U.S. Government Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
United States Government Contract Work [Abstract]
U.S. Government Matters	U.S. Government Matters We provide services to various U.S. governmental agencies, which include the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD") and the Department of State. We may have disagreements or experience performance issues on our U.S. government contracts. When performance issues arise under any of these contracts, the U.S. government retains the right to pursue various remedies, including challenges to expenditures, suspension of payments, fines and suspensions or debarment from future business with the U.S. government. Between 2002 and 2011, we provided significant support to the U.S. Army and other U.S. government agencies in support of the war in Iraq under the LogCAP III contract. We continue to support the U.S. government around the world under the LogCAP IV and other contracts. We have been in the process of closeout of the LogCAP III contract since 2011, and we expect the closeout process to continue through at least 2017. As a result of our work under LogCAP III, there are claims and disputes pending between us and the U.S. government which need to be resolved in order to close the contracts. The closeout process includes resolving objections raised by the U.S. government through a billing dispute process referred to as Form 1s and Memorandums for Record ("MFRs") and resolving issues raised in U.S. government audits. We continue to work with the U.S. government to resolve these issues and are engaged in efforts to reach mutually acceptable resolution of these outstanding matters. However, for certain of these matters, we have filed claims with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("ASBCA") or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("COFC"). We also have matters related to ongoing litigation or investigations involving U.S. government contracts. We anticipate billing additional labor, vendor resolution and litigation costs as we resolve the open matters. At this time, we cannot determine the timing or net amounts to be collected or paid to close out these contracts. Form 1s The U.S. government has issued Form 1s questioning or objecting to costs we billed to them primarily related to (1) our use of private security and our provision of containerized housing under the LogCAP III contract discussed above and (2) our provision of emergency construction services primarily to U.S. government facilities damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, under our CONCAP III contract with the U.S. Navy. As a consequence of the issuance of the Form 1s, the U.S. government has withheld payment to us on outstanding invoices, pending resolution of these matters. In certain cases, we have also withheld payment to our subcontractors related to pay-when-paid contractual terms. The U.S. government had issued Form 1s, questioning $173 million of billed costs as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. They had previously paid us $90 million as of each period related to our services on these contracts and the remaining balance of $83 million for each period is included in “claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. In addition, we have withheld $32 million from our subcontractors at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, related to these questioned costs. While we continue to believe that the amounts we have invoiced the U.S. government are in compliance with our contract terms and that recovery is probable, we also continue to evaluate our ability to recover these amounts as new information becomes known. As is common in the industry, negotiating and resolving these matters is often an involved and lengthy process, which sometimes necessitates the filing of claims or other legal action as discussed above. Concurrent with our continued negotiations with the U.S. government, we await the rulings on the filed claims. We are unable to predict when the rulings will be issued or when the matters will be settled or resolved with the U.S. government. Audits In addition to reviews performed by the U.S. government through the Form 1 process, the negotiation, administration and settlement of our contracts, which primarily consist of DoD contracts, are subject to audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA"). The U.S. government DCAA serves in an advisory role to the Defense Contract Management Agency ("DCMA") and the DCMA is responsible for the administration of the majority of our contracts. The scope of these audits include, among other things, the validity of direct and indirect incurred costs, provisional approval of annual billing rates, approval of annual overhead rates, compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR") and Cost Accounting Standards ("CAS"), compliance with certain unique contract clauses and audits of certain aspects of our internal control systems. As of September 30, 2016, the DCAA has completed audits and we have concluded negotiations of both direct and indirect incurred costs for the years of performance under LogCAP III (2003-2014). The DCAA is scheduling reviews for other active projects for the years subsequent to 2014. The direct claimed cost for these years still to be reviewed was $240 million and the indirect costs invoiced for these years amount to $18 