Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Commitments and Contingencies	Mar. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and other legal proceedings and forms of dispute resolution in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to disputes over contract payment and/or performance-related issues (such as disagreements regarding delay or a change in the scope of work of a project and/or the price associated with that change) and other matters incidental to the Company’s business. In accordance with ASC 606, the Company makes assessments of these types of matters on a routine basis and, to the extent permitted by ASC 606, estimates and records recovery related to these matters as a form of variable consideration at the most likely amount the Company expects to receive, as discussed further in Note 4, Contract Assets and Liabilities. In addition, the Company is contingently liable for litigation, performance guarantees and other commitments arising in the ordinary course of business, which are accounted for in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Management reviews these matters regularly and updates or revises its estimates as warranted by subsequent information and developments. These assessments require judgments concerning matters that are inherently uncertain, such as litigation developments and outcomes, the anticipated outcome of negotiations and the estimated cost of resolving disputes. Consequently, these assessments are estimates, and actual amounts may vary from such estimates. In addition, because such matters are typically resolved over long periods of time, the Company’s assets and liabilities may change over time should the circumstances dictate. The description of the legal proceedings listed below include management’s assessment of those proceedings. Management believes that, based on current information and discussions with the Company’s legal counsel, the ultimate resolution of other matters is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. A description of the material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business, is as follows: Alaskan Way Viaduct Matter In January 2011, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture between Dragados USA, Inc. and the Company, entered into a design-build contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) for the construction of a large-diameter bored tunnel in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, also known as State Route 99. The Company has a 45% interest in STP. The construction of the large-diameter bored tunnel required the use of a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”). In December 2013, the TBM struck a steel pipe, installed by WSDOT as a well casing for an exploratory well. The TBM was significantly damaged and was required to be repaired. STP asserted that the steel pipe casing was a differing site condition that WSDOT failed to properly disclose. The Disputes Review Board mandated by the contract to hear disputes issued a decision finding the steel casing was a Type I (material) differing site condition. WSDOT did not accept that finding. Case Against WSDOT In March 2016, WSDOT filed a complaint against STP in Thurston County Superior Court alleging breach of contract, seeking $57.2 million in delay-related damages and seeking declaratory relief. STP subsequently filed a counterclaim against WSDOT seeking damages in excess of $640 million. The jury trial between STP and WSDOT commenced on October 7, 2019 and concluded on December 13, 2019, with a jury verdict in favor of WSDOT awarding them $57.2 million in damages. The Company recorded the impact of the jury verdict during the fourth quarter of 2019, resulting in a pre-tax charge of $166.8 million, which included $25.7 million for the Company’s 45% proportionate share of the $57.2 million in damages awarded by the jury to WSDOT. The charge was for non-cash write-downs primarily related to the costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings and receivables that the Company previously recorded to reflect its expected recovery in this case. STP’s petition for discretionary review by the Washington Supreme Court was denied on October 10, 2022. On October 18, 2022, STP paid the damages and associated interest from the judgment, which included the Company’s proportionate share of $34.6 million. As a result, the lawsuit between STP and WSDOT has concluded. Case Against Insurers The TBM was insured under a Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy (the “Policy”) with Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and a consortium of other insurers (the “Insurers”). STP submitted the claims to the Insurers and requested interim payments under the Policy. The Insurers refused to pay and denied coverage. In June 2015, STP filed a lawsuit in the King County Superior Court, State of Washington seeking declaratory relief, as well as damages as a result of the Insurers’ breach of their obligations under the terms of the Policy. On September 30, 2024, after several years of law and motion proceedings, a confidential settlement was reached resolving the case in full for a substantial sum. Payment was received in October 2024 and the case against the Insurers was dismissed. As a result of the settlement, STP resolved the claims of Hitachi Zosen (the manufacturer of the TBM) and the remaining subcontractor lawsuits pending on the project, including those with the Company’s subsidiaries. Case Against Designer On April 13, 2023, STP filed a case in the Washington Superior Court against HNTB Corporation (“HNTB”), STP’s design firm on the project, wherein STP alleges that HNTB is liable for providing design services that resulted in the TBM striking the steel pipe described above and for additional steel quantity costs associated with the project. Due to the resolution of the matter against the Insurers and WSDOT discussed above, and subject to any setoffs or contractual damages limitations, STP’s current claim against HNTB is expected to be in excess of $300 million and includes HNTB’s liability for providing design services, amounts paid by STP to WSDOT in liquidated damages and interest as well as certain subcontractor delay claims paid by STP to subcontractors in November 2024. The case is currently scheduled for trial to commence in April 2026. With respect to STP’s claims against HNTB, management has included in receivables an estimate of the total anticipated recovery concluded to be probable. The case against HNTB is the final case related to the project.