| U.S. Government Matters | 9 Months Ended |
| Sep. 30, 2013 |
| United States Government Contract Work [Abstract] | |
| U.S. Government Matters | U.S. Government Matters |
|
| We provide substantial work under our government contracts to various governmental agencies, which include the United States Department of Defense (“DoD”), the United States Department of State and others. Given the demands of working domestically and overseas for the U.S. government, we may have disagreements or experience performance issues. When performance issues arise under any of our government contracts, the government retains the right to pursue remedies, which could include termination, under any affected contract. If any contract were so terminated, our ability to secure future contracts could be adversely affected, although we would receive payment for amounts owed for our allowable costs under cost-reimbursable contracts. Other remedies that could be sought by our government customers for any improper activities or performance issues include sanctions such as forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspensions or debarment from doing business with the government. Further, the negative publicity that could arise from disagreements with our customers or sanctions as a result thereof could have an adverse effect on our reputation in the industry, reduce our ability to compete for new contracts and may also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow. |
|
| We have received and expect to be a party to various claims against us by employees, third parties, soldiers, subcontractors and others, such as claims for wrongful termination, personal injury claims by third parties and army personnel, and subcontractor claims. While we believe we conduct our operations safely, the environments in which we operate often lead to these types of claims. We believe the vast majority of these claims are governed by the Defense Base Act or precluded by other defenses. We have a dispute resolution program under which most employment claims are subject to binding arbitration. However, as a result of amendments to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 and subsequent litigation, certain types of employee claims cannot be compelled to binding arbitration. An unfavorable resolution or disposition of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flow. |
|
| Government Compliance Matters |
|
| The negotiation, administration and settlement of our contracts with the U.S. government, consisting primarily of DoD contracts, are subject to audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), which serves in an advisory role to the Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”). The DCMA is responsible for the administration of our contracts. The scope of these audits include, among other things, the allowability, allocability and reasonableness of incurred costs, provisional approval of annual billing rates, approval of annual overhead rates, compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) and Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”), compliance with certain unique contract clauses and audits of certain aspects of our internal control systems. Issues identified during these audits are typically discussed and reviewed with us, and certain matters are included in audit reports issued by the DCAA, with its recommendations to our customer’s Administrative Contracting Officer (“ACO”). We attempt to resolve all issues identified in audit reports by working directly with the DCAA and the ACO. When agreement cannot be reached, the DCAA may issue a Form 1, “Notice of Contract Costs Suspended and/or Disapproved” or a Memorandum for Record, which recommends withholding the previously paid amounts or it may issue an advisory report to the ACO. Under regulatory authority, KBR is permitted to respond to these actions and provide additional support. At September 30, 2013, we have open Form 1s from the DCAA recommending suspension of payments totaling approximately $284 million associated with our contract costs incurred in prior years, of which $138 million has been withheld from our current billings. As a consequence, for certain of these matters, we have withheld $36 million from our subcontractors under the payment terms of those contracts. In addition, we have outstanding demand letters received from our customer requesting that we remit a total of $109 million of disapproved costs for which we do not believe we have a legal obligation to pay. During the course of their audits, DCAA also questions costs other than those identified in Form 1's that are, in their opinion, potentially unallocable, unallowable or unreasonable. These costs are not deemed unallowable until the Contracting Officer issues a Final Decision (COFD). We continue to work with our ACOs, the DCAA and our subcontractors to resolve these issues. However, for certain of these matters, we have filed claims with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) or the United States Court of Federal Claims (“U.S. COFC”). |
|
