XML 42 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.3.1.900

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments We lease land, buildings and equipment under various leases. The leases frequently include renewal options and escalation clauses and require us to pay for utilities, taxes, insurance and maintenance expenses. Future minimum payments, by year and in the aggregate, under capital leases, non-cancelable operating leases and related subleases with initial or remaining terms of one or more years at December 31, 2015, were as follows (in thousands):
| Capital Leases |  | Operating Leases |  | Sublease Income
2016 | $ | 1,459 |  |  | $ | 58,918 |  |  | $ | 558 |
2017 | 837 |  |  | 47,670 |  |  | 257 |
2018 | 650 |  |  | 36,637 |  |  | 126 |
2019 | 1,093 |  |  | 28,199 |  |  | 63 |
2020 | 77 |  |  | 21,854 |  |  | — |
Thereafter | — |  |  | 46,283 |  |  | — |
Total minimum lease payments | 4,116 |  |  | $ | 239,561 |  |  | $ | 1,004 |
Amounts representing interest | (247 | ) |  |  |  |
Present value of net minimum lease payments | $ | 3,869 |  |  |  |  |
Rent expense for operating leases and other rental items, including short-term equipment rentals charged to cost of sales for our construction contracts, for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was $122.0 million, $118.4 million and $118.6 million, respectively. Rent expense for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was reported net of sublease rental income of $1.2 million, $1.3 million and $1.2 million, respectively. Contractual Guarantees We have agreements with our executive officers and certain other key management personnel providing for severance benefits for such employees upon termination of their employment under certain circumstances. From time to time in the ordinary course of business, we guarantee obligations of our subsidiaries under certain contracts. Generally, we are liable under such an arrangement only if our subsidiary fails to perform its obligations under the contract. Historically, we have not incurred any substantial liabilities as a consequence of these guarantees. The terms of our construction contracts frequently require that we obtain from surety companies (“Surety Companies”) and provide to our customers payment and performance bonds (“Surety Bonds”) as a condition to the award of such contracts. The Surety Bonds secure our payment and performance obligations under such contracts, and we have agreed to indemnify the Surety Companies for amounts, if any, paid by them in respect of Surety Bonds issued on our behalf. In addition, at the request of labor unions representing certain of our employees, Surety Bonds are sometimes provided to secure obligations for wages and benefits payable to or for such employees. Public sector contracts require Surety Bonds more frequently than private sector contracts, and accordingly, our bonding requirements typically increase as the amount of public sector work increases. As of December 31, 2015, based on our percentage-of-completion of our projects covered by Surety Bonds, our aggregate estimated exposure, had there been defaults on all our then existing contractual obligations, was approximately $1.2 billion. The Surety Bonds are issued by Surety Companies in return for premiums, which vary depending on the size and type of bond. We are subject to regulation with respect to the handling of certain materials used in construction, which are classified as hazardous or toxic by federal, state and local agencies. Our practice is to avoid participation in projects principally involving the remediation or removal of such materials. However, when remediation is required as part of our contract performance, we believe we comply with all applicable regulations governing the discharge of material into the environment or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment. At December 31, 2015, we employed approximately 29,000 people, approximately 56% of whom are represented by various unions pursuant to more than 375 collective bargaining agreements between our individual subsidiaries and local unions. We believe that our employee relations are generally good. Only two of these collective bargaining agreements are national or regional in scope. Restructuring expenses were $0.8 million, $1.2 million and $0.6 million for 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. The 2015 restructuring expenses included $0.9 million of employee severance obligations and a reversal of $0.1 million relating to the termination of leased facilities. The 2014 restructuring expenses included $0.6 million of employee severance obligations and $0.6 million relating to the termination of leased facilities. The 2013 restructuring expenses included $0.5 million of employee severance obligations and $0.1 million relating to the termination of leased facilities. As of December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the balance of our restructuring related obligations yet to be paid was $0.1 million, $0.3 million and $0.2 million, respectively. The majority of obligations outstanding as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 were paid during 2015 and 2014, respectively. The obligations outstanding as of December 31, 2015 will be paid during the first half of 2016. The changes in restructuring activity by reportable segments during the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 were as follows (in thousands):
| United States electrical construction and facilities services segment |  | United States mechanical construction and facilities services segment |  | United States building services segment |  | Corporate Administration |  | Total
Balance at December 31, 2013 | $ | 30 |  |  | $ | 164 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 194 |
Charges | 638 |  |  | 230 |  |  | — |  |  | 300 |  |  | 1,168 |
Payments | (413 | ) |  | (368 | ) |  | — |  |  | (300 | ) |  | (1,081 | )
Balance at December 31, 2014 | 255 |  |  | 26 |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | 281 |
Charges | (106 | ) |  | 6 |  |  | 924 |  |  | — |  |  | 824 |
Payments | (149 | ) |  | (32 | ) |  | (843 | ) |  | — |  |  | (1,024 | )
Balance at December 31, 2015 | $ | — |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 81 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 81 |
A summary of restructuring expenses by reportable segments recognized for the year ended December 31, 2015 was as follows (in thousands):
| United States electrical construction and facilities services segment |  | United States mechanical construction and facilities services segment |  | United States building services segment |  | Corporate Administration |  | Total
