Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: Legal Proceedings Quanta is from time to time party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These actions typically seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, property damage, breach of contract, negligence or gross negligence, environmental liabilities, wage and hour and other employment-related damages, punitive damages, consequential damages, civil penalties or other losses, or injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to all such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, Quanta records a reserve when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. In addition, Quanta discloses matters for which management believes a material loss is at least reasonably possible. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. In all instances, management has assessed the matter based on current information and made a judgment concerning its potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought and the probability of success and taking into account, among other things, negotiations with claimants, discovery, settlements and payments, judicial rulings, arbitration and mediation decisions, advice of internal and external legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. Costs incurred for litigation are expensed as incurred. Except as otherwise stated below, none of these proceedings are expected to have a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, management’s judgment may prove materially inaccurate, and such judgment is made subject to the known uncertainties of litigation. Peru Project Dispute In 2015, Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. (Redes), a majority-owned subsidiary of Quanta, entered into two separate contracts with an agency of the Peruvian Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MTC), currently Programa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (PRONATEL), as successor to Fondo de Inversion en Telecomunicaciones (FITEL), pursuant to which Redes would design, construct and operate certain telecommunication networks in rural regions of Peru. The aggregate consideration provided for in the contracts was approximately $248 million, consisting of approximately $151 million to be paid during the construction period and approximately $97 million to be paid during a 10-year post-construction operation and maintenance period. At the beginning of the project, FITEL made advance payments totaling approximately $87 million to Redes, which were secured by two on-demand advance payment bonds posted by Redes to guarantee proper use of the payments in the execution of the project. Redes also provided two on-demand performance bonds in the aggregate amount of $25 million to secure performance of its obligations under the contracts. During the construction phase, the project experienced numerous challenges and delays, primarily related to issues which Quanta believes were outside of the control of and not attributable to Redes, including, among others, weather-related issues, local opposition to the project, permitting delays, the inability to acquire clear title to certain required parcels of land and other delays which Quanta believes were attributable to FITEL/PRONATEL. In response to various of these challenges and delays, Redes requested and received multiple extensions to certain contractual deadlines and relief from related liquidated damages. However, in April 2019, PRONATEL provided notice to Redes claiming that Redes was in default under the contracts due to the delays and that PRONATEL would terminate the contracts if the alleged defaults were not cured. Redes responded by claiming that it was not in default, as the delays were due to events not attributable to Redes, and therefore PRONATEL was not entitled to terminate the contracts. PRONATEL subsequently terminated the contracts for alleged cause prior to completion of Redes’ scope of work, exercised the on-demand performance bonds and advance payment bonds against Redes, and indicated its intention to claim damages, including a verbal allegation of approximately $45 million of liquidated damages under the contracts. In August 2020, Redes received a formal claim from PRONATEL for liquidated damages in the amount of approximately $41 million, which represents the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amount asserted based on the June 30, 2022 exchange rate. In May 2019, Redes filed for arbitration before the Court of International Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) against PRONATEL and the MTC. In the arbitration, Redes claims that PRONATEL: breached and wrongfully terminated the contracts; wrongfully executed the advance payment bonds and the performance bonds; and is not entitled to the alleged amount of liquidated damages. In addition, Redes is seeking compensation for all damages arising from PRONATEL’s actions, including but not limited to (i) repayment of the amounts collected by PRONATEL under the advance payment bonds and the performance bonds; (ii) payment of amounts owed for work completed by Redes under the contracts; (iii) lost income in connection with Redes’ future operation and maintenance of the networks; and (iv) other related costs and damages to Redes as a result of the breach and improper termination of the contracts (including construction costs caused by the delays and costs related to the transfer of the networks). The amount claimed by Redes in this arbitration is approximately $190 million. In May 2021, PRONATEL and the MTC filed their counter memorial and counterclaims in the ICC arbitration, requesting: (i) that Redes’ claims for breach of contract be rejected; (ii) a declaration that the execution of the advance payment bonds and the performance bonds was valid, and that the funds may be applied towards any debt owed by Redes; (iii) a declaration that the liquidated damages asserted by PRONATEL apply; (iv) that Redes’ claim for payment of amounts owed for work completed as a result of contractual reconciliation of balances be rejected and that any reconciliation of balances approved by the arbitration panel exclude the funds from the performance bonds; (v) that Redes’ claims for damages be rejected; (vi) a declaration that the contract terminations by PRONATEL were valid; and (vii) that Redes reimburse all funds it received from PRONATEL. In addition, PRONATEL alleges that Redes did not satisfy the contractual requirements for the transfer of the networks, which Redes disputes. In July 2021, Redes filed its statement of defense in reply to the counter memorial and counterclaims of PRONATEL and the MTC, in which it disputes all claims made by PRONATEL and the MTC and maintains the positions on its claims against PRONATEL and the MTC in the arbitration. In August 2021, PRONATEL and the MTC filed a rejoinder statement with their position on the merits and damages, which did not present any new claims, and in October 2021, Redes filed a rejoinder with respect to the counterclaims of PRONATEL and the MTC. The arbitration hearing on the merits occurred in the fourth quarter of 2021 and a decision is expected during 2022. As of the date of the contract terminations, Redes had incurred costs of approximately $157 million related to the design and construction of the project and had received approximately $100 million of payments (inclusive of the approximately $87 million advance payments). Furthermore, upon completion of the transfer of the networks (as completed at the time of the contract terminations) to PRONATEL, which was required upon termination of the contracts and was completed in 2020, PRONATEL and the MTC are able to possess the networks, for which PRONATEL has paid approximately $100 million while also collecting approximately $112 million of bond proceeds. Quanta believes that PRONATEL’s actions represent an abuse of power and unfair and inequitable treatment and that PRONATEL and the MTC have been unjustly enriched. Specifically, under the terms of the contracts, the advance payment bonds were to be exercised only if it is determined that Redes did not use the advance payments for their intended purpose, in which case Redes would be obligated to return the portion of the advance payments not properly used. In connection