Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies In the normal course of business, we are subject to certain contractual guarantees and litigation. The guarantees to which we are a party generally relate to project schedules and plant performance. Most of the litigation in which we are involved has us as a defendant in workers' compensation, personal injury, environmental, employment/labor, professional liability, and other similar lawsuits. We maintain insurance coverage for various aspects of our business and operations. Our insurance programs have varying coverage limits and maximums, and insurance companies may seek to not pay any claims we might make. We have also elected to retain a portion of losses that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. As a result, we may be subject to future liability for which we are only partially insured or completely uninsured. We intend to mitigate any such future liability by continuing to exercise prudent business judgment in negotiating the terms and conditions of our contracts. Our insurers are also subject to business risk and, as a result, one or more of them may be unable to fulfill their insurance obligations due to insolvency or otherwise. Additionally, as a contractor providing services to the U.S. federal government and several of its agencies, we are subject to many levels of audits, investigations, and claims by, or on behalf of, the U.S. federal government with respect to our contract performance, pricing, costs, cost allocations, and procurement practices. Furthermore, our income, franchise, and similar tax returns and filings are also subject to audit and investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, most states within the U.S. as well as by various government agencies representing jurisdictions outside the U.S. We record in our Consolidated Balance Sheets amounts representing our estimated liability relating to such claims, guarantees, litigation, and audits and investigations. We perform an analysis to determine the level of reserves to establish for insurance-related claims that are known and have been asserted against us, and for insurance-related claims that are believed to have been incurred based on actuarial analysis, but have not yet been reported to our claims administrators as of the respective balance sheet dates. We include any adjustments to such insurance reserves in our consolidated results of operations. The Company believes, after consultation with counsel, that such guarantees, litigation, U.S. government contract-related audits, investigations and claims, and income tax audits and investigations should not have any material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. On August 9, 2014, the Company received a Notice of Arbitration from Motiva Enterprises LLC ("Motiva"). The arbitration is pending in Houston, Texas before the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution and is currently scheduled to begin on September 26, 2016. In 2006, Motiva contracted with Bechtel-Jacobs CEP Port Arthur Joint Venture (“BJJV”), a joint venture between Bechtel Corporation and Jacobs to perform professional services in connection with the expansion project at the Motiva Port Arthur, Texas refinery. In the Notice of Arbitration, Motiva asserts various causes of action and alleges fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and entitlement to equitable and monetary relief in excess of $7 billion . BJJV has denied liability and is vigorously defending these claims, but the Company cannot provide assurance that BJJV will be successful in these efforts as litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties and unfavorable rulings can and do occur. Based on the information currently available to management, the Company does not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. On September 30, 2015, Nui Phao Mining Company Limited (“NPMC”) commenced arbitration proceedings against Jacobs E&C Australia Pty Limited ("Jacobs E&C"). The arbitration is pending in Singapore before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. In March 2011, Jacobs E&C was engaged by NPMC for the provision of management, design, engineering, and procurement services for the Nui Phao mine/mineral processing project in Vietnam. In the Notice of Arbitration and in a subsequently filed Statement of Claim dated February 1, 2016, NPMC asserts various causes of action and alleges that the quantum of its claim exceeds $167 million . Jacobs has denied liability and is vigorously defending this claim. No hearing date has been set. The Company does not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. On August 7, 2015, Jacobs and Jacobs Field Services N.A. Inc. (collectively the “Jacobs Parties”) filed a demand for arbitration before the American Arbitration Association against Freeport-McMoran Corporation (“Freeport”) alleging breach of contract for failure to pay invoices of approximately $58 million and for statutory penalties for failure to pay, and asserting that they are entitled to a total of $71.0 million in damages from Freeport (which amount includes the outstanding invoices). On August 28, 2015, Freeport filed an answering statement denying the Jacobs Parties’ claims and asserting counterclaims against the Jacobs Parties for breach of contract and alleging damages of $116.0 million . The Jacobs Parties have denied liability and are vigorously defending these claims. No hearing date has been set. The Company does not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. On December 7, 2009, the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) initiated an action in the San Francisco County Superior Court against Jacobs Facilities Inc. (“JFI”) and Jacobs Project Management (“JPM”). On June 6, 2011, AOC filed an operative Second Amended Complaint, which added Jacobs as a defendant. The action arises out of an assignment and assumption agreement between AOC and JFI pursuant to which JFI agreed to provide regular maintenance and repairs at certain AOC court facilities. AOC alleged three causes of action: (i) breach of contract based on the expiration of JFI’s contractor’s license before the assignment and assumption agreement was executed; (ii) disgorgement of all fees paid to JFI and JPM under the contract pursuant to California’s Contractors’ State License Law (“CSLL”); and (iii) breach of Jacobs’ parent guarantee agreement. JPM cross-claimed for unpaid sums for services that the licensed JPM had performed pursuant to the assigned contract between August 2009 and November 2009. A jury trial was held on the parties’ CSLL claims in April 2012 and, on May 2, 2012, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the Jacobs entities finding, among other things, that JPM was owed approximately $4.7 million in unpaid fees and that JFI was not required to disgorge the approximate $18.3 million that AOC had paid for its work under the contract. AOC subsequently dismissed its cause of action for breach of contract, and JPM dismissed its cross-claims other than those for its unpaid invoices. AOC’s third cause of action for breach of the parent guaranty was resolved by a stipulation, which provided that if AOC obtains a judgment against JFI, the judgment will also be against its parent, Jacobs. The trial court entered judgment in the Jacobs entities’ favor. On August 20, 2015, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District reversed the jury’s verdict, holding that JFI had violated the CSLL. The Court of Appeal remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether JFI and JPM had “substantially complied” with, and may therefore avoid disgorgement under, the CSLL. The Jacobs entities have contested, and will continue to vigorously contest, the AOC’s claims and will vigorously litigate JPM’s claim for unpaid sums. The Company does not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. |