million. Historically, we have recovered 99.9% of the direct and indirect costs we have claimed for reimbursement from the U.S. government. As a result, for the open audit years we have accrued our estimate of disallowed costs based on our historical recovery rate as a reduction to "claims and accounts receivable" and in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Based on the information received to date, we do not believe the ongoing government audits will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. As a result of the Form 1s, open audits and claims discussed above, we have accrued a reserve for unallowable costs at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 of $58 million and $50 million, respectively, as a reduction to "claims and accounts receivable" and in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. Investigations, Qui Tams and Litigation The following matters relate to ongoing litigation or federal investigations involving U.S. government contracts. Many of these matters involve allegations of violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA"), which prohibits in general terms fraudulent billings to the government. Suits brought by private individuals are called "qui tams." We believe the costs of litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the FKTC, Electrocution, and Burn Pit matters described below are billable under the LogCAP III contract or, in the case of the Electrocution litigation, covered by insurance, and that any such costs or damages awarded in the Sodium Dichromate matter are billable under the Restore Iraqi Oil (“RIO”) contract and the related indemnity described below. All costs billed under LogCAP III or RIO are subject to audit by the DCAA for reasonableness. First Kuwaiti Trading Company arbitration. In April 2008, First Kuwaiti Trading Company ("FKTC"), one of our LogCAP III subcontractors providing housing containers, filed for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association of all its claims under various LogCAP III subcontracts. After complete hearings on all claims, the arbitration panel awarded FKTC $17 million plus interest for claims involving damages on lost or unreturned vehicles. In addition, we determined that we owe FKTC $32 million in connection with other subcontracts. We paid FKTC $19 million and will pay $4 million on pay-when-paid terms in the contract. We have accrued amounts we believe are payable to FKTC in "accounts payable" and "other current liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The remaining $26 million owed to FKTC under the contract has not been billed to the government and we will not do so until the related claims and disputes between KBR and the government over the FKTC living container contract are resolved (see Department of Justice ("DOJ") False Claims Act complaint - FKTC Containers below). At this time, we believe the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. Electrocution litigation. During 2008, a lawsuit was filed against KBR in the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court alleging that the Company was responsible for an electrical incident which resulted in the death of a soldier at the Radwaniyah Palace Complex near Baghdad, Iraq. Plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages for personal injury, death and loss of consortium by the parents. The case is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the court is considering a number of KBR's dispositive motions. KBR will continue to pursue all available jurisdictional and other dismissal options. At this time, we believe the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued. Burn Pit litigation. From November 2008 through current, KBR has been served with in excess of 60 lawsuits in various states alleging exposure to toxic materials resulting from the operation of burn pits in Iraq or Afghanistan in connection with services provided by KBR under the LogCAP III contract. These suits have been consolidated and are pending in U.S. Federal District Court in Baltimore, Maryland, where a hearing on KBR’s jurisdictional motions is scheduled for December 2016. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecific damages. KBR will continue to pursue all available jurisdictional and other dismissal options. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued. Sodium Dichromate litigation. From December 2008 through September 2009, five cases were filed in various Federal District Courts against KBR by national guardsmen and other military personnel alleging exposure to sodium dichromate at the Qarmat Ali Water Treatment Plant in Iraq in 2003, which were consolidated into the case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Texas case was then dismissed by the Court on the merits on multiple grounds including the conclusion that no one was injured and is now on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued. COFC/ASBCA Claims. During the period of time since the first sodium dichromate litigation was filed, we have incurred legal defense costs that we believe are reimbursable under the related U.S. government contract. We have billed for these costs and filed claims to recover the associated costs incurred to date. Due to KBR's inability to procure adequate insurance coverage for this work, the Secretary of the Army approved the inclusion of an indemnification