​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on

Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea

Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

Financial Performance Evaluation on Consulting Engineering Company;

PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea

Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. , Rayendra Yustian
Dvinanda, S.H.
GM 7
School of Business and Management, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jakarta

Email: ​dani.nadhir@sbm-itb.ac.id​, ​nirbita.pramesti@sbm-itb.ac.id​,

rayendra.dvinanda@sbm-itb.ac.id

Abstract
Engineering consulting is a professional service that provides independent expertise in
engineering, science and related areas to governments, industries, developers and construction
firms. Most engineering consulting services are offered through Engineering Consultant
companies, but are also frequently offered by sole practitioners. Engineering Consultant
companies can range in size from a partnership of two people to multinational corporations with
tens of thousands of employees in offices world-wide.

PT AECOM Indonesia is an Engineering Consultant company from United States and PT

Petrosea is an Engineering Consultant company from Indonesia. The purpose of this paper is to
analyze profitability, liquidity, activity and solvency ratio of both companies as a tool to assess
the financial power. Data required were obtained from audited financial reports on Indonesia
Stock Exchange Online Database.

Keywords: ​Consulting, Consultant, Engineering Consulting, Engineering Consultant, PT

AECOM Indonesia, PT Petrosea TBK

1. Introduction
PT AECOM Indonesia was established on 1997 based on the notarial deed No. 11 of Miryam
Magdalena Indrani Wiardi, S.H., within the framework of the Foreign Investment Law No. 1 of
1967 as amended by Law No. 11 of 1970. The company’s objective is primarily to engage in the
field of consultancy engineering, planning, environmental science, project management and
environmental consultation. Starting 2017 the company’s office is located at South Quarter
Tower, Jakarta. The company started its commercial operations in July 1997. As of September
2017, the company employed 130 and 125 permanent employees respectively. The company’s
boards of commision is Wong Yum Fook and the board of director is D. Setiaji Hadiprayitno.
Hereinafter referred to as ​AECOM.

PT Petrosea is a multi-disciplinary mining, infrastructure and oil and gas service company with
lot of achievement in Indonesia, starting from 1972. Petrosea can be recognized as one of
Indonesia’s leading contractors and consultant, who offers an advantage through their ability to
provide mining solutions, integrated engineering and construction capabilities as well as logistic

1
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

support, safety and environment, quality management and business integrity. Petrosea also
provide services for the oil and gas industry in Indonesia through Petrosea Offshore Supply
Base (POSB) deep water supply bases located in Tanjung Batu, Kalimantan and Sorong,
Papua. Petrosea has been listed on IDX since 1990 and was the first publicly listed Indonesian
consultant engineering and construction company in Indonesia. Hereinafter referred to as
PETROSEA.

2. Literature Review
Financial statements are set to measure that the company will undertake present and future
actions and facilitate the company to seek and take any advantage of opportunities that should
be face and avoid some threats. The financial statements also can be said as a report for
showing the financial condition of the company at present time or in a certain or period.
Financial ratios are activities to compare the numbers in the financial statements by dividing one
number by another. Then the comparable figures can be numbers in one period or several
periods. By studying ratios, we will know the different types of ratio, we can use ratios to answer
questions due to company operations. For the standard numbers of ratio, we use the standard
as states by Kasmir, S.E., M.M. in his book in 2008 titled “Analisis Laporan Keuangan”.

2.1 Liquidity
2.1.1 Current Ratio
Current Ratio ratio is used to measure a company’s ability to meet its short-term. ​Based on the
minimum achievement of company used by AECOM and PETROSEA, the current good
standard ratio is 100%. Current ratio shows the company’s liquidity as measured by comparing
current assets and current liabilities.

Current Ratio = Current Assets/Current Liabilities

2.1.2 Cash Ratio

Cash Ratio is used to calculate a company capability to pay short term liabilities with available
cash. The good company cash ratio is determined if the cash ratio of a company is 70%. This
methods formula is:

Cash Ratio = Cash and Cash Equivalent/Current Liability

2.2 Solvency
2.2.1 Debt Equity Ratio
Debt Equity Ratio is used to find what part of each rupiah capital is used as debt security. This
provides general guidance on creditworthiness and financial risk of the debtor. Based on the
financial statement, the standard ratio used by AECOM and PETROSEA has debt equity with
maximum standard.

