Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(11) Commitments and Contingencies The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and other legal proceedings and forms of dispute resolution in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to disputes over contract payment and/or performance-related issues (such as disagreements regarding delay or a change in the scope of work of a project and/or the price associated with that change) and other matters incidental to the Company’s business. In accordance with ASC 606, the Company makes assessments of these types of matters on a routine basis and, to the extent permitted by ASC 606, estimates and records recovery related to these matters as a form of variable consideration at the most likely amount the Company expects to receive, as discussed further in Note 4, Contract Assets and Liabilities. In addition, the Company is contingently liable for litigation, performance guarantees and other commitments arising in the ordinary course of business, which are accounted for in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Management reviews these matters regularly and updates or revises its estimates from time to time as warranted by subsequent information and developments. These assessments require judgments concerning matters that are inherently uncertain, such as litigation developments and outcomes, the anticipated outcome of negotiations and the estimated cost of resolving disputes. Consequently, these assessments are estimates, and actual amounts may vary from such estimates. In addition, because such matters are typically resolved over long periods of time, the Company’s assets and liabilities may change over time should the circumstances dictate. Management believes that, based on current information and discussions with the Company’s legal counsel, the ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position. Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Matter The Company reconstructed the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Interchange (“LIE Project”) for the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”). The $130 million project was substantially completed in January 2004 and was accepted by NYSDOT as complete in February 2006. The Company incurred significant added costs in completing its work and suffered extended schedule costs due to numerous design errors, undisclosed utility conflicts, lack of coordination with local agencies and other interferences for which the Company believes NYSDOT is responsible. In March 2011, the Company opened a case with the New York State Court of Claims against NYSDOT related to the LIE Project. In May 2011, NYSDOT filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s claim on the grounds that the Company had not provided required documentation for project closeout and filing of a claim. In September 2011, the Company reached agreement on final payment with the Comptroller’s Office on behalf of NYSDOT, which resulted in an amount of $0.5 million payable to the Company and formally closed out the project allowing the Company to re-file its claim. In March 2012, the Company filed its formal Verified Claim seeking $50.7 million in damages. In May 2012, NYSDOT served its answer and asserted counterclaims in the amount of $151 million alleging fraud in the inducement and punitive damages related to alleged violations of the disadvantaged business enterprise (“DBE”) requirements for the project. The Court subsequently ruled that NYSDOT’s counterclaims may only be asserted as a defense and offset to the Company’s claims and not as affirmative claims. In November 2014, the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the dismissal of NYSDOT’s affirmative counterclaims. In June 2018, following additional summary judgment motions, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss NYSDOT’s affirmative defenses, which eliminated the use of NYSDOT’s counterclaims of $151 million as a defense to the claims of the Company. In October 2018, NYSDOT filed a notice of appeal. A trial date for the appeal has not been set. Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the consolidated financial statements at that time. As of June 30, 2019, the Company has concluded that the potential for a material adverse financial impact due to NYSDOT’s counterclaims is remote. Fontainebleau Matter Desert Mechanical, Inc. (“DMI”) and Fisk Electric Company (“Fisk”), wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, were subcontractors on the Fontainebleau project located in Las Vegas, Nevada, a hotel/casino complex with approximately 3,800 rooms (the “Project”). In June 2009, the owners of the Project filed for bankruptcy protection, under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, in the Southern District of Florida. DMI and Fisk recorded mechanic’s liens against the Project totaling approximately $44 million, for unpaid labor, materials and equipment it furnished to the Project. Other unaffiliated contractors, subcontractors and suppliers also recorded mechanic’s liens against the Project, subjecting the property to approximately $550 million in total lien claims by the various lien claimants who furnished labor, materials and equipment to the Project (the “Statutory Lienholders”). In June 2009, DMI filed suit against Turnberry West Construction, Inc., the general contractor, in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, and in May 2010, the court entered an order in favor of DMI for approximately $45 million. In January 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of the Property to Icahn Nevada Gaming Acquisition, LLC for approximately $150 million. Certain Project lenders (the “Lenders”) who had recorded deeds of trust as security interests in the property which far exceeded the sale proceeds, filed suit against the Statutory Lienholders, including DMI and Fisk, alleging that all mechanic’s liens were subordinate to the Lenders’ deeds of trust against the property. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in October 2012 that under Nevada Law, the mechanic’s lien claims had priority over a portion of the deeds of trust, but not all of them. In October 2013, a comprehensive settlement agreement was reached by and among the Statutory Lienholders and the Lenders to divide the Sale Proceeds such that the Statutory Lienholders would receive approximately $85 million of the sale proceeds (the “Net Statutory Lienholder Proceeds”) and the Lenders would receive the balance. The Bankruptcy Court appointed a mediator to facilitate a settlement between the Statutory Lienholders as to how the Net Statutory Lienholder Proceeds would be distributed, but after engaging in numerous mediation sessions spanning several years, the parties were unable to reach a resolution. DMI filed a motion seeking permission from the Bankruptcy Court to file an action in Nevada to enforce its lien rights against the Net Statutory Lienholder Proceeds, and the motion was granted. Pursuant to that order, litigation involving all Statutory Lienholders was commenced at the end of November 2017 (the “Nevada Action”). On April 25, 2019, DMI and Fisk agreed to a settlement in the Nevada Action with another Statutory Lienholder, who has guaranteed payment on account of their claims. The settlement amount will be paid when the Bankruptcy Court distributes the Net Statutory Lienholder Proceeds to the Statutory Lienholders, which is expected to occur later in 2019. The settlement had no material impact on the consolidated financial statements. Five Star Electric Matter In the third quarter of 2015, Five Star Electric Corp. (“Five Star”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 2011, entered into a tolling agreement (which has since expired) related to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (“USAO EDNY”). Five Star has been cooperating with the USAO EDNY since late June 2014, when it was first made aware of the investigation, and has provided information requested by the government related to its use of certain minority-owned, women-owned, small and disadvantaged business enterprises and certain of Five Star’s employee compensation, benefit and tax practices. As of June 30, 2019, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the investigation and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss that Five Star or the Company may incur or the impact of the results of the investigation on Five Star or the Company. Alaskan Way Viaduct Matter In January 2011, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture between Dragados USA, Inc. and the Company, entered into a design-build contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) for the construction of a large diameter bored tunnel in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, also known as State Route 99. The construction of the large diameter bored tunnel required the use of a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”). In December 2013, the TBM struck a steel pipe, installed by WSDOT as a well casing for an exploratory well. The TBM was damaged and was required to be repaired. STP has asserted that the steel pipe casing was a differing site condition that WSDOT failed to properly disclose. The Disputes Review Board mandated by the contract to hear disputes issued a decision finding the steel casing was a Type I differing site condition. WSDOT has not accepted that finding. The TBM was insured under a Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy (the “Policy”) with Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and a consortium of other insurers (the “Insurers”). STP submitted the claims to the Insurers and requested interim payments under the Policy. The Insurers refused to pay and denied coverage. In June 2015, STP filed a lawsuit in the King County Superior Court, State of Washington seeking declaratory relief concerning contract interpretation, as well as damages as a result of the Insurers’ breach of their obligations under the terms of the Policy. STP is also asserting extra-contractual and statutory claims against the Insurers. WSDOT is deemed a plaintiff since WSDOT is an insured under the Policy and had filed its own claim for damages. Hitachi Zosen (“Hitachi”), the manufacturer of the TBM, has also joined the case as a plaintiff for costs incurred to repair the damages to the TBM. In September 2018, rulings received on pre-trial motions effectively limited potential recovery under the Policy for STP, WSDOT and Hitachi. However, on December 19, 2018, the Court of Appeal granted the Company’s request for a discretionary appeal of those rulings. The appeal is expected to be heard in the second half of 2019. STP submitted damages to the Insurers in the King County lawsuit in the amount of $532 million. STP is also seeking these damages from WSDOT and Hitachi related to the pipe-strike by the TBM in a related lawsuit in Thurston County (see following paragraph). In March 2016, WSDOT filed a complaint against STP in Thurston County Superior Court for breach of contract alleging STP’s delays and failure to perform, seeking $57.2 million in damages and seeking declaratory relief concerning contract interpretation. STP filed its answer to WSDOT’s complaint and filed a counterclaim against WSDOT and Hitachi seeking damages of $667 million. Trial is scheduled for October 2019. As of June 30, 2019, the Company has concluded that the potential for a material adverse financial impact due to the Insurers’ denial of coverage and WSDOT’s legal actions is neither probable nor remote, and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. With respect to STP’s claims against the Insurers, WSDOT and Hitachi, management has included an estimate of the total anticipated recovery, concluded to be both probable and reliably estimable, in receivables or costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recoveries vary from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and other legal proceedings and forms of dispute resolution in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to disputes over contract payment and/or performance-related issues (such as disagreements regarding delay or a change in the scope of work of a project and/or the price associated with that change) and other matters incidental to the Company’s business. In accordance with ASC 606, the Company makes assessments of these types of matters on a routine basis and, to the extent permitted by ASC 606, estimates and records recovery related to these matters as a form of variable consideration at the most likely amount the Company expects to receive, as discussed further in Note 4, Contract Assets and Liabilities. In addition, the Company is contingently liable for litigation, performance guarantees and other commitments arising in the ordinary course of business, which are accounted for in accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies. Management reviews these matters regularly and updates or revises its estimates from time to time as warranted by subsequent information and developments. These assessments require judgments concerning matters that are inherently uncertain, such as litigation developments and outcomes, the anticipated outcome of negotiations and the estimated cost of resolving disputes. Consequently, these assessments are estimates, and actual amounts may vary from such estimates. In addition, because such matters are typically resolved over long periods of time, the Company’s assets and liabilities may change over time should the circumstances dictate. Management believes that, based on current information and discussions with the Company’s legal counsel, the ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position.

