USE OF ESTIMATES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
USE OF ESTIMATES	NOTE 3—USE OF ESTIMATES We use estimates and assumptions to prepare our financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP. Those estimates and assumptions affect the amounts we report in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our actual results could differ from those estimates, and variances could materially affect our financial condition and results of operations in future periods. Changes in project estimates generally exclude change orders and changes in scope, but may include, without limitation, changes in cost recovery estimates, unexpected changes in weather conditions, changes in productivity, unidentified required vessel repairs, customer and vendor delays and other costs. We generally expect to experience a reasonable amount of unanticipated events, and some of those events can result in significant cost increases above cost amounts we previously estimated. As of September 30, 2015, we have provided for our estimated costs to complete on all our ongoing contracts. However, it is possible that current estimates could change due to unforeseen events, which could result in adjustments to overall contract costs. Variations from estimated contract performance could result in material adjustments to operating results. For all contracts, if a current estimate of total contract cost indicates a loss, the projected loss is recognized in full when determined. The following is a discussion of our most significant changes in estimates that impacted operating income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014. Three months ended September 30, 2015 Operating income for the three months ended September 30, 2015 was impacted by net unfavorable changes in cost estimates totaling approximately $8 million. The AEA segment deteriorated by a net $11 million due to changes in estimates during the three months ended September 30, 2015. Results for the third quarter of 2015 included $6 million due to changes in marine campaign execution plan on the PB Litoral EPCI project in Mexico and charges associated with a legal settlement as discussed in Note 14. The changes in the PB Litoral marine campaign execution plan were due to carryover of offshore scope and revised cost estimates for hookup campaign. These were partially offset by the extension of the project completion date on the PB Litoral project, which resulted in a $13 million reversal of liquidated damage reserves. The MEA segment had net favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $6 million. Projects in Saudi Arabia were positively impacted by: (1) a $6 million favorable change order for vessel downtime; (2) productivity improvements and associated cost savings on a cable-lay project in Saudi Arabia totaling approximately $3 million; and (3) $1 million in net positive changes in estimates on multiple projects, which were not individually material. These net favorable changes were partially offset by a $4 million increase in pipelay cost estimates on a project in the U.A.E., primarily due to changes in the execution plan as a result of needing to substitute with a third party vessel and hookup associated issues. The ASA segment had net unfavorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $3 million. The deterioration was primarily due to $8 million of cost overruns and weather downtime on an installation project in Brunei, partially offset by $5 million of net positive changes in estimates on multiple projects, which were not individually material. Nine months ended September 30, 2015 Operating income for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was positively impacted by net favorable changes in cost estimates totaling approximately $21 million. The AEA segment had net unfavorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $1 million. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015, the AEA segment was positively impacted by: (1) $13 million reversal of liquidated damage reserves due to the extension of the PB Litoral project completion date; (2) $4 million due to productivity improvements on the Agile charter; and (3) $3 million each attributable to the Papa Terra project due to reduced cost estimates and to the North Ocean 105 vessel (the “NO 105”) due to reduced demobilization cost resulting from revised project plans. Those were partially offset by $6 million due to changes in the marine campaign execution plan on the PB Litoral project discussed above and charges associated with a legal settlement as discussed in Note 14. Other multiple projects experienced net positive changes in estimates of $1 million, which were not individually material. The MEA segment had net favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $16 million. Three projects in Saudi Arabia were positively impacted by: 1) $11 million of changes in estimates mostly due to productivity improvements and associated cost savings on the Intermac 406, which was working on a cable-lay project; 2) $5 million of cost savings associated with revised cable lay scope; 3) $5 million as a result of an agreement with the customer on compensation for vessel downtime due to weather and standby delays; and 4) $4 million related to marine hook-up campaign savings. The KJO Hout project in the Neutral Zone was positively impacted by $7 million of changes in estimates driven by revenue recovery and cost savings resulting from customer-approved design optimization. These favorable changes were partially offset by: 1) $9 million increase in pipelay cost estimates on a U.A.E. project as a result of changes in our execution plan; 2) $5 million negative impact on another EPCI project in Saudi Arabia due to increases in cost estimates on onshore scope; and 3) $2 million of unfavorable changes in estimates on multiple projects, none of which were individually material. The ASA segment had net favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $6 million. Improvements were driven by $4 million due to productivity gains and improvements in cost estimates realized on the Gorgon MRU fabrication project, as well as $10 million in net improvements on multiple projects that were not individually material. Those improvements were partially offset by $8 million in cost overruns resulting from weather downtime on an installation project in Brunei. Three months ended September 30, 2014 Operating income for the three months ended September 30, 2014 was positively impacted by changes in cost estimates relating to projects in each of our segments. The AEA segment improved by a net $1.5 million from changes in estimates on five projects. On Jack & St. Malo, a subsea project in the Gulf of Mexico completed during the period, project close-out savings on marine spread costs and increased cost recovery based on positive developments from the ongoing negotiations with the customer resulted in a reduction of project losses of $12.4 million. Two projects completed earlier in 2014 improved by an aggregate of approximately $4.8 million based on positive developments from ongoing project close-out negotiations