Contingencies and Litigation	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies and Litigation	Contingencies and Litigation As more fully discussed below, we are involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings concerning: securities law; governmental entity contracting, servicing and procurement law; intellectual property law; environmental law; employment law; commercial and contracts law; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and other laws and regulations. We determine whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. We assess our potential liability by analyzing our litigation and regulatory matters using available information. We develop our views on estimated losses in consultation with outside counsel handling our defense in these matters, which involves an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. Should developments in any of these matters cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome and result in the need to recognize a material accrual, or should any of these matters result in a final adverse judgment or be settled for significant amounts, they could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period or periods in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of September 30, 2016, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in connection with such matters in excess of the amounts recognized in its financial statements. Additionally, guarantees, indemnifications and claims arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with suppliers, customers and nonconsolidated affiliates when the BPS Business undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others if specified triggering events occur. Nonperformance under a contract could trigger an obligation of the BPS Business. These potential claims include actions based upon alleged exposures to products, real estate, intellectual property such as patents, environmental matters, and other indemnifications. The ultimate effect on future financial results is not subject to reasonable estimation because considerable uncertainty exists as to the final outcome of these claims. However, while the ultimate liabilities resulting from such claims may be significant to results of operations in the period recognized, management does not anticipate they will have a material adverse effect on the BPS Business's combined financial position or liquidity. As of September 30, 2016, we have accrued our estimate of liability incurred under our indemnification arrangements and guarantees. Litigation Against the BPS Business State of Texas v. Xerox Corporation, Xerox State Healthcare, LLC, and ACS State Healthcare, LLC: On May 9, 2014, the State of Texas, via the Texas Office of Attorney General (the “State”), filed a lawsuit in the 53rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas. The lawsuit alleges that Xerox Corporation, Xerox State Healthcare, LLC and ACS State Healthcare (collectively, the "Xerox Defendants") violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act in the administration of its contract with the Texas Department of Health and Human Services (“HHSC”). The State alleges that the Xerox Defendants made false representations of material facts regarding the processes, procedures, implementation and results regarding the prior authorization of orthodontic claims. The State seeks recovery of actual damages, two times the amount of any overpayments made as a result of unlawful acts, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest and all costs and attorneys’ fees. The State references the amount in controversy as exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. The Xerox Defendants filed their Answer in June, 2014 denying all allegations. The Xerox Defendants will continue to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. We do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss in excess of the amount accrued for this matter. In the course of litigation, we periodically engage in discussions with plaintiff’s counsel for possible resolution of the matter. Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement for a significant amount, there could be a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs. Dennis Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants et al.: On October 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County, and on November 24, 2009, the case was removed to the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. Plaintiffs allege actuarial negligence against Buck Consultants, LLC (“Buck”) for the use of faulty actuarial assumptions in connection with the 2007 actuarial valuation for the Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Association (“StanCERA”). Plaintiffs allege that the employer contribution rate adopted by StanCERA based on Buck’s valuation was insufficient to fund the benefits promised by the County. On July 13, 2012, the Court entered its ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of all plan participants. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their claim that Buck allegedly aided and abetted StanCERA in breaching its fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs then filed their Fifth Amended Complaint and added StanCERA to the litigation. Buck and StanCERA filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the Court sustained both demurrers with prejudice, completely dismissing the matter and barring plaintiffs from refiling their claims. Plaintiffs appealed, and ultimately the California Court of Appeals (Sixth District) reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court. Buck entered into a stay agreement with plaintiffs that essentially postpones this litigation pending the outcome of parallel litigation between plaintiffs and StanCERA. Buck will continue to aggressively defend these lawsuits. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) v. Baltimore County, Maryland: On January 1, 2007, the EEOC filed suit against Baltimore County (“County”) alleging that the County’s employer pension plan is age discriminatory under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) on the grounds that older employees were required to pay higher contributions to the plan than younger employees. Buck Consultants, LLC (“Buck”) is not a party to the lawsuit, but Buck provided administrative services to the plan and the County has asserted indemnity rights against Buck in the event that liability is found. On October 17, 2012, the trial court issued summary judgment finding the plan discriminatory but leaving for trial the question of damages. This decision has been affirmed on appeal and the matter is back before the trial court for trial on all remaining fact issues and damages. On April 24, 2015, the County filed for leave to add Buck as a third party to the lawsuit between the County and the EEOC. Buck has filed opposition papers. On January 22, 2015, the County served Buck with a declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking an affirmative determination that Buck owes the County defense and indemnity in the EEOC’s lawsuit against the County. Buck filed its motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and dismissed the County’s claim for indemnity. The court declined, at this time, to dismiss the County’s claim related to Buck’s alleged duty to defend. This case will now go forward to assess whether Buck owes a duty to defend the County in the action with the EEOC. Buck will continue to aggressively defend these matters. Other Matters On January 5, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") notified Xerox Education Services, Inc. (XES) that, in accordance with the CFPB’s discretionary Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (NORA) process, the CFPB’s Office of Enforcement is considering recommending that the CFPB take legal action against XES, alleging that XES violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition of unfair practices. Should the CFPB commence an action, it may seek restitution, civil monetary penalties, injunctive relief, or other corrective action. The purpose of a NORA letter is to provide a party being investigated an opportunity to present its position to the CFPB before an enforcement action is recommended or commenced. This notice stems from an inquiry that commenced in 2014 when XES received and responded to a Civil Investigative Demand containing a broad request for information. During this process, XES self-disclosed to the Department of Education and the CFPB certain adjustments of which it had become aware that had not been timely made relating to its servicing of a small percentage of third-party student loans under outsourcing arrangements for various financial institutions. The CFPB and the Department of Education, as well as certain states' attorney general offices and other regulatory agencies, began similar reviews. XES has cooperated and continues to fully cooperate with all regulatory agencies, and XES has submitted its NORA response. We cannot provide assurance that the CFPB or another party will not ultimately commence a legal action against XES in this matter nor are we able to predict the likely outcome of the investigations into this matter. We could in future periods incur judgments or enter into settlements in connection with this matter and there could be a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in judgment or settlement occurs. Other Contingencies Certain contracts, primarily in our Public Sector segment, require us to provide a surety bond or a letter of credit as a guarantee of performance. As of September 30, 2016, we had $655 of outstanding surety bonds used to secure our performance of contractual obligations with our clients, and we had $102 of outstanding letters of credit used to secure our performance of contractual obligations to our clients as well as other corporate obligations. In general, we would only be liable for the amount of these guarantees in the event of default in our performance of our obligations under each contract; the probability of which we believe is remote. We believe we have sufficient capacity in the surety markets and liquidity from our cash flow and our various credit arrangements, including those with our Parent, to allow us to respond to future requests for proposals that require such credit support. We have service arrangements where we service third-party student loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program (FFEL) on behalf of various financial institutions. We service these loans for investors under outsourcing arrangements and do not acquire any servicing rights that are transferable by us to a third-party. At September 30, 2016, we serviced a FFEL portfolio of approximately 1.6 million loans with an outstanding principal balance of approximately $24.1 billion. Some servicing agreements contain provisions that, under certain circumstances, require us to purchase the loans from the investor if the loan guaranty has been permanently terminated as a result of a loan default caused by our servicing error. If defaults caused by us are cured during an initial period, any obligation we may have to purchase these loans expires. Loans that we purchase may be subsequently cured, the guaranty reinstated and the loans repackaged for sale to third parties. We evaluate our exposure under our purchase obligations on defaulted loans and establish a reserve for potential losses, or default liability reserve, through a charge to the provision for loss on defaulted loans purchased. The reserve is evaluated periodically and adjusted based upon management’s analysis of the historical performance of the defaulted loans. As of September 30, 2016, other current liabilities include reserves of approximately $4 for losses on defaulted loans purchased which we believe to be adequate. In addition to potential purchase obligations arising from servicing errors, various laws and regulations applicable to student loan borrowers could give rise to fines, penalties and other liabilities associated with loan servicing errors.

Contingencies and Litigation

As more fully discussed below, we are involved in a variety of claims, lawsuits, investigations and proceedings concerning: securities law; governmental entity contracting, servicing and procurement law; intellectual property law; environmental law; employment law; commercial and contracts law; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); and other laws and regulations. We determine whether an estimated loss from a contingency should be accrued by assessing whether a loss is deemed probable and can be reasonably estimated. We assess our potential liability by analyzing our litigation and regulatory matters using available information. We develop our views on estimated losses in consultation with outside counsel handling our defense in these matters, which involves an analysis of potential results, assuming a combination of litigation and settlement strategies. Should developments in any of these matters cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome and result in the need to recognize a material accrual, or should any of these matters result in a final adverse judgment or be settled for significant amounts, they could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period or periods in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs. The Company believes it has recorded adequate provisions for any such matters and, as of September 30, 2016, it was not reasonably possible that a material loss had been incurred in connection with such matters in excess of the amounts recognized in its financial statements.

Additionally, guarantees, indemnifications and claims arise during the ordinary course of business from relationships with suppliers, customers and nonconsolidated affiliates when the BPS Business undertakes an obligation to guarantee the performance of others if specified triggering events occur. Nonperformance under a contract could trigger an obligation of the BPS Business. These potential claims include actions based upon alleged exposures to products, real estate, intellectual property such as patents, environmental matters, and other indemnifications. The ultimate effect on future financial results is not subject to reasonable estimation because considerable uncertainty exists as to the final outcome of these claims. However, while the ultimate liabilities resulting from such claims may be significant to results of operations in the period recognized, management does not anticipate they will have a material adverse effect on the BPS Business's combined financial position or liquidity. As of September 30, 2016, we have accrued our estimate of liability incurred under our indemnification arrangements and guarantees.

Litigation Against the BPS Business

State of Texas v. Xerox Corporation, Xerox State Healthcare, LLC, and ACS State Healthcare, LLC: On May 9, 2014, the State of Texas, via the Texas Office of Attorney General (the “State”), filed a lawsuit in the 53rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas. The lawsuit alleges that Xerox Corporation, Xerox State Healthcare, LLC and ACS State Healthcare (collectively, the "Xerox Defendants") violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act in the administration of its contract with the Texas Department of Health and Human Services (“HHSC”). The State alleges that the Xerox Defendants made false representations of material facts regarding the processes, procedures, implementation and results regarding the prior authorization of orthodontic claims. The State seeks recovery of actual damages, two times the amount of any overpayments made as a result of unlawful acts, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest and all costs and attorneys’ fees. The State references the amount in controversy as exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. The Xerox Defendants filed their Answer in June, 2014 denying all allegations. The Xerox Defendants will continue to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. We do not believe it is probable that we will incur a material loss in excess of the amount accrued for this matter. In the course of litigation, we periodically engage in discussions with plaintiff’s counsel for possible resolution of the matter. Should developments cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement for a significant amount, there could be a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in determination, judgment or settlement occurs.

Dennis Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants et al.: On October 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, Stanislaus County, and on November 24, 2009, the case was removed to the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division. Plaintiffs allege actuarial negligence against Buck Consultants, LLC (“Buck”) for the use of faulty actuarial assumptions in connection with the 2007 actuarial valuation for the Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Association (“StanCERA”). Plaintiffs allege that the employer contribution rate adopted by StanCERA based on Buck’s valuation was insufficient to fund the benefits promised by the County. On July 13, 2012, the Court entered its ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of all plan participants. The Court also ruled that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded their claim that Buck allegedly aided and abetted StanCERA in breaching its fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs then filed their Fifth Amended Complaint and added StanCERA to the litigation. Buck and StanCERA filed demurrers to the amended complaint. On September 13, 2012, the Court sustained both demurrers with prejudice, completely dismissing the matter and barring plaintiffs from refiling their claims. Plaintiffs appealed, and ultimately the California Court of Appeals (Sixth District) reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court. Buck entered into a stay agreement with plaintiffs that essentially postpones this litigation pending the outcome of parallel litigation between plaintiffs and StanCERA. Buck will continue to aggressively defend these lawsuits.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) v. Baltimore County, Maryland: On January 1, 2007, the EEOC filed suit against Baltimore County (“County”) alleging that the County’s employer pension plan is age discriminatory under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) on the grounds that older employees were required to pay higher contributions to the plan than younger employees. Buck Consultants, LLC (“Buck”) is not a party to the lawsuit, but Buck provided administrative services to the plan and the County has asserted indemnity rights against Buck in the event that liability is found. On October 17, 2012, the trial court issued summary judgment finding the plan discriminatory but leaving for trial the question of damages. This decision has been affirmed on appeal and the matter is back before the trial court for trial on all remaining fact issues and damages. On April 24, 2015, the County filed for leave to add Buck as a third party to the lawsuit between the County and the EEOC. Buck has filed opposition papers. On January 22, 2015, the County served Buck with a declaratory judgment lawsuit seeking an affirmative determination that Buck owes the County defense and indemnity in the EEOC’s lawsuit against the County. Buck filed its motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and dismissed the County’s claim for indemnity. The court declined, at this time, to dismiss the County’s claim related to Buck’s alleged duty to defend. This case will now go forward to assess whether Buck owes a duty to defend the County in the action with the EEOC. Buck will continue to aggressively defend these matters.