| KBR excludes from billings to the U.S. government costs that are potentially unallowable, expressly unallowable, or mutually agreed to be unallowable, or not allocable to government contracts pursuant to applicable regulations. Revenue recorded for government contract work is reduced at the time we identify and estimate potentially refundable costs related to issues that may be categorized as disputed or unallowable as a result of cost overruns or the audit process. Our estimates of potentially unallowable costs are based upon, among other things, our internal analysis of the facts and circumstances, terms of the contracts and the applicable provisions of the FAR and CAS, quality of supporting documentation for costs incurred and subcontract terms as applicable. From time to time, we engage outside counsel to advise us on certain matters in determining whether certain costs are allowable. We also review our analysis and findings with the ACO as appropriate. In some cases, we may not reach agreement with the DCAA or the ACO regarding potentially unallowable costs which may result in our filing of claims in various courts such as the ASBCA or the U.S. COFC. We only include amounts in revenue related to disputed and potentially unallowable costs when we determine it is probable that such costs will result in the collection of revenue. We generally do not recognize additional revenue for disputed or potentially unallowable costs for which revenue has been previously reduced until we reach agreement with the DCAA and/or the ACO that such costs are allowable. |
|
| Certain issues raised as a result of contract audits and other investigations are discussed below. |
|
| Private Security. In February 2007, we received a DCAA Form 1 informing us of the Government's intent to adjust payments under the LogCAP III contract associated with amounts allegedly charged for the use of private security contractors ("PSCs") by one of KBR's subcontractors, ESS, in connection with its work for KBR providing dining facility services in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. Based on that notice, the Government withheld its initial assessment of approximately $20 million. The Government based its calculation on communications with the subcontractor which, according to the Government, indicated that ESS had included an amount for private security in the fixed-price it charged KBR for the dining facility services it provided. We subsequently received a revised Form 1 from the DCAA disapproving an additional $83 million of costs for a total of $103 million alleged to have been charged for the use by us and our subcontractors of PSCs during the same periods. In late January 2013, the Principal Contracting Officer (PCO) issued a Contracting Officers Final Determination (“COFD”) which challenged an amount of only approximately $55 million allegedly related to the use of PSCs under LogCAP III between 2003 and 2006. It is our position that this rendered the prior $103 million amount irrelevant. The Government has withheld a total of $45 million as of September 30, 2013 out of the Form 1s issued to date of $55 million. Of the $55 million, approximately $20 million relates to PSCs hired by KBR and charged to the LogCAP III contract on an indirect basis, and the remainder relates to alleged charges relating to the use of PSCs by KBR's subcontractors. |
|
| The Government has indicated that it believes our LogCAP III contract prohibited us and our subcontractors from billing amounts related to the use of PSCs. We believe that, while the LogCAP III contract obligated the Department of the Army ("Army") to provide force protection, it did not prohibit us or any of our subcontractors from using PSCs to provide force protection to KBR or subcontractor personnel. We also contend that the Army breached its obligation to provide force protection. In addition, a significant portion of our subcontracts were fixed price subcontracts awarded without obtaining certified cost or pricing data. As a result, we did not receive details of the subcontractors’ cost estimate, and it is our position that we were not legally entitled to that information. Further, we have not paid our subcontractors any additional compensation for security services. Accordingly, we believe that we are entitled to reimbursement by the Army for the amounts charged by our subcontractors, even if they incurred costs for PSCs. Therefore, we do not agree with the Army’s position that such costs are unallowable and that they are entitled to withhold the amounts in question. |
|
| In 2007, following the issuance of the initial Form 1, we provided at the Army’s request information that addressed the use of PSCs either directly or indirectly charged to LogCAP III. Between 2008 and 2013, we filed five appeals with the ASBCA to recover the amounts withheld from us and for judgment that the Government was not entitled to any recovery on this basis. In April 2012, the ASBCA ruled, as requested by KBR, that our contract with the Army did not prohibit the use of PSCs by either KBR or its subcontractors. However, the ASBCA found that there were potential issues remaining in the case that prevented the entry of immediate judgment for KBR, including a question regarding whether KBR and/or its subcontractors reasonably determined they needed to use PSCs. Four of the five private security-related appeals currently pending before the ASBCA were consolidated for a single, four-week hearing starting April 15, 2013 and concluded July 19, 2013. The first round of post-trial briefs were filed in September 2013 and the second round are due in November 2013. It is KBR's position that the hearing in the four consolidated appeals will obviate the need for a hearing in the one remaining unconsolidated appeal. These appeals potentially involve the alleged use of PSCs by both KBR and up to 14 of its LogCAP III subcontractors. We believe these sums were properly billed under our contract with the Army. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. We have not adjusted our revenues or accrued any amounts related to this matter. |