with PRONATEL exercising the bonds, Redes was not afforded the opportunity to provide evidence of its proper use of the advance payments for project expenditures. Redes has incurred substantially more than the advance payment amounts in the execution of the project, and Quanta believes Redes has used the advance payment amounts for their intended purpose. Quanta believes Redes is entitled to all amounts described in its claims above. However, as a result of the contract terminations and the inherent uncertainty involved in arbitration proceedings and recovery of amounts owed, there can be no assurance that Redes will prevail on those claims or in defense of liquidated damages claims or any other claims asserted by PRONATEL. As a result, during the three months ended June 30, 2019, Quanta recorded a charge to earnings of $79.2 million, which included a reduction of previously recognized earnings on the project, a reserve against a portion of the project costs incurred through the project termination date, an accrual for a portion of the alleged liquidated damages, and the estimated costs to complete the project turnover and close out the project. The reduction of previously recognized earnings on the project included $14.5 million related to the correction of prior period errors associated with the determination of total estimated project costs and the resulting revenue recognized. Quanta assessed the materiality of the prior period errors and determined that the errors were immaterial individually and in the aggregate to its previously issued financial statements. As of June 30, 2022, after taking into account the above charge, Quanta had a contract receivable of approximately $120 million related to the project which includes the approximately $87 million PRONATEL collected through exercise of the advance payment bonds. The contract receivable from PRONATEL is included in “Other assets, net” in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2022. Quanta also reserves the right to seek full compensation for the loss of its investment under applicable legal regimes, including investment treaties and customary international law, as well as to seek resolution through direct discussions with PRONATEL or the MTC. In connection with these rights, in May 2020 Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary delivered to the Peruvian government an official notice of dispute arising from the termination of the contracts and related acts by PRONATEL (which are attributable to Peru) under the Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Peru (Investment Treaty). The Investment Treaty protects Quanta’s subsidiary’s indirect ownership stake in Redes and the project, and provides for rights and remedies distinct from the ICC arbitration. In December 2020, Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary filed a request for the institution of an arbitration proceeding against Peru with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) related to Peru’s breach of the Investment Treaty, which was registered by ICSID in January 2021. In the ICSID arbitration, Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary claims, without limitation, that Peru: (i) treated the subsidiary’s investment in Redes and the project unfairly and inequitably; and (ii) effectively expropriated the subsidiary’s investment in Redes and the project. In addition, Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary is seeking full compensation for all damages arising from Peru’s actions, including but not limited to (i) the fair market value of the investment and/or lost profits; (ii) attorneys’ fees and arbitration costs; (iii) other related costs and damages and (iv) pre- and post-award interest. If Quanta is not successful in the pending arbitration proceedings, including the ICC arbitration proceeding held in the fourth quarter of 2021, this matter could result in an additional significant loss that could have a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated results of operations and cash flows. However, based on the information currently available and the status of the pending arbitration proceedings, Quanta is not able to determine a range of reasonably possible additional loss, if any, with respect to this matter. Maurepas Project Dispute During the third quarter of 2017, Maurepas Pipeline, LLC (Maurepas) notified QPS Engineering, LLC (QPS), a subsidiary of Quanta, of its claim for liquidated damages allegedly arising from delay in mechanical completion of a project in Louisiana. Quanta disputes the claim and believes that QPS is not responsible for liquidated damages under the contract terms, and in June 2019 QPS filed suit against SemGroup Corporation (now Energy Transfer LP), the parent company of Maurepas, under the parent guarantee issued to secure payment from Maurepas on the project. QPS is seeking to recover $22 million that it believes has been wrongfully withheld, which represents the maximum liability for liquidated damages pursuant to the contract terms. In July and August 2018, QPS also received notice from Maurepas claiming certain warranty defects on the project. In July 2019, Maurepas filed suit against QPS and Quanta, pursuant to a parent guarantee, for damages related to the alleged warranty defects and for a declaratory judgment related to the liquidated damages claim, claiming approximately $59 million in damages related to a portion of the alleged warranty defects. During the second quarter of 2022, Maurepas revised the amount of claimed damages to approximately $48 million. The lawsuits relating to these claims have been consolidated and are pending in the Tulsa County District Court in Oklahoma. Quanta is continuing to evaluate the claimed warranty defects and, if they exist, the appropriate remedy. At this time, Quanta disputes the extent of the alleged defects or has not been able to substantiate them. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had recorded an accrual with respect to this matter, which represents its current estimated amount of probable loss. Based on the information currently available, including documentation received in the discovery process, Quanta estimates the range of additional reasonably possible loss in connection with this matter is between no additional loss and the amount claimed by Maurepas with respect to the alleged warranty defects and liquidated damages, less the currently accrued amount. Upon final resolution of this matter, any liquidated damages or warranty defect damages in excess of Quanta’s current loss accrual would be recorded as additional costs on the project. Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al. In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the terms of Quanta’s sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys’ fees. In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment and other motions, and a bench trial on liability and damages was held. Liability and damages have been determined by the trial court, with the amount of liability for TNS, including interest through the date of the trial court’s orders, determined to be approximately $9.5 million, which does not include attorneys’ fees or costs. Quanta believes the court’s decisions on liability and damages are not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its liability and the damages calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter. Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for indemnity and breach of contract against the staffing agencies, which employed many of the individuals in question. In December 2012, the trial court heard cross-motions for summary judgment filed by TNS and the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS’s demand for indemnity. The court denied TNS’s motion and granted the motions filed by the staffing agencies; however, the California Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision in part and instructed the trial court to reconsider its ruling. In February 2017, the court denied a new motion for summary judgment filed by the staffing companies and has since stated that the staffing companies would be liable to TNS for any damages owed to the class members that the staffing companies employed. However, Quanta currently believes that, due to solvency issues, any contribution from the staffing companies may not be substantial. The final amount of liability and attorneys’ fees, if any, payable in connection with this matter remains the subject of pending litigation and will ultimately depend on various factors, including the outcome of Quanta’s appeal of the trial court’s rulings on liability and damages, a final determination with respect to the amount of any attorneys’ fees or additional costs or damages owed by Quanta, and the solvency of the staffing agencies. Based on review and analysis of the trial court’s rulings on liability, Quanta does not believe, at this time, that it is probable this matter will result in a material loss. However, if Quanta is unsuccessful in this litigation and the staffing agencies are unable to fund damages owed to class members, Quanta believes the range of reasonably possible loss to Quanta upon final resolution of this matter could be up to approximately $9.5 million, plus the final amount of any attorneys’ fees, interest, and expenses awarded to the plaintiff class. Based on rulings issued by the trial court, Quanta believes the maximum recoverable amount of attorneys’ fees and costs is approximately $17.3 million, and that such maximum amount would only be recoverable in the event Quanta’s appeal of the trial court’s rulings with respect to liability and damages is unsuccessful. Hallen Acquisition Assumed Liability In August 2019, in connection with the acquisition of The Hallen Construction Co., Inc. (Hallen), Quanta assumed certain contingent liabilities associated with a March 2014 natural gas-fed explosion and fire in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York. The incident resulted in, among other things, loss of life, personal injury and the destruction of two buildings and other property damage. After investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the incident was the failure of certain natural gas infrastructure installed by Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Ed) and the failure of certain sewer infrastructure maintained by the City of New York. Pursuant to a contract with Con Ed, Hallen had performed certain work related to such natural gas infrastructure and agreed to indemnify Con Ed for certain claims, liabilities and costs associated with its work. Numerous lawsuits are pending in New York state courts related to the incident, which generally name Con Ed, the City of New York and Hallen as defendants. These lawsuits are at various preliminary stages and generally seek unspecified damages and, in some cases, punitive damages, for wrongful death, personal injury, property damage and business interruption. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had not recorded an accrual related to this matter. Hallen’s liabilities associated with this matter are expected to be covered under applicable insurance policies or contractual remedies negotiated by Quanta with the former owners of Hallen. If a loss becomes probable and estimable with respect to this matter, Quanta expects to accrue its estimated liability and a receivable in the same amount. However, the ultimate amount of liability in connection with this matter remains subject to uncertainties associated with pending litigation, including, among other things, the apportionment of liability among the defendants and other responsible parties and the likelihood and amount of potential damages claims. As a result, this matter could result in a loss that is in excess of, or not covered by, such insurance or contractual remedies, which could have a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Silverado Wildfire Matter During 2022, two of Quanta’s subsidiaries have received tenders of defense and demands for preservation of evidence from Southern California Edison Company (SCE) related to lawsuits filed in April 2021, November 2021 and February 2022 against SCE and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The lawsuits generally assert property damage and related claims on behalf of certain individuals and subrogation claims on behalf of insurers relating to damages caused by a wildfire that began in October 2020 in Orange County, California (the Silverado Fire) and that is purported to have damaged approximately 13,000 acres. The lawsuits allege the Silverado Fire originated from utility poles in the area, generally claiming that each defendant failed to adequately maintain, inspect, repair or replace its overhead facilities, equipment and utility poles and remove vegetation in the vicinity; that the utility poles were overloaded with equipment from shared usage; and that SCE failed to de-energize its facilities during red flag warnings for a Santa Ana wind event. The lawsuits allege the Silverado Fire started when SCE and T-Mobile equipment contacted each other and note the Orange County Fire Department is investigating whether a T-Mobile lashing wire contacted an SCE overhead primary conductor in high winds. T-Mobile has filed cross-complaints against SCE alleging, among other things, that the ignition site of the Silverado Fire encompassed two utility poles replaced by SCE or a third party engaged by SCE, and that certain equipment, including T-Mobile’s lashing wire, was not sufficiently re-secured after the utility pole replacements. One of Quanta’s subsidiaries performed planning and other services related to the two utility poles, and another Quanta subsidiary replaced the utility poles and reattached the electrical and telecommunication equipment to the new utility poles in March 2019, approximately 19 months before the Silverado Fire. Pursuant to the general terms of a master services agreement and a master consulting services agreement between the Quanta subsidiaries and SCE, the subsidiaries agreed to defend and indemnify SCE against certain claims arising with respect to performance or nonperformance under the agreements. The SCE tender letters seek contractual indemnification and defense from Quanta’s subsidiaries for the claims asserted against SCE in the lawsuits and the T-Mobile cross-complaints. Quanta’s subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuits, the T-Mobile cross-complaints and any other claims asserted in connection with the Silverado Fire. Quanta will continue to review additional information in connection with this matter as litigation and resolution efforts progress, and any such information may potentially allow Quanta to determine an estimate of potential loss, if any. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had not recorded an accrual with respect to this matter, and Quanta is currently unable to reasonably estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if any, because there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability. Quanta also believes that to the extent its subsidiaries are determined to be liable for any damages resulting from this matter, its insurance would be applied to any such liabilities over its deductible amount and its insurance coverage would be adequate to cover such potential liabilities. However, the ultimate amount of any potential liability and insurance coverage in connection with this matter remains subject to uncertainties associated with pending and potential future litigation. Insurance Quanta is insured for, among other things, employer’s liability, workers’ compensation, auto liability, aviation and general liability claims. Quanta manages and maintains a portion of its casualty risk through its wholly-owned captive insurance company, which insures all claims up to the amount of the applicable deductible of its third-party insurance programs, as well as with respect to certain other amounts. As of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the gross amount accrued for employer’s liability, workers’ compensation, auto liability, general liability, and group health claims totaled $323.6 million and $318.2 million, with $214.3 million and $238.0 million considered to be long-term and included in “Insurance and other non-current liabilities.” Related insurance recoveries/receivables as of June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021 were $13.0 million and $28.6 million, of which $0.3 million and $0.4 million are included in “Prepaid expenses and other current assets” and $12.7 million and $28.2 million are included in “Other assets, net.” Letters of Credit Certain of Quanta’s vendors require letters of credit to ensure reimbursement for amounts they are disbursing on Quanta’s behalf, such as to beneficiaries under its insurance programs. In addition, from time to time, certain customers require Quanta to post letters of credit to ensure payment of subcontractors and vendors and guarantee performance under contracts. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had $430.5 million in outstanding letters of credit under its senior credit facility securing its casualty insurance program and various contractual commitments. These are irrevocable stand-by letters of credit with maturities generally expiring at various times throughout 2022 and 2023. Quanta expects to renew the majority of the letters of credit related to the casualty insurance program for subsequent one-year periods upon their maturity. Quanta is not aware of any claims currently asserted or threatened under any of these letters of credit that are material, individually or in the aggregate. Bonds and Parent Guarantees Many customers, particularly in connection with new construction, require Quanta to post performance and payment bonds. These bonds provide a guarantee that Quanta will perform under the terms of a contract and pay its subcontractors and vendors. In certain circumstances, the customer may demand that the surety make payments or provide services under the bond, and Quanta must reimburse the surety for any expenses or outlays it incurs. Quanta may also be required to post letters of credit in favor of the sureties, which would reduce the borrowing availability under its senior credit facility. Quanta has not been required to make any material reimbursements to its sureties for bond-related costs, except the exercise of approximately $112 million advance payment and performance bonds in 2019 related to the terminated telecommunications project in Peru, which is described further in Legal Proceedings – Peru Project Dispute above. However, to the extent further reimbursements are required, the amounts could be material and could adversely affect Quanta’s consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta is not aware of any outstanding material obligations for payments related to bond obligations, and the estimated total amount of the outstanding performance bonds was approximately $4.5 billion. Quanta’s estimated maximum exposure related to the value of the performance bonds outstanding is lowered on each bonded project as the cost to complete is reduced, and each commitment under a performance bond generally extinguishes concurrently with the expiration of its related contractual obligation. The estimated cost to complete these bonded projects was approximately $1.6 billion as of June 30, 2022. Additionally, from time to time, Quanta guarantees certain obligations and liabilities of its subsidiaries that may arise in connection with, among other things, contracts with customers, equipment lease obligations, joint venture arrangements and contractor licenses. These guarantees may cover all of the subsidiary’s unperformed, undischarged and unreleased obligations and liabilities under or in connection with the relevant agreement. Quanta is not aware of any claims under any guarantees that are material, except as described in Legal Proceedings – Maurepas Project Dispute above. Collective Bargaining Agreements and Multiemployer Pension Plans Certain of Quanta’s operating companies are parties to collective bargaining agreements with unions that represent certain of their employees, and from time to time, Quanta is a party to grievance and arbitration actions based on claims arising out of the collective bargaining agreements. In addition, Quanta may also be subject to liabilities as a result of its participation in, or withdrawal from, multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. Additional information regarding the agreements and plans associated with these potential obligations is included in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data in Part II of the 2021 Annual Report. Contingent Consideration Liabilities The terms of certain of Quanta’s acquisition transactions have included the potential payment of contingent consideration. Additional information regarding the liabilities associated with these potential obligations is included in Note 6. Indemnities Quanta generally indemnifies its customers for the services it provides under its contracts and other specified liabilities, which may subject Quanta to indemnity claims and liabilities and related litigation. Quanta is not aware of any indemnity claims in connection with these obligations that are material, except as described in Legal Proceedings – Silverado Wildfire Matter above. Additionally, in the normal course of Quanta’s acquisition transactions, Quanta has granted indemnification rights to various parties against certain potential liabilities related to the transaction or the acquired business and obtained rights to indemnification from the sellers or former owners of acquired businesses for certain risks, liabilities, and obligations arising from business operations prior to the date of acquisition. For example, Quanta has obtained certain indemnification rights from the former owners of Hallen with respect to contingent liabilities that were assumed in connection with the acquisition, as described in Legal Proceedings — Hallen Acquisition Assumed Liability above. Investments in Affiliates and Other Entities As described in Note 8, Quanta holds investments in various entities, including joint venture entities that provide infrastructure-related services under specific customer contracts and partially owned entities that own, operate and/or maintain certain infrastructure assets. Quanta is not aware of circumstances that would lead to future claims against it for material amounts in connection with joint and several liabilities associated with its joint venture structures. Committed Expenditures Quanta has capital commitments for the expansion of its equipment fleet in order to accommodate manufacturer lead times on certain types of vehicles. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had $72.8 million of production orders with expected delivery dates during the remainder of 2022 and $86.5 million of production orders with expected delivery dates in 2023. Although Quanta has committed to purchase these vehicles at the time of their delivery, Quanta anticipates that the majority of these orders will be assigned to third party leasing companies and made available under certain master equipment lease agreements, thereby releasing Quanta from its capital commitments. Residual Value Guarantees As described in Note 11, Quanta has also guaranteed the residual value under certain of its equipment operating leases, agreeing to pay any difference between this residual value and the fair market value of the underlying asset at the date of lease termination. As of June 30, 2022, the maximum guaranteed residual value of this equipment was $945.8 million. While Quanta believes that no significant payments will be made as a result of these residual value guarantees, there can be no assurance that significant payments will not be required in the future. Deferral of Employer Payroll Taxes During 2020, the U.S. federal government enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act), which provided for various tax relief and tax incentive measures. These measures did not have a material impact on Quanta’s results of operations. However, pursuant to the CARES Act, Quanta deferred the payment of $108.9 million of employer payroll taxes during the year ended December 31, 2020, 50% of which were paid in the year ended December 31, 2021 and the remainder of which is due by December 31, 2022. Employment Agreements Quanta has various employment agreements with certain executives and other employees, which provide for compensation, other benefits and, under certain circumstances, severance payments and post-termination stock-based compensation benefits. Certain employment agreements also contain clauses that require the potential payment of specified amounts to such employees upon the occurrence of a defined change in control event.