provision in the RIO Contract pursuant to Public Law 85-804. After KBR filed claims for payment, the ASBCA issued an order in August 2015 holding that KBR is entitled to reimbursement of the sodium dichromate legal fees and any resulting judgments pursuant to the 85-804 indemnity agreement. This ruling was eligible for appeal and was subsequently appealed by the USACE in December 2015. On June 23, 2016, KBR and USACE entered into a settlement agreement regarding reimbursement of the $33 million in legal fees and interest incurred through the time of the claim. As part of the settlement, all reasonable future defense costs and payment of awards will be reimbursed consistent with the Government's indemnity obligation. This matter is now resolved. Qui tams. We believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss in the qui tams the U.S. government has not joined is remote and as of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued. Costs incurred in defending the qui tams cannot be billed to the U.S. government until those matters are successfully resolved in our favor. If successfully resolved, we can bill 80% of the costs to the U.S. government under the federal regulations. As of September 30, 2016, we have incurred and expensed $10 million in legal costs to date in defending ourselves in qui tams. Five of the remaining qui tam cases either have been dismissed, are on appeal from a dismissal or are at the dismissal stage. There are two active cases as discussed below. Barko qui tam. Relator Harry Barko, a KBR subcontracts administrator in Iraq for a year in 2004/2005, filed a qui tam lawsuit in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the FCA by KBR and KBR subcontractors Daoud & Partners and Eamar Combined for General Trading and Contracting. The DOJ investigated Barko's allegations and elected not to intervene. The claim was unsealed in March of 2009. The court is currently considering KBR's motion for summary judgment. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued. Howard qui tam. In March 2011, Geoffrey Howard filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois alleging that KBR mischarged the government $628 million for unnecessary materials and equipment. In October 2014 the Department of Justice declined to intervene and the case was partially unsealed. The case is starting discovery. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued. DOJ False Claims Act complaint - FKTC Containers. In November 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois against KBR, FKTC and others, related to our settlement of delay claims by our subcontractor, FKTC, in connection with FKTC's provision of living trailers for the bed down mission in Iraq in 2003-2004. The DOJ alleges that KBR submitted false claims to the U.S. government for reimbursement of costs for FKTC's services of, which the U.S. government alleges were inflated, unverified, not subject to an adequate price analysis and had been contractually assumed by FKTC. Our contractual dispute with the Army over this settlement has been ongoing since 2005. In March 2014, KBR's motion to dismiss was denied and in September 2014, the District Court granted FKTC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The case is currently in discovery which we expect to be substantially completed in 2017. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued. KBR Contract Claim on FKTC containers. KBR previously filed a claim before the ASBCA to recover the costs paid to FKTC to settle its delay and disruption claims. The DCMA had disallowed the majority of those costs. Those contract claims were stayed in 2013 at the request of the DOJ so that they could pursue the FCA case referenced above. On February 19, 2016, the ASBCA, at KBR’s request, lifted the stay and has allowed KBR to proceed with its contract claim for the costs withheld. KBR has requested a trial date as early in 2017 as the ASBCA’s schedule will permit. DOJ False Claims Act complaint - Iraq Subcontractor. In January 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois against KBR and two former KBR subcontractors, including FKTC, alleging that three former KBR employees were offered and accepted kickbacks from these subcontractors in exchange for favorable treatment in the award and performance of subcontracts to be awarded during the course of KBR's performance of the LogCAP III contract in Iraq. The complaint alleges that as a result of the kickbacks, KBR submitted invoices with inflated or unjustified subcontract prices, resulting in alleged violations of the FCA and the Anti-Kickback Act. The DOJ's investigation dates back to 2004. We self-reported most of the violations and tendered credits to the U.S. government as appropriate. On May 22, 2014, FTKC filed a motion to dismiss which the U.S. government opposed. Following the submission of our answer in April 2014, the U.S. government was granted a Motion to Strike certain affirmative defenses in March 2015. We do not believe this limits KBR's ability to fully defend all allegations in this matter. As of September 30, 2016, we have accrued our best estimate of probable loss related to an unfavorable settlement of this matter in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the amounts we have accrued is remote. Discovery in the case is set to close July 13, 2017 with the trial set to begin January 22, 2018.