|
| Containers. In June 2005, the DCAA recommended withholding certain costs associated with providing containerized housing for soldiers and supporting civilian personnel in Iraq. The DCMA agreed that the costs be withheld pending receipt of additional explanation or documentation to support the subcontract costs. During the first quarter of 2011, we received a Form 1 from the DCAA disapproving $25 million in costs related to containerized housing that had previously been deemed allowable. As of September 30, 2013, $51 million of costs have been suspended under Form 1s of which $26 million have been withheld from us by our customer. We have withheld $30 million from our subcontractor related to this matter. |
|
| In April 2008, we filed a counterclaim in arbitration against our LogCAP III subcontractor, First Kuwaiti Trading Company, to recover the $51 million we paid to the subcontractor for containerized housing as further described under the caption First Kuwaiti Trading Company arbitration below. During the first quarter of 2011, we filed a complaint before the ASBCA to contest the Form 1s and to recover the amounts withheld from us by our customer. At the request of the government, that complaint was dismissed without prejudice in January 2013 so that the government could pursue its False Claims Act suit described below. We are free to re-file the complaint in the future. We believe that the costs incurred associated with providing containerized housing are reasonable, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter. We do not believe that we face a risk of material loss from any disallowance of these costs in excess of the amounts we have withheld from subcontractors and the loss accruals we have recorded. At this time, we believe that the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the amounts we have withheld from subcontractors and the loss accruals we have recorded is remote. This matter is also the subject of a separate claim filed by the DOJ for alleged violation of the False Claims Act as discussed further below under the heading “Investigations, Qui Tams and Litigation.” |
|
| Dining facilities. In 2006, the DCAA raised questions regarding our billings and price reasonableness of costs related to dining facilities in Iraq. We responded to the DCMA that our costs are reasonable. As of September 30, 2013, we have outstanding Form 1s from the DCAA disapproving $104 million in costs related to these dining facilities until such time we provide documentation to support the price reasonableness of the rates negotiated with our subcontractor and demonstrate that the amounts billed were in accordance with the contract terms. We believe the prices obtained for these services were reasonable and intend to vigorously defend ourselves on these matters. We filed claims in the U.S. COFC and ASBCA to recover $55 million of the $57 million withheld from us by the customer. As of September 30, 2013, we had withheld $2 million in payments from several of our subcontractors. Included in our September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 accompanying consolidated balance sheets is an accrued estimate of the cost incurred for these potentially unreasonable costs. At this time, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses that may have been incurred, if any, in excess of the amount accrued. |
|
| Tamimi. In April 2012, the U.S. COFC ruled that KBR's negotiated price for certain DFAC services were not reasonable and that we are entitled to $12 million of the total $41 million withheld from us by our customer related to one of our subcontractors, Tamimi. As a result of this ruling, we recognized a noncash, pre-tax charge of $28 million as a reduction to revenue related to the disallowed portion of the questioned costs in the second quarter of 2012. We appealed the U.S. COFC ruling and in September 2013 the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion upholding the ruling. However, we do not believe we face a risk of material loss from any disallowance of these costs in excess of amounts withheld from subcontractors or loss accruals we have recorded in prior periods. |
|
| Tamimi - DOJ. In March 2011, the DOJ filed a counterclaim in the U.S. COFC alleging KBR employees accepted bribes from Tamimi in exchange for awarding a master agreement for DFAC services to Tamimi. The DOJ sought disgorgement of all funds paid to KBR under the master agreement as well as all award fees paid to KBR under the related task orders. Trial in the U.S. COFC took place during the fourth quarter of 2011. In conjunction with the April 2012 ruling on the Tamimi matter discussed above, the U.S. COFC issued a judgment in favor of KBR on the common law fraud counterclaim ruling that the fraud allegations brought by the DOJ were without merit. The DOJ filed a notice of appeal and oral arguments before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals were held on May 6, 2013. In September 2013, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion upholding the judgment in favor of KBR. |
|