Other Matters

On January 5, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") notified Xerox Education Services, Inc. (XES) that, in accordance with the CFPB’s discretionary Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise (NORA) process, the CFPB’s Office of Enforcement is considering recommending that the CFPB take legal action against XES, alleging that XES violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition of unfair practices. Should the CFPB commence an action, it may seek restitution, civil monetary penalties, injunctive relief, or other corrective action. The purpose of a NORA letter is to provide a party being investigated an opportunity to present its position to the CFPB before an enforcement action is recommended or commenced. This notice stems from an inquiry that commenced in 2014 when XES received and responded to a Civil Investigative Demand containing a broad request for information. During this process, XES self-disclosed to the Department of Education and the CFPB certain adjustments of which it had become aware that had not been timely made relating to its servicing of a small percentage of third-party student loans under outsourcing arrangements for various financial institutions. The CFPB and the Department of Education, as well as certain states' attorney general offices and other regulatory agencies, began similar reviews. XES has cooperated and continues to fully cooperate with all regulatory agencies, and XES has submitted its NORA response. We cannot provide assurance that the CFPB or another party will not ultimately commence a legal action against XES in this matter nor are we able to predict the likely outcome of the investigations into this matter. We could in future periods incur judgments or enter into settlements in connection with this matter and there could be a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in which such change in judgment or settlement occurs.

Other Contingencies

Certain contracts, primarily in our Public Sector segment, require us to provide a surety bond or a letter of credit as a guarantee of performance. As of September 30, 2016, we had $655 of outstanding surety bonds used to secure our performance of contractual obligations with our clients, and we had $102 of outstanding letters of credit used to secure our performance of contractual obligations to our clients as well as other corporate obligations.

In general, we would only be liable for the amount of these guarantees in the event of default in our performance of our obligations under each contract; the probability of which we believe is remote. We believe we have sufficient capacity in the surety markets and liquidity from our cash flow and our various credit arrangements, including those with our Parent, to allow us to respond to future requests for proposals that require such credit support.

We have service arrangements where we service third-party student loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program (FFEL) on behalf of various financial institutions. We service these loans for investors under outsourcing arrangements and do not acquire any servicing rights that are transferable by us to a third-party. At September 30, 2016, we serviced a FFEL portfolio of approximately 1.6 million loans with an outstanding principal balance of approximately $24.1 billion. Some servicing agreements contain provisions that, under certain circumstances, require us to purchase the loans from the investor if the loan guaranty has been permanently terminated as a result of a loan default caused by our servicing error. If defaults caused by us are cured during an initial period, any obligation we may have to purchase these loans expires. Loans that we purchase may be subsequently cured, the guaranty reinstated and the loans repackaged for sale to third parties. We evaluate our exposure under our purchase obligations on defaulted loans and establish a reserve for potential losses, or default liability reserve, through a charge to the provision for loss on defaulted loans purchased. The reserve is evaluated periodically and adjusted based upon management’s analysis of the historical performance of the defaulted loans. As of September 30, 2016, other current liabilities include reserves of approximately $4 for losses on defaulted loans purchased which we believe to be adequate. In addition to potential purchase obligations arising from servicing errors, various laws and regulations applicable to student loan borrowers could give rise to fines, penalties and other liabilities associated with loan servicing errors.