Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	14.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 some instances, the Company guarantees that a project, when complete, will achieve specified performance standards. If the project subsequently fails to meet guaranteed performance standards, the Company may either incur additional costs or be held responsible for the costs incurred by the client to achieve the required performance standards. At March 31, 2016, the Company was contingently liable in the amount of approximately $484.3 million under standby letters of credit issued primarily in connection with general and professional liability insurance programs and for payment of performance guarantees. In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its affiliates may execute a guaranty agreement providing financial or performance assurances to clients, lenders, or partners on behalf of 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. The guarantees have various expiration dates. The maximum potential payment amount of an outstanding performance guarantee is 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. 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. 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. Canadian Pipeline Contract In January 2010, a pipeline owner filed an action in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada against Flint Energy Services Ltd. (Flint), an affiliate of AECOM, as well as against a number of other defendants, alleging that the defendants negligently provided pipe coating and insulation system services, engineering, design services, construction services, and other work, causing damage to and abandonment of the line. The pipeline owner alleges it has suffered approximately C$45 million in damages in connection with the abandonment and replacement of the pipeline. Flint was the construction contractor on the pipeline project. Other defendants were responsible for engineering and design-services and for specifying and providing the actual pipe, insulation and coating materials used in the line. In January 2011, the pipeline owner served a Statement of Claim on Flint and, in September 2011, Flint filed a Statement of Defense denying that the damages to the coating system of the pipeline were caused by any negligence or breach of contract of Flint. In March 2016, Flint and the pipeline owner agreed to settle this matter. This settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial results. 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. The class action applicants claim that they represent investors who acquired approximately $155 million Australian dollars of securities. 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). This settlement did not have a material impact to the Company’s financial results. AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages asserted by the remaining class action lawsuit and will continue to defend this matter vigorously. AECOM Australia cannot provide assurance that it will be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss in excess of the current accrual cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, primarily due to the fact that the matter involves unique and significant issues pertaining to the plaintiffs’ reliance on AECOM Australia’s reports, the quantum of damages that may be asserted against AECOM Australia, and numerous proportionate liability claims against the primary and third party defendants. DOE Hanford Nuclear Reservation URS Energy and Construction, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC and Washington Closure Hanford LLC, affiliates of AECOM, 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: 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. Waste Treatment Plant whistleblower and employment claims: An employee filed an employment related claim with the Department of Labor against the Company’s affiliate, URS Energy & Construction, seeking restitution for alleged retaliation and wrongful termination. URS Energy & Construction settled the former employee claim in February 2016. This settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial results. 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. River Corridor litigation: The federal government has partially intervened with a relator in a 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. URS Energy and Construction, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC and Washington Closure Hanford LLC dispute these investigations and claims and intend to continue to defend these matters vigorously; however, URS Energy and Construction, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC and Washington Closure Hanford LLC cannot provide assurances that they will be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss in excess of 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 preliminary stage of the government investigations or litigation.

14.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 some instances, the Company guarantees that a project, when complete, will achieve specified performance standards. If the project subsequently fails to meet guaranteed performance standards, the Company may either incur additional costs or be held responsible for the costs incurred by the client to achieve the required performance standards. At March 31, 2016, the Company was contingently liable in the amount of approximately $484.3 million under standby letters of credit issued primarily in connection with general and professional liability insurance programs and for payment of performance guarantees.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company and its affiliates may execute a guaranty agreement providing financial or performance assurances to clients, lenders, or partners on behalf of 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. The guarantees have various expiration dates. The maximum potential payment amount of an outstanding performance guarantee is 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.

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.

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.

Canadian Pipeline Contract

In January 2010, a pipeline owner filed an action in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada against Flint Energy Services Ltd. (Flint), an affiliate of AECOM, as well as against a number of other defendants, alleging that the defendants negligently provided pipe coating and insulation system services, engineering, design services, construction services, and other work, causing damage to and abandonment of the line. The pipeline owner alleges it has suffered approximately C$45 million in damages in connection with the abandonment and replacement of the pipeline. Flint was the construction contractor on the pipeline project. Other defendants were responsible for engineering and design-services and for specifying and providing the actual pipe, insulation and coating materials used in the line. In January 2011, the pipeline owner served a Statement of Claim on Flint and, in September 2011, Flint filed a Statement of Defense denying that the damages to the coating system of the pipeline were caused by any negligence or breach of contract of Flint. In March 2016, Flint and the pipeline owner agreed to settle this matter. This settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial results.

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. The class action applicants claim that they represent investors who acquired approximately $155 million Australian dollars of securities. 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). This settlement did not have a material impact to the Company’s financial results.

AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages asserted by the remaining class action lawsuit and will continue to defend this matter vigorously. AECOM Australia cannot provide assurance that it will be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss in excess of the current accrual cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, primarily due to the fact that the matter involves unique and significant issues pertaining to the plaintiffs’ reliance on AECOM Australia’s reports, the quantum of damages that may be asserted against AECOM Australia, and numerous proportionate liability claims against the primary and third party defendants.

DOE Hanford Nuclear Reservation

URS Energy and Construction, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC and Washington Closure Hanford LLC, affiliates of AECOM, 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:

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.

Waste Treatment Plant whistleblower and employment claims: An employee filed an employment related claim with the Department of Labor against the Company’s affiliate, URS Energy & Construction, seeking restitution for alleged retaliation and wrongful termination. URS Energy & Construction settled the former employee claim in February 2016. This settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial results.

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.

River Corridor litigation: The federal government has partially intervened with a relator in a 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.

URS Energy and Construction, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC and Washington Closure Hanford LLC dispute these investigations and claims and intend to continue to defend these matters vigorously; however, URS Energy and Construction, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC and Washington Closure Hanford LLC cannot provide assurances that they will be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss in excess of 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 preliminary stage of the government investigations or litigation.