| Gulf Catering Company. In August 2011, another DFAC subcontractor, Gulf Catering Company, filed for arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration to recover $11 million for payments we have withheld from them pending resolution of outstanding Form 1s with our customer. The hearing was held in November 2012 in London and in May 2013, the panel awarded Gulf Catering Company the full amount. We paid Gulf Catering Company the amount awarded. As noted above, we have claims pending in the U.S. COFC to recover these amounts from the U.S. government. |
|
| Transportation costs. In 2007, the DCAA raised a question about our compliance with the provisions of the Fly America Act. During the first quarter of 2011, we received a Form 1 from the DCAA totaling $6 million for alleged violations of the Fly America Act in 2004. Subject to certain exceptions, the Fly America Act requires Federal employees and others performing U.S. government-financed contracts to travel by U.S. flag air carriers. There are times when we transported personnel in connection with our services for the U.S. military where we may not have been in compliance with the Fly America Act and its interpretations through the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the Comptroller General. In October 2011, at the request of the DCMA, we submitted an estimate of the impact of our non-compliance with the Fly America Act for 2003 and 2004. In February 2012, the DCAA commenced an audit of our estimate. This audit is in process. Included in our September 30, 2013 and December 31, 2012 accompanying consolidated balance sheets is an accrued estimate of the cost incurred for these potentially noncompliant flights. As a result of their audit, the DCAA may consider additional flights to be noncompliant resulting in potentially larger amounts of disallowed costs than the amount we have accrued. At this time, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses that may have been incurred, if any, in excess of the amount accrued. We will continue to work with our customer to resolve this matter. |
|
| In the first quarter of 2011, we received a Form 1 from the DCAA disapproving certain transportation costs totaling $27 million associated with replacing employees who were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan for less than 179 days. The DCAA claims these replacement costs violate the terms of the LogCAP III contract which expressly disallow certain costs associated with the contractor rotation of employees who have deployed less than 179 days including costs for transportation, lodging, meals, orientation and various forms of per diem allowances. We disagree with the DCAA’s interpretation and application of the contract terms as it was applied to circumstances outside of our control including sickness, death, termination for cause or resignation and that such costs should be allowable. We do not believe we face a risk of material loss from any disallowance of these costs in excess of the loss accruals we have recorded. |
|
| Construction services. From February 2009 through September 2010, we received Form 1s from the DCAA disapproving $25 million in costs related to work performed under our CONCAP III contract with the U.S. Navy to provide emergency construction services primarily to government facilities damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. The DCAA claims the costs billed to the U.S. Navy primarily related to subcontract costs that were either inappropriately bid, included unallowable profit markup or were unreasonable. In February 2012, the Contracting Officer rendered a COFD allowing $10 million and disallowing $15 million of direct costs. We filed an appeal with the ASBCA in June 2012. We are now in the discovery stage, and trial is set for September 2014. As of September 30, 2013, the U.S. Navy has withheld $10 million from us. We believe we undertook adequate and reasonable steps to ensure that proper bidding procedures were followed and the amounts billed to the customer were reasonable and not in violation of the FAR. Notwithstanding, as of September 30, 2013, we have accrued our estimate of probable loss related to this matter and do not believe we face a risk of material loss in excess of the amounts accrued. |
|
| Investigations, Qui Tams and Litigation |
|
| The following matters relate to ongoing litigation or investigations involving U.S. government contracts. |
|
| McBride Qui Tam suit. In September 2006, we became aware of a qui tam action filed against us in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia by a former employee alleging various wrongdoings in the form of overbillings to our customer on the LogCAP III contract. This case was originally filed pending the government’s decision whether or not to participate in the suit. In June 2006, the government formally declined to participate. The principal allegations are that our compensation for the provision of Morale, Welfare and Recreation (“MWR”) facilities under LogCAP III is based on the volume of usage of those facilities and that we deliberately overstated that usage. In accordance with the contract, we charged our customer based on actual cost, not based on the number of users. It was also alleged that, during the period from November 2004 into mid-December 2004, we continued to bill the customer for lunches, although the dining facility was closed and not serving lunches. There are also allegations regarding housing containers and our provision of services to our employees and contractors. On July 5, 2007, the court granted our motion to dismiss the qui tam claims and to compel arbitration