Quanta is from time to time party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These actions typically seek, among other things, compensation for alleged personal injury, property damage, breach of contract, negligence or gross negligence, environmental liabilities, wage and hour and other employment-related damages, punitive damages, consequential damages, civil penalties or other losses, or injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to all such lawsuits, claims and proceedings, Quanta records a reserve when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. In addition, Quanta discloses matters for which management believes a material loss is at least reasonably possible.

The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. In all instances, management has assessed the matter based on current information and made a judgment concerning its potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought and the probability of success and taking into account, among other things, negotiations with claimants, discovery, settlements and payments, judicial rulings, arbitration and mediation decisions, advice of internal and external legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. Costs incurred for litigation are expensed as incurred. Except as otherwise stated below, none of these proceedings are expected to have a material

In 2015, Redes Andinas de Comunicaciones S.R.L. (Redes), a majority-owned subsidiary of Quanta, entered into two separate contracts with an agency of the Peruvian Ministry of Transportation and Communications (MTC), currently Programa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones (PRONATEL), as successor to Fondo de Inversion en Telecomunicaciones (FITEL), pursuant to which Redes would design, construct and operate certain telecommunication networks in rural regions of Peru. The aggregate consideration provided for in the contracts was approximately $248 million, consisting of approximately $151 million to be paid during the construction period and approximately $97 million to be paid during a 10-year post-construction operation and maintenance period. At the beginning of the project, FITEL made advance payments totaling approximately $87 million to Redes, which were secured by two on-demand advance payment bonds posted by Redes to guarantee proper use of the payments in the execution of the project. Redes also provided two on-demand performance bonds in the aggregate amount of $25 million to secure performance of its obligations under the contracts.