2
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

DER = Total Debt/Total Assets

Based on the achievements, the standard of debt equity ratio from AECOM and PETROSEA
have to below 90%.

2.3 Activity
2.3.1 Inventory Turn Asset
Inventory Turn Asset is used to show the quality of inventory and company’s ability to increase
sales. Scale ratio from AECOM and PETROSEA have to be 20 times a year.

ITO = COGS/Average Inventory

2.3.2 Total Asset Turnover

Total Asset Turnover is used to measure total effectiveness of the company’s asset in sales, or
to know how much sales will be generated from each fund embedded in total assets. ​Scale ratio
from AECOM and PETROSEA is a 100%.

TATO = Sales/Total Assets

2.3.3 Collection Period

Collection period indicates the average time taken to collect trade debts. In other words, a
reducing period of time is an indicator of increasing efficiency. It enables the enterprise to
compare the real collection period with the granted/theoretical credit period. The industry
standard is minimum 25 times a year

Collection Period = (account receivable / sales) * 365

2.4 Profitability
2.4.1 Return on Equity (ROE)
Return on Equity is used to know how much net profit is generated from each rupiah of funds
that set-in total equity. As a benchmark, the standard ROE is minimum 40%.

ROE = Net Income/Book Value of Equity

2.4.2 Return on Investment (ROI)

Return on Investment is used to show how much net profit will be generated from each rupiah of
fund that set in total investment. Financial ratio comparator for ROI is minimum of 30%.

ROI = (Operating Income + Depreciation)/(Total Asset - Current Liability)

3
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

Net Profit Margin is used to measure the percentage of net income on net sales. The higher
means the greater result from net sales. This is one of the important of the company because it
shows the company’s sales strategy and co​ntrol the expense. The minimum scale ratio from
AECOM and PETROSEA is 30%.

3. Framework

Chart 1. Framework

We can see that we are obtaining the primary data from the annual report of AECOM and
PETROSEA, and then we calculate the liquidity, solvency, activity, and profitability. After that we
use that data to determine which company performs better by doing comparative analysis and
also determine which company has “healthier” financial status.

4. Methodology
Based on the research from Uma Sekaran (2014:7), business research as a systematic,
organized, investigation of specific problem, conducted with the purpose of finding an answer or
a related solution. In this study, we use quantitative descriptive.

4
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

5. Result
5.1. Profitability Analysis

Figure 1. Profitability Trend (ROE)

Figure 1 gives information about the return on equity of AECOM and PETROSEA
between 2013 and 2017. The minimum standard of average industry is 40%. Overalls,
it shows that the percentage of ROE significantly fluctuated, or the ROE ratios are
48,46%, -206,92%, -162,67%, 41,37%, -17,59% respectively for AECOM. The
percentage of ROE is highly decreased starting 2013 while they have surpass the
standard to 2014 and then significantly decreased until shown negative return in 2014
and 2015, and after that slightly increase in 2016 where they are above standard once
again and 2017 back to negative again due to the negative Equity at that annual year
of report.
The ROE 8,40%, 1,61%, -0,70%, -2,62%, 2,87% respectively for PETROSEA. The
ROE between 2013 to 2015 is decreasing, but it is slightly increasing in 2016 and
2017. This company has never reach the industry standard, due to their low profit on
nett incomes, they even got negative nett income (Loss) in 2015 and 2016.

5
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

Figure 2. Profitability Trend (ROI)

Figure 2 gives information about the return on Investment of AECOM and

PETROSEA between 2013 and 2017. The insutry standard is minimum ROI of 30%.
Overalls, it shows that the percentage of ROE significantly fluctuated, or the ROE
ratios are 212,40%, 337,75%, 411,53%, 17,29%, 39117,41% respectively for AECOM.
The trend for 2013 to 2015 is increasing while 2016 number shows decreasing, but
they got huge raise for 2017 because they got profit from operating income. We can
see that this company mostly surpass the industry standard
The ROI 56,89%, 67,73%, 80,73%, 92,96%, 97,98% respectively for PETROSEA. The
ROE between 2013 to 2017 shows increasing trend. This numbers also surpass the
industry standard. Due to their low liabilities.