of employment claims including a claim that the plaintiff was unlawfully discharged. The majority of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed but the plaintiff was allowed to pursue limited claims pending discovery and future motions. Substantially all employment claims were sent to arbitration under the Company’s dispute resolution program and were subsequently resolved in our favor. In January 2009, the Relator filed an amended complaint which KBR sought to dismiss at the close of discovery. On January 24, 2011, Magistrate Facciola ruled on contested discovery motions which had been pending for months, (1) striking the Relator's supplemental expert report which sought to add allegations of overcharging for additional locations and times; (2) finding that the Relator's current complaint was inadequate to support those additional allegations, and ordering her to seek leave to file an amended complaint setting forth with specificity any new claims; and (3) denying the Relator's motion to require KBR to provide additional electronic discovery. On February 7, 2011, the Relator filed her notice of appeal on these rulings to Judge Kennedy and KBR opposed. |
|
| On November 16, 2011, this case was reassigned to Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. from the Northern District of New York. On March 13, 2012, Judge Scullin held a status conference and on March 19th issued an Order acknowledging the Relator's representation that she would not amend her pleadings; referring the case back to Magistrate Facciola for full case management; and denying the Relator's Motion for an "adverse inference" instruction due to alleged document destruction. On September 5, 2012, the magistrate granted KBR's motion for protective order which limits the issues to be tried and struck the Relator's supplemental expert reports which sought to address other issues and add other alleged damages. |
|
| On September 17, 2012, the Relator filed a Rule 72 Objection to the Magistrate's ruling, essentially appealing the ruling to Judge Scullin and once again delaying the forward progress of the suit. On November 19, 2012, Judge Scullin affirmed and adopted the good discovery ruling made by Magistrate Facciola, limiting the Relator's claims to the sites and dates previously claimed. |
|
| The remaining discovery deposition has been concluded. On March 7, 2013 the Magistrate issued an order canceling a status conference and setting a schedule for the filing of any dispositive motions, and on April 30, 2013, KBR filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 31, 2013, the Relator filed its brief in opposition and on June 14, 2013, KBR filed its reply briefs. The motion previously set for hearing on July 11, 2013 has been delayed and no rescheduled hearing date has been issued. We continue to believe the Relator's claim is without merit and the likelihood that a loss has been incurred is remote. As of September 30, 2013, no amounts have been accrued. |
|
| First Kuwaiti Trading Company arbitration. In April 2008, First Kuwaiti Trading Company ("FKTC" or "First Kuwaiti"), one of our LogCAP III subcontractors, filed for arbitration of a subcontract under which KBR had leased vehicles related to work performed on our LogCAP III contract. The FKTC arbitration is conducted under the rules of the American Association / International Centre for Dispute Resolution and the venue is in the District of Columbia. First Kuwaiti alleged that we did not return or pay rent for many of the vehicles and seeks damages in the amount of $134 million. We filed a counterclaim to recover amounts which may ultimately be determined due to the government for the $51 million in suspended costs as discussed in the preceding section of this footnote titled “Containers.” To date, arbitration hearings for four subcontracts have taken place primarily related to claims involving unpaid rents and damages on lost or unreturned vehicles. The arbitration panel has awarded $16 million to FKTC for claims involving unpaid rents and damages on lost or unreturned vehicles, repair costs on certain vehicles, damages suffered as a result of late vehicle returns and interest thereon, net of maintenance, storage and security costs awarded to KBR. In addition, we have stipulated that we owe FKTC $26 million in connection with five other subcontracts. No payments are expected to occur until all claims are arbitrated and awards finalized. The most recent hearing on FKTC's claims was heard before the arbitration panel in January 2013, and in September 2013 the panel issued a "take nothing" award. KBR's counterclaims have not yet been scheduled for hearing. We believe any damages ultimately awarded to First Kuwaiti will be billable under the LogCAP III contract. Accordingly, we have accrued amounts payable and a related unbilled receivable for the amounts awarded to First Kuwaiti pursuant to the terms of the contract. |
|