with the customers. These improvements were partially offset by negative changes of approximately $10.9 million on the PB Litoral project, primarily due to increased cost estimates to complete the project as a result of a revised fabrication execution plan, and reduced cost recovery of approximately $4.8 million on a fabrication project in Morgan City completed during 2013, based on an agreement in principle reached with the customer during the three months ended September 30, 2014, which resulted in lower than anticipated recoveries. The MEA segment deteriorated by a net amount of approximately $5.4 million due to change in estimates during the three months ended September 30, 2014. On one EPCI project in Saudi Arabia, estimated costs to complete increased by $7.9 million, primarily as a result of vessel downtime due to weather and standby delays (some of which was recovered from the customer in 2015, but those recoveries were not recognizable at September 30, 2014). On two other EPCI projects in Saudi Arabia, estimated costs to complete increased by an aggregate of $6.7 million, as a result of revisions to project execution plans, primarily due to extended offshore hookup campaigns, increased vessel mobilization activities, and delays in the completion of onshore activities. On another EPCI project in Saudi Arabia, we increased our overall estimated costs to complete by approximately $8.6 million, reflecting the costs of an incremental mobilization and inefficiencies of executing out-of-sequence work due to a revised execution plan, which resulted from delayed access to the project site. These negative changes were offset by an improvement of approximately $17.8 million on a pipelay project in the Caspian, primarily due to increased cost recovery estimates based on positive developments during the three months ended September 30, 2014 from the ongoing project close-out process with the customer. This project was completed earlier in 2014. The ASA segment was positively impacted by favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $20.2 million from three projects. On a marine installation project in Brunei, reduction in estimated costs to complete from productivity improvements on marine vessels and offshore support activities resulted in a favorable change of approximately $10.8 million. On two previously completed projects, insurance claim collection and final project close-out adjustments resulted in a combined additional recovery of approximately $9.5 million during the three months ended September 30, 2014. Nine months ended September 30, 2014 Operating income for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 was positively impacted by changes in cost estimates relating to projects in each of our segments. The AEA segment was negatively impacted by net unfavorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $41.5 million associated with five projects. On the PB Litoral project we increased our estimated costs to complete by approximately $66.3 million due to: 1) liquidated damages and extended project management costs arising from unexpected project delays and projected fabrication cost increases reflecting reduced productivity and execution plan changes to mitigate further project delays; and 2) procurement and marine installation cost increases. This project is in a loss position and is estimated to be completed in the first quarter of 2016. On the Jack & St. Malo project, a subsea project in the Gulf of Mexico, we increased our estimated costs to complete by approximately $10.1 million, primarily due to increased costs from equipment downtime issues on the North Ocean 102 (the “NO 102”), our primary vessel working on the project, partially offset by project close-out savings on marine spread costs and increased cost recovery estimates based on positive developments from the ongoing negotiations with the customer. This project, which was in a loss position, was completed during the nine months ended September 30, 2014. On a fabrication project in Morgan City completed during 2013, we reduced our cost recovery estimates by approximately $7.8 million, mainly based on an agreement in principle reached with the customer during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, which resulted in lower than anticipated recoveries. These negative impacts were partially offset by $37.4 million of project close-out improvements on the Papa Terra project in Brazil, from marine cost reductions upon completion of activities and increased recoveries due to successful developments from ongoing approval process for additional weather-related compensation. We also recognized $5.2 million in cost reduction, mainly due to project close-out improvements on a marine installation project in the Gulf of Mexico. The MEA segment was negatively impacted by net unfavorable changes aggregating approximately $10.7 million due to changes in four projects. On two EPCI projects in Saudi Arabia, we increased our estimated costs at completion by approximately $42.4 million, primarily as a result of vessel downtime due to weather and standby delays (some of which was recovered from the customer in 2015, but those recoveries were not recognizable at September 30, 2014), reduced productivity levels and increased cost estimates to complete the onshore scope of one of the projects. On another EPCI project in the Neutral Zone, we increased our overall estimated costs to complete by approximately $15.2 million to reflect cost overruns related to: 1) the onshore work, which was substantially completed in July 2014; and 2) delays in completing the offshore work due to delayed access to the project site, resulting in a revised execution plan. The revised execution plan included the costs of an incremental mobilization and reflected inefficiencies of executing out-of-sequence work. These negative changes were partially offset by approximately $46.9 million of increased cost recovery estimates on a pipelay project in the Caspian, based on positive developments during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 from the ongoing project close-out process with the customer. This project was substantially completed in June 2014. The ASA segment experienced net favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $53.5 million due to changes in estimates on four projects. Changes in estimates on the Siakap Subsea Development (“Siakap”), a subsea project in Malaysia, resulted in improvements of approximately $31.5 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, primarily related to productivity improvements on our marine vessels and offshore support activities, as well as project close-out savings. On a marine installation project in Brunei, a reduction in estimated costs to complete from productivity improvements on marine vessels and offshore support activities resulted in a favorable change of approximately $11.8 million. On two previously completed projects, insurance claim collections and final project close-out adjustments resulted in a combined additional recovery of approximately $10.3 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2014.

