Good morning, everybody. Here we are with Marcelo, the Head of IT, M&A and corporate areas, and myself, the Director of Governance, Press and CFO to present the earnings results for the second quarter 2025.

Let's begin with our main results. In the second quarter, net revenue reaching R$4,600,000,000, an increase of 7% vis-à-vis the second quarter 2025.

Of these 7%, 6% are organic growth. Adjusted EBITDA ex-IFRS, we reached R$445 million in the quarter, 10% higher than the same quarter last year, with a 9.7% margin, higher than last year once again, and higher than the first quarter of this year.

In adjusted net profit, we had a non-recurring event in the S-System. Further ahead, I will detail this, the cash impact of this, I won't speak about this net profit.

I'll speak about the elimination of that non-recurrent effect. R$180 million adjusted net profit ex-System S, 16% higher than the same quarter last year, with a 3.9% net margin.

In this quarter, we have 4,543 customers and an NPS score of 67%. We carry this out every half year.

Now, the percentage of net revenue by line of solution, catering spearheading this with 25%. This is a relevant solution in our service portfolio.

Facilities 23%, maintenance and industrial services 21%, and security 19%. We have a broad diversity of solutions, and we are able to offer the customer a very broad and full-service portfolio.

Additionally, we have temporary labor services and field marketing 7%, indoor logistics 5%. We are not concentrated on any customer this quarter.

The main customers represented 5% of our, well, the top customer represents 5%, and within this, we can have a broad number of contracts as we offer a broad diversity of services. We have more than 15 contracts with this top customer per service and per region.

Let's speak a bit about the net revenue for the quarter. As I mentioned, we had a net revenue 7% higher than in the second quarter 2025 and 6% organic growth.

Now, we remind you that our organic growth is still being impacted by the 2024 cohort that was enormous in our M&A program. It includes the GRSA, and obviously we make the adjustment of contracts that have no rentability within our minimum standard, and this means we have a certain drop of revenues in the cohorts we acquire through time.

As the 2024 cohort was very relevant, it still exerts pressure on our net revenue. It's still going through organic growth, and the negative effect here is of approximately 2%.

If we look at the quarter, the scenario is very similar. Total net revenue 8% higher than in the first quarter of 2025, with an organic net revenue of 6%, still impacted by that effect of the 2024 cohort.

For the 2025 cohort made up of RH Med, Nutricash, and [TAG?] , we also had a growth for the quarter.

Now, I will turn the floor over to Marcelo to speak about our M&A program.

Thank you, Maritza. Good day to all of you.

Here you see a summary of our acquisition program for 2025 and 2026. 2024 was a highly intense year where we acquired GRSA, a very relevant acquisition, and we had an increase in leverage, 1.1 times net debt/EBITDA in 2025.

Because of this, we slowed down the pace a bit, but last year we acquired three companies: RH Med, [TAG?] , and Nutricash, with a combined revenue of R$3 million.

Now they are under our management, and they're beginning to contribute results. This year, our proposal is to recover the speed and intensity of the M&A program.

We have net debt/EBITDA standing at a very comfortable level. This is a considerable advance regarding this indicator.

Now, along with GPS, we have one of the largest companies in security. We have already signed the contract for purchase.

We have Uniflex, a company for marine hotel services, and this will consolidate our leadership in Macaé in the Basin of Campos. We have a significant participation there.

If I'm not mistaken, this company has already been approved by CADE, the antitrust agency, and we're now moving towards closing the full acquisition. And [Axxer?]

, which is a security company concentrated in São Paulo, interesting program for the monitoring of residential buildings, if I'm not mistaken, it has been approved by the antitrust agency. We're simply awaiting the decision of the Federal Police.

These companies invoiced R$500 and some million 12 months before the acquisition. I'm going to speak about the program accrued as a whole, and then I will speak more about M&As.

This is a slide we always share with you, showing you the M&As since the IPO in 2021. We have acquired 29 companies with R$9.1 billion in terms of gross revenue, R$1.8 million of revenues acquired per year.

