Michael M. Thomson
Analyst
Rod, it's Mike. Thanks for the question. I appreciate it, and I appreciate you joining the previous call as well. Very helpful to have your questions and embedded into our dialogue here. So I appreciate that. Look, I think in general, the tempering of that guidance was largely related to the macros, right, just budget uncertainty. As you know, we're pretty heavily weighted in CA&I and public sector and pushing in public sector and higher ed. And that's the area where we're seeing some of that, I'll say, muting of contract decisions. Deb mentioned in her prepared remarks, which I think is important to note that we're continuing to see increased pipeline. So we hope that pressure is easing and that we'll see some of the relief from this kind of buildup that we've seen over the last, I don't know, 18 to 24 months in general. I think we all feel from an industry perspective that there's a little bit of a backlog there certainly, some of the discussions recently on the trade elements, et cetera, getting certainty back into the market, we think will really ease that. But that's the primary issue from a macro point of view. Tied to that, I would say there's a component piece related to backlog conversion, right? So we sign a contract and there's a transition period. And that transition period can also be a little muted, right, from converting that backlog, how many countries we bring on, what services we bring on first, et cetera. So I think some of that, I'll say, hesitancy in the market, we're also seeing in a little bit of our backlog conversion. But importantly, I'll note that, that has no bearing on the overall contract value that we're going to see or the term on that contract. So we expect it all to come in, in the same manner that we signed it. It's really just how quickly it ramps. And then lastly, as we looked at things in the queue, there's a revenue recognition component of contracts that we're currently negotiating, which, again, we feel like they're kind of an in-call perspective from our point of view. And those contracts have elements to them that could be upfront or over time from a revenue recognition perspective. So we thought it important to at least have our guidance reflect the overtime view of those particular contracts as opposed to an upfront view. And so those are really the three primary reasons why we tempered that guidance. But the flip side of that is increasing our profitability and increasing our pre-pension free cash flow value. We feel really good about the continued strength we're seeing in L&S and the pull-through there. And again, those other elements in our view, are timing elements, not realization elements.