NOTE 3—USE OF ESTIMATES

We use estimates and assumptions to prepare our financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP. Those estimates and assumptions affect the amounts we report in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our actual results could differ from those estimates, and variances could materially affect our financial condition and results of operations in future periods. Changes in project estimates generally exclude change orders and changes in scope, but may include, without limitation, changes in cost recovery estimates, unexpected changes in weather conditions, changes in productivity, unidentified required vessel repairs, customer and vendor delays and other costs. We generally expect to experience a reasonable amount of unanticipated events, and some of those events can result in significant cost increases above cost amounts we previously estimated. As of September 30, 2015, we have provided for our estimated costs to complete on all our ongoing contracts. However, it is possible that current estimates could change due to unforeseen events, which could result in adjustments to overall contract costs. Variations from estimated contract performance could result in material adjustments to operating results. For all contracts, if a current estimate of total contract cost indicates a loss, the projected loss is recognized in full when determined.

The following is a discussion of our most significant changes in estimates that impacted operating income for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014.

Three months ended September 30, 2015

Operating income for the three months ended September 30, 2015 was impacted by net unfavorable changes in cost estimates totaling approximately $8 million.

The AEA segment deteriorated by a net $11 million due to changes in estimates during the three months ended September 30, 2015. Results for the third quarter of 2015 included $6 million due to changes in marine campaign execution plan on the PB Litoral EPCI project in Mexico and charges associated with a legal settlement as discussed in Note 14. The changes in the PB Litoral marine campaign execution plan were due to carryover of offshore scope and revised cost estimates for hookup campaign. These were partially offset by the extension of the project completion date on the PB Litoral project, which resulted in a $13 million reversal of liquidated damage reserves.

The MEA segment had net favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $6 million. Projects in Saudi Arabia were positively impacted by: (1) a $6 million favorable change order for vessel downtime; (2) productivity improvements and associated cost savings on a cable-lay project in Saudi Arabia totaling approximately $3 million; and (3) $1 million in net positive changes in estimates on multiple projects, which were not individually material. These net favorable changes were partially offset by a $4 million increase in pipelay cost estimates on a project in the U.A.E., primarily due to changes in the execution plan as a result of needing to substitute with a third party vessel and hookup associated issues.