It's been five years, of course, and there's no reason to slow down our pace. Quite the contrary, we would like to step up the pace a bit.

Here you see the acquisitions carried out and the importance of each of this. We have enhanced our operation in industrial maintenance through the acquisition of eight companies: Sulzer, NG, Vertical Control, and TLSV.

This was relevant for us until the IPO. After the acquisitions, they have become our third main business in the company, representing 21% of our revenue.

Second relevant point that I would like to mention is our growth in catering. Once again, not very relevant until the IPO.

Now we have the acquisitions of Marfood, GRSA, and more recently, the acquisition of Uniflex. This has become our main business at GPS, responsible for 25% of our revenues.

I believe that we have successfully used the M&A tool to penetrate new businesses, businesses that have synergy with us, that have good labor, and share the management systems. To speak of our pipeline going forward, we're quite optimistic, and I had mentioned this at our last call.

The scenario remains unaltered. The pipeline is extremely active.

We have a complicated scenario of high interest rates, customers suffering in the day-to-day, our procurement teams of our customers working more intensely, negotiating price. Of course, this is difficult for our competitors, especially the small and medium-sized competitors.

This is a favorable moment for M&A. We're not concerned with the origination of possibilities.

Quite the contrary, our pipeline changed very little compared to our last meeting. We have approximately 20 companies interacting with us, with approximately R$8 billion of combined revenue.

We're working with diligence. Going forward, we have nine companies in this.

We had 10, one of them has dropped out. We converted three.

We acquired three companies since the last call. These companies have R$9.4 billion of combined revenues.

This is not a matter of concern. We're concerned with the quality of price.

The rule for M&As becomes ever more stringent. Compared to the last meeting, we have become even more rigorous.

The interest rate in the last quarter was very high, but we had a perspective for a greater drop in the mid-term. We no longer have this perspective.

GPS is negotiating 6.5 times EBITDA to acquire a company, even though we pay 5 times EBITDA in the acquisition, we have to have a highly relevant potential for synergy. While the pipeline has increased, we are being very conservative, very cautious.

I think the moment demands this. We are only going to acquire companies that offer a very relevant, very clear and tangible potential for synergy, companies with a highly qualified customer portfolio, little concentration on specific customers, and highly qualified customers.

Now, we're enthusiastic with the pipeline that continues to be qualified, and our degree of stringency has increased, as I mentioned, once again, due to the economic context. We're going to continue on speaking about our EBITDA.

We always use adjusted EBITDA. This quarter, we also had an adjustment in the EBITDA of the S-System.

We had a provision for this that had impacted our EBITDA last year, but in the reversion, we're considering this as a non-recurring item, withdrawing the impact on EBITDA. Basically, therefore, we have an EBITDA with a 10% growth vis-à-vis the second quarter with a 9.7% margin.

We can see this for the first half of the year as well. What we can say about this margin is that it had a qualitative evolution.

In the first quarter, we had low labor expenses, 1.3%. This quarter, we're back to 1.8% again, and we have maintained the margin of 9.7%.

We begin to see an improvement in operating performance when it comes to margins, the labor issues increasing almost 50 basis points, and we had a result of 9.7% this quarter. We've done our homework.

Our priority is to stabilize the contracts. This is something constant under management, and through time, we seek a margin improvement in these sustainable contracts, long-term contracts.

This will be one of our strong performance indicators, a consistent and sustainable indicator, as we always mention. Now, regarding adjusted net profit, we had a non-recurring effect.

With this, we had an exceptional net profit result this quarter. When we withdraw this effect, we still have an evolution in net profit.

When we had the reversion of the S-System, there was a positive effect for this quarter. If we withdraw that effect, net profit grew 16% quarter-on-quarter, and compared between the first quarter 2026 and the second quarter.

Now, cash flow, this is a highlight. It was highly positive this quarter.

We had an improvement in the quality of our billed contracts. Significant work was carried out with the customers.

When you look in the rearview mirror, there are some contracts that were not performing. We made adjustments there in their cash, adjustments in control and maintenance of electrical system, and now we have a positive cash flow effect that is consistent through time.

