Contractual Guarantees, Litigation, Investigations, And Insurance	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Contractual Guarantees Litigation Investigations And Insurance [Abstract]
Contractual Guarantees, Litigation, Investigations, and Insurance	12. Contractual Guarantees, Litigation, Investigations, and Insurance In the normal course of business, we are subject to certain contractual guarantees and litigation. The guarantees to which we are a party generally relate to project schedules and plant performance. Most of the litigation in which we are involved has us as a defendant in workers’ compensation, personal injury, environmental, employment/labor, professional liability, and other similar lawsuits. We maintain insurance coverage for various aspects of our business and operations. Our insurance programs have varying coverage limits and maximums, and insurance companies may seek to not pay any claims we might make. We have also elected to retain a portion of losses that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. As a result, we may be subject to future liability for which we are only partially insured or completely uninsured. We intend to mitigate any such future liability by continuing to exercise prudent business judgment in negotiating the terms and conditions of our contracts. Our insurers are also subject to business risk and, as a result, one or more of them may be unable to fulfill their insurance obligations due to insolvency or otherwise. Additionally, as a contractor providing services to the U.S. federal government and several of its agencies, we are subject to many levels of audits, investigations, and claims by, or on behalf of, the U.S. federal government with respect to our contract performance, pricing, costs, cost allocations, and procurement practices. Furthermore, our income, franchise, and similar tax returns and filings are also subject to audit and investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, most states within the U.S., as well as by various government agencies representing jurisdictions outside the U.S. We record in our Consolidated Balance Sheets amounts representing our estimated liability relating to such claims, guarantees, litigation, and audits and investigations. We perform an analysis to determine the level of reserves to establish for insurance-related claims that are known and have been asserted against us, and for insurance-related claims that are believed to have been incurred based on actuarial analysis, but have not yet been reported to our claims administrators as of the respective balance sheet dates. We include any adjustments to such insurance reserves in our consolidated results of operations. The Company believes, after consultation with counsel, that such guarantees, litigation, U.S. government contract-related audits, investigations and claims, and income tax audits and investigations should not have any material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. On August 9, 2014, the Company received a Notice of Arbitration from Motiva Enterprises LLC (“Motiva”) alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to an expansion project at the Motiva, Port Arthur, Texas refinery. The arbitration relates to the professional services provided by Bechtel-Jacobs CEP Port Arthur Joint Venture (“BJJV”), a joint venture between Bechtel Corporation and Jacobs, in connection with that project. On March 1, 2016, Motiva submitted an amended Notice of Arbitration, asserting the same causes of actions in its original notice (fraud and breach of fiduciary duty) and alleged entitlement to monetary relief in excess of $8 billion of alleged actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and interest. The non-appealable arbitration is pending in Houston, Texas before a panel utilizing the rules of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution and an evidentiary hearing was conducted, which concluded on October 21, 2016. Post-hearing briefing was requested by the arbitration panel and is expected to be submitted by late November 2016. A decision is expected thereafter. If BJJV is found liable, this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows, particularly in the short term. However, BJJV has denied liability and is vigorously defending these claims, and based on the information currently available, the Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. On September 30, 2015, Nui Phao Mining Company Limited (“NPMC”) commenced arbitration proceedings against Jacobs E&C Australia Pty Limited (“Jacobs E&C”). The arbitration is pending in Singapore before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. In March 2011, Jacobs E&C was engaged by NPMC for the provision of management, design, engineering, and procurement services for the Nui Phao mine/mineral processing project in Vietnam. In the Notice of Arbitration and in a subsequently filed Statement of Claim and Supplementary Statement of Claim dated February 1, 2016 and February 26, 2016, respectively, NPMC asserts various causes of action and alleges that the quantum of its claim exceeds $167 million. Jacobs has denied liability and is vigorously defending this claim. A hearing on the merits has been set for November 2017. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. On December 7, 2009, the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) initiated an action in the San Francisco County Superior Court against Jacobs Facilities Inc. (“JFI”) and Jacobs Project Management (“JPM”). On May 12, 2011, AOC filed an operative Second Amended Complaint, which added Jacobs as a defendant. The action arises out of a contract between AOC and JFI pursuant to which JFI provided regular maintenance and repairs at certain AOC court facilities. AOC alleged three causes of action: (i) breach of contract based on the expiration of JFI’s contractor’s license before JFI executed an assignment and assumption agreement to formally transfer the contract to JPM, a licensed entity; (ii) disgorgement of all fees AOC paid before the assignment and assumption agreement pursuant to California’s Contractors’ State License Law (“CSLL”); and (iii) breach of Jacobs’ parent guarantee agreement. JPM cross-claimed for unpaid sums for contract services that the licensed JPM had performed between August 2009 and November 2009. A jury trial was held on the parties’ CSLL claims in April 2012 and, on May 2, 2012, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the Jacobs entities finding, among other things, that JPM was owed approximately $4.7 million in unpaid fees and that JFI was not required to disgorge the approximate $18.3 million that AOC had paid for its work under the contract. AOC subsequently dismissed its cause of action for breach of contract, and JPM dismissed its cross-claims other than those for its unpaid invoices. AOC’s third cause of action for breach of the parent guaranty was resolved by a stipulation, which provided that if AOC obtains a judgment against JFI, the judgment will also be against its parent, Jacobs. The trial court entered judgment in the Jacobs entities’ favor. On August 20, 2015, the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury’s verdict, holding that JFI had violated the CSLL. The Court of Appeal remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Jacobs’ entities had “substantially complied” with the CSLL under California Business and Professions Code Section 7031(e). Establishing “substantial compliance” would prevent $18.3 million in disgorgement against Jacobs and permit Jacobs to recover $4.7 million in unpaid contract amounts. The evidentiary hearing on substantial compliance was conducted between July 18 and August 5, 2016. On August 30, 2016, the California State Legislature amended the applicable substantial compliance provision of the CSLL. On September 9, 2016, Jacobs filed a motion to apply the newly amended substantial compliance provision to the AOC contract. AOC filed a response and agreed that the new statute “will apply” to the case “as of January 1, 2017,” the new law’s effective date. The Court ordered the parties to submit proposed tentative statements of decision applying the newly amended and prior versions of substantial compliance in the alternative. The parties submitted proposed tentative statements of decision on October 21, 2016. A hearing regarding the parties’ proposed tentative statements of decision is scheduled for mid-December 2016. In advance of that hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling in favor of the Company but there is no assurance that the tentative decision will be the final ruling of the Court after it hears argument by the parties. The Jacobs entities have contested, and will continue to vigorously contest, the AOC’s claims and will vigorously litigate JPM’s claim for unpaid sums. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

