little bit further into the oil downturn, gentlemen, what do you -- you guys have $1 billion shale business on the pipe side. And then I assume you're doing some electrification in the shales of -- in your power segment. I mean, what are you seeing in the shales right now?

I think on the last call, I said that the low price of oil would affect us about 5% of our total business. It's probably a little bit more than that right now. Fortunately, we weren't really concentrated in the Eagle Ford and the Bakken, where those oil-rich sands and those areas have been impacted from the wellhead to the midstream gathering programs. Those are down. The Marcellus, we're still active there. We have seen a little bit of slowdown but that's primarily because of the inability to get permitting for the main pipelines to take product out of there, not the low price of oil. But overall, the gathering work we anticipate will still run about the same revenue -- at the same revenue level as we -- have been experiencing over the last several years. And if it did fall off, we certainly believe that any fall off in the oil and gas sector, whether it's a downturn in gathering or services impacted by the low price of oil will be offset by mainline additions that we expect here, not only this year, but over the next several years. Adam Robert Thalhimer - BB&T Capital Markets, Research Division: That's my follow-up question on the mainline additions. Why would Columbia be -- award this job now for something that starts in 2017?

Well, because customers are concerned about capacity. And to our comments over the last several quarters, there are some customers that are trying to plan their -- plan out their construction strategy earlier in the game. So you are going to see some awards, I believe, over the next several quarters that will have some time in between the contract award and when the project's start date is. And a lot of that is being driven by these projects are very large in size and scope. They need to be planned early. And they need to have a certainty that the construction resources will be available to do the work.

And we'll take our next question from Noelle Dilts with Stifel. Noelle C. Dilts - Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Research Division: For my first question, I just wanted to dig into the free cash flow profile of the business a little bit. First, just on the kind of core business, given that you're expecting somewhat lower growth in transmission this year, how are you thinking about working capital investment? Do you think it's still going to be an investment this year? Or that it could be a source of cash? And then, also am I thinking about this correctly, with the fiber optic licensing sale, that it should actually be free cash flow, accretive, given that you're losing some net income but obviously, you've been investing heavily in CapEx for that business? So overall, you could actually see a bit of the benefit.

Yes, as it relates to the kind of global free cash flow, I've made comments last year that I thought 2015 might have the opportunity to have overall stronger free cash flow. We're seeing that here in the first quarter to the extent that there is a little bit of a flatness in revenues that generally offers opportunity for a stronger bit of free cash flow. But right now, I'm still looking at my DSOs to still run probably in the 80-day range throughout the year, so that will create that kind of a regular pace. And to the extent that mainline opportunities come about, mainline is actually where I see a bigger need for working capital and some of the demand. So I think that will offset some of that creation of cash that might happen on the electric power side. Most specifically, we think that we'll see -- continue to see those jobs ramp up throughout the rest of the year, which will continue to draw on working capital. On the fiber side, yes, what I would say is we have historically invested CapEx about equal to the cash flow that, that segment created. So net-net, we were about a 0 dollar free cash flow for fiber. So once you take that out, at least as ratio perspective, it seems to improve the ratio. Noelle C. Dilts - Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Research Division: Okay. Second, just given that you have these funds coming in, can you just expand a little bit on your appetite for acquisitions? You've been making a lot of smaller bolt-on acquisitions, would that -- is that what you continue to plan to do? Or would you look to maybe make some larger acquisitions? And then, you talked about wanting to increase your presence in the energy space. Would this be kind of continuing to look in electric and pipeline? Or do you think you might look to maybe just a tangential energy market?

Noelle, this is Jim. I think we're going to continue to be opportunistic on acquisitions. I don't think -- our strategy has not changed. I do believe that we will see the same number of acquisitions that we've, as far as the number that we've transacted on, will be comparable to the last several years. The dollar value will probably be a little bit lower. So the total consideration we pay for acquisitions in '15 will probably be less than what we did in '13 and '14. I don't see any big acquisition out there. And I think that's probably the concern of investors that we're going to take this money go make a big play in M&A, and we don't see that right now. I think we're going to continue to be very selective and continue to follow the same strategy that we've embarked on the last several years.