I believe this is a great highlight, a very positive cash flow. Simply a contribution, Maritza.

This is an example of some of those difficult situations we mentioned. What has contributed to this relevant cash flow is the decision that Gustavo and his team made at the beginning of the year.

They were working with a large number of contracts for the maintenance of electrical wiring, for control and for telephony networks for TLSV. These were mobilized in the first and second quarters with relevant mobilization costs that hampered our margin, but besides being in deficit, they had a monumental consumption of working capital.

These results in the second quarter are very relevant simply because of these mobilizations. In terms of cash generation, what we now have is maritime hotel services.

We're becoming consolidated in the sector, which is very positive for us. Do listen to the podcast by William, who is the Regional Director.

He's leading this business, and you can listen from him and understand how this business truly operates. It's a business that requires initial investment, but that has a good cash return and margin, especially at the end of the year and beginning of this year.

We're still in the second quarter, but we will have an improvement in the second half. Another highlight is leverage.

Thanks to our discipline, when we acquired GRSA, we were at 2.2 times net debt/EBITDA. Presently, we're at 1.3 times net debt/EBITDA, a very comfortable leverage for us that we deem to be our goal to remain at 1.5 and below.

With this, of course, we can continue with our M&A program and investments that we deem to be important. I would like to stop here for a minute to speak about the S-System.

We had several questions about this yesterday, I'll make the most of this earnings call to reach an alignment. We had a provision in the S-System representing R$740 million.

It was made up of two topics or two processes: one, the 1079 that deals with SESC, SENAI, SENAC and S, that's why it's called the S-System, and this topic received a favorable positive decision, and that is why we are reversing that provision that positively impacts our results. There's 1390, another topic, contribution to third parties, specific for SEBRAE, INCRA, and salary for education.

Now, this also had movements in the provision, differently from the 1079 system. The decision was not favorable, and IRS is now collecting for this.

We are forced to reverse the provisions and make deposits for the provision, two different topics: one with a positive effect on our results, the 1079, the other one, a write-off of the reversion of the provision, but with a null effect. We had to revert the provision, and this does have a cash effect.

Very well, we began with R$740 million. We reverse the 1079, the principal and the monetary redressing.

We also revert the part of the 1390, R$83 million plus R$181 million, and with the balance, we have only R$145 million. Now, this balance that you see, a large part refers to GRSA, and we have an indemnity that refers to the S-System because of contractual issues, and a large part of those R$145 million are due to that.

Now, it doesn't make sense to anticipate and pay what is left, because this topic is still under discussion. There is a recourse at the Supreme Court to speak about the minimum duration of 1390 and other processes.

This is simply a balance. Moving on, note 28, we went from a hundred and some million to R$140 million.

Another impact is in the results. Now, the only one that impacts our results is the 1079 that received a favorable decision.

In May, we began to pay contributions to the S-System, but we had a prior favorable decision, we did not have to pay that. In June, therefore, this reversion came into effect.

This topic, this last decision is now classified as a possible probability, and it will come out of our balance. With that, we revert almost R$240 million of principal, plus R$108 million of monetary correction, with an effect of R$209 million.

Here, we are adjusting this in net profit, and we only adjust the part of the principal in the EBITDA, R$240 million in the EBITDA and R$229 million as we have that part of monetary correction. We also have an effect of that 1390 portion that has no impact on our results.

It was a contingency, we reverted the contingency, the effect is nil. It will have a cash effect because I will remove it from cash to deposit that portion of the provision because we have lost the process.

We have a total of R$274 million, including interest rates. As we have been remarking, we can always use tax credits, which enables us to offset most of these R$274 million.

Now, the remaining part that we would also have to pay, we have decided to divide it in installments. The cash effect of these R$274 million will have a net effect of R$108 million throughout six months.

This expense had a provision, it was not deductible. It now becomes deductible and will have a positive effect in our calculation of income tax.

It's a cash benefit that we will capture in July, where we pay the income taxes for the second quarter. Here you have the three effects: the effect balance, the cash effect, and well, should you still have any doubts, we can dissipate them here or subsequently.