The ASA segment had net unfavorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $3 million. The deterioration was primarily due to $8 million of cost overruns and weather downtime on an installation project in Brunei, partially offset by $5 million of net positive changes in estimates on multiple projects, which were not individually material.

Nine months ended September 30, 2015

Operating income for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 was positively impacted by net favorable changes in cost estimates totaling approximately $21 million.

The AEA segment had net unfavorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $1 million. For the nine months ended September 30, 2015, the AEA segment was positively impacted by: (1) $13 million reversal of liquidated damage reserves due to the extension of the PB Litoral project completion date; (2) $4 million due to productivity improvements on the Agile charter; and (3) $3 million each attributable to the Papa Terra project due to reduced cost estimates and to the North Ocean 105 vessel (the “NO 105”) due to reduced demobilization cost resulting from revised project plans. Those were partially offset by $6 million due to changes in the marine campaign execution plan on the PB Litoral project discussed above and charges associated with a legal settlement as discussed in Note 14. Other multiple projects experienced net positive changes in estimates of $1 million, which were not individually material.

The MEA segment had net favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $16 million. Three projects in Saudi Arabia were positively impacted by: 1) $11 million of changes in estimates mostly due to productivity improvements and associated cost savings on the Intermac 406, which was working on a cable-lay project; 2) $5 million of cost savings associated with revised cable lay scope; 3) $5 million as a result of an agreement with the customer on compensation for vessel downtime due to weather and standby delays; and 4) $4 million related to marine hook-up campaign savings. The KJO Hout project in the Neutral Zone was positively impacted by $7 million of changes in estimates driven by revenue recovery and cost savings resulting from customer-approved design optimization. These favorable changes were partially offset by: 1) $9 million increase in pipelay cost estimates on a U.A.E. project as a result of changes in our execution plan; 2) $5 million negative impact on another EPCI project in Saudi Arabia due to increases in cost estimates on onshore scope; and 3) $2 million of unfavorable changes in estimates on multiple projects, none of which were individually material.

The ASA segment had net favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $6 million. Improvements were driven by $4 million due to productivity gains and improvements in cost estimates realized on the Gorgon MRU fabrication project, as well as $10 million in net improvements on multiple projects that were not individually material. Those improvements were partially offset by $8 million in cost overruns resulting from weather downtime on an installation project in Brunei.

Three months ended September 30, 2014

Operating income for the three months ended September 30, 2014 was positively impacted by changes in cost estimates relating to projects in each of our segments.

The AEA segment improved by a net $1.5 million from changes in estimates on five projects. On Jack & St. Malo, a subsea project in the Gulf of Mexico completed during the period, project close-out savings on marine spread costs and increased cost recovery based on positive developments from the ongoing negotiations with the customer resulted in a reduction of project losses of $12.4 million. Two projects completed earlier in 2014 improved by an aggregate of approximately $4.8 million based on positive developments from ongoing project close-out negotiations with the customers. These improvements were partially offset by negative changes of approximately $10.9 million on the PB Litoral project, primarily due to increased cost estimates to complete the project as a result of a revised fabrication execution plan, and reduced cost recovery of approximately $4.8 million on a fabrication project in Morgan City completed during 2013, based on an agreement in principle reached with the customer during the three months ended September 30, 2014, which resulted in lower than anticipated recoveries.

The MEA segment deteriorated by a net amount of approximately $5.4 million due to change in estimates during the three months ended September 30, 2014. On one EPCI project in Saudi Arabia, estimated costs to complete increased by $7.9 million, primarily as a result of vessel downtime due to weather and standby delays (some of which was recovered from the customer in 2015, but those recoveries were not recognizable at September 30, 2014). On two other EPCI projects in Saudi Arabia, estimated costs to complete increased by an aggregate of $6.7 million, as a result of revisions to project execution plans, primarily due to extended offshore hookup campaigns, increased vessel mobilization activities, and delays in the completion of onshore activities. On another EPCI project in Saudi Arabia, we increased our overall estimated costs to complete by approximately $8.6 million, reflecting the costs of an incremental mobilization and inefficiencies of executing out-of-sequence work due to a revised execution plan, which resulted from delayed access to the project site. These negative changes were offset by an improvement of approximately $17.8 million on a pipelay project in the Caspian, primarily due to increased cost recovery estimates based on positive developments during the three months ended September 30, 2014 from the ongoing project close-out process with the customer. This project was completed earlier in 2014.

The ASA segment was positively impacted by favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $20.2 million from three projects. On a marine installation project in Brunei, reduction in estimated costs to complete from productivity improvements on marine vessels and offshore support activities resulted in a favorable change of approximately $10.8 million. On two previously completed projects, insurance claim collection and final project close-out adjustments resulted in a combined additional recovery of approximately $9.5 million during the three months ended September 30, 2014.

Nine months ended September 30, 2014

Operating income for the nine months ended September 30, 2014 was positively impacted by changes in cost estimates relating to projects in each of our segments.

The AEA segment was negatively impacted by net unfavorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $41.5 million associated with five projects. On the PB Litoral project we increased our estimated costs to complete by approximately $66.3 million due to: 1) liquidated damages and extended project management costs arising from unexpected project delays and projected fabrication cost increases reflecting reduced productivity and execution plan changes to mitigate further project delays; and 2) procurement and marine installation cost increases. This project is in a loss position and is estimated to be completed in the first quarter of 2016. On the Jack & St. Malo project, a subsea project in the Gulf of Mexico, we increased our estimated costs to complete by approximately $10.1 million, primarily due to increased costs from equipment downtime issues on the North Ocean 102 (the “NO 102”), our primary vessel working on the project, partially offset by project close-out savings on marine spread costs and increased cost recovery estimates based on positive developments from the ongoing negotiations with the customer. This project, which was in a loss position, was completed during the nine months ended September 30, 2014. On a fabrication project in Morgan City completed during 2013, we reduced our cost recovery estimates by approximately $7.8 million, mainly based on an agreement in principle reached with the customer during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, which resulted in lower than anticipated recoveries. These negative impacts were partially offset by $37.4 million of project close-out improvements on the Papa Terra project in Brazil, from marine cost reductions upon completion of activities and increased recoveries due to successful developments from ongoing approval process for additional weather-related compensation. We also recognized $5.2 million in cost reduction, mainly due to project close-out improvements on a marine installation project in the Gulf of Mexico.

The MEA segment was negatively impacted by net unfavorable changes aggregating approximately $10.7 million due to changes in four projects. On two EPCI projects in Saudi Arabia, we increased our estimated costs at completion by approximately $42.4 million, primarily as a result of vessel downtime due to weather and standby delays (some of which was recovered from the customer in 2015, but those recoveries were not recognizable at September 30, 2014), reduced productivity levels and increased cost estimates to complete the onshore scope of one of the projects. On another EPCI project in the Neutral Zone, we increased our overall estimated costs to complete by approximately $15.2 million to reflect cost overruns related to: 1) the onshore work, which was substantially completed in July 2014; and 2) delays in completing the offshore work due to delayed access to the project site, resulting in a revised execution plan. The revised execution plan included the costs of an incremental mobilization and reflected inefficiencies of executing out-of-sequence work. These negative changes were partially offset by approximately $46.9 million of increased cost recovery estimates on a pipelay project in the Caspian, based on positive developments during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 from the ongoing project close-out process with the customer. This project was substantially completed in June 2014.

The ASA segment experienced net favorable changes in estimates aggregating approximately $53.5 million due to changes in estimates on four projects. Changes in estimates on the Siakap Subsea Development (“Siakap”), a subsea project in Malaysia, resulted in improvements of approximately $31.5 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2014, primarily related to productivity improvements on our marine vessels and offshore support activities, as well as project close-out savings. On a marine installation project in Brunei, a reduction in estimated costs to complete from productivity improvements on marine vessels and offshore support activities resulted in a favorable change of approximately $11.8 million. On two previously completed projects, insurance claim collections and final project close-out adjustments resulted in a combined additional recovery of approximately $10.3 million during the nine months ended September 30, 2014.