Table 1. Profitability

Table 1 shows that the profitability of both company, it is shows that on average, both
Aecom and Petrosea doesnt reach the ROE industry standard of minimum 40% so it is
not considered to be profitable. but clearly seen that Petrosea performs better in terms
of ROE. in other hand, both company on average clearly surpass the ROI industry
Standard of 30%. With Aecom comes as the better performing company, so, in terms
of ROI, both of these company is Profitable.

6
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

5.2. Liquidity Analysis

Figure 3. Liquidity Trend (Cash Ratio)

Figure 3 gives information about the cash ratio of AECOM and PETROSEA between
2013 and 2017. The good company cash ratio is at minimum of 70%. Overalls, it
shows that the percentage significantly fluctuated, or the Cash ratios are 40,84%,
20,16%, 23,12%, 16,17%, 7,83% respectively for AECOM. The trend for 2013 to 2017
is decreasing. This company never reach the minimum industry standard, due to their
low amount of cash compared to their liabilities.
The Cash ratios are 22,73%, 54,09%, 53,88%, 91,63%, 95,17% respectively for
PETROSEA. The Cash Ratios between 2013 to 2017 shows increasing trend. In fact
they are surpassing the standard of 70% in last two consecutive year.

7
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

Figure 4. Liquidity Trend (Current Ratio)

Figure 4 gives information about the current ratio of AECOM and PETROSEA
between 2013 and 2017. The industry standard is 100%. Overalls, it shows that the
percentage significantly fluctuated, or the Current ratios are 129,24%, 101,24%,
89,34%, 85,09%, 82,94% respectively for AECOM. The trend for 2013 to 2017 is
decreasing. At the first two years, they have surpass the standard, but afterwards,
they are below the standard, due to they low assets compare to more liabilities.
The Current ratios are 128,92%, 154,53%, 154,79%, 206.00%, 198,71% respectively
for PETROSEA. The Current Ratio between 2013 to 2016 shows increasing trend.
While 2017 slightly decreased. This company consistently surpassing the standard
because of low liabilities.

Table 2. Liquidity

Table 2 shows that the Liquidity of both company, it is shows that on average, Aecom
doesnt reach the industry standard cash ratio of minimum 70% so it is not considered
to be liquid, meanwhile Petrosea successfully keeps their company liquid in terms of
cash ratio . also in terms of Current Ratio , Aecom almost surpass the industry

8
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

Standard Current Ratio of 100%. With Petrosea comes as the better performing
company, so, in terms of Current Ratio, Aecom is not as liquid as Petrosea.

5.3. Activity Trend

Figure 5. Activity Trend (Collection Period)

Figure 5 gives information about the Collection Period of AECOM and PETROSEA
between 2013 and 2017. The minimum industry standard is 25 times. Overalls, it
shows that the percentage significantly fluctuated, or the Collection Period are 60.16,
61.92, 74,52, 64.73, 138.72 respectively for AECOM. The trend for 2013 to 2017 is
increasing. This company already surpass the industry standard.
The Collection Period are 118.48, 71.42, 122.23, 122.24, 120.86 respectively for
PETROSEA. The Collection Period between 2013 to 2016 shows decreasing trend.
While 2017 slightly decreased. This company already surpass the industry standard.

9
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

Figure 6. Activity Trend. Inventory Turnover

Figure 6 gives information about the Inventory Turnover of AECOM and PETROSEA
between 2013 and 2017. The minimum industry standard is 20 times. Overalls, the
Inventory Turnover are all 0 respectively for AECOM. Thats because AECOM doesn’t
have Inventory number.
The Inventory Turnover are 8.02, 8.70, 9.28, 13.41, 3.33 respectively for PETROSEA.
The Inventory Turnover between 2013 to 2017 shows increasing trend, however, they
never reach the industry standard.

Figure 7. Activity Trend. (TATO)

10
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

Figure 7 gives information about the Total Asset Turnover of AECOM and
PETROSEA between 2013 and 2017. The minimum industry standard is 100%.
Overalls, it shows that the percentage significantly fluctuated, or the Inventory
Turnover are 3535,52%, 1650,12%, 1781,81%, 1408,67%, 598,20% respectively for
AECOM. The trend is decreasing from highest point in 2013 and lowest point in 2017.
This company is hugely surpass the industry standard.
The Inventory Turnover are 82,05%, 87,31%, 56,38%, 57,78%, 71,20% respectively
for PETROSEA. The Inventory Turnover between 2013 to 2015 shows decreasing
trend while having raise in 2016 and 2017. This company never reach the industry
standard.