The Company reconstructed the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Interchange (“LIE Project”) for the New York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”). The $130 million project was substantially completed in January 2004 and was accepted by NYSDOT as complete in February 2006. The Company incurred significant added costs in completing its work and suffered extended schedule costs due to numerous design errors, undisclosed utility conflicts, lack of coordination with local agencies and other interferences for which the Company believes NYSDOT is responsible.

In March 2011, the Company opened a case with the New York State Court of Claims against NYSDOT related to the LIE Project. In May 2011, NYSDOT filed a motion to dismiss the Company’s claim on the grounds that the Company had not provided required documentation for project closeout and filing of a claim. In September 2011, the Company reached agreement on final payment with the Comptroller’s Office on behalf of NYSDOT, which resulted in an amount of $0.5 million payable to the Company and formally closed out the project allowing the Company to re-file its claim. In March 2012, the Company filed its formal Verified Claim seeking $50.7 million in damages. In May 2012, NYSDOT served its answer and asserted counterclaims in the amount of $151 million alleging fraud in the inducement and punitive damages related to alleged violations of the disadvantaged business enterprise (“DBE”) requirements for the project. The Court subsequently ruled that NYSDOT’s counterclaims may only be asserted as a defense and offset to the Company’s claims and not as affirmative claims. In November 2014, the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the dismissal of NYSDOT’s affirmative counterclaims. In June 2018, following additional summary judgment motions, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss NYSDOT’s affirmative defenses, which eliminated the use of NYSDOT’s counterclaims of $151 million as a defense to the claims of the Company. In October 2018, NYSDOT filed a notice of appeal. A trial date for the appeal has not been set.

Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project, and such estimate is included in revenue recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recovery included in the claim settlement varies from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the consolidated financial statements at that time. As of June 30, 2019, the Company has concluded that the potential for a material adverse financial impact due to NYSDOT’s counterclaims is remote.

Fontainebleau Matter

Desert Mechanical, Inc. (“DMI”) and Fisk Electric Company (“Fisk”), wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, were subcontractors on the Fontainebleau project located in Las Vegas, Nevada, a hotel/casino complex with approximately 3,800 rooms (the “Project”). In June 2009, the owners of the Project filed for bankruptcy protection, under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, in the Southern District of Florida.

DMI and Fisk recorded mechanic’s liens against the Project totaling approximately $44 million, for unpaid labor, materials and equipment it furnished to the Project. Other unaffiliated contractors, subcontractors and suppliers also recorded mechanic’s liens against the Project, subjecting the property to approximately $550 million in total lien claims by the various lien claimants who furnished labor, materials and equipment to the Project (the “Statutory Lienholders”). In June 2009, DMI filed suit against Turnberry West Construction, Inc., the general contractor, in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, and in May 2010, the court entered an order in favor of DMI for approximately $45 million.