With this, I would like to end the presentation. I remind you of two important points: the podcast, we are on our fifth episode, for those who have not watched the others, please come to our channel, watch this live, and through the podcast, we make important presentations for you to have more contact with the GPS leaders.

This quarter, we have William Salgado, and we asked him to go more in-depth in the maritime hotel services. Additionally, we're also disclosing our sustainability report, which you will be able to find on our site.

We will have the version in English in September. All of this available to all of you.

With this, we would like to close the presentation and go on to the questions. Let's open the audio for Andre from Bradesco, please.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for taking my questions.

Congratulations for your results. I have two topics: organic growth for the second quarter, I know that further ahead in the year, this will be a factor of slow down, this is the base of comparison of GPS, the further ahead, the lower the base of comparison because of churn.

Why is the organic growth closer to 6% instead of 7% that you had in the first quarter? The second question about the development of contracts in GRSA, if these have been well accepted, and which is the level of acceptance?

Let's speak about the organic growth in the following way. The company's priority has always been and continues to be margin.

In that context, if we have to withdraw from some contracts, that will be the option. Through time, in a more cautious way, we have done this movement, especially in GRSA.

This is something constant for the company. We have a minimum margin that we seek, and in the renegotiation, we resort to the customer to ensure that the contracts are balanced.

A relevant point for the organic growth is this one:

we're seeking margin, and it's always a trade-off, margin and organic growth. We're building the path towards more sustainable margin, going back to two digits, but we may have some contract losses.

Marcelo mentioned some of them. Now, these two contracts that we made the decision to discontinue because of their margin levels and consumption of our working capital, well, they were demobilized through the first quarter and had a full impact on non-performed revenue in the second quarter.

This is relevant for organic growth, Control and TLSV from the 2024 cohort, one from the 2025 cohort. It's a cleaning-out process of the contracts acquired that will have an impact on organic growth, and it will be relevant in the second half.

In GRSA, the behavior is very similar. Besides transfers of prices, we're seeking a rebalance, always with the necessary care.

These are different contracts.

They're not similar to those of Control and TLSV, but we do seek a margin that is more aligned with our target margin. We can say that so far, there has been no significant attrition in GRSA.

Of course, this takes time, and when you carry out the negotiation, the negotiation can end up being lengthy. If you look at accounts receivable, for example, they will grow through time, and they will reflect that readjustment we're seeking.

In November, we will see what we have been able to transfer or increase. The summary here is the organic growth does has an impact in the cleaning out of our contracts, not necessarily reflected within GRSA.

The other two businesses were more relevant, and in GRSA, we have a negotiation without relevant attrition up to this point. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

Let's unmute the microphone for Kiefer.

Good morning, Kiefer. Thank you for taking our question.

Perhaps a follow-up of previous questions. I would like to explore the challenges with GRSA.

I think the issue of margin is very clear in these heavy catering companies before the acquisition. Now, after somewhat more than two years of the acquisition, has this ended up being more challenging than you had imagined from the viewpoint of contracts, the system, and profitability of the operation?

How do you carry out that assessment two years after the fact, and which are the learnings of this new company? Secondly, in terms of margin, despite the challenges of the quarter, contracts, inputs, you maintained a flat margin quarter-on-quarter, and from previous comments, I understand that in the second half of the year, we should see an increase in the margins, at least

the company has made this clear in the comments in the release. Which is the possibility that this will not happen?

We have an asymmetry of risks from the viewpoint of profitability. Which were your learnings from GRSA and margin going forward, given your previous remarks?

Thank you, Kiefer, for the question. Regarding GRSA, we turned the key of the systems in January of last year.

Now, after almost two years, system integration is only one year and a half, and of course, we expect more. We wanted to be in a better position than today.

We have high expectations. Now, all of that synergy that we could have captured through indirect systems management were captured, and they created a significant increase in the results.

We are now in that phase of capturing cost reductions and synergies with a greater complexity. When you implement measures to capture that synergy, you have a higher cost that you can reduce in the future.