One bit additional color to that is that of those acquisitions, you might see the cash-stock mix switch a little bit. As you've seen throughout the first quarter and second quarter, actually most transactions, if not all, have effectively been all cash transactions. The size of those transactions dictate a little bit of that, such that you might see us using a little bit more cash because of those smaller-sized deals.

And we'll take our next question from Jamie Cook with Crédit Suisse. Jamie L. Cook - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Just 2 questions. One, in your prepared remarks, Jim, I think you mentioned some delays on certain transmission projects related to your usual regulatory stuff. I was just hoping you could provide some color in terms of the total size of the projects, how many they are? Is there anything similar about those projects, which are causing sort of the regulatory issues? Or is it just more of the same? And sort of could you quantify what your impact is in terms of earnings for '15? And does that roll into '16? And then, my second question, just again on the -- the decision to sell. You, obviously, got a really good multiple: The 15x. That's interesting. But is there -- should I read anything, Jim or Derrick, into the timing? I mean, you obviously got a very good multiple. And we can also argue that the multiples for the businesses that you're in are probably fairly depressed, given the market short-term view on sort of energy? So are you trying to be, I guess, opportunistic here just because these multiples are depressed for the potential acquisitions you're looking at?

Yes, first on your question on transmission projects, I think it's pervasive throughout both larger projects and also projects we're doing under MSAs to where it's just more difficult to cite any infrastructure. The larger projects I do want to reiterate, they're not canceled. They just get pushed out. It's very difficult to sight and permit some of these larger lines, and we do see delays of up to years here. We were in some of the final stages of permitting and sighting. We thought projects would move forward by the end of this year, but they slipped into '16. And again, the smaller MSA-type transmission projects, we also see some issues there, especially in areas that have a population concentration. It's just difficult to even site projects that are just a mile or 2 long if this transmission and not reconductoring of any existing right-of-ways. As far as Sunesys, there was no rhyme or reason to why, there was no -- we didn't sell Sunesys because the M&A multiples were down in the Oil and Gas sector. This is something that we've been contemplating primarily for several different reasons, but the fiber market has continued to accelerate. The competitive environment has continued to change. There's been a lot of mergers, acquisitions, private equities involved, very -- a lot of aggressiveness by competition to penetrate Sunesys' footprint. We don't have the capital to compete in that environment today. I mean, that business has changed significantly over the last 5 years in a good way. We've done our best to create, and we have created value for our investors but we think that at the rate that the market is accelerating, we felt that we could lose our competitive advantage because we didn't have the capital to compete. I mean, you're seeing hundreds of millions of dollars deployed by customers -- or by competitors into this space. And it does -- that business takes a lot of cash to compete, and that's not who we are. We're an energy infrastructure company and we had to pick our priority. And our priority is certainly to build out opportunities in the energy infrastructure space, and that's where our capital is going to go. So it's just the best decision for the employees of Sunesys and it's the best decision for our shareholders and it did happen at a very opportune time, I think, in the industry. In our industry, both from on the energy side and on the fiber side for Crown Castle.

And we'll take our next question from Dan Mannes with Avondale Partners.

So another follow-up on the electric side, Jim. So just so I understand, this sounds like an evolution from maybe the fourth quarter as to incremental delays. When you think about your guidance for this year, your second half guidance doesn't look like it was materially changed. So is this essentially a bet that you're going to get sufficient pipeline to backfill? Or is that pipeline on the mainline side that you already have that's going to backfill for these delays?

No, we've got -- at the midpoint of our guidance, we have, in hand, the mainline work this year. So if there aren't any delays, I mean, these are projects that are permitted or ready to go, that some of them are even on construction now. We would, on the higher end of our guidance, would require some new awards, which is a possibility in the fourth quarter of this year because we do see things on the mainline side beginning to accelerate. But we would require some uncommitted mainline to get to the top end of our guidance. I think on the electric side, I mean, transmission, we're not -- we have not peaked, but we've -- we have taken a pause. And that's going to happen. I mean, we've had significant growth in transmission over the last several years. Some of these delays -- we are pausing. I mean, we're still going to generate revenues at a high level, consistent with where we've been here over the last several quarters, but we're not going to see a fall off. But I think our growth -- any falloff can be -- will be replaced or augmented by mainline pipe on a consolidated basis.