12. Contractual Guarantees, Litigation, Investigations, and Insurance

In the normal course of business, we are subject to certain contractual guarantees and litigation. The guarantees to which we are a party generally relate to project schedules and plant performance. Most of the litigation in which we are involved has us as a defendant in workers’ compensation, personal injury, environmental, employment/labor, professional liability, and other similar lawsuits.

We maintain insurance coverage for various aspects of our business and operations. Our insurance programs have varying coverage limits and maximums, and insurance companies may seek to not pay any claims we might make. We have also elected to retain a portion of losses that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. As a result, we may be subject to future liability for which we are only partially insured or completely uninsured. We intend to mitigate any such future liability by continuing to exercise prudent business judgment in negotiating the terms and conditions of our contracts. Our insurers are also subject to business risk and, as a result, one or more of them may be unable to fulfill their insurance obligations due to insolvency or otherwise.

Additionally, as a contractor providing services to the U.S. federal government and several of its agencies, we are subject to many levels of audits, investigations, and claims by, or on behalf of, the U.S. federal government with respect to our contract performance, pricing, costs, cost allocations, and procurement practices. Furthermore, our income, franchise, and similar tax returns and filings are also subject to audit and investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, most states within the U.S., as well as by various government agencies representing jurisdictions outside the U.S.

We record in our Consolidated Balance Sheets amounts representing our estimated liability relating to such claims, guarantees, litigation, and audits and investigations. We perform an analysis to determine the level of reserves to establish for insurance-related claims that are known and have been asserted against us, and for insurance-related claims that are believed to have been incurred based on actuarial analysis, but have not yet been reported to our claims administrators as of the respective balance sheet dates. We include any adjustments to such insurance reserves in our consolidated results of operations.

