XML 34 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: Legal Proceedings Quanta is from time to time party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These actions typically seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, property damage, breach of contract, negligence or gross negligence, environmental liabilities, wage and hour and other employment-related damages, punitive damages, consequential damages, civil penalties or other losses, or injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to all such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, Quanta records a reserve when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. In addition, Quanta discloses matters for which management believes a material loss is at least reasonably possible. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. In all instances, management has assessed the matter based on current information and made a judgment concerning its potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought and the probability of success and taking into account, among other things, negotiations with claimants, discovery, settlements and payments, judicial rulings, arbitration and mediation decisions, advice of internal and external legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. Costs incurred for litigation are expensed as incurred. Except as otherwise stated below, none of these proceedings are expected to have a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, management’s judgment may prove materially inaccurate, and such judgment is made subject to the known uncertainties of litigation. Peru Project Dispute In 2015, Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. (Redes), a majority-owned subsidiary of Quanta, entered into two separate contracts with an agency of the Peruvian Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MTC), currently Programa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (PRONATEL), as successor to Fondo de Inversion en Telecomunicaciones (FITEL), pursuant to which Redes would design, construct and operate certain telecommunication networks in rural regions of Peru. The aggregate consideration provided for in the contracts was approximately $248 million, consisting of approximately $151 million to be paid during the construction period and approximately $97 million to be paid during a 10-year post-construction operation and maintenance period. At the beginning of the project, FITEL made advance payments totaling approximately $87 million to Redes, which were secured by two on-demand advance payment bonds posted by Redes to guarantee proper use of the payments in the execution of the project. Redes also provided two on-demand performance bonds in the aggregate amount of $25 million to secure performance of its obligations under the contracts. During the construction phase, the project experienced numerous challenges and delays, primarily related to issues which Quanta believes were outside of the control of and not attributable to Redes, including, among others, weather-related issues, local opposition to the project, permitting delays, the inability to acquire clear title to certain required parcels of land and other delays which Quanta believes were attributable to FITEL/PRONATEL. In response to various of these challenges and delays, Redes requested and received multiple extensions to certain contractual deadlines and relief from related liquidated damages. However, in April 2019, PRONATEL provided notice to Redes claiming that Redes was in default under the contracts due to the delays and that PRONATEL would terminate the contracts if the alleged defaults were not cured. Redes responded by claiming that it was not in default, as the delays were due to events not attributable to Redes, and therefore PRONATEL was not entitled to terminate the contracts. PRONATEL subsequently terminated the contracts for alleged cause prior to completion of Redes’ scope of work, exercised the on-demand performance bonds and advance payment bonds against Redes, and indicated its intention to claim damages, including liquidated damages under the contracts. As of the date of the contract terminations, Redes had incurred costs of approximately $157 million related to the design and construction of the project and had received approximately $100 million of payments (inclusive of the approximately $87 million advance payments). In May 2019, Redes filed for arbitration before the Court of International Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) against PRONATEL and the MTC. In the arbitration, Redes claimed that PRONATEL: breached and wrongfully terminated the contracts; wrongfully executed the advance payment bonds and the performance bonds; and was not entitled to the alleged amount of liquidated damages, and sought compensation for various damages arising from PRONATEL’s actions in the initially claimed amount of approximately $190 million. In August 2022, Redes received the decision of the arbitration tribunal, which unanimously found in favor of Redes in connection with its claims and ordered, among other things, (i) repayment of the amounts collected by PRONATEL under the advance payment bonds and the performance bonds; (ii) payment of amounts owed for work completed by Redes under the contracts; (iii) payment of lost income in connection with Redes’ future operation and maintenance of the networks; and (iv) payment of other related costs and damages to Redes as a result of the breach and improper termination of the contracts (including costs related to the execution of the bonds, costs related to the transfer of the networks and legal and expert fees). Accordingly, the arbitration tribunal awarded Redes approximately $177 million. In addition, per the terms of the arbitration decision, interest will accrue on the amount owed up to the date of payment. The decision of the arbitration tribunal is final, with limited grounds on which PRONATEL and the MTC may seek to annul the decision in Peruvian courts. In December 2022, Redes filed an enforcement proceeding with respect to each project contract to secure recovery of the arbitration award, and PRONATEL and the MTC filed an annulment proceeding with respect to each project contract. The enforcement and annulment proceedings are all pending within different commercial courts in Lima, Peru. In April 2023, Redes received a favorable ruling in one annulment proceeding rejecting the grounds for annulment, and decisions with respect to the other annulment proceeding and the enforcement proceedings are expected later in 2023. Additionally, in December 2022, following the favorable arbitration ruling, Quanta received $100.5 million pursuant to coverage under an insurance policy for the improper collection by PRONATEL and the MTC of the advance payment and performance bonds, and in January 2023 Quanta received $6.8 million pursuant to coverage under an insurance policy for nonpayment by PRONATEL and the MTC of amounts owed for work completed by Redes. Quanta is continuing to pursue collection of the ICC arbitration award and any amount collected would result in repayment of an equal amount to the insurers up to the amount received from the insurers. As a result, $107.2 million is included in “Insurance and other non-current liabilities” in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2023. Quanta also reserves the right to seek full compensation for the loss of its investment under applicable legal regimes, including investment treaties and customary international law, as well as to seek resolution through direct discussions with PRONATEL or the MTC. In connection with these rights, in May 2020 Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary delivered to the Peruvian government an official notice of dispute arising from the termination of the contracts and related acts by PRONATEL (which are attributable to Peru) under the Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Peru (Investment Treaty). The Investment Treaty protects Quanta’s subsidiary’s indirect ownership stake in Redes and the project, and provides for rights and remedies distinct from the ICC arbitration. In December 2020, Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary filed a request for the institution of an arbitration proceeding against Peru with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) related to Peru’s breach of the Investment Treaty, which was registered by ICSID in January 2021. In the ICSID arbitration, Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary claims, without limitation, that Peru: (i) treated the subsidiary’s investment in Redes and the project unfairly and inequitably; and (ii) effectively expropriated the subsidiary’s investment in Redes and the project. In addition, Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary is seeking full compensation for all damages arising from Peru’s actions, including but not limited to (i) the fair market value of the investment and/or lost profits; (ii) attorneys’ fees and arbitration costs; (iii) other related costs and damages and (iv) pre- and post-award interest. The ICSID arbitration hearing is currently scheduled to occur in June 2023. Quanta believes Redes is entitled to all amounts awarded by the ICC arbitration tribunal, and that its Dutch subsidiary is entitled to other amounts associated with the pending ICSID arbitration proceeding. Quanta and Redes intend to vigorously pursue recovery of the amounts awarded by the ICC arbitration tribunal and take additional legal actions deemed necessary to enforce the ICC arbitration decision. However, due to the inherent uncertainty involved with, among other things, the annulment and enforcement proceedings, the ultimate timing and conclusion with respect to collection of the amount of the ICC arbitration award remains unknown. As a result of the contract terminations and the inherent uncertainty involved in arbitration proceedings and recovery of amounts owed, during the three months ended June 30, 2019, Quanta recorded a charge to earnings of $79.2 million, which included a reduction of previously recognized earnings on the project, a reserve against a portion of the project costs incurred through the project termination date, an accrual for a portion of the alleged liquidated damages, and the estimated costs to complete the project turnover and close out the project. Quanta also initially recorded a contract receivable of approximately $120 million related to the project during the three months ended June 30, 2019, which includes the amounts collected by PRONATEL through exercise of the advance payment bonds and performance bonds, and that receivable was not changed as of March 31, 2023 and is included in “Other assets, net” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet. After considering, as discussed above, that the ultimate timing and conclusion with respect to collection of the ICC arbitration award remains unknown, Quanta has not recognized a gain in the current period. To the extent amounts in excess of the current receivable are determined to be realizable, a gain would be recorded in the period such determination is made. However, if Quanta is ultimately not successful with respect to collection of the ICC arbitration award, through annulment or otherwise, or with respect to its claims in the pending ICSID arbitration proceeding, this matter could result in an additional significant loss that could have a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated results of operations and cash flows. Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al. In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the terms of Quanta’s sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys’ fees. In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment and other motions, and a bench trial on liability and damages was held. Liability and damages have been determined by the trial court, with the amount of liability for TNS, including interest through the date of the trial court’s orders, determined to be approximately $9.5 million. Separately, in 2022, the court issued a final ruling awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $17.3 million. Quanta continues to contest its liability and the damages calculations asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter and believes the court’s decisions on these matters are not supported by controlling law and that attorneys’ fees would only be recoverable by the plaintiff class in the event Quanta’s appeal of the trial court’s rulings on liability and damages is unsuccessful. Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for indemnity and breach of contract against the staffing agencies, which employed many of the individuals in question. In December 2012, the trial court heard cross-motions for summary judgment filed by TNS and the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS’s demand for indemnity. The court denied TNS’s motion and granted the motions filed by the staffing agencies; however, the California Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision in part and instructed the trial court to reconsider its ruling. In February 2017, the court denied a new motion for summary judgment filed by the staffing companies and has since stated that the staffing companies would be liable to TNS for any damages owed to the class members that the staffing companies employed. However, Quanta currently believes that, due to solvency issues, any contribution from the staffing companies may not be substantial. The final amount of liability and attorneys’ fees, if any, payable in connection with this matter remains the subject of pending litigation and will ultimately depend on various factors, including the outcome of the parties’ appeals of the trial court’s rulings on liability, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, and the solvency of the staffing agencies. Based on review and analysis of the trial court’s rulings on liability, Quanta does not believe, at this time, that it is probable this matter will result in a material loss. However, if Quanta is unsuccessful in this litigation and the staffing agencies are unable to fund damages owed to class members, based on rulings issued by the trial court, Quanta believes the range of reasonably possible loss to Quanta upon final resolution of this matter could be up to approximately $26.8 million, plus any additional attorneys’ fees, interest, and expenses awarded to the plaintiff class. Hallen Acquisition Assumed Liability In August 2019, in connection with the acquisition of The Hallen Construction Co., Inc. (Hallen), Quanta assumed certain contingent liabilities associated with a March 2014 natural gas-fed explosion and fire in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York. The incident resulted in, among other things, loss of life, personal injury and the destruction of two buildings and other property damage. After investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the incident was the failure of certain natural gas infrastructure installed by Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Ed) and the failure of certain sewer infrastructure maintained by the City of New York. Pursuant to a contract with Con Ed, Hallen had performed certain work related to such natural gas infrastructure and agreed to indemnify Con Ed for certain claims, liabilities and costs associated with its work. Numerous lawsuits are pending in New York state courts related to the incident, which generally name Con Ed, the City of New York and Hallen as defendants. These lawsuits are at various stages and generally seek unspecified damages and, in some cases, punitive damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and business interruption. Hallen’s liabilities associated with this matter are expected to be covered under applicable insurance policies or contractual remedies negotiated by Quanta with the former owners of Hallen. When a loss becomes probable and estimable, Quanta expects to record an accrual of the estimated liability, offset by a receivable in the same amount related to such insurance coverage and contractual remedies. As of March 31, 2023, Quanta had not recorded an accrual related to this matter, as the ultimate amount of liability in connection with this matter remains subject to uncertainties associated with pending litigation, including, among other things, the likelihood and potential amount of damages that could be asserted or awarded. While Quanta believes the liabilities associated with this matter will not exceed the amount of available insurance coverage and contractual remedies, this matter could result in a loss that is in excess of, or not covered by, such remedies, which could have a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Silverado Wildfire Matter During 2022 and 2023, two of Quanta’s subsidiaries received tenders of defense and demands for preservation of evidence from Southern California Edison Company (SCE) related to lawsuits filed from April 2021 through January 2023 against SCE and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The lawsuits generally assert property damage and related claims