During the construction phase, the project experienced numerous challenges and delays, primarily related to issues which Quanta believes were outside of the control of and not attributable to Redes, including, among others, weather-related issues, local opposition to the project, permitting delays, the inability to acquire clear title to certain required parcels of land and other delays which Quanta believes were attributable to FITEL/PRONATEL. In response to various of these challenges and delays, Redes requested and received multiple extensions to certain contractual deadlines and relief from related liquidated damages. However, in April 2019, PRONATEL provided notice to Redes claiming that Redes was in default under the contracts due to the delays and that PRONATEL would terminate the contracts if the alleged defaults were not cured. Redes responded by claiming that it was not in default, as the delays were due to events not attributable to Redes, and therefore PRONATEL was not entitled to terminate the contracts. PRONATEL subsequently terminated the contracts for alleged cause prior to completion of Redes’ scope of work, exercised the on-demand performance bonds and advance payment bonds against Redes, and indicated its intention to claim damages, including a verbal allegation of approximately $45 million of liquidated damages under the contracts. In August 2020, Redes received a formal claim from PRONATEL for liquidated damages in the amount of approximately $41 million, which represents the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amount asserted based on the June 30, 2022 exchange rate.

In May 2019, Redes filed for arbitration before the Court of International Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) against PRONATEL and the MTC. In the arbitration, Redes claims that PRONATEL: breached and wrongfully terminated the contracts; wrongfully executed the advance payment bonds and the performance bonds; and is not entitled to the alleged amount of liquidated damages. In addition, Redes is seeking compensation for all damages arising from PRONATEL’s actions, including but not limited to (i) repayment of the amounts collected by PRONATEL under the advance payment bonds and the performance bonds; (ii) payment of amounts owed for work completed by Redes under the contracts; (iii) lost income in connection with Redes’ future operation and maintenance of the networks; and (iv) other related costs and damages to Redes as a result of the breach and improper termination of the contracts (including construction costs caused by the delays and costs related to the transfer of the networks). The amount claimed by Redes in this arbitration is approximately $190 million. In May 2021, PRONATEL and the MTC filed their counter memorial and counterclaims in the ICC arbitration, requesting: (i) that Redes’ claims for breach of contract be rejected; (ii) a declaration that the execution of the advance payment bonds and the performance bonds was valid, and that the funds may be applied towards any debt owed by Redes; (iii) a declaration that the liquidated damages asserted by PRONATEL apply; (iv) that Redes’ claim for payment of amounts owed for work completed as a result of contractual reconciliation of balances be rejected and that any reconciliation of balances approved by the arbitration panel exclude the funds from the performance bonds; (v) that Redes’ claims for damages be rejected; (vi) a declaration that the contract terminations by PRONATEL were valid; and (vii) that Redes reimburse all funds it received from PRONATEL. In addition, PRONATEL alleges that Redes did not satisfy the contractual requirements for the transfer of the networks, which Redes disputes. In July 2021, Redes filed its statement of defense in reply to the counter memorial and counterclaims of PRONATEL and the MTC, in which it disputes all claims made by PRONATEL and the MTC and maintains the positions on its claims against PRONATEL and the MTC in the arbitration. In August 2021, PRONATEL and the MTC filed a rejoinder statement with their position on the merits and damages, which did not present any new claims, and in October 2021, Redes filed a rejoinder with respect to the counterclaims of PRONATEL and the MTC. The arbitration hearing on the merits occurred in the fourth quarter of 2021 and a decision is expected during 2022.

contract terminations) to PRONATEL, which was required upon termination of the contracts and was completed in 2020, PRONATEL and the MTC are able to possess the networks, for which PRONATEL has paid approximately $100 million while also collecting approximately $112 million of bond proceeds. Quanta believes that PRONATEL’s actions represent an abuse of power and unfair and inequitable treatment and that PRONATEL and the MTC have been unjustly enriched. Specifically, under the terms of the contracts, the advance payment bonds were to be exercised only if it is determined that Redes did not use the advance payments for their intended purpose, in which case Redes would be obligated to return the portion of the advance payments not properly used. In connection with PRONATEL exercising the bonds, Redes was not afforded the opportunity to provide evidence of its proper use of the advance payments for project expenditures. Redes has incurred substantially more than the advance payment amounts in the execution of the project, and Quanta believes Redes has used the advance payment amounts for their intended purpose.

Quanta believes Redes is entitled to all amounts described in its claims above. However, as a result of the contract terminations and the inherent uncertainty involved in arbitration proceedings and recovery of amounts owed, there can be no assurance that Redes will prevail on those claims or in defense of liquidated damages claims or any other claims asserted by PRONATEL. As a result, during the three months ended June 30, 2019, Quanta recorded a charge to earnings of $79.2 million, which included a reduction of previously recognized earnings on the project, a reserve against a portion of the project costs incurred through the project termination date, an accrual for a portion of the alleged liquidated damages, and the estimated costs to complete the project turnover and close out the project. The reduction of previously recognized earnings on the project included $14.5 million related to the correction of prior period errors associated with the determination of total estimated project costs and the resulting revenue recognized. Quanta assessed the materiality of the prior period errors and determined that the errors were immaterial individually and in the aggregate to its previously issued financial statements.

Quanta also reserves the right to seek full compensation for the loss of its investment under applicable legal regimes, including investment treaties and customary international law, as well as to seek resolution through direct discussions with PRONATEL or the MTC. In connection with these rights, in May 2020 Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary delivered to the Peruvian government an official notice of dispute arising from the termination of the contracts and related acts by PRONATEL (which are attributable to Peru) under the Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Peru (Investment Treaty). The Investment Treaty protects Quanta’s subsidiary’s indirect ownership stake in Redes and the project, and provides for rights and remedies distinct from the ICC arbitration. In December 2020, Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary filed a request for the institution of an arbitration proceeding against Peru with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) related to Peru’s breach of the Investment Treaty, which was registered by ICSID in January 2021. In the ICSID arbitration, Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary claims, without limitation, that Peru: (i) treated the subsidiary’s investment in Redes and the project unfairly and inequitably; and (ii) effectively expropriated the subsidiary’s investment in Redes and the project. In addition, Quanta’s Dutch subsidiary is seeking full compensation for all damages arising from Peru’s actions, including but not limited to (i) the fair market value of the investment and/or lost profits; (ii) attorneys’ fees and arbitration costs; (iii) other related costs and damages and (iv) pre- and post-award interest.

During the third quarter of 2017, Maurepas Pipeline, LLC (Maurepas) notified QPS Engineering, LLC (QPS), a subsidiary of Quanta, of its claim for liquidated damages allegedly arising from delay in mechanical completion of a project in Louisiana. Quanta disputes the claim and believes that QPS is not responsible for liquidated damages under the contract terms, and in June 2019 QPS filed suit against SemGroup Corporation (now Energy Transfer LP), the parent company of Maurepas, under the parent guarantee issued to secure payment from Maurepas on the project. QPS is seeking to recover $22 million that it believes has been wrongfully withheld, which represents the maximum liability for liquidated damages pursuant to the contract terms. In July and August 2018, QPS also received notice from Maurepas claiming certain warranty defects on the project. In July 2019, Maurepas filed suit against QPS and Quanta, pursuant to a parent guarantee, for damages related to the alleged

warranty defects and for a declaratory judgment related to the liquidated damages claim, claiming approximately $59 million in damages related to a portion of the alleged warranty defects. During the second quarter of 2022, Maurepas revised the amount of claimed damages to approximately $48 million. The lawsuits relating to these claims have been consolidated and are pending in the Tulsa County District Court in Oklahoma. Quanta is continuing to evaluate the claimed warranty defects and, if they exist, the appropriate remedy. At this time, Quanta disputes the extent of the alleged defects or has not been able to substantiate them.