Got it. And then real quick, as it relates to the fiber business, obviously, you have pretty attractive takeout multiple. But just wondering, as you thought through this process, were there other opportunities to do this, i.e. was there consideration of spin-off? Was this an auction? Or was this just a bilateral negotiation with you and Crown Castle? If you could just give a little bit more color on the decision-making?

Well, we've had a great working relationship with Crown Castle over the last several years. They've licensed our fiber for their small-cell deployment. And it just evolved into a discussion from working together as strategic partners to try to deploy their small-cell. And it moved into a situation where we did consider other options at the time, very hard. We did bring in JPMorgan from the standpoint of helping us work through those decisions. They've done more fiber deals than anybody in this space. We felt that the offer that we received from Crown Castle was very attractive compared to historical multiples that have been paid in this business. And so we felt that it was in the best interest to move forward with them to see if we can strike a deal. One of the main reasons we did that is I didn't need disruption of the Sunesys' workforce. And very public processes can create a negative impact on operations. So it just worked out really well. I think it was the cleanest way to do a deal. We got outside advisers. We did consider options, but the multiple that they were offering us in the process was, I think, the most efficient way and the quickest way to get to an SBA.

And we'll take our next question from Steven Fisher with UBS.

I'm wondering if you can just give us a sense for the oil and gas booking activity that's going on in Canada, both on the smaller side and at Banister. What kind of work is being booked there right now? And how are you managing the resources there, given the uncertainty of some of the bigger projects?

I think Canada is a very robust environment. It's -- Banister is the #1 player in that market in Canada in mainline. We have seen some delays here in '15 in some of Banister's. The opportunities that we expected in '15 did get pushed, but I would say that our robustness and the outlook is for Banister is more than what we anticipated when we bought them. And certainly, I think that mainline opportunities are going to play out for them in a big way as we move into '16 and beyond because they are the #1 player in Canada, and they have significant customer relationships with pipeline companies in Canada. So the Banister acquisition was very strategic for us. And while '15 will be a little bit soft for them, we're going to see some nice opportunities in the outer years with Banister leading those mainline pipe efforts.

Okay. On the electric side, I think you mentioned the power plant that was not performing to expectations. Can you just give a little more color there? Remind us of how big that project is? What's going wrong? How far along it is and how confident are you that there won't be any kind of further negative issues there?

Yes, the main problem there was material delays. I mean, we were on schedule. We're not really having performance issues. It's about a $200 million job. I believe we're 50% complete on it. We had some material delays on critical components that -- from manufacturing that created some issues. So we had to take some hits on that projects in the first quarter, but we believe things are heading in the right direction now there. But it was worthy of pointing out because it did have an impact on the quarter.

And we'll take our next question from Alex Rygiel with FBR Capital Markets. Alexander J. Rygiel - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: To follow up on the last question, has the challenge with the power plant project changed your view on power generation at all?

We've always said that we were going to be very selective in power generation. This is not an area that we see as a growth platforms per se but an area that we're going to be opportunistic on the smaller combined cycle plants. It's unfortunate that we have this issue here, but we do see opportunities to capitalize in some specialized areas on power plants going forward but this isn't a third leg of a stool or growth platform for us. It's more like renewables, that we have the expertise in-house to execute at a certain level on these projects. And we'll continue to be opportunistic when we can. Unfortunately, we've just had some issues on this 1 job, but I think there's opportunities going forward to take advantage of in this market at times. Alexander J. Rygiel - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: Derrick, and I may have missed this. What was the foreign currency impact on backlog for both 12 months and total backlog?

Yes, from a foreign currency perspective quarter-over-quarter, I'd call it, roughly 3%. It's about $140 million in electric power, I think, I called out for backlog, and that's 12 -- that's sequential backlog.