For example, we made the decision that the logistics of GRSA would be outsourced. The distribution of catering and the DC would be outsourced.

We made the decision that this was a strategic operation that had to be organic. We had to operate that.

In São Paulo, where we have the operation of GRSA, we changed the operation. We took away the outsourced operator, rented a huge warehouse in Parnaíba, and during part of the first quarter, but mainly in the second quarter, we had the full cost of the outsourced supplier, plus the total cost of lease, the team mobilized, the everything to start working at our distribution center.

We only began to work without the outsourced team in August. This is, of course, an element that had a significant impact on the results of the quarter.

It was an additional cost of R$2 million and some per month, but we no longer have that double cost. We have already removed the outsourced people, and going forward, we will capture better results.

The cost of the operation is lower. We have a buffer.

We will have higher inventories to buy spot, to buy based on opportunity. There are measures for efficiency gain and cost reduction that are more for the long term.

They're more costly to put in practice, and this is what we're doing now, implementing the long-term measures at GRSA. Of course, we would like to be at a better margin level.

Unfortunately, it was not possible. Notwithstanding this, we're very confident for the future.

We have several actions that will benefit our results.

In the short term, you impact the results on structures, but in the long term, the margin results will be relevant. We acquired a business of 25%.

We have greater margin volatility in this business. This brings about more volatility quarter-on-quarter.

This is part of the business. The acquisition per se had a very positive effect.

It's a business where we have grown the most. In fact, we were able to put in place the cross-sell of the service, and as Marcelo mentioned, we're confident that we will take the margin to the standard margin of GPS because of the initiatives we're putting in place for operational efficiency.

That's where the greatest risk lies as well. To converge to an EBITDA margin of 10% or somewhat higher, we have to have GRSA performing at that level as well, and that's where the risk lies.

We're transferring readjustments, successful implementations of the DC, stabilization of the maritime hotel services. This was always our business with the most qualified margin, and in the last quarters, well, we have gotten rid of several contracts.

We're sure that this business will have more positive margins, and it is a very important business for GPS, the maritime hotel services. This is where the greatest risk lies, in the catering services.

Thank you, that was very clear. Let's unmute the microphone for Lucas Marquiori?]

.

Good morning, everybody. I have two topics as well.

I understand that you have that trade-off of margin versus growth. Looking towards 2027, we have the headwinds of the tax reform, two businesses performing with a margin low, catering and others, and 2027 will not be an easy year.

I don't know what will happen with the economy. Perhaps the margin can bring you a relief for all of these challenges that we see.

The second point, and to test your capital allocation, in cash, you have a positive cash because of the S-System. GPS is at a 6-time trailing.

After that, it will be below the range. Is there a window for you to allocate capital, payback dividends?

Which is your matrix of priority for capital allocation? Therefore, I would like to understand which is the priority for capital allocation within these scenarios I just mentioned.

Now, when we speak about margins for 2027, we will have the reductions from the tax reform and that specific regime that we have with a reduction of 60 basis points or something around that 60, 70, which is a given reduction.

With this, we don't have the expectation for margins for 2027 that will represent an increase vis-à-vis 2026. That effect of top will not happen during the year.

It will take place through time. PIS/COFINS has a transition that will last 12 months, and there will be a change in the top regime, and this will lead to a change in margins.

2027 will be very peculiar in terms of margins. What we're seeking is that path for an incremental margin.

We're treading that path this year for incremental margin after every quarter, and 2027 will not be different. Our priority has always been and will continue to be that trade-off of the organic growth and margin.

It's a trade-off that sometimes with pain, as Marcelo mentioned, we have to continue with.

In the sector that we're in, we create a vision of the growth of top line without consistency and profitability, and of course, in the mid and long term, this path will derail. This is what we see with the competitors.

We want to prioritize profitability. If we speak about margin in 2027, we have to remember the top line, but operationally, it is the constant quest for evolution of the standard levels for GPS, 10-13%.

We will have that impact in 2027, the top-line effect. 2027 will be a very complicated year.

