U.S. Government Matters | U.S. Government Matters We provide services to various U.S. governmental agencies, which include the U.S. 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. The negotiation, administration and settlement of our contracts are subject to audit by the DCAA. The DCAA serves in an advisory role to the 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 FAR and CAS, compliance with certain unique contract clauses and audits of certain aspects of our internal control systems. Based on the information received to date, we do not believe the completed or ongoing government audits will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Legacy U.S. Government Matters 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 2018. 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 contract. The closeout process includes resolving objections raised by the U.S. government through a billing dispute process referred to as Form 1s and MFRs. 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 ASBCA or the 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. The U.S. government has issued and has outstanding Form 1s questioning $171 million of billed costs as of September 30, 2017 . They had previously paid us $88 million of the questioned costs related to our services on these contracts and the remaining balance of $83 million at September 30, 2017 is included in “Claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. In addition, we have withheld $26 million from our subcontractors at September 30, 2017 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. As a result of the Form 1s, and claims discussed above as well as open audits, we have accrued a reserve for unallowable costs at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016 of $56 million and $64 million , respectively, as a reduction to "Claims and accounts receivable" and in "Other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Private Security Contractors. Starting in February 2007, we received a series of Form 1s from the DCAA informing us of the U.S. government's intent to deny reimbursement to us under the LogCAP III contract for amounts related to the use of PSCs by KBR and a subcontractor in connection with its work for KBR providing dining facility services in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. The government challenged $56 million in billings. The government had previously paid $11 million and has withheld payments of $45 million , which as of September 30, 2017 we have recorded as due from the government related to this matter in "Claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. On June 16, 2014, we received a decision from the ASBCA which agreed with KBR's position (i) that the LogCAP III contract did not prohibit the use of PSCs to provide force protection to KBR or subcontractor personnel, (ii) that there was a need for force protection and (iii) that the costs were reasonable. The ASBCA also found that the Army breached its obligation to provide force protection. 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. The Army appealed the decision. On June 12, 2017, we received a second ruling from the ASBCA that we are entitled to recover the withheld costs in the approximate amount of $45 million plus interest related to the use of PSCs. The Army filed a notice of appeal on October 12, 2017. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we will incur a loss related to this matter is remote, and therefore we have not accrued any loss provisions related to this matter. 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 FCA, which prohibits in general terms fraudulent billings to the U.S. 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 and Burn Pit matters described below are billable under the LogCAP III contract and that any such costs or damages awarded in the Sodium Dichromate matter are billable under the RIO contract and a related indemnity agreement with the U.S. government. 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, FKTC, one of our LogCAP III subcontractors providing housing containers, filed for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association 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 DOJ False Claims Act complaint - FKTC Containers below). 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. Burn Pit litigation. Since November 2008, KBR has been served with more than 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 were consolidated in U.S. Federal District Court in Greenbelt, Maryland. The plaintiffs claimed unspecified damages. On January 13, 2017, KBR filed a renewed motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. On July 19, 2017, the trial court issued its ruling granting KBR’s motions to dismiss on jurisdictional ground and for summary judgment. In lengthy fact findings, the Court concluded that the military made all the relevant decisions about the use, location and operation of burn pits. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and the cases are now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on October 16, 2017. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2017, 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. In March 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims on summary judgment. The plaintiffs' request for the Texas Supreme Court to hear arguments over the application of certain laws and the application of Texas Supreme Court authority to the plaintiffs' claims was denied in May 2017. Plaintiffs' time to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court has now passed. Our request for payment of court costs remains pending before the trial court in Houston. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2017 , no amounts have been accrued. Qui tams. We have several qui tam cases pending, one of which has been joined by the U.S. government (see DOJ False Claims Act complaint - Iraq Subcontractor below). At this time, 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, 2017 , 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 federal regulations. As of September 30, 2017 , we have incurred and expensed $11 million in legal costs incurred in defending ourselves in qui tams. 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 its 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. On March 14, 2017, the Court granted KBR's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and oral argument on the appeal has been scheduled for December 1, 2017. Howard qui tam. In March 2011, Geoffrey Howard and Zella Hemphill filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois alleging that KBR mischarged the U.S. government $628 million for unnecessary materials and equipment. In October 2014, the DOJ declined to intervene and the case was partially unsealed. Discovery is ongoing in this case and is expected to continue into 2019. DOJ False Claims Act complaint - FKTC Containers. In November 2012, the DOJ 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 two requests for equitable adjustment submitted 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 the costs KBR incurred in settling the requests for equitable adjustment, 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 completed by June of 2018. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of September 30, 2017 , 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 requests for equitable adjustment. 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. Those claims were reinstated in 2016. We tried our contract appeal in September 2017. Briefing and post trial hearings will run through at least December 2017. We hope to receive a ruling by July 2018. DOJ False Claims Act complaint - Iraq Subcontractor. In January 2014, the DOJ 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, FKTC 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, 2017 |