And we'll take our next question from John Rogers with D.A. Davidson. John B. Rogers - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: Jim, just following up on comments about some of the deferrals and delays on the power side and also on the pipeline side, that you're seeing owners try and line up projects earlier. What are you seeing in the pricing market? I mean, that would suggest that there is excess capacity in the electrical side and capacity's tight on the pipeline side.

Yes, I mean, some customers are traditionally bidding out projects as they've done in the past. Many have moved to a negotiated type stance to whether they're negotiating solely with 1 contractor, or 2 contractors on bigger programs. We're seeing a trend in that direction. I would say on the bidding, you're always going to have competition and you're going to always have to people that are being irrational and we're going to use our same bidding discipline that we've employed over the last several years. So our margins that we're bidding are no different than the margins that we've bid on in the past. But we are, on a positive note, seeing many customers again with these big capital programs that are moving toward a negotiating -- negotiated stance while -- exclusively with contractors. But margins in backlog right now are consistent with what we've historically generated over the last year or so. John B. Rogers - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: And how far away are we from an improvement -- I mean, margins in the pipeline business that are double digits on an annual basis, that several years away still?

Yes. I mean, I think margins in that segment are directly correlated to executing on mainline pipe projects and having a healthy amount of mainline revenue. And I think that's imminent. I mean, I think that as we get into '16, we should be in that 9% to 12% range if the mainline pipe programs play out as we expect. So I know people have been waiting for this for quite some time. We've been speaking about it for a couple of years. It's probably slipped about 9 months to a year from when I thought it was going to happen. Instead of being a '15 dynamic, though, I really think '16, certainly. We're starting to really get some visibility now that gives us some confidence that mainline pipe in '16 is going to happen.

And we'll take our next question from Andy Wittmann with Robert W. Baird. Andrew J. Wittmann - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: Maybe Derrick, for you, just some these numbers you gave, but just on the acquisitions that were completed in the quarter. Can you give us the backlog, the annualized revenue and maybe the aggregate capital deployed? The backlog and the annualized revenue by segment? Just to have -- give us a sense about how those things might be filtering in over the next year.

Yes, I assume you're talking about the ones that were closed here in the second quarter. There's a couple of small deals. I'd say run rate revenue is probably in the $25 million to $35 million range in electric power. And backlog, call it, probably about $35 million, $40 million. Andrew J. Wittmann - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: Nothing on the pipeline side?

No, not for the deals closed in the second quarter they were both electric power. Andrew J. Wittmann - Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Research Division: Got you. And on the big 2017 gas pipeline, that didn't go in backlog yet, did it? Or will it be in the second quarter of '15 backlog?

No, it's not in backlog as of 3/31.

And we'll take our next question from William Bremer with Maxim Group.

Many of my questions have been asked and answered. Have there been many change orders in either of the segments at this time?

Yes, I mean, change orders are a regular part of our business, both approved and unapproved change-orders. That's an ongoing part of our business. I'd say there's no one quarter per se that stands out more than another in that regard. I did comment, as it relates to the specific activity we called out for -- here in the first quarter that we have not booked anything unique to that activity. So to the extent that are able to go through and do anything from a quantification perspective, that could lead to some potential upside in future quarters. But as it stands for those projects, we have not recorded any change orders.

Okay, Derrick. And another question focused on the oil and gas arena, primarily on the margins there this first quarter. Any one particular project that had an impact on margins? Or was it really just many of them in the weather areas that you voiced earlier?

No, I mean, there wasn't any particular project performance that stands out really to cause an individual fluctuation per se on oil and gas. The margins for the first quarter, once you take out the arbitration cost for last year, are very comparable quarter-over-quarter and reflects, in our mind, a fairly normal seasonality. We would expect that there would be a little bit of pressure in the oil and gas margins in the fourth -- first quarter and then continue to grow throughout the year, much like we saw in last year. So as we go out further, I think you'll see us back into that 9% to 12% range overall. But I would still always anticipate that the first quarter have some degree of challenge just because of the normal seasonality.

