Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In the normal course of business, we make contractual commitments some of which are supported by separate guarantees; and on occasion we are a party in a litigation or arbitration proceeding. The litigation in which we are involved includes personal injury claims, professional liability claims, and breach of contract claims. In most cases, we are the defendant. Where we provide a separate guarantee it is strictly in support of the underlying contractual commitment. Guarantees take various forms including surety bonds required by law, or standby letters of credit (LOC) (also referred to as “bank guarantees”) or corporate guarantees given to induce a party to enter into a contract with a subsidiary. Standby LOCs are also used as security for advance payments or in various other transactions. The guarantees have various expiration dates ranging from an arbitrary date to completion of our work (e.g., engineering only) to completion of the overall project. At March 30, 2018 and September 30, 2017, the Company had issued and outstanding approximately $449.2 million and $262.1 million, respectively, in LOCs and $922.2 million and $57.4 million, respectively, in surety bonds. We maintain insurance coverage for most insurable aspects of our business and operations. Our insurance programs have varying coverage limits depending upon the type of insurance, and include certain conditions and exclusions which insurance companies may raise in response to any claim that the Company brings. We have also elected to retain a portion of losses and liabilities that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. As a result, we may be subject to a 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 the contracts which the Company enters with its clients. 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 we are subject to many types of audits, investigations, and claims by, or on behalf of, the government including with respect to contract performance, pricing, cost allocations, procurement practices, labor practices, and socioeconomic obligations. 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 probable estimated liability relating to such claims, guarantees, litigation, 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 a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. 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 $167.0 million. Jacobs has denied liability and is vigorously defending this claim. A three week hearing on the merits concluded on December 15, 2017 and a decision is expected later this year. 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”) and subsequently 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 has alleged, among other things, that the Jacobs entities are required under California’s Contractors’ State License Law (“CSLL”) to disgorge certain fees paid by AOC, and the Jacobs entities have, among other things, cross-claimed for unpaid sums for work performed. On May 2, 2012, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the Jacobs entities finding, among other things, 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 work performed. 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 JFI 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. The evidentiary hearing on substantial compliance was conducted between July 18 and August 5, 2016. On December 29, 2016, the court issued a Statement of Decision in favor of the Company, finding that JFI had substantially complied with the CSLL, and entered a judgment in favor of JPM in the amount of $4.7 million plus prejudgment interest. On January 30, 2017, AOC filed a notice of appeal. 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. In 2012, CH2M HILL Australia Pty Limited, a subsidiary of CH2M, entered into a 50/50 integrated joint venture with Australian construction contractor UGL Infrastructure Pty Limited. The joint venture entered into a Consortium Agreement with General Electric and GE Electrical International Inc. The Consortium was awarded a subcontract by JKC Australia LNG Pty Limited for the engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of a 360 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant for INPEX Operations Australia Pty Limited at Blaydin Point, Darwin, NT, Australia. In January 2017, the Consortium terminated the Subcontract because of JKC’s repudiatory breach and demobilized from the work site. JKC claimed the Consortium abandoned the work and itself purported to terminate the Subcontract. The Consortium and JKC are now in dispute over the termination. In August 2017, the Consortium filed an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration against JKC for compensatory damages in the amount of $665.5 million for repudiatory breach or, in the alternative, seeking damages for unresolved contract claims and change orders. JKC has provided a preliminary estimate of the monetary value of its claims in the amount of approximately $1.7 billion and has drawn on bonds, CH2M's share of which totals about $26 million. This draw on bonds does not impact the Company's ultimate liability. A decision in this matter is not expected before 2020. If the Consortium 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, the Consortium 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, or cash flows.

Commitments and Contingencies

In the normal course of business, we make contractual commitments some of which are supported by separate guarantees; and on occasion we are a party in a litigation or arbitration proceeding. The litigation in which we are involved includes personal injury claims, professional liability claims, and breach of contract claims. In most cases, we are the defendant. Where we provide a separate guarantee it is strictly in support of the underlying contractual commitment. Guarantees take various forms including surety bonds required by law, or standby letters of credit (LOC) (also referred to as “bank guarantees”) or corporate guarantees given to induce a party to enter into a contract with a subsidiary. Standby LOCs are also used as security for advance payments or in various other transactions. The guarantees have various expiration dates ranging from an arbitrary date to completion of our work (e.g., engineering only) to completion of the overall project.

At March 30, 2018 and September 30, 2017, the Company had issued and outstanding approximately $449.2 million and $262.1 million, respectively, in LOCs and $922.2 million and $57.4 million, respectively, in surety bonds.

We maintain insurance coverage for most insurable aspects of our business and operations. Our insurance programs have varying coverage limits depending upon the type of insurance, and include certain conditions and exclusions which insurance companies may raise in response to any claim that the Company brings. We have also elected to retain a portion of losses and liabilities that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. As a result, we may be subject to a 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 the contracts which the Company enters with its clients. 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 we are subject to many types of audits, investigations, and claims by, or on behalf of, the government including with respect to contract performance, pricing, cost allocations, procurement practices, labor practices, and socioeconomic obligations. 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 probable estimated liability relating to such claims, guarantees, litigation, 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 a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

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 $167.0 million. Jacobs has denied liability and is vigorously defending this claim. A three week hearing on the merits concluded on December 15, 2017 and a decision is expected later this year. 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”) and subsequently 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 has alleged, among other things, that the Jacobs entities are required under California’s Contractors’ State License Law (“CSLL”) to disgorge certain fees paid by AOC, and the Jacobs entities have, among other things, cross-claimed for unpaid sums for work performed. On May 2, 2012, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the Jacobs entities finding, among other things, 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 work performed. 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 JFI 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. The evidentiary hearing on substantial compliance was conducted between July 18 and August 5, 2016. On December 29, 2016, the court issued a Statement of Decision in favor of the Company, finding that JFI had substantially complied with the CSLL, and entered a judgment in favor of JPM in the amount of $4.7 million plus prejudgment interest. On January 30, 2017, AOC filed a notice of appeal. 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.

In 2012, CH2M HILL Australia Pty Limited, a subsidiary of CH2M, entered into a 50/50 integrated joint venture with Australian construction contractor UGL Infrastructure Pty Limited. The joint venture entered into a Consortium Agreement with General Electric and GE Electrical International Inc. The Consortium was awarded a subcontract by JKC Australia LNG Pty Limited for the engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of a 360 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant for INPEX Operations Australia Pty Limited at Blaydin Point, Darwin, NT, Australia. In January 2017, the Consortium terminated the Subcontract because of JKC’s repudiatory breach and demobilized from the work site. JKC claimed the Consortium abandoned the work and itself purported to terminate the Subcontract. The Consortium and JKC are now in dispute over the termination. In August 2017, the Consortium filed an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration against JKC for compensatory damages in the amount of $665.5 million for repudiatory breach or, in the alternative, seeking damages for unresolved contract claims and change orders. JKC has provided a preliminary estimate of the monetary value of its claims in the amount of approximately $1.7 billion and has drawn on bonds, CH2M's share of which totals about $26 million. This draw on bonds does not impact the Company's ultimate liability. A decision in this matter is not expected before 2020. If the Consortium 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, the Consortium 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, or cash flows.