Severance | $ | — |  |  | $ | 6 |  |  | $ | 924 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 930 |
Leased facilities | (106 | ) |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | — |  |  | (106 | )
Total charges | $ | (106 | ) |  | $ | 6 |  |  | $ | 924 |  |  | $ | — |  |  | $ | 824 |
Government Contracts As a government contractor, we are subject to U.S. government audits and investigations relating to our operations, fines, penalties and compensatory and treble damages, and possible suspension or debarment from doing business with the government. Based on currently available information, we believe the outcome of ongoing government disputes and investigations will not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Legal Matters One of our subsidiaries was a subcontractor to a mechanical contractor (“Mechanical Contractor”) on a construction project where an explosion occurred. An investigation of the matter could not determine who was responsible for the explosion. As a result of the explosion, lawsuits have been commenced against various parties, but, to date, no lawsuits have been commenced against our subsidiary with respect to personal injury or damage to property as a consequence of the explosion. However, the Mechanical Contractor has asserted claims, in the context of an arbitration proceeding against our subsidiary, alleging that our subsidiary is responsible for a portion of the damages for which the Mechanical Contractor may be liable as a result of: (a) personal injury suffered by individuals as a result of the explosion and (b) the Mechanical Contractor’s legal fees and associated management costs in defending against any and all such claims. In the most recent filing with the Arbitrator, the Mechanical Contractor has stated claims against our subsidiary for alleged violations of the Connecticut and Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts in the ongoing arbitration proceeding. Further, the general contractor (as assignee of the Mechanical Contractor) on the construction project, and for whom the Mechanical Contractor worked, has alleged that our subsidiary is responsible for losses asserted by the owner of the project and/or the general contractor because of delays in completion of the project and for damages to the owner’s property. We believe, and have been advised by counsel, that we have a number of meritorious defenses to all such matters. We believe that the ultimate outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Notwithstanding our assessment of the final impact of this matter, we are not able to estimate with any certainty the amount of loss, if any, which would be associated with an adverse resolution. One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. (“USM”), doing business in California provides, among other things, janitorial services to its customers by having those services performed by independent janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns retail stores (the “Customer”), were co-defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by six employees of USM’s California janitorial subcontractors. The action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The employees alleged in their complaint, among other things, that USM and the Customer, during a period that began before our acquisition of USM, violated a California statute that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial subcontractor when it knew or should have known that the contract did not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial subcontractor to comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees asserted that the amounts USM paid to its janitorial subcontractors were insufficient to allow those janitorial subcontractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees sought to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial services at the Customer’s stores in California during the relevant four-year time period. We do not believe USM or the Customer violated the California statute or that the employees could have brought the action as a class action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial services to the Customer. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that USM had violated the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and interest thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. USM and its Customer have settled claims asserted in the class action pursuant to the terms of a consent decree approved by the federal judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on February 16, 2016, which followed a determination by the Court of the consent decree’s fairness, adequacy and reasonableness. Under the terms of the consent decree, USM will (a) pay an aggregate of $1.0 million (i) for monetary relief to the members of the class, (ii) for awards to the class representative plaintiffs, (iii) for California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act payments to the State of California for an immaterial amount, and (iv) for all costs of notice and administration of the claims process, (b) pay to counsel for the class an aggregate of $1.3 million, of which $0.2 million has been allocated for their reimbursable costs and litigation expenses and $1.1 million has been allocated for attorneys’ fees, and (c) monitor USM’s California subcontractors providing janitorial services to its Customer in accordance with agreed upon procedures designed principally to ensure janitorial employees of those subcontractors are paid no less than minimum wage. The settlement amount was accrued for as of December 31, 2014. During 2015, a payment of $1.0 million was made to a third party claims administrator who was holding the funds pending approval by the Court of the consent decree, and the balance of $1.3 million was paid in February 2016 after final approval by the Court. We are involved in several other proceedings in which damages and claims have been asserted against us. Other potential claims may exist that have not yet been asserted against us. We believe that we have a number of valid defenses to such proceedings and claims and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. We do not believe that any such matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of litigation is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that some litigation matters for which reserves have not been established could be decided unfavorably to us, and that any such unfavorable decisions could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=51674963&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration