18. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company records amounts representing its probable estimated liabilities relating to claims, guarantees, litigation, audits and investigations. The Company relies in part on qualified actuaries to assist it in determining the level of reserves to establish for insurance-related claims that are known and have been asserted against it, and for insurance-related claims that are believed to have been incurred based on actuarial analysis, but have not yet been reported to the Company's claims administrators as of the respective balance sheet dates. The Company includes any adjustments to such insurance reserves in its consolidated results of operations. The Company's reasonably possible loss disclosures are presented on a gross basis prior to the consideration of insurance recoveries. The Company does not record gain contingencies until they are realized. In the ordinary course of business, the Company may not be aware that it or its affiliates are under investigation and may not be aware of whether or not a known investigation has been concluded.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company may enter into various arrangements providing financial or performance assurance to clients, lenders, or partners. Such arrangements include standby letters of credit, surety bonds, and corporate guarantees to support the creditworthiness or the project execution commitments of its affiliates, partnerships and joint ventures. Performance arrangements typically have various expiration dates ranging from the completion of the project contract and extending beyond contract completion in certain circumstances such as for warranties. The Company may also guarantee that a project, when complete, will achieve specified performance standards. If the project subsequently fails to meet guaranteed performance standards, the Company may incur additional costs, pay liquidated damages or be held responsible for the costs incurred by the client to achieve the required performance standards. The potential payment amount of an outstanding performance arrangement is typically the remaining cost of work to be performed by or on behalf of third parties. Generally, under joint venture arrangements, if a partner is financially unable to complete its share of the contract, the other partner(s) may be required to complete those activities.

At September 30, 2016, the Company was contingently liable in the amount of approximately $474.5 million in issued standby letters of credit and $3.3 billion in issued surety bonds primarily to support project execution.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into various agreements providing financial or performance assurances to clients on behalf of certain unconsolidated partnerships, joint ventures and other jointly executed contracts. These agreements are entered into primarily to support the project execution commitments of these entities.

In addition, in connection with the investment activities of AECOM Capital, the Company provides guarantees of certain obligations, including guarantees for completion of projects, repayment of debt, environmental indemnity obligations and acts of willful misconduct.

DOE Deactivation, Demolition, and Removal Project

Washington Group International, an Ohio company (WGI Ohio), an affiliate of URS, executed a cost-reimbursable task order with the Department of Energy (DOE) in 2007 to provide deactivation, demolition and removal services at a New York State project site that, during 2010, experienced contamination and performance issues and remains uncompleted. In February 2011, WGI Ohio and the DOE executed a Task Order Modification that changed some cost-reimbursable contract provisions to at-risk. The Task Order Modification, including subsequent amendments, requires the DOE to pay all project costs up to $106 million, requires WGI Ohio and the DOE to equally share in all project costs incurred from $106 million to $146 million, and requires WGI Ohio to pay all project costs exceeding $146 million.

Due to unanticipated requirements and permitting delays by federal and state agencies, as well as delays and related ground stabilization activities caused by Hurricane Irene in 2011, WGI Ohio has been required to perform work outside the scope of the Task Order Modification. In December 2014, WGI Ohio submitted claims against the DOE pursuant to the Contracts Disputes Acts seeking recovery of $103 million, including additional fees on changed work scope.

Due to significant delays and uncertainties about responsibilities for the scope of remaining work, final project completion costs and other associated costs may exceed $100 million over the contracted amounts. In addition, WGI Ohio assets and liabilities, including the value of the above costs and claims, were also measured at their fair value on October 17, 2014, the date AECOM acquired WGI Ohio's parent company, see Note 3, which is reevaluated to account for developments pertaining to this matter.

WGI Ohio can provide no certainty that it will recover the DOE claims and fees submitted in December 2014, as well as any other project costs after December 2014 that WGI Ohio may be obligated to incur including the remaining project completion costs, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations.

AECOM Australia

In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a client consortium as part of the client's project to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the client formed certain special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that raised approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank loans. The SPVs went into insolvency administrations in February 2011.

KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs (the RCM Applicants), caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM Australia by the RCM Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012. Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012. Separately, a class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.

All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia's role in connection with the above described traffic forecast. On July 10, 2015, AECOM Australia, the RCM Applicants and Portigon AG entered into a Deed of Release settling the respective lawsuits for $205 million (U.S. dollars).

On May 31, 2016, AECOM Australia and other parties to the class action lawsuit entered into a conditional settlement aggregating to $91 million (U.S. Dollars) with the class action applicants on a "no admissions" basis. The Federal Court of Australia conducted a hearing on August 10, 2016 and approved the settlement amount and all claims between the parties have been released. The class action settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial results.

DOE Hanford Nuclear Reservation

URS Energy and Construction, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC and Washington Closure Hanford LLC (collectively the URS Affiliates) perform services under multiple contracts (including under the Waste Treatment Plant contract, the Tank Farm contract and the River Corridor contract) at the DOE's Hanford nuclear reservation that have been subject to various government investigations or litigation matters:


	•	Waste Treatment Plant government investigation: The federal government is conducting an investigation into the Company's affiliate, URS Energy & Construction, a subcontractor on the Waste Treatment Plant, regarding contractual compliance and various technical issues in the design, development and construction of the Waste Treatment Plant. The federal government and URS Energy & Construction have engaged in settlement discussions towards a resolution of this matter.
	•	Tank Farms government investigation: The federal government is conducting an investigation regarding the time keeping of employees at the Company's joint venture, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC, when the joint venture took over as the prime contractor from another federal contractor. The federal government and Washington River Protection Solutions LLC have engaged in advanced settlement discussions and Washington River Protection Solutions LLC reassessed its estimate of the matter, which is not expected to have a material impact.
	•	River Corridor litigation: The federal government has partially intervened with a relator in a Qui Tam complaint filed in the Eastern District of Washington in December 2013 against the Company's joint venture, Washington Closure Hanford LLC, alleging that its contracting procedures under the Small Business Act violated the False Claims Act. On October 2015, Washington Closure Hanford LLC's motion to dismiss the claim was partially denied.

The URS Affiliates periodically reevaluate the estimated fair value of liabilities assumed from URS Corporation, including the legal related liabilities described above and in Note 3, to account for developments related to the Hanford matters. The URS Affiliates dispute the Waste Treatment Plant and River Corridor matters and intend to continue to defend these on going matters vigorously, although the URS Affiliates are engaging in the settlement discussions noted above. The URS Affiliates cannot provide assurances that they will be successful in these defense or settlement efforts. The potential range of loss and any difference from the current accrual cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, primarily due to the fact that these matters involve complex and unique environmental and regulatory issues; each project site contains multiple parties, including various local, state and federal government agencies; conflicts of law between local, state and federal regulations; substantial uncertainty regarding any alleged damages; and the various stages of the government investigations or litigation matters.

Securities Litigation Matter

On September 1, 2016, William Graves, an AECOM stockholder, filed a securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the Company and its senior executives made materially false and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities laws. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this action, the Company believes that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, cash flows or ability to conduct business.