| Electrocution litigation. During 2008, a lawsuit was filed against KBR in Pittsburgh, PA, 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. This incident occurred at the Radwaniyah Palace Complex near Baghdad, Iraq. It is alleged in the suit that the electrocution incident was caused by improper electrical maintenance or other electrical work. KBR denies that its conduct was the cause of the event and denies legal responsibility. Plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages for personal injury, death and loss of consortium by the parents. On July 13, 2012, the Court granted our motions to dismiss, concluding that the case is barred by the Political Question Doctrine and preempted by the Combatant Activities Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and filed their first brief October 12, 2012. We filed our brief on November 30, 2012, and the Appellants filed their reply brief on December 20, 2012. Oral arguments were heard in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on May 14, 2013, and in August 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the trial court's dismissal and remanding for further findings. KBR filed its motion for rehearing en banc, which was denied, and intends to file an application for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. At this time, we believe the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2013, no amounts have been accrued. |
|
| Burn Pit litigation. From November 2008 through March 2013, KBR was served with over 50 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. Each lawsuit has multiple named plaintiffs collectively representing approximately 250 individual plaintiffs. The lawsuits primarily allege negligence, willful and wanton conduct, battery, intentional infliction of emotional harm, personal injury and failure to warn of dangerous and toxic exposures which has resulted in alleged illnesses for contractors and soldiers living and working in the bases where the pits were operated. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages. All of the pending cases were removed to Federal Court and have been consolidated for multi-district litigation treatment before the U.S. Federal District Court in Baltimore, Maryland. |
|
| In December 2010, the Court stayed virtually all discovery proceedings pending a decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on three other cases involving the Political Question Doctrine and other jurisdictional issues. In May 2012, the Court denied plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery. In June 2012, KBR filed a renewed motion to dismiss which was heard in July 2012. In February 2013, the Court dismissed the case against KBR, accepting all of KBR's defense claims including the Political Question Doctrine; the Combat Activities Exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act; and Derivative Sovereign Immunity. The plaintiff's filed their notice of appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 27, 2013. Briefing has been completed and oral arguments have been set for October 30, 2013. At this time we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2013, 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. After dismissals for lack of jurisdiction, the majority of the cases were re-filed and consolidated into two cases, with one pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and one pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. A new, single plaintiff case was filed on November 30, 2012 in the District of Oregon Eugene Division. Collectively, the suits represent approximately 170 individual plaintiffs all of which are current and former national guardsmen or British soldiers who claim they were exposed to sodium dichromate while providing security services or escorting KBR employees who were working at the water treatment plant, claim that the defendants knew or should have known that the potentially toxic substance existed and posed a health hazard, and claim that the defendants negligently failed to protect the plaintiffs from exposure. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) was contractually obligated to provide a benign site free of war and environmental hazards before KBR's commencement of work on the site. KBR notified the USACE within two days after discovering the potential sodium dichromate issue and took effective measures to remediate the site. KBR services provided to the USACE were under the direction and control of the military and therefore, KBR believes it has adequate defenses to these claims. KBR also has asserted the Political Question Doctrine and government contractor defenses. Additionally, the U.S. government and other studies on the effects of exposure to the sodium dichromate contamination at the water treatment plant have found no long term harm to the soldiers. |
|
| On August 16, 2012, the court in the case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Court denied KBR's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On August 29, 2012, the court certified its order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and stayed proceedings in the District Court pending the appeal. On November 28, 2012, the Fifth Circuit granted KBR permission to appeal, and the appeal is underway. Oral arguments were heard on September 3, 2013. At this time we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2013, no amounts have been accrued. |
|