We're attentive to that issue of the tax reform. I think it will be a rather turbulent year with significant changes in pricing.

To add some points to what Maritza said, in the day-to-day, we already see a greater pressure of customers. Our customers are being pressured, there's pressure on their profitability, and the procurement groups of customers gain force, and they're going to see cost reductions.

This is what is expected from them, and we have perceived enormous pressure and growing pressure in our contracts, in our conversations with the customers. As Maritza mentioned, the priority is always profitability.

Eventually, the growth will be higher one year, lower another year. These are temporary situations.

The negative effect that you have in a company of living with a definite contract is a permanent situation. The cash impact and the company's leverage is a cultural effect.

We tell the companies that we accept to live with contracts in a deficit, if we do that, this will go through the culture of the company and our culture will simply disappear. We speak about this a great deal: to gain contracts, lose contracts, grow 6% or 7%, grow more one year than another, this is part of the business.

To lose profitability is something permanent for the company culture, our priority is always profitability. Yes, we are concerned with the coming year.

We're getting ready for it. We have a huge challenge to maintain our profitability level without the benefit of the top line.

We're seeking efficiency gains to maintain our margins, and the challenge will be significant. We have perceived growing pressure in our daily interactions with customers.

This scenario is very difficult for everybody. Regarding capital allocation, our board has to deliberate on this.

We're awaiting a position for this. Mathematically, even though we acquire companies at 5.5 times EBITDA, and we have a better EBITDA after capturing synergies with an improvement of 2.5, 3 times, the level of risk is enormous in the buyback of shares.

We're buying back shares in a controlled environment. When we carry out an M&A, there's information that we're lacking.

The level of asymmetry in M&As is enormous when you begin to weigh the risks: buying at 6 times or carrying out an M&A where if everything works out, can converge at 3 times. This is where we begin that conversation about buyback of shares.

Mathematically, it is very complex. Capital allocation has always been and will always be in M&As.

In the future, we may have an interesting opportunity.

Let's continue. Thank you, Lucas.

Lucas unmute the audio for Lucas Marquiori.

Good morning, Marcelo and Maritza. I also have two questions.

Thinking about the rest of the year, organic growth from a more macro viewpoint, the scenario for the customers is still under stress. How is this impacting your loss of contracts, and on the part of the supply of labor, what is a bottleneck to ensure growth?

Secondly, about your catering contracts, which percentage of the contracts have that readjustment in mid-year? Which is the attitude of customers when it comes to price adjustment?

This could perhaps point towards margin for the third quarter. Our vision on organic growth in the second half of the year, and this is something we're monitoring, is that the customer with an electoral scenario plus a tax reform will lead to a behavior of holding back, of being on standby to hold back on bids, hold back on investments, and pressure in terms of prices.

In this context, if the intensity arises a great deal, of course the organic growth will be hampered by this. What we see so far is not something that points to something highly negative.

We see a bit of that standby effect, which is natural. If I'm working with a bidding, the price will change going forward in four months because of the tax reform.

It's natural therefore for the customer to look at that and say, "You know what? I'm going to wait a bit."

Now, this does impact our achievement, and it also impacts the contracts with our present-day customers. It could create the pace of lower growth in organic systems in the second half of the year if this becomes exacerbated, if customers decide to wait a bit because of the uncertainty of the elections, the tax reform, and there they will wait to bid further on.

Once again, this does not mean that we will have more churn necessarily. Everything will be at the same standpoint, but obviously, organic growth will be impacted because our level of achievement will be impacted.

We won't have a greater number of losses, of course. We're monitoring that environment, and this is a possible scenario for the second half.

It doesn't make sense for a customer's procurement team to open up a bidding process at present. It's a burdensome process that will change in four months.

The price will change in four months. What does make sense is a slowdown in the bidding processes.

What has happened with customer interaction is customers asking for reductions, a better scope, we put in more equipment, we take out people. It's part of the game, and this is happening because the scenario is truly not very favorable for customers or for anybody.