U.S. Government Matters

We provide services to various U.S. governmental agencies, which include the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD") and the Department of State. We may have disagreements or experience performance issues on our U.S. government contracts. When performance issues arise under any of these contracts, the U.S. government retains the right to pursue various remedies, including challenges to expenditures, suspension of payments, fines and suspensions or debarment from future business with the U.S. government.

Between 2002 and 2011, we provided significant support to the U.S. Army and other U.S. government agencies in support of the war in Iraq under the LogCAP III contract. We continue to support the U.S. government around the world under the LogCAP IV and other contracts. We have been in the process of closeout of the LogCAP III contract since 2011, and we expect the closeout process to continue through at least 2017. As a result of our work under LogCAP III, there are claims and disputes pending between us and the U.S. government which need to be resolved in order to close the contracts. The closeout process includes resolving objections raised by the U.S. government through a billing dispute process referred to as Form 1s and Memorandums for Record ("MFRs") and resolving issues raised in U.S. government audits. We continue to work with the U.S. government to resolve these issues and are engaged in efforts to reach mutually acceptable resolution of these outstanding matters. However, for certain of these matters, we have filed claims with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("ASBCA") or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("COFC"). We also have matters related to ongoing litigation or investigations involving U.S. government contracts. We anticipate billing additional labor, vendor resolution and litigation costs as we resolve the open matters. At this time, we cannot determine the timing or net amounts to be collected or paid to close out these contracts.

Form 1s

The U.S. government has issued Form 1s questioning or objecting to costs we billed to them primarily related to (1) our use of private security and our provision of containerized housing under the LogCAP III contract discussed above and (2) our provision of emergency construction services primarily to U.S. government facilities damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, under our CONCAP III contract with the U.S. Navy. As a consequence of the issuance of the Form 1s, the U.S. government has withheld payment to us on outstanding invoices, pending resolution of these matters. In certain cases, we have also withheld payment to our subcontractors related to pay-when-paid contractual terms.

The U.S. government had issued Form 1s, questioning $173 million of billed costs as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. They had previously paid us $90 million as of each period related to our services on these contracts and the remaining balance of $83 million for each period is included in “claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. In addition, we have withheld $32 million from our subcontractors at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, related to these questioned costs.

While we continue to believe that the amounts we have invoiced the U.S. government are in compliance with our contract terms and that recovery is probable, we also continue to evaluate our ability to recover these amounts as new information becomes known. As is common in the industry, negotiating and resolving these matters is often an involved and lengthy process, which sometimes necessitates the filing of claims or other legal action as discussed above. Concurrent with our continued negotiations with the U.S. government, we await the rulings on the filed claims. We are unable to predict when the rulings will be issued or when the matters will be settled or resolved with the U.S. government.

Audits

In addition to reviews performed by the U.S. government through the Form 1 process, the negotiation, administration and settlement of our contracts, which primarily consist of DoD contracts, are subject to audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA"). The U.S. government DCAA serves in an advisory role to the Defense Contract Management Agency ("DCMA") and the DCMA is responsible for the administration of the majority of our contracts. The scope of these audits include, among other things, the validity of direct and indirect incurred costs, provisional approval of annual billing rates, approval of annual overhead rates, compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR") and Cost Accounting Standards ("CAS"), compliance with certain unique contract clauses and audits of certain aspects of our internal control systems.

As of September 30, 2016, the DCAA has completed audits and we have concluded negotiations of both direct and indirect incurred costs for the years of performance under LogCAP III (2003-2014). The DCAA is scheduling reviews for other active projects for the years subsequent to 2014. The direct claimed cost for these years still to be reviewed was $240 million and the indirect costs invoiced for these years amount to $18 million.

Historically, we have recovered 99.9% of the direct and indirect costs we have claimed for reimbursement from the U.S. government. As a result, for the open audit years we have accrued our estimate of disallowed costs based on our historical recovery rate as a reduction to "claims and accounts receivable" and in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Based on the information received to date, we do not believe the ongoing government audits will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

As a result of the Form 1s, open audits and claims discussed above, we have accrued a reserve for unallowable costs at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 of $58 million and $50 million, respectively, as a reduction to "claims and accounts receivable" and in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Investigations, Qui Tams and Litigation

The following matters relate to ongoing litigation or federal investigations involving U.S. government contracts. Many of these matters involve allegations of violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA"), which prohibits in general terms fraudulent billings to the government. Suits brought by private individuals are called "qui tams." We believe the costs of litigation and any damages that may be awarded in the FKTC, Electrocution, and Burn Pit matters described below are billable under the LogCAP III contract or, in the case of the Electrocution litigation, covered by insurance, and that any such costs or damages awarded in the Sodium Dichromate matter are billable under the Restore Iraqi Oil (“RIO”) contract and the related indemnity described below. All costs billed under LogCAP III or RIO are subject to audit by the DCAA for reasonableness.

First Kuwaiti Trading Company arbitration. In April 2008, First Kuwaiti Trading Company ("FKTC"), one of our LogCAP III subcontractors providing housing containers, filed for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association of all its claims under various LogCAP III subcontracts. After complete hearings on all claims, the arbitration panel awarded FKTC $17 million plus interest for claims involving damages on lost or unreturned vehicles. In addition, we determined that we owe FKTC $32 million in connection with other subcontracts. We paid FKTC $19 million and will pay $4 million on pay-when-paid terms in the contract. We have accrued amounts we believe are payable to FKTC in "accounts payable" and "other current liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The remaining $26 million owed to FKTC under the contract has not been billed to the government and we will not do so until the related claims and disputes between KBR and the government over the FKTC living container contract are resolved (see Department of Justice ("DOJ") False Claims Act complaint - FKTC Containers below). At this time, we believe the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote.

Electrocution litigation. During 2008, a lawsuit was filed against KBR in the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court alleging that the Company was responsible for an electrical incident which resulted in the death of a soldier at the Radwaniyah Palace Complex near Baghdad, Iraq. Plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages for personal injury, death and loss of consortium by the parents. The case is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the court is considering a number of KBR's dispositive motions. KBR will continue to pursue all available jurisdictional and other dismissal options. At this time, we believe the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued.

Burn Pit litigation. From November 2008 through current, KBR has been served with in excess of 60 lawsuits in various states alleging exposure to toxic materials resulting from the operation of burn pits in Iraq or Afghanistan in connection with services provided by KBR under the LogCAP III contract. These suits have been consolidated and are pending in U.S. Federal District Court in Baltimore, Maryland, where a hearing on KBR’s jurisdictional motions is scheduled for December 2016. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecific damages. KBR will continue to pursue all available jurisdictional and other dismissal options. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued.

Sodium Dichromate litigation. From December 2008 through September 2009, five cases were filed in various Federal District Courts against KBR by national guardsmen and other military personnel alleging exposure to sodium dichromate at the Qarmat Ali Water Treatment Plant in Iraq in 2003, which were consolidated into the case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Texas case was then dismissed by the Court on the merits on multiple grounds including the conclusion that no one was injured and is now on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued.

COFC/ASBCA Claims. During the period of time since the first sodium dichromate litigation was filed, we have incurred legal defense costs that we believe are reimbursable under the related U.S. government contract. We have billed for these costs and filed claims to recover the associated costs incurred to date. Due to KBR's inability to procure adequate insurance coverage for this work, the Secretary of the Army approved the inclusion of an indemnification provision in the RIO Contract pursuant to Public Law 85-804. After KBR filed claims for payment, the ASBCA issued an order in August 2015 holding that KBR is entitled to reimbursement of the sodium dichromate legal fees and any resulting judgments pursuant to the 85-804 indemnity agreement. This ruling was eligible for appeal and was subsequently appealed by the USACE in December 2015. On June 23, 2016, KBR and USACE entered into a settlement agreement regarding reimbursement of the $33 million in legal fees and interest incurred through the time of the claim. As part of the settlement, all reasonable future defense costs and payment of awards will be reimbursed consistent with the Government's indemnity obligation. This matter is now resolved.

