XML 71 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | 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, 2019, the Company was contingently liable in the amount of approximately $493.7 million in issued standby letters of credit and $4.8 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. The Company’s investment adviser jointly manages, sponsors and owns equity interest in the AECOM-Canyon Equity Fund, L.P. (the “Fund”), in which the Company has an ongoing capital commitment to fund investments. At September 30, 2019, the Company has capital commitments of $35 million to the Fund over the next 10 years. 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 other lender required guarantees. Department of Energy Deactivation, Demolition, and Removal Project Washington Group International, an Ohio company, the former name of one of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiaries (AECOM E&C) 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, AECOM E&C 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, required the DOE to pay all project costs up to $106 million, required AECOM E&C and the DOE to equally share in all project costs incurred from $106 million to $146 million, and required AECOM E&C 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, AECOM E&C has been required to perform work outside the scope of the Task Order Modification. In December 2014, AECOM E&C submitted claims against the DOE pursuant to the Contracts Disputes Acts seeking recovery of $103 million, including additional fees on changed work scope. AECOM E&C has incurred 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. AECOM E&C assets and liabilities, including the value of the above costs and claims, were measured at their fair value on October 17, 2014, the date the Company acquired AECOM E&C’s parent company, which measurement has been reevaluated to account for developments pertaining to this matter. Deconstruction and decommissioning activities are completed and site restoration activities are completed. AECOM E&C increased its receivable during the quarter ended September 30, 2019. Such amount is included in the significant claims discussed in Note 4. AECOM E&C can provide no certainty that it will recover the claims submitted against the DOE in December 2014, any future claims or any other project costs after December 2014 that AECOM E&C may be obligated to incur, 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, a Nevada 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 the Company 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. Jury trial commenced in Superior Court on July 1, 2019 and concluded on October 1, 2019. At the time of trial, URS was owed and claimed $4.9 million against the design build contractor, while the contractor counterclaimed for $103.7 million against URS Corporation and the Company. The jury issued a unanimous verdict awarding URS Corporation $4.9 million and awarding the design build contractor $2.7 million. 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 continue to vigorously defend against in any further proceedings. 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 uncertainty regarding damages, including due to liability of and payments, by third parties; and the post-trial proceedings are ongoing. New York Department of Environmental Conservation The following separate matters pertain to government environmental allegations against one of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, AECOM USA, Inc.
| ● | In September 2017, AECOM USA, Inc. 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.
| ● | In December 2018, AECOM USA, Inc. was advised by DEC of allegations that, during AECOM USA, Inc.’s oversight of a remedial construction project in Poughkeepsie, New York, sheen escaped a containment boom line near the east bank of the Hudson River without proper notification to DEC and an unapproved dispersant was sprayed onto the Hudson River to control odors in violation of ECL. AECOM USA, Inc. denies these allegations but is working cooperatively with DEC to resolve the matter through a consent order.
Refinery Turnaround Project AECOM E&C entered into an agreement to perform turnaround maintenance services during a planned shutdown at a refinery in Montana in December 2017. The turnaround project was completed in February 2019. Due to circumstances outside of AECOM E&C’s control, including client directed changes and delays and the refinery’s condition, AECOM E&C performed additional work outside of the original contract over $90 million. In March 2019, the refinery owner sent a letter to AECOM E&C alleging it incurred approximately $79 million in damages due to AECOM E&C’s project performance. In April 2019, AECOM E&C filed and perfected a $132 million construction lien against the refinery owner for unpaid labor and materials costs. In August 2019, following a subcontractor complaint filed in the Thirteen Judicial District Court of Montana asserting claims against the refinery owner and AECOM E&C, the refinery owner crossclaimed against AECOM E&C and the subcontractor. In October 2019, following the subcontractor’s dismissal of its claims, AECOM E&C removed the matter to federal court and cross claimed against the refinery owner for approximately $144 million. The Company’s receivable relating to this claim is included within the significant claims discussed in Note 4, Revenue Recognition, to the financial statements included in this report. AECOM E&C intends to vigorously prosecute and defend this matter; however, AECOM E&C cannot provide assurance that it will be successful in these efforts. The resolution of this matter and any potential range of loss cannot be reasonably determined or estimated at this time, primarily because the matter raises complex legal issues that AECOM E&C is continuing to assess.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -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