| In the Oregon case, the Court denied KBR's motion to dismiss, and thereafter denied our request to certify the ruling for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 9, 2012, the case for a subset of plaintiffs proceeded to trial on the merits and resulted in an adverse jury verdict against KBR. On November 2, 2012, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on their claims, and awarded them approximately $10 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages. We filed post-verdict motions asking the court to overrule the verdict or order a new trial. On April 26, 2013, the court ruled for plaintiffs on all issues except one, reducing the total damages to $81 million which consists of $6 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages. Trials for the remaining plaintiffs in Oregon will not take place until the appellate process is concluded. The court issued a final judgment on May 10, 2013, which was consistent with the previous ruling. KBR posted an appeal bond which was approved by the court on May 23, 2013 and filed a notice of appeal on June 10, 2013. KBR submitted its brief on July 26, 2013 with a motion for leave to file an oversize brief which has been accepted. Additionally, five amicus curiae briefs have been filed in support of our arguments. Our basis for appeal include the court's denial of the Political Question Doctrine, the Combat Activities Exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act, and numerous other legal issues stemming from the court's rulings before and during the trial. We have already filed proceedings to enforce our rights to reimbursement and payment pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulations under the Restore Iraqi Oil contract ("RIO contract") with the USACE. At this time we believe the likelihood that we will ultimately incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2013, no amounts have been accrued. |
|
| During the period of time since the first litigation was filed against us, we have incurred legal defense costs that we believe are reimbursable under the related customer contract. We have billed for these costs and we have filed claims to recover the associated costs incurred to date. On November 16, 2012, we filed a suit against the U.S. government in the U.S. COFC for denying indemnity in the sodium dichromate cases (the "Indemnity COFC claim"). The RIO contract required KBR personnel to begin work in Iraq as soon as the invasion began in March 2003. 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. The Indemnity COFC claim is for more than $15 million in legal fees KBR has incurred in defending these cases and for any judgment that is issued against KBR in the litigation. On December 21, 2012, we also sent the USACE RIO Contracting Officer a certified claim for $23 million in legal costs associated with all of the sodium dichromate cases. The contracting officer declined to issue a decision on the claim. Therefore on March 6, 2013, we filed this claim for $23 million in the COFC (the "Second COFC claim"). The COFC granted our request to treat this claim as related to the previously mentioned, pending indemnity claim. The two COFC cases are assigned to the same judge and oral arguments on the Government's motions to dismiss both claims were heard on August 20, 2013. We filed supplemental briefs on September 16, 2013. Contemporaneously, in February 2013, we filed another claim with the RIO contracting officer due to notification we received of underfunding of the RIO contract. The contracting officer issued a decision declining this claim so we have added it to the Second COFC claim. |
|
| DOJ False Claims Act complaint - Containers. In November 2012, the DOJ filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Rock Island, IL, 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 knew that FKTC had submitted inflated costs; that KBR did not verify the costs; that FKTC had contractually assumed the risk for the costs which KBR submitted to the government; that KBR concealed information about FKTC's costs from the government; that KBR claimed that an adequate price analysis had been done when in fact one had not been done; and that KBR submitted false claims for reimbursement to the government in connection with FKTC's services during the bed down mission. Our contractual dispute with the Army over this settlement has been ongoing since 2005. We believe these sums were properly billed under our contract with the Army and are not prohibited under the LogCAP III contract, and we strongly contend that no fraud was committed. We have moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia, because it is the proper venue and we are seeking as speedy a trial as possible. On May 6, 2013, KBR filed a motion to dismiss. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2013, no amounts have been accrued. |
|
| Other Matters |
|
| Claims. Included in receivables in our consolidated balance sheets are claims for costs incurred under various government contracts totaling $239 million at September 30, 2013, of which $109 million is included in “Accounts receivable” and $130 million is included in “Unbilled receivables on uncompleted contracts.” These claims relate to contracts where our costs have exceeded the customer’s funded value of the task order. The $109 million of claims included in Accounts receivable results primarily from de-obligated funding on certain task orders that were also subject to Form 1s relating to certain DCAA audit issues discussed above. We believe such disputed costs will be resolved in our favor at which time the customer will be required to obligate funds from appropriations for the year in which resolution occurs. The remaining claims balance of $130 million primarily represents costs for which incremental funding is pending in the normal course of business along with specific items listed above. The claims outstanding at September 30, 2013 are considered to be probable of collection and have been previously recognized as revenue. |