As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had recorded an accrual with respect to this matter, which represents its current estimated amount of probable loss. Based on the information currently available, including documentation received in the discovery process, Quanta estimates the range of additional reasonably possible loss in connection with this matter is between no additional loss and the amount claimed by Maurepas with respect to the alleged warranty defects and liquidated damages, less the currently accrued amount. Upon final resolution of this matter, any liquidated damages or warranty defect damages in excess of Quanta’s current loss accrual would be recorded as additional costs on the project.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to the terms of Quanta’s sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained through numerous staffing agencies. The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys’ fees. In January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint employer of the class members and that it failed to provide adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages. During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment and other motions, and a bench trial on liability and damages was held. Liability and damages have been determined by the trial court, with the amount of liability for TNS, including interest through the date of the trial court’s orders, determined to be approximately $9.5 million, which does not include attorneys’ fees or costs. Quanta believes the court’s decisions on liability and damages are not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its liability and the damages calculation asserted by the plaintiff class in this matter.

Additionally, in November 2007, TNS filed cross complaints for indemnity and breach of contract against the staffing agencies, which employed many of the individuals in question. In December 2012, the trial court heard cross-motions for summary judgment filed by TNS and the staffing agencies pertaining to TNS’s demand for indemnity. The court denied TNS’s motion and granted the motions filed by the staffing agencies; however, the California Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision in part and instructed the trial court to reconsider its ruling. In February 2017, the court denied a new motion for summary judgment filed by the staffing companies and has since stated that the staffing companies would be liable to TNS for any damages owed to the class members that the staffing companies employed. However, Quanta currently believes that, due to solvency issues, any contribution from the staffing companies may not be substantial.

The final amount of liability and attorneys’ fees, if any, payable in connection with this matter remains the subject of pending litigation and will ultimately depend on various factors, including the outcome of Quanta’s appeal of the trial court’s rulings on liability and damages, a final determination with respect to the amount of any attorneys’ fees or additional costs or damages owed by Quanta, and the solvency of the staffing agencies. Based on review and analysis of the trial court’s rulings on liability, Quanta does not believe, at this time, that it is probable this matter will result in a material loss. However, if Quanta is unsuccessful in this litigation and the staffing agencies are unable to fund damages owed to class members, Quanta believes the range of reasonably possible loss to Quanta upon final resolution of this matter could be up to approximately $9.5 million, plus the final amount of any attorneys’ fees, interest, and expenses awarded to the plaintiff class. Based on rulings issued by the trial court, Quanta believes the maximum recoverable amount of attorneys’ fees and costs is approximately $17.3 million, and that such maximum amount would only be recoverable in the event Quanta’s appeal of the trial court’s rulings with respect to liability and damages is unsuccessful.

In August 2019, in connection with the acquisition of The Hallen Construction Co., Inc. (Hallen), Quanta assumed certain contingent liabilities associated with a March 2014 natural gas-fed explosion and fire in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York. The incident resulted in, among other things, loss of life, personal injury and the destruction of two buildings and other property damage. After investigation, the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the incident was the failure of certain natural gas infrastructure installed by Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Ed) and the failure of certain sewer infrastructure maintained by the City of New York. Pursuant to a contract with Con Ed, Hallen had performed

As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had not recorded an accrual related to this matter. Hallen’s liabilities associated with this matter are expected to be covered under applicable insurance policies or contractual remedies negotiated by Quanta with the former owners of Hallen. If a loss becomes probable and estimable with respect to this matter, Quanta expects to accrue its estimated liability and a receivable in the same amount. However, the ultimate amount of liability in connection with this matter remains subject to uncertainties associated with pending litigation, including, among other things, the apportionment of liability among the defendants and other responsible parties and the likelihood and amount of potential damages claims. As a result, this matter could result in a loss that is in excess of, or not covered by, such insurance or contractual remedies, which could have a material adverse effect on Quanta’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

During 2022, two of Quanta’s subsidiaries have received tenders of defense and demands for preservation of evidence from Southern California Edison Company (SCE) related to lawsuits filed in April 2021, November 2021 and February 2022 against SCE and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The lawsuits generally assert property damage and related claims on behalf of certain individuals and subrogation claims on behalf of insurers relating to damages caused by a wildfire that began in October 2020 in Orange County, California (the Silverado Fire) and that is purported to have damaged approximately 13,000 acres. The lawsuits allege the Silverado Fire originated from utility poles in the area, generally claiming that each defendant failed to adequately maintain, inspect, repair or replace its overhead facilities, equipment and utility poles and remove vegetation in the vicinity; that the utility poles were overloaded with equipment from shared usage; and that SCE failed to de-energize its facilities during red flag warnings for a Santa Ana wind event. The lawsuits allege the Silverado Fire started when SCE and T-Mobile equipment contacted each other and note the Orange County Fire Department is investigating whether a T-Mobile lashing wire contacted an SCE overhead primary conductor in high winds. T-Mobile has filed cross-complaints against SCE alleging, among other things, that the ignition site of the Silverado Fire encompassed two utility poles replaced by SCE or a third party engaged by SCE, and that certain equipment, including T-Mobile’s lashing wire, was not sufficiently re-secured after the utility pole replacements. One of Quanta’s subsidiaries performed planning and other services related to the two utility poles, and another Quanta subsidiary replaced the utility poles and reattached the electrical and telecommunication equipment to the new utility poles in March 2019, approximately 19 months before the Silverado Fire. Pursuant to the general terms of a master services agreement and a master consulting services agreement between the Quanta subsidiaries and SCE, the subsidiaries agreed to defend and indemnify SCE against certain claims arising with respect to performance or nonperformance under the agreements. The SCE tender letters seek contractual indemnification and defense from Quanta’s subsidiaries for the claims asserted against SCE in the lawsuits and the T-Mobile cross-complaints.