Regarding the supply of labor, the main consequence of supply of labor is that we have several vacancies. I think we spoke about this in the previous call, and we can't comply with everything paying the salary of our employees.

We have to resort to extra hours, and this has been happening since last year because of the vacancies. When we don't have a new employee at disposal, we have to pay additional hours for those who are under contract.

We have faced that reality since last year, and nowadays, the price of the GRSA has already been remarked on. There's nothing different this year.

Every year, we have to transfer a readjustment for the customer. The inflation this year is somewhat higher, it will be more difficult, but in the market, all competitors have to also transfer these new prices.

You can't survive without that. It's the entire industry focused on this to maintain the contract.

There's nothing very different this year vis-à-vis previous years, Lucas. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Lucas.

Lucas open the audio for Gasparete, please.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for taking my call.

We have two questions. The first one about organic growth in the release, you spoke about the company NPS.

You had difficulty in receiving answers, 8 percentage points, I believe. Is this a reason of concern if it could translate into greater churn?

Secondly, once again to speak about M&A, we heard comparisons, shares, the situation of 2027. Although the pipe has never been this qualified as you mentioned in quantity and quality, I would like to understand your expectation in terms of conversion.

We know that the customers are holding back on the bid. Perhaps negotiations are somewhat colder.

Would you like to speak about the NPS system? Sure.

Go ahead. NPS, Net Promoter Score.

We carried out a change of platform. We changed the way in which we approach and send the questionnaire, and of course, this may have an impact on initial engagement.

We did make efforts to work better with engagement. This is one of the aspects.

About the score itself, we're not concerned with that, not as you mentioned, why? Because what we see in the change of the score, when you carry out the breakdown of the score, there hasn't been an increase in detractors.

I think the main issue here was the way in which we approached the customer, different from what we did historically, until the customer understood that he will receive this through email and no longer through the quality area. They have to work through a link.

The link has a different way of asking vis-à-vis what we did last year. Our analysis on this result is that what happened is that we had a higher number of neutral responses.

When we look at the NPS scale, it's like having a score 8. You reduce the number of promoters, and in fact, this is what happened.

We had a migration between 9 and 8, and not detractors or very negative answers. This is a very relevant indicator for us.

It is part of the variable remuneration for the Regional Director, for example. We are focusing on this.

There has been a system change, a process change, but regardless of that, we are looking at the results and creating action plans with the customers to look at this as a goal, that we always had a goal above 70% historically. Concretely, this is not an indicator that refers to potential churn.

It is not a warning sign of criticism, an increase in criticisms, or very negative relationship with the customers. The churn refers much more to the price issue that is more relevant than the quality.

Quality is something we're focusing on, of course, and is an important indicator, but that did suffer the effects I mentioned. Now, regarding the M&A pipeline, some important points.

We're only going to carry out acquisitions of companies where our goals are aligned. If companies have low EBITDA, well, we want EBITDA maximum 5.5 times, companies with high revenues, 2% of net profit, if they have 2%, 3%, 4% of EBITDA margin with a highly qualified customer portfolio that will allow us to work with cross-selling of our new services, companies that do not have that concentration of revenue on a single customer.

When the economic conditions were better, the interest rates were better, we were more flexible. At this point, we're completely inflexible.

Now, despite all of this, we do have things in the pipeline that comply with our requirements. It's a cost of negotiation that tends to delay the closing, but we have the right raw material in our pipeline to allow us to acquire 1.5 times revenue this year, companies that fulfill our requirements.

What will define if we're going to deliver that volume of M&A is a decision that we will take to buy back shares or not. If our board in the future understands that at that price it makes more sense to buy back shares, we may reduce our M&A pipeline.

Now, this perhaps could lead us not to comply with our global goal. It's a balance between M&A and the purchase of shares.

Today, we don't have a clear vision of what will happen. There's a third relevant factor.

We have perceived the financial situation of our competitors, especially mid-sized competitors, R$200, R$300, R$400, R$500 million a year. There has been a significant deterioration here.

Mid-sized companies, they pay 25% a year in interest rate. Now, for you to carry out an M&A in Brazil, you have to be patient, know the right movement at the right time.