The Company believes, after consultation with counsel, that such guarantees, litigation, U.S. government contract-related audits, investigations and claims, and income tax audits and investigations should not have any material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

On August 9, 2014, the Company received a Notice of Arbitration from Motiva Enterprises LLC (“Motiva”) alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to an expansion project at the Motiva, Port Arthur, Texas refinery. The arbitration relates to the professional services provided by Bechtel-Jacobs CEP Port Arthur Joint Venture (“BJJV”), a joint venture between Bechtel Corporation and Jacobs, in connection with that project. On March 1, 2016, Motiva submitted an amended Notice of Arbitration, asserting the same causes of actions in its original notice (fraud and breach of fiduciary duty) and alleged entitlement to monetary relief in excess of $8 billion of alleged actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and interest. The non-appealable arbitration is pending in Houston, Texas before a panel utilizing the rules of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution and an evidentiary hearing was conducted, which concluded on October 21, 2016. Post-hearing briefing was requested by the arbitration panel and is expected to be submitted by late November 2016. A decision is expected thereafter. If BJJV is found liable, this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows, particularly in the short term. However, BJJV has denied liability and is vigorously defending these claims, and based on the information currently available, the Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

On September 30, 2015, Nui Phao Mining Company Limited (“NPMC”) commenced arbitration proceedings against Jacobs E&C Australia Pty Limited (“Jacobs E&C”). The arbitration is pending in Singapore before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. In March 2011, Jacobs E&C was engaged by NPMC for the provision of management, design, engineering, and procurement services for the Nui Phao mine/mineral processing project in Vietnam. In the Notice of Arbitration and in a subsequently filed Statement of Claim and Supplementary Statement of Claim dated February 1, 2016 and February 26, 2016, respectively, NPMC asserts various causes of action and alleges that the quantum of its claim exceeds $167 million. Jacobs has denied liability and is vigorously defending this claim. A hearing on the merits has been set for November 2017. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

On December 7, 2009, the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) initiated an action in the San Francisco County Superior Court against Jacobs Facilities Inc. (“JFI”) and Jacobs Project Management (“JPM”). On May 12, 2011, AOC filed an operative Second Amended Complaint, which added Jacobs as a defendant. The action arises out of a contract between AOC and JFI pursuant to which JFI provided regular maintenance and repairs at certain AOC court facilities.

AOC alleged three causes of action: (i) breach of contract based on the expiration of JFI’s contractor’s license before JFI executed an assignment and assumption agreement to formally transfer the contract to JPM, a licensed entity; (ii) disgorgement of all fees AOC paid before the assignment and assumption agreement pursuant to California’s Contractors’ State License Law (“CSLL”); and (iii) breach of Jacobs’ parent guarantee agreement. JPM cross-claimed for unpaid sums for contract services that the licensed JPM had performed between August 2009 and November 2009. A jury trial was held on the parties’ CSLL claims in April 2012 and, on May 2, 2012, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the Jacobs entities finding, among other things, that JPM was owed approximately $4.7 million in unpaid fees and that JFI was not required to disgorge the approximate $18.3 million that AOC had paid for its work under the contract.

AOC subsequently dismissed its cause of action for breach of contract, and JPM dismissed its cross-claims other than those for its unpaid invoices. AOC’s third cause of action for breach of the parent guaranty was resolved by a stipulation, which provided that if AOC obtains a judgment against JFI, the judgment will also be against its parent, Jacobs. The trial court entered judgment in the Jacobs entities’ favor.

On August 20, 2015, the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury’s verdict, holding that JFI had violated the CSLL. The Court of Appeal remanded to the San Francisco County Superior Court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the Jacobs’ entities had “substantially complied” with the CSLL under California Business and Professions Code Section 7031(e). Establishing “substantial compliance” would prevent $18.3 million in disgorgement against Jacobs and permit Jacobs to recover $4.7 million in unpaid contract amounts. The evidentiary hearing on substantial compliance was conducted between July 18 and August 5, 2016. On August 30, 2016, the California State Legislature amended the applicable substantial compliance provision of the CSLL. On September 9, 2016, Jacobs filed a motion to apply the newly amended substantial compliance provision to the AOC contract. AOC filed a response and agreed that the new statute “will apply” to the case “as of January 1, 2017,” the new law’s effective date. The Court ordered the parties to submit proposed tentative statements of decision applying the newly amended and prior versions of substantial compliance in the alternative. The parties submitted proposed tentative statements of decision on October 21, 2016. A hearing regarding the parties’ proposed tentative statements of decision is scheduled for mid-December 2016. In advance of that hearing, the Court issued a tentative ruling in favor of the Company but there is no assurance that the tentative decision will be the final ruling of the Court after it hears argument by the parties.

The Jacobs entities have contested, and will continue to vigorously contest, the AOC’s claims and will vigorously litigate JPM’s claim for unpaid sums. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.