XML 31 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2018
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 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 some 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 June 30, 2018 and September 30, 2017, the Company was contingently liable in the amount of approximately $505.8 million and $503.8 million, respectively, in issued standby letters of credit and $5.5 billion and $5.7 billion, respectively, 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 contractual obligations, including guarantees for completion of projects, repayment of debt, environmental indemnity obligations and other lender required guarantees. 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. WGI Ohio has incurred and continues to incur additional project costs outside the scope of the contract as a result of differing site and ground conditions and intends to submit additional formal claims against the DOE. Due to significant delays and uncertainties about responsibilities for the scope of remaining work, final project completion costs and other associated costs have exceeded $100 million over the contracted and claimed amounts. WGI Ohio assets and liabilities, including the value of the above costs and claims, were measured at their fair value on October 17, 2014, the date AECOM acquired WGI Ohio’s parent company, see Note 3, which measurement has been reevaluated to account for developments pertaining to this matter. Deconstruction and decommissioning activities are nearing completion and WGI Ohio increased its receivable during the quarter ended June 30, 2018. WGI Ohio can provide no certainty that it will recover the claims submitted against DOE in December 2014, any future claims or 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. SR-91 One of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, URS Corporation, entered into a partial fixed cost and partial time and material design agreement in 2012 with a design build contractor for a state route highway construction project in Riverside County and Orange County, California. On April 1, 2017, URS Corporation filed an $8.2 million amended complaint in the Superior Court of California against the design build contractor for its failure to pay for services performed under the design agreement. On July 3, 2017, the design build contractor filed an amended cross-complaint against URS Corporation and AECOM in Superior Court alleging breaches of contract, negligent interference and professional negligence pertaining to URS Corporation’s performance of design services under the design agreement, seeking purported damages of $70 million. On May 4, 2018, the design build contractor dismissed its claims for negligent interference. On May 24, 2018, URS Corporation filed an $11.9 million second amended complaint in Superior Court against the design build contractor for its failure to pay for services performed under the design agreement. URS Corporation and AECOM cannot provide assurances that URS Corporation will be successful in the recovery of the amounts owed to it under the design agreement or in their defense against the amounts alleged under the cross-complaint that they believe are without merit and that they intend to vigorously defend against. The potential range of loss in excess of any current accrual cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, primarily because the matter involves complex factual and legal issues; there is substantial uncertainty regarding any alleged damages, including due to liability of and payments, by third parties; and the matter is at a discovery stage of litigation. New York Department of Environmental Conservation The following matter is disclosed pursuant to Regulation S-K, Item 103, Instruction 5.C pertaining to a government authority environmental claim exceeding $100,000 against an AECOM affiliate. In September 2017, AECOM USA, Inc., one of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, was advised by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) of allegations that it committed environmental permit violations pursuant to the New York Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) associated with AECOM USA, Inc.’s oversight of a stream restoration project for Schoharie County which could result in substantial penalties if calculated under the ECL’s maximum civil penalty provisions. AECOM USA, Inc. disputes this claim and intends to continue to defend this matter vigorously; however, AECOM USA, Inc., cannot provide assurances that it will be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss in excess of any current accrual cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, primarily because the matter involves complex and unique environmental and regulatory issues; the project site involves the oversight and involvement of various local, state and federal government agencies; there is substantial uncertainty regarding any alleged damages; and the matter is in its preliminary stage of the government’s claims and any negotiations of a consent order or other resolution. Illinois Power Generating Company Advatech, LLC, a joint venture 60% owned by AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc., executed a fixed-cost engineering, procurement and construction contract for a flue-gas-desulfurization system at a coal-fired power plant owned by Illinois Power Generating Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dynegy, Inc. (Genco). On September 2, 2016, Genco terminated Advatech’s contract for convenience and Advatech subsequently submitted its final contractual invoice of approximately $81 million. Advatech filed and perfected a mechanics lien on the Genco power plant property on October 17, 2016. On December 9, 2016, Genco filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas and its plan of reorganization was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on January 25, 2017 (the Bankruptcy Plan). Advatech’s contractual invoice and mechanics lien were not extinguished per the terms of the Bankruptcy Plan and remain outstanding claims. On March 15, 2017, Advatech filed a demand for arbitration and on July 21, 2017 submitted a Statement of Claim seeking reimbursement of approximately $81 million for Genco’s breach of contract and failure to reimburse Advatech for all of the cost of work performed under the contract. Advatech intends to vigorously prosecute this matter and seeks to collect all claimed amounts under the terms of the contract; however, Advatech cannot provide assurance that it will be successful in these efforts. The resolution of this matter and any potential range of loss in excess of any current accrual cannot be reasonably determined or estimated at this time, primarily because the matter has not been fully arbitrated and presents unique regulatory, bankruptcy and contractual interpretation issues.

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 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration