Other Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Loss Contingencies [Line Items]
Other Commitments and Contingencies	Other Commitments and Contingencies Litigation and regulatory matters related to the Company’s restatement of its 2013 annual financial statements After the Company announced it would be restating its 2013 annual financial statements, three complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our current and former chief financial officers. Two of those complaints were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, and four parties moved to be appointed lead plaintiff. In September 2014, the court appointed Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Local 58/NECA Funds as lead plaintiffs and ordered any new cases arising from the same matters to be consolidated together as In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 14-cv-01287. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on October 20, 2014, adding our former chief accounting officer as a defendant. The amended complaint seeks class action status on behalf of our shareholders, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements and seeks undisclosed damages. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims and filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on March 5, 2015. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter. In addition, a shareholder derivative complaint, Butorin v. Blount et al, was filed on May 27, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of the Company naming certain current and former members of the Company's board of directors as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties by permitting the Company's internal controls to be inadequate. In August 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter based on the mandatory forum selection clause in the Company's bylaws, which requires, among other things, that all shareholder derivative suits be filed in Delaware. The plaintiff filed his opposition on October 6, 2014 to which we replied on October 21, 2014. On November 3, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a claim for violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that the Company's 2014 proxy statement was false and misleading. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended compliant on November 17, 2014 for the same reasons as stated in the original motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed its response on December 8, 2014 and we replied on December 15, 2014. On March 31, 2015, the District Court denied our motion to dismiss but on its own accord transferred the case to the United States District Court of Delaware. The court has approved a stipulation among the parties to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the security litigation. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter. We have also received requests for information and a subpoena for documents from the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") regarding the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements. We have been and intend to continue cooperating with the SEC. PEMEX and PEP Arbitration In 1997, we entered into a contract with PEP, a subsidiary of PEMEX, the Mexican national oil company, to build offshore platforms and treatment and reinjection facilities in the Bay of Campeche, offshore Mexico. The project, known as EPC 1, encountered significant schedule delays and increased costs due to problems with design work, late delivery and defects in equipment, increases in scope and other changes. PEP took possession of the facilities in March 2004 prior to the completion of our scope of work and without paying us for our work. We filed for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") in 2004 claiming recovery of damages of approximately $323 million. PEP subsequently filed counterclaims totaling $157 million. In December 2009, the ICC arbitration panel ruled in our favor, and we were awarded a total of approximately $351 million including legal and administrative recovery fees as well as interest. PEP was awarded approximately $6 million on counterclaims plus interest on a portion of that sum. In connection with this award, we recognized a gain of $117 million net of tax in 2009. U.S. Proceedings. Collection efforts have involved multiple actions. On August 27, 2013, the District Court entered an order stating it would confirm the award even though it had been annulled in Mexico (see Mexico proceedings discussion below). On September 25, 2013, the District Court entered the signed final judgment of $465 million, which includes the arbitration award and approximately $106 million for performance bonds discussed below, plus interest. The judgment also requires that each party pay value added tax on the amounts each has been ordered to pay. PEP filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on October 16, 2013 and posted $465 million cash as security for the judgment pending appeal. Oral argument on the appeal was held on November 20, 2014. The U.S. government was invited to file a brief and did so, and the parties have filed responses to the U.S. government's brief. Absent some request by the court for more briefing, the matter is ready for decision. Mexico Proceedings. PEP's multiple attempts to nullify the award in Mexico were rejected by the Mexican courts. PEP then filed an “amparo” action alleging that its constitutional rights had been violated and this action was denied by the Mexican court in October 2010. PEP then appealed to the Mexican Collegiate Court. In September 2011, the Collegiate Court ruled that PEP, by administratively rescinding the contract in 2004, deprived the arbitration panel of jurisdiction and the award was null and void. We believe the Collegiate Court's decision is contrary to Mexican law governing contract arbitration. However, we do not expect the Collegiate Court's decision to affect our ability to ultimately collect the ICC arbitration award in the U.S. due to the posting of cash as security for the judgment pending appeal. Other Proceedings. We have initiated collection proceedings to pursue our remedies in Luxembourg and under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Performance Bonds We had provided approximately $80 million in performance bonds to PEP when the project was awarded. The bonds were written by a Mexican bond company and backed by a U.S. insurance company which is indemnified by KBR. As a result of the ICC arbitration award in December 2009, the panel determined that KBR had performed on the project and recovery on the bonds by PEP was precluded. Notwithstanding, PEP filed an action in Mexico in June 2010 against the Mexican bond company to collect the bonds. On June 17, 2013, after proceedings in multiple Mexican courts, we were required to pay $108 million to the Mexican bond company. The $108 million consists of the $80 million in outstanding bonds, plus $26 million in related interest and other expenses and $2 million in legal and banking fees. Consistent with our treatment of claims, we have recorded $401 million, net of advances, in "claims and accounts receivable" on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as we believe it is probable we will recover the amounts awarded to us, including interest and expenses and the amounts we paid on the bonds. PEP has cash posted in the U.S. and sufficient assets in Luxembourg, which we believe we will be able to attach as a result of the recognition of the ICC arbitration award. Although it is possible we could resolve and collect the amounts due from PEP in the next 12 months, we believe the timing of the collection of the award is uncertain; therefore, consistent with our prior practice, as of March 31, 2015, we continue to classify the amount due from PEP, including the amounts paid on the performance bonds as long term.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation and regulatory matters related to the Company’s restatement of its 2013 annual financial statements

After the Company announced it would be restating its 2013 annual financial statements, three complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our current and former chief financial officers. Two of those complaints were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, and four parties moved to be appointed lead plaintiff. In September 2014, the court appointed Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Local 58/NECA Funds as lead plaintiffs and ordered any new cases arising from the same matters to be consolidated together as In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 14-cv-01287. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on October 20, 2014, adding our former chief accounting officer as a defendant. The amended complaint seeks class action status on behalf of our shareholders, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements and seeks undisclosed damages. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against these claims and filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on March 5, 2015. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter.

In addition, a shareholder derivative complaint, Butorin v. Blount et al, was filed on May 27, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of the Company naming certain current and former members of the Company's board of directors as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary duties by permitting the Company's internal controls to be inadequate. In August 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the matter based on the mandatory forum selection clause in the Company's bylaws, which requires, among other things, that all shareholder derivative suits be filed in Delaware. The plaintiff filed his opposition on October 6, 2014 to which we replied on October 21, 2014. On November 3, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a claim for violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that the Company's 2014 proxy statement was false and misleading. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended compliant on November 17, 2014 for the same reasons as stated in the original motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed its response on December 8, 2014 and we replied on December 15, 2014. On March 31, 2015, the District Court denied our motion to dismiss but on its own accord transferred the case to the United States District Court of Delaware. The court has approved a stipulation among the parties to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the security litigation. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter.

We have also received requests for information and a subpoena for documents from the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") regarding the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements. We have been and intend to continue cooperating with the SEC.

PEMEX and PEP Arbitration

In 1997, we entered into a contract with PEP, a subsidiary of PEMEX, the Mexican national oil company, to build offshore platforms and treatment and reinjection facilities in the Bay of Campeche, offshore Mexico. The project, known as EPC 1, encountered significant schedule delays and increased costs due to problems with design work, late delivery and defects in equipment, increases in scope and other changes.

PEP took possession of the facilities in March 2004 prior to the completion of our scope of work and without paying us for our work. We filed for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") in 2004 claiming recovery of damages of approximately $323 million. PEP subsequently filed counterclaims totaling $157 million. In December 2009, the ICC arbitration panel ruled in our favor, and we were awarded a total of approximately $351 million including legal and administrative recovery fees as well as interest. PEP was awarded approximately $6 million on counterclaims plus interest on a portion of that sum. In connection with this award, we recognized a gain of $117 million net of tax in 2009.

U.S. Proceedings. Collection efforts have involved multiple actions. On August 27, 2013, the District Court entered an order stating it would confirm the award even though it had been annulled in Mexico (see Mexico proceedings discussion below). On September 25, 2013, the District Court entered the signed final judgment of $465 million, which includes the arbitration award and approximately $106 million for performance bonds discussed below, plus interest. The judgment also requires that each party pay value added tax on the amounts each has been ordered to pay. PEP filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on October 16, 2013 and posted $465 million cash as security for the judgment pending appeal. Oral argument on the appeal was held on November 20, 2014. The U.S. government was invited to file a brief and did so, and the parties have filed responses to the U.S. government's brief. Absent some request by the court for more briefing, the matter is ready for decision.

Mexico Proceedings. PEP's multiple attempts to nullify the award in Mexico were rejected by the Mexican courts. PEP then filed an “amparo” action alleging that its constitutional rights had been violated and this action was denied by the Mexican court in October 2010. PEP then appealed to the Mexican Collegiate Court. In September 2011, the Collegiate Court ruled that PEP, by administratively rescinding the contract in 2004, deprived the arbitration panel of jurisdiction and the award was null and void. We believe the Collegiate Court's decision is contrary to Mexican law governing contract arbitration. However, we do not expect the Collegiate Court's decision to affect our ability to ultimately collect the ICC arbitration award in the U.S. due to the posting of cash as security for the judgment pending appeal.

Other Proceedings. We have initiated collection proceedings to pursue our remedies in Luxembourg and under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Performance Bonds

We had provided approximately $80 million in performance bonds to PEP when the project was awarded. The bonds were written by a Mexican bond company and backed by a U.S. insurance company which is indemnified by KBR. As a result of the ICC arbitration award in December 2009, the panel determined that KBR had performed on the project and recovery on the bonds by PEP was precluded. Notwithstanding, PEP filed an action in Mexico in June 2010 against the Mexican bond company to collect the bonds. On June 17, 2013, after proceedings in multiple Mexican courts, we were required to pay $108 million to the Mexican bond company. The $108 million consists of the $80 million in outstanding bonds, plus $26 million in related interest and other expenses and $2 million in legal and banking fees.

Consistent with our treatment of claims, we have recorded $401 million, net of advances, in "claims and accounts receivable" on the condensed consolidated balance sheets as we believe it is probable we will recover the amounts awarded to us, including interest and expenses and the amounts we paid on the bonds. PEP has cash posted in the U.S. and sufficient assets in Luxembourg, which we believe we will be able to attach as a result of the recognition of the ICC arbitration award. Although it is possible we could resolve and collect the amounts due from PEP in the next 12 months, we believe the timing of the collection of the award is uncertain; therefore, consistent with our prior practice, as of March 31, 2015, we continue to classify the amount due from PEP, including the amounts paid on the performance bonds as long term.