Quanta’s subsidiaries intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuits, the T-Mobile cross-complaints and any other claims asserted in connection with the Silverado Fire. Quanta will continue to review additional information in connection with this matter as litigation and resolution efforts progress, and any such information may potentially allow Quanta to determine an estimate of potential loss, if any. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had not recorded an accrual with respect to this matter, and Quanta is currently unable to reasonably estimate a range of reasonably possible loss, if any, because there are a number of unknown facts and legal considerations that may impact the amount of any potential liability. Quanta also believes that to the extent its subsidiaries are determined to be liable for any damages resulting from this matter, its insurance would be applied to any such liabilities over its deductible amount and its insurance coverage would be adequate to cover such potential liabilities. However, the ultimate amount of any potential liability and insurance coverage in connection with this matter remains subject to uncertainties associated with pending and potential future litigation.

Certain of Quanta’s vendors require letters of credit to ensure reimbursement for amounts they are disbursing on Quanta’s behalf, such as to beneficiaries under its insurance programs. In addition, from time to time, certain customers require Quanta to post letters of credit to ensure payment of subcontractors and vendors and guarantee performance under contracts. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had $430.5 million in outstanding letters of credit under its senior credit facility securing its casualty insurance program and various contractual commitments. These are irrevocable stand-by letters of credit with maturities generally expiring at various times throughout 2022 and 2023. Quanta expects to renew the majority of the letters of credit related to the casualty insurance program for subsequent one-year periods upon their maturity. Quanta is not aware of any claims currently asserted or threatened under any of these letters of credit that are material, individually or in the aggregate.

Many customers, particularly in connection with new construction, require Quanta to post performance and payment bonds. These bonds provide a guarantee that Quanta will perform under the terms of a contract and pay its subcontractors and vendors. In certain circumstances, the customer may demand that the surety make payments or provide services under the bond, and Quanta must reimburse the surety for any expenses or outlays it incurs. Quanta may also be required to post letters of credit in favor of the sureties, which would reduce the borrowing availability under its senior credit facility. Quanta has not been required to make any material reimbursements to its sureties for bond-related costs, except the exercise of approximately $112 million advance payment and performance bonds in 2019 related to the terminated telecommunications project in Peru, which is described further in Legal Proceedings – Peru Project Dispute above. However, to the extent further reimbursements are required, the amounts could be material and could adversely affect Quanta’s consolidated business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta is not aware of any outstanding material obligations for payments related to bond obligations, and the estimated total amount of the outstanding performance bonds was approximately $4.5 billion. Quanta’s estimated maximum exposure related to the value of the performance bonds outstanding is lowered on each bonded project as the cost to complete is reduced, and each commitment under a performance bond generally extinguishes concurrently with the expiration of its related contractual obligation. The estimated cost to complete these bonded projects was approximately $1.6 billion as of June 30, 2022.

Additionally, from time to time, Quanta guarantees certain obligations and liabilities of its subsidiaries that may arise in connection with, among other things, contracts with customers, equipment lease obligations, joint venture arrangements and contractor licenses. These guarantees may cover all of the subsidiary’s unperformed, undischarged and unreleased obligations and liabilities under or in connection with the relevant agreement. Quanta is not aware of any claims under any guarantees that are material, except as described in Legal Proceedings – Maurepas Project Dispute above.

Certain of Quanta’s operating companies are parties to collective bargaining agreements with unions that represent certain of their employees, and from time to time, Quanta is a party to grievance and arbitration actions based on claims arising out of the collective bargaining agreements. In addition, Quanta may also be subject to liabilities as a result of its participation in, or withdrawal from, multiemployer defined benefit pension plans. Additional information regarding the agreements and plans associated with these potential obligations is included in Note 15 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data in Part II of the 2021 Annual Report.

Additionally, in the normal course of Quanta’s acquisition transactions, Quanta has granted indemnification rights to various parties against certain potential liabilities related to the transaction or the acquired business and obtained rights to indemnification from the sellers or former owners of acquired businesses for certain risks, liabilities, and obligations arising from business operations prior to the date of acquisition. For example, Quanta has obtained certain indemnification rights from the former owners of Hallen with respect to contingent liabilities that were assumed in connection with the acquisition, as described in Legal Proceedings — Hallen Acquisition Assumed Liability above.

Quanta has capital commitments for the expansion of its equipment fleet in order to accommodate manufacturer lead times on certain types of vehicles. As of June 30, 2022, Quanta had $72.8 million of production orders with expected delivery dates during the remainder of 2022 and $86.5 million of production orders with expected delivery dates in 2023. Although Quanta has committed to purchase these vehicles at the time of their delivery, Quanta anticipates that the majority of these orders will be assigned to third party leasing companies and made available under certain master equipment lease agreements, thereby releasing Quanta from its capital commitments.

As described in Note 11, Quanta has also guaranteed the residual value under certain of its equipment operating leases, agreeing to pay any difference between this residual value and the fair market value of the underlying asset at the date of lease termination. As of June 30, 2022, the maximum guaranteed residual value of this equipment was $945.8 million. While Quanta believes that no significant payments will be made as a result of these residual value guarantees, there can be no assurance that significant payments will not be required in the future.