Table 3. Activity

Table 3 shows that the Activity of both company, it is shows that on average, both
Aecom and Petrosea highly surpass the industry standard collection period of
minimum 25 times a year so both company considered to be active, meanwhile in
terms of inventory turnover Aecom and Petrosea Failed to reach the industry standard
Inventory Turnover of 20 times a year. But Petrosea is the better performing company
in terms of inventory turnover. In other hand, in terms of Total Asset Turnover , Aecom
highly surpass the industry Standard Total Asset Turnover of 100%. With Petrosea
comes as the worse performing company, so, in terms of Total Asset Turnover,
Aecom is more active than Petrosea that doesnt even reach the standard.

5.4. Solvency Analysis

11
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

Figure 8. Solvency Trend. (DER)

Figure 8 gives information about the DER of AECOM and PETROSEA between 2013
and 2017. The minimum industry standard should be below 90%. Overalls, it shows
that the percentage significantly fluctuated, or the DER are 368,65%, 1398,99%,
1288,70%, -650,78,-1335,66 respectively for AECOM. The trend is increasing from
2013 to 2014, after that decreasing until reaching minus figures on 2016 and 2017.
This company mostly failed to reach the standard, only at the last two consecutive
years they did it.
DER are 217,70%, 145,41%, 155,34%, 130,48%, 136,38% respectively for
PETROSEA. The DER between 2013 to 2016 shows decreasing trend while having
raise in 2017. This company failed to reach the standard.

Table 4. Solvency

Table 4 shows that the Activity of both company, it is shows that on average, both
Aecom and Petrosea failed to surpass the industry standard collection period of
maximum 90% so both company considered to be insolvent. But petrosea comes as
the better performing company.

12
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

6. Conclusion
The paper deals with profitability, liquidity, activity, and solvency ratio of Aecom and Petrosea
by using ratio analysis. Data required were obtained from audited financial reports on online
Indonesia Stock Exchange. In average, profitability ratio was decent. The ratio of
Return-on-Asset, Return-on-Equity,

The purpose of this research is to measure the financial performance of Engineering

Consultant Company in Indonesia with similar category. In additional, to know how good the
financial performance, it is necessary to compare all the financial performance ratios with
other companies and also standard ratio of average industry.

Based on the financial performance that has been conducted by the researchers, it can be
concluded that there is no dominantly better condition between PT AECOM Indonesia and PT
Petrosea, but, PT Petrosea is slightly better than PT AECOM in some circumstances. Thus,
both of the company should improve and/or change their strategy to overcome the situation.

13
 ​ Accounting Journal, Financial Performance Evaluation on
Engineering Consulting Company; PT AECOM Indonesia and PT Petrosea
Dani Dzun Nadhir, S.E. , Nirbita Jovenisa Pramesti, S.I.Kom. ,
Rayendra Yustian Dvinanda, S.H.

DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Financial Statement of PT AECOM Indonesia as of September 30, 2017
Financial Statement of PT AECOM Indonesia as of September 30, 2016
Financial Statement of PT AECOM Indonesia as of September 30, 2015
Financial Statement of PT AECOM Indonesia as of September 30, 2014 and 2013
Financial Statement of PT Petrosea as of September 30, 2017
Financial Statement of PT Petrosea as of September 30, 2016
Financial Statement of PT Petrosea as of September 30, 2015
Financial Statement of PT Petrosea as of September 30, 2014
Financial Statement of PT Petrosea as of September 30, 2013
Engineering Legacies. What is Consulting Engineering?
http://www.engineeringlegacies.com/WhatIs.php
Kasmir. (2008). Analisis Laporan Keuangan. Jakarta: Rajawali
Sekaran, Uma. (2014). Metode Penelitian Untuk Bisnis. Jakarta: Salemba
Sitanggang, J.P. (2014). Manajemen Keuangan Perusahaan. Jakarta: Mitra Wacana Media

14