We're in waiting mode. In the next six months, there will be plenty clear opportunities for the acquisition of good companies with a good customer portfolio that are financially complicated, once again, because of the context, and we have to be ready to explore that opportunity.

These are the three variables, therefore, that we're managing.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

If you could speak about default, if you have any time for this. I think we improved this quarter.

It has been a concern as well. We have been highly diligent.

Now, we always have an evolution here, because at the end of the day, this is a readjustment that grows until the third quarter. In the fourth quarter, we carry out a readjustment, but the default levels are more positive this quarter.

Thank you, Maritza, Marcelo. Have a good day.

Let's unmute the audio for Luiza, please.

Good morning. I'm going to try to break down the makeup of margin for the quarter.

You spoke about catering, hotel services, and telecom and electrical contracts. We wanted to see which had a greater weight.

How can we think about labor expenses at present, if there has been a change in terms of what we discussed last quarter? Thank you.

I don't know which is the breakdown in profitability here, a bit more catering, secondly, maritime hotel services, and third as a sequence, the electrical services and telephony. The good news is that catering and hotel services do have a solution that is underway.

This was a one-time pressure. I'm sorry, which was your first question?

Labor expenses. They're back to 1.8%.

This year, we will have greater variations because continuously we make that effort to reduce the more expensive and lengthier suits. There's a stock that we still have to eliminate.

In the third quarter, the figure will still be high, and somewhat lower in the fourth quarter. For the entire year, it will be somewhat below that of last year.

You will always have an incremental improvement year-on-year, with large volatility quarter-on-quarter. Last year, 1.9%.

This year, it should be lower, and in 2027, well, this is something we do constantly, small reductions throughout the years.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Let's unmute the microphone for Gabriel Frazao.

Thank you for taking our questions. About the acquisitions announced recently in security, where you acquired a majority stake of the company, if you could comment on why you chose this format in a sector where you're already present, and if we will see this format in the remaining companies in the pipeline, perhaps to move away from the prices?

About the non-recurring items, there are three that were more relevant: acquisition processes, non-labor provision, and tax credits. What led to a greater magnitude of these effects this quarter, and if going forward, everything will be more aligned with normality?

In terms of the partial acquisition, I think observe well, we don't like to carry out partial acquisitions in companies we're operating already because of competition. It's very difficult to manage the issue of competition.

In the case of [Axxer?] , what led to this partial acquisition is that they're very strong in monitoring those totems on the streets that we have in several neighborhoods in São Paulo, and they have a small operation because this is a fragmented business, but they know how to work on it.

Despite the business being difficult financially because it is fragmented, it does create adherence to our relationship with the customer in the long term. You may lose a security station in a company, but you will maintain the security services.

We acquired it partially because of this peculiarity it has, and the expertise in the monitoring business, those monitoring totems on the streets. Now, to speak about the movements of these adjustments we have in EBITDA, first about a provision for non-labor contingencies, the reclassification of three processes, two civil, one tax, they became probable, and with this, we had an increase in the provision.

Now, there is a relevant parcel of that process that became probable, and that is why we had to come up with a provision, refers to GRSA and it has indemnities, and you will see the effect of the indemnities in the asset. The provision that I had to come up with corresponds to the indemnity that refers to that contingency contractually defined in the acquisition of GRSA.

Another item that changed, processes with indemnity, referring to the same issue, and tax debits, refers to the program zero litigation that we adhered to a short time ago. When you adhere this, after having an approval by the IRS, you have the obligation of reverting the provision and creating a debit.

This zero litigation process was an opportunity. We negotiated this with the IRS, and because of specifications of our IS, you stop paying fines in a very favorable context.

These were the atypical movements this quarter. This is not something recurrent.

It happened this quarter. I don't imagine that this will continue on in future quarters.

That was very clear. Thank you very much.

João, if he's still there, if we can unmute his microphone. Very well.

No further questions. I would like to thank all of you.

We're at your entire disposal. Have a very good day, and thank you so much for your attendance.

Thank you all for your attendance.