COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Con Ed Matter. We have, from time to time, provided temporary leak repair services to the steam system of Consolidated Edison Company of New York (“Con Ed”) located in New York City. In July 2007, a Con Ed steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured resulting in one death and other injuries and property damage. As of December 31, 2017, sixty-eight lawsuits are currently pending against Con Ed, the City of New York and Team in the Supreme Court of New York, alleging that our temporary leak repair services may have contributed to the cause of the rupture, allegations which we dispute. The lawsuits seek generally unspecified compensatory damages for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. Additionally, Con Ed is alleging that our contract with Con Ed requires us to fully indemnify and defend Con Ed for all claims asserted against Con Ed including those amounts that Con Ed has paid to settle with certain plaintiffs for undisclosed sums as well as Con Ed’s own alleged damages to its infrastructure. Con Ed filed an action to join Team and the City of New York as defendants in all lawsuits filed against Con Ed that did not include Team and the City of New York as direct defendants. We are vigorously defending the lawsuits and Con Ed’s claim for indemnification. We are unable to estimate the amount of liability to us, if any, associated with these lawsuits and the claim for indemnification. We filed a motion to dismiss in April 2016. We maintain insurance coverage, subject to a deductible limit of $250,000, which we believe should cover these claims. We have not accrued any liability in excess of the deductible limit for the lawsuits. We do not believe the ultimate outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Patent Infringement Matters. In December 2014, our subsidiary, Quest Integrity Group, LLC, filed three patent infringement lawsuits against three different defendants, two in the U.S. District of Delaware (the “Delaware Cases”) and one in the U.S. District of Western Washington (“Washington Case”). Quest Integrity alleges that the three defendants infringed Quest Integrity’s patent, entitled “2D and 3D Display System and Method for Furnace Tube Inspection”. This Quest Integrity patent generally teaches a system and method for displaying inspection data collected during the inspection of furnace tubes in petroleum and petro-chemical refineries. The subject patent litigation is specific to the visual display of the collected data and does not relate to Quest Integrity’s underlying advanced inspection technology. In these lawsuits Quest Integrity is seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Defendants have denied they infringe any valid claim of Quest Integrity’s patent, and have asserted declaratory judgment counterclaims that the patent at issue is invalid and/or unenforceable, and not infringed. In June 2015, the U.S. District of Delaware denied our motions for preliminary injunctive relief in the Delaware Cases (that is, our request that the defendants stop using our patented systems and methods during the pendency of the actions). In March 2017, the judge in the Delaware Cases granted summary judgment against Quest Integrity, finding certain patent claims of the asserted patent invalid. In August 2017, the judge in the Washington Case granted summary judgment against Quest Integrity based on the Delaware Cases ruling. Quest Integrity is in the process of appealing both Delaware Cases and the Washington Case. We are involved in various other lawsuits and are subject to various claims and proceedings encountered in the normal conduct of business. In our opinion, any uninsured losses that might arise from these lawsuits and proceedings will not have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. We establish a liability for loss contingencies, when information available to us indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Con Ed Matter. We have, from time to time, provided temporary leak repair services to the steam system of Consolidated Edison Company of New York (“Con Ed”) located in New York City. In July 2007, a Con Ed steam main located in midtown Manhattan ruptured resulting in one death and other injuries and property damage. As of December 31, 2017, sixty-eight lawsuits are currently pending against Con Ed, the City of New York and Team in the Supreme Court of New York, alleging that our temporary leak repair services may have contributed to the cause of the rupture, allegations which we dispute. The lawsuits seek generally unspecified compensatory damages for personal injury, property damage and business interruption. Additionally, Con Ed is alleging that our contract with Con Ed requires us to fully indemnify and defend Con Ed for all claims asserted against Con Ed including those amounts that Con Ed has paid to settle with certain plaintiffs for undisclosed sums as well as Con Ed’s own alleged damages to its infrastructure. Con Ed filed an action to join Team and the City of New York as defendants in all lawsuits filed against Con Ed that did not include Team and the City of New York as direct defendants. We are vigorously defending the lawsuits and Con Ed’s claim for indemnification. We are unable to estimate the amount of liability to us, if any, associated with these lawsuits and the claim for indemnification. We filed a motion to dismiss in April 2016. We maintain insurance coverage, subject to a deductible limit of $250,000, which we believe should cover these claims. We have not accrued any liability in excess of the deductible limit for the lawsuits. We do not believe the ultimate outcome of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Patent Infringement Matters. In December 2014, our subsidiary, Quest Integrity Group, LLC, filed three patent infringement lawsuits against three different defendants, two in the U.S. District of Delaware (the “Delaware Cases”) and one in the U.S. District of Western Washington (“Washington Case”). Quest Integrity alleges that the three defendants infringed Quest Integrity’s patent, entitled “2D and 3D Display System and Method for Furnace Tube Inspection”. This Quest Integrity patent generally teaches a system and method for displaying inspection data collected during the inspection of furnace tubes in petroleum and petro-chemical refineries. The subject patent litigation is specific to the visual display of the collected data and does not relate to Quest Integrity’s underlying advanced inspection technology. In these lawsuits Quest Integrity is seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. Defendants have denied they infringe any valid claim of Quest Integrity’s patent, and have asserted declaratory judgment counterclaims that the patent at issue is invalid and/or unenforceable, and not infringed. In June 2015, the U.S. District of Delaware denied our motions for preliminary injunctive relief in the Delaware Cases (that is, our request that the defendants stop using our patented systems and methods during the pendency of the actions). In March 2017, the judge in the Delaware Cases granted summary judgment against Quest Integrity, finding certain patent claims of the asserted patent invalid. In August 2017, the judge in the Washington Case granted summary judgment against Quest Integrity based on the Delaware Cases ruling. Quest Integrity is in the process of appealing both Delaware Cases and the Washington Case.

We are involved in various other lawsuits and are subject to various claims and proceedings encountered in the normal conduct of business. In our opinion, any uninsured losses that might arise from these lawsuits and proceedings will not have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

We establish a liability for loss contingencies, when information available to us indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.