on behalf of certain individuals and subrogation claims on behalf of insurers relating to damages caused by a wildfire that began in October 2020 in Orange County, California (the Silverado Fire) and that is purported to have damaged approximately 13,000 acres. The lawsuits allege the Silverado Fire originated from utility poles in the area, generally claiming that each defendant failed to adequately maintain, inspect, repair or replace its overhead facilities, equipment and utility poles and remove vegetation in the vicinity; that the utility poles were overloaded with equipment from shared usage; and that SCE failed to de-energize its facilities during red flag warnings for a Santa Ana wind event. The lawsuits allege the Silverado Fire started when SCE and T-Mobile equipment contacted each other and note the Orange County Fire Department is investigating whether a T-Mobile lashing wire contacted an SCE overhead primary conductor in high winds. T-Mobile has filed cross-complaints against SCE alleging, among other things, that the ignition site of the Silverado Fire encompassed two utility poles replaced by SCE or a third party engaged by SCE, and that certain equipment, including T-Mobile’s lashing wire, was not sufficiently re-secured after the utility pole replacements. One of Quanta’s subsidiaries performed planning and other services related to the two utility poles, and another Quanta subsidiary replaced the utility poles and reattached the electrical and telecommunication equipment to the new utility poles in March 2019, approximately 19 months before the Silverado Fire. Pursuant to the general terms of a master services agreement and a master consulting services agreement between the Quanta subsidiaries and SCE, the subsidiaries agreed to defend and indemnify SCE against certain claims arising with respect to performance or nonperformance under the agreements. The SCE tender letters seek contractual indemnification and defense from Quanta’s subsidiaries for the claims asserted against SCE in the lawsuits and the T-Mobile cross-complaints. Quanta’s subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuits, the T-Mobile cross-complaints and any other claims asserted in connection with the Silverado Fire. Quanta will continue to review additional information in connection with this matter as litigation and resolution efforts progress, and any such information may potentially allow Quanta to determine an estimate of potential loss, if any. As of March 31, 2023, Quanta had not recorded an accrual with respect to this matter, and Quanta is currently unable to reasonably estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if any, because there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability. Quanta also believes that to the extent its subsidiaries are determined to be liable for any damages resulting from this matter, its insurance would be applied to any such liabilities over its deductible amount and its insurance coverage would be adequate to cover such potential liabilities. However, the ultimate amount of any potential liability and insurance coverage in connection with this matter remains subject to uncertainties associated with pending and potential future litigation. Insurance Quanta is insured for, among other things, employer’s liability, workers’ compensation, auto liability, aviation and general liability claims. Quanta manages and maintains a portion of its casualty risk indirectly through its wholly-owned captive insurance company, which insures all claims up to the amount of the applicable deductible of its third-party insurance programs, as well as with respect to certain other amounts. As of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the gross amount accrued for employer’s liability, workers’ compensation, auto liability, general liability, and group health claims totaled $322.2 million and $319.6 million, of which $210.0 million and $209.8 million are included in “Insurance and other non-current liabilities,” and the remainder is included in “Accounts payables and accrued expenses.” Related insurance recoveries/receivables as of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022 were $5.4 million and $5.8 million, of which $0.3 million and $0.3 million are included in “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” and $5.1 million and $5.5 million are included in “Other assets, net.” Bonds and Parent Guarantees As of March 31, 2023, the total amount of the outstanding performance bonds was estimated to be approximately $5.7 billion. Quanta’s estimated maximum exposure related to the value of the performance bonds outstanding is lowered on each bonded project as the cost to complete is reduced, and each commitment under a performance bond generally extinguishes concurrently with the expiration of its related contractual obligation. The estimated cost to complete these bonded projects was approximately $2.1 billion as of March 31, 2023. Capital Commitments and Other Committed Expenditures As of March 31, 2023, Quanta had $178.1 million of production orders with expected delivery dates during the remainder of 2023 for capital commitments primarily related to the expansion of its equipment fleet. The majority of this amount relates to the expansion of Quanta’s equipment fleet in order to accommodate manufacturer lead times on certain types of vehicles. Although Quanta has committed to purchase these vehicles at the time of their delivery, Quanta anticipates that the majority of these orders will be assigned to third party leasing companies and made available under certain master equipment lease agreements, thereby releasing Quanta from its capital commitments.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration