Other Commitments And Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
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 In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation. Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and IBEW Local 58/NECA Funds, seek class action status on behalf of our shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our current and former chief financial officers, and our former chief accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. KBR's Motion to Dismiss was denied in September 2015. We intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims. Discovery in the case has begun and is expected to continue through early 2017. At this time, we expect legal fees incurred in defending this claim to reach or exceed the retention amount of our directors & officers liability insurance policy beyond which such costs should be recoverable from insurers. We believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. Legal fees to date have been expensed as incurred. Butorin v. Blount et al, is a May 2014 shareholder derivative complaint pending in the U.S. District Court of Delaware and filed 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. KBR has filed a Motion to Dismiss, to which the derivative plaintiff has responded. At this time, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter. Stella Dupree and Donald Taylor v. KBR, Inc., was filed by shareholders of the Company on May 12, 2015 in Delaware Chancery Court seeking the right to inspect and make copies of certain books and records of the Company under §220 of Delaware General Corporation Law relating primarily to the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements. The remaining plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on February 26, 2016 following receipt of a limited set of documents from the Company. This matter is now resolved. 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 2004, we filed for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") claiming recovery of damages against PEP, a subsidiary of PEMEX, the Mexican national oil company, related to a 1997 contract between PEP and our subsidiary, Commissa, and PEP subsequently counterclaimed. The project, known as EPC 1, required Commissa to build offshore platforms and treatment and reinjection facilities in Mexico and 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. In 2009, the ICC arbitration panel awarded us a total of approximately $351 million including legal and administrative recovery fees as well as interest and PEP was awarded approximately $6 million on counterclaims, plus interest on a portion of that sum. In August 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit affirmed a 2013 District Court ruling confirming the ICC award and PEP filed a Motion for Rehearing in September 2016. PEP has posted $465 million as security for the judgment, pending exhaustion of all appeals. Mexico Proceedings. PEP's initial multiple attempts to nullify the award in Mexico were rejected by the Mexican courts. However, 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. PEP continues to litigate in Mexico. After Mexican courts ruled that they had no jurisdiction to hear further litigation, PEP obtained an amparo from a Mexican court stating that PEP’s rights had been denied when the other courts declined to take jurisdiction. Commisa has appealed the amparo. Other Proceedings. Commisa also initiated collection proceedings in Luxembourg and sought to collect under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the latter of which has been denied pending collection efforts in the U.S. and in Luxembourg. 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, which consists of the $80 million in outstanding bonds, $26 million in related interest and other expenses and $2 million in legal and banking fees. Consistent with our treatment of probable claim recoveries, we have recorded $400 million of the ICC arbitration award, net of advances, in "claims and accounts receivable" on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. PEP has posted $465 million in cash collateral in the U.S. under the control of the Federal District Court in New York. In addition we have taken action to attach assets in Luxembourg as additional protection to collect on 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 September 30, 2016, we continue to classify the amount recorded for financial reporting purposes due from PEP as long term. Other Matters The U.S. DOJ and the SEC are conducting investigations of activities Unaoil, a Monaco based company, may have engaged in related to international projects involving several global companies, as well as KBR's interactions with Unaoil. KBR is cooperating with the DOJ and the SEC in their investigations, which includes the voluntary submission of information and compliance with document requests, including a formal request from the SEC by subpoena.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

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

In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation. Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and IBEW Local 58/NECA Funds, seek class action status on behalf of our shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our current and former chief financial officers, and our former chief accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. KBR's Motion to Dismiss was denied in September 2015. We intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims. Discovery in the case has begun and is expected to continue through early 2017. At this time, we expect legal fees incurred in defending this claim to reach or exceed the retention amount of our directors & officers liability insurance policy beyond which such costs should be recoverable from insurers. We believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. Legal fees to date have been expensed as incurred.

Butorin v. Blount et al, is a May 2014 shareholder derivative complaint pending in the U.S. District Court of Delaware and filed 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. KBR has filed a Motion to Dismiss, to which the derivative plaintiff has responded. At this time, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter.

Stella Dupree and Donald Taylor v. KBR, Inc., was filed by shareholders of the Company on May 12, 2015 in Delaware Chancery Court seeking the right to inspect and make copies of certain books and records of the Company under §220 of Delaware General Corporation Law relating primarily to the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements. The remaining plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on February 26, 2016 following receipt of a limited set of documents from the Company. This matter is now resolved.

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 2004, we filed for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") claiming recovery of damages against PEP, a subsidiary of PEMEX, the Mexican national oil company, related to a 1997 contract between PEP and our subsidiary, Commissa, and PEP subsequently counterclaimed. The project, known as EPC 1, required Commissa to build offshore platforms and treatment and reinjection facilities in Mexico and 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. In 2009, the ICC arbitration panel awarded us a total of approximately $351 million including legal and administrative recovery fees as well as interest and PEP was awarded approximately $6 million on counterclaims, plus interest on a portion of that sum. In August 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit affirmed a 2013 District Court ruling confirming the ICC award and PEP filed a Motion for Rehearing in September 2016. PEP has posted $465 million as security for the judgment, pending exhaustion of all appeals.

Mexico Proceedings. PEP's initial multiple attempts to nullify the award in Mexico were rejected by the Mexican courts. However, 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. PEP continues to litigate in Mexico. After Mexican courts ruled that they had no jurisdiction to hear further litigation, PEP obtained an amparo from a Mexican court stating that PEP’s rights had been denied when the other courts declined to take jurisdiction. Commisa has appealed the amparo.

Other Proceedings. Commisa also initiated collection proceedings in Luxembourg and sought to collect under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the latter of which has been denied pending collection efforts in the U.S. and in Luxembourg.

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, which consists of the $80 million in outstanding bonds, $26 million in related interest and other expenses and $2 million in legal and banking fees.

Consistent with our treatment of probable claim recoveries, we have recorded $400 million of the ICC arbitration award, net of advances, in "claims and accounts receivable" on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. PEP has posted $465 million in cash collateral in the U.S. under the control of the Federal District Court in New York. In addition we have taken action to attach assets in Luxembourg as additional protection to collect on 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 September 30, 2016, we continue to classify the amount recorded for financial reporting purposes due from PEP as long term.

Other Matters

The U.S. DOJ and the SEC are conducting investigations of activities Unaoil, a Monaco based company, may have engaged in related to international projects involving several global companies, as well as KBR's interactions with Unaoil. KBR is cooperating with the DOJ and the SEC in their investigations, which includes the voluntary submission of information and compliance with document requests, including a formal request from the SEC by subpoena.