Qui tams. We believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss in the qui tams the U.S. government has not joined is remote and as of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued. Costs incurred in defending the qui tams cannot be billed to the U.S. government until those matters are successfully resolved in our favor. If successfully resolved, we can bill 80% of the costs to the U.S. government under the federal regulations. As of September 30, 2016, we have incurred and expensed $10 million in legal costs to date in defending ourselves in qui tams. Five of the remaining qui tam cases either have been dismissed, are on appeal from a dismissal or are at the dismissal stage. There are two active cases as discussed below.

Barko qui tam. Relator Harry Barko, a KBR subcontracts administrator in Iraq for a year in 2004/2005, filed a qui tam lawsuit in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging violations of the FCA by KBR and KBR subcontractors Daoud & Partners and Eamar Combined for General Trading and Contracting. The DOJ investigated Barko's allegations and elected not to intervene. The claim was unsealed in March of 2009. The court is currently considering KBR's motion for summary judgment. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued.

Howard qui tam. In March 2011, Geoffrey Howard filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois alleging that KBR mischarged the government $628 million for unnecessary materials and equipment. In October 2014 the Department of Justice declined to intervene and the case was partially unsealed. The case is starting discovery. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued.

DOJ False Claims Act complaint - FKTC Containers. In November 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois against KBR, FKTC and others, related to our settlement of delay claims by our subcontractor, FKTC, in connection with FKTC's provision of living trailers for the bed down mission in Iraq in 2003-2004. The DOJ alleges that KBR submitted false claims to the U.S. government for reimbursement of costs for FKTC's services of, which the U.S. government alleges were inflated, unverified, not subject to an adequate price analysis and had been contractually assumed by FKTC. Our contractual dispute with the Army over this settlement has been ongoing since 2005. In March 2014, KBR's motion to dismiss was denied and in September 2014, the District Court granted FKTC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The case is currently in discovery which we expect to be substantially completed in 2017. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2016, no amounts have been accrued.

KBR Contract Claim on FKTC containers. KBR previously filed a claim before the ASBCA to recover the costs paid to FKTC to settle its delay and disruption claims. The DCMA had disallowed the majority of those costs. Those contract claims were stayed in 2013 at the request of the DOJ so that they could pursue the FCA case referenced above. On February 19, 2016, the ASBCA, at KBR’s request, lifted the stay and has allowed KBR to proceed with its contract claim for the costs withheld. KBR has requested a trial date as early in 2017 as the ASBCA’s schedule will permit.

DOJ False Claims Act complaint - Iraq Subcontractor. In January 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois against KBR and two former KBR subcontractors, including FKTC, alleging that three former KBR employees were offered and accepted kickbacks from these subcontractors in exchange for favorable treatment in the award and performance of subcontracts to be awarded during the course of KBR's performance of the LogCAP III contract in Iraq. The complaint alleges that as a result of the kickbacks, KBR submitted invoices with inflated or unjustified subcontract prices, resulting in alleged violations of the FCA and the Anti-Kickback Act. The DOJ's investigation dates back to 2004. We self-reported most of the violations and tendered credits to the U.S. government as appropriate. On May 22, 2014, FTKC filed a motion to dismiss which the U.S. government opposed. Following the submission of our answer in April 2014, the U.S. government was granted a Motion to Strike certain affirmative defenses in March 2015. We do not believe this limits KBR's ability to fully defend all allegations in this matter. As of September 30, 2016, we have accrued our best estimate of probable loss related to an unfavorable settlement of this matter in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the amounts we have accrued is remote. Discovery in the case is set to close July 13, 2017 with the trial set to begin January 22, 2018.