And we'll take our next question from Michael Shlisky with Global Hunter Securities.

So in the quarter, your corporate costs were up 11%, but your revenues were only up 7%. Are there any sort of onetime items in the quarter that are kind of worth pointing out? And what's the appropriate corporate cost rate going forward?

There was -- there weren't anything particular to call out. I mean, we've got just kind of normal conversation adjustments, primarily associated with cost of living as well as that you have the full year effect or starting to get full effect, new employees that were hired last year. A lot of that having to deal with a lot of the greenfield and strategic initiatives that we have going on and bringing on personnel to support those initiatives. So that's why you'll see a little bit of G&A front running some portion of revenue in that. As far as guidance, overall, I think I'd say that corporate unallocated will continue to run somewhere in the 2.5% to 2.9% range; fairly consistent with what you saw in 2014.

Okay. Fair enough. And then secondly, on Australia, can you maybe update us on kind of what's been going on there? And do you have any plans to accelerate or decelerate your investment there given all the cash coming in and the FX rates?

We still look at Australia as a great opportunity for us to expand the Quanta footprint. They had a great year last year. Probably won't see growth there because of the economy and the price of oil, but don't see any big fall-off there either. Coal seam gas projects are moving forward, but many of our customers in coal seam gas also have some oil interests. So they've been hit there on their other investments and their cash flows are down. So their pace of investment in the coal seam gas development has slowed somewhat. But with that said, there's opportunities to take advantage of in the electric space as well, and we continue to look at opportunities to grow there. There's just so many market drivers there that, with the deregulation that's occurring there, the aging infrastructure, renewable interconnections, there's a lot of opportunity to expand our electric and to maintain and grow our pipeline segment as well, as the opportunity exists. So I would say that we're going to just be calculated and our investments in Australia and slowly and opportunistically grow that platform. But there won't be any big play in Australia because of the Sunesys transaction.

And we'll take our next question from Vishal Shah with Deutsche Bank.

Maybe talk about the expectations for the Electric Power segment margin in the long term? Do you think, given the changes in the backlog and product delays, that your expectations for the longer term outlook on the margins front have changed?

No. I mean, we would still say that overall, we see electric power margins being able to be within the 10% to 12% range long term. This year, we still see the opportunity, for the latter half of the year, for our margins to be in that 10% to 12% range once we get past some degree of the seasonality that we're having here in the first and second quarter. And so with that, I mean, we are -- as Jim commented earlier, the margins on our backlog are very comparable to what we've seen over the last several years as far as -- from an execution and expectation standpoint. So I think that we'll see clearly opportunity for 10% to 12% margins in the Electric Power on a go-forward basis.

That's helpful. And then just on the mainline work, I mean, I must have missed this question, if you were already asked. But are you seeing any impact at all on the pricing environment and the margins that you expect from that segment especially? And how should we think about, again, the back half of the year, given the mix of your expectations or given the mix of mainline work? Do you see that margins in the back half of -- will be much better than the first few quarters?

Yes, I would say it's very similar to electric power. Our normal seasonality is that as you look through the years, the second, third and fourth quarters have a tendency to have both expansion in revenue and somewhat an expansion in margin throughout. So to that end, I think that we'll see higher margin opportunities in the Oil and Gas segment for the third and fourth quarter. And your first part of that, which is speaking to mainline, I mean, we continue to see that also that margins are very capable of getting us back into the 9% to 12% range and executing at that level. And over the long term, we very much see that those mainline contributions will be pushing us -- pushing the segment to that type of level of performance.

Yes, and I want to reiterate, our bidding discipline has not changed on mainline as well. And we continue to see additional opportunities come in, employing that discipline. So as Derrick stated, once we get into next year and we have a significant level of mainline pipe, we should be able to get within the range that we expect in that 9% to 12% range.

And this concludes the question-and-answer session, and I would like to turn the conference back over to management for any additional or closing remarks.

Well, I'd like to thank all of you for participating on our first quarter 2015 conference call. We do appreciate your questions and your ongoing interest in Quanta Services. Thank you, and this concludes our call.

And this concludes today's conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.