In January 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of the Property to Icahn Nevada Gaming Acquisition, LLC for approximately $150 million. Certain Project lenders (the “Lenders”) who had recorded deeds of trust as security interests in the property which far exceeded the sale proceeds, filed suit against the Statutory Lienholders, including DMI and Fisk, alleging that all mechanic’s liens were subordinate to the Lenders’ deeds of trust against the property. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in October 2012 that under Nevada Law, the mechanic’s lien claims had priority over a portion of the deeds of trust, but not all of them.

In October 2013, a comprehensive settlement agreement was reached by and among the Statutory Lienholders and the Lenders to divide the Sale Proceeds such that the Statutory Lienholders would receive approximately $85 million of the sale proceeds (the “Net Statutory Lienholder Proceeds”) and the Lenders would receive the balance. The Bankruptcy Court appointed a mediator to facilitate a settlement between the Statutory Lienholders as to how the Net Statutory Lienholder Proceeds would be distributed, but after engaging in numerous mediation sessions spanning several years, the parties were unable to reach a resolution. DMI filed a motion seeking permission from the Bankruptcy Court to file an action in Nevada to enforce its lien rights against the Net Statutory Lienholder Proceeds, and the motion was granted. Pursuant to that order, litigation involving all Statutory Lienholders was commenced at the end of November 2017 (the “Nevada Action”).

On April 25, 2019, DMI and Fisk agreed to a settlement in the Nevada Action with another Statutory Lienholder, who has guaranteed payment on account of their claims. The settlement amount will be paid when the Bankruptcy Court distributes the Net Statutory Lienholder Proceeds to the Statutory Lienholders, which is expected to occur later in 2019. The settlement had no material impact on the consolidated financial statements.

Five Star Electric Matter

In the third quarter of 2015, Five Star Electric Corp. (“Five Star”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 2011, entered into a tolling agreement (which has since expired) related to an ongoing investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (“USAO EDNY”). Five Star has been cooperating with the USAO EDNY since late June 2014, when it was first made aware of the investigation, and has provided information requested by the government related to its use of certain minority-owned, women-owned, small and disadvantaged business enterprises and certain of Five Star’s employee compensation, benefit and tax practices.

As of June 30, 2019, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the investigation and cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss that Five Star or the Company may incur or the impact of the results of the investigation on Five Star or the Company.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Matter

In January 2011, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture between Dragados USA, Inc. and the Company, entered into a design-build contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) for the construction of a large diameter bored tunnel in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, also known as State Route 99.

The construction of the large diameter bored tunnel required the use of a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”). In December 2013, the TBM struck a steel pipe, installed by WSDOT as a well casing for an exploratory well. The TBM was damaged and was required to be repaired. STP has asserted that the steel pipe casing was a differing site condition that WSDOT failed to properly disclose. The Disputes Review Board mandated by the contract to hear disputes issued a decision finding the steel casing was a Type I differing site condition. WSDOT has not accepted that finding.

The TBM was insured under a Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy (the “Policy”) with Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and a consortium of other insurers (the “Insurers”). STP submitted the claims to the Insurers and requested interim payments under the Policy. The Insurers refused to pay and denied coverage. In June 2015, STP filed a lawsuit in the King County Superior Court, State of Washington seeking declaratory relief concerning contract interpretation, as well as damages as a result of the Insurers’ breach of their obligations under the terms of the Policy. STP is also asserting extra-contractual and statutory claims against the Insurers. WSDOT is deemed a plaintiff since WSDOT is an insured under the Policy and had filed its own claim for damages. Hitachi Zosen (“Hitachi”), the manufacturer of the TBM, has also joined the case as a plaintiff for costs incurred to repair the damages to the TBM. In September 2018, rulings received on pre-trial motions effectively limited potential recovery under the Policy for STP, WSDOT and Hitachi. However, on December 19, 2018, the Court of Appeal granted the Company’s request for a discretionary appeal of those rulings. The appeal is expected to be heard in the second half of 2019. STP submitted damages to the Insurers in the King County lawsuit in the amount of $532 million. STP is also seeking these damages from WSDOT and Hitachi related to the pipe-strike by the TBM in a related lawsuit in Thurston County (see following paragraph).

In March 2016, WSDOT filed a complaint against STP in Thurston County Superior Court for breach of contract alleging STP’s delays and failure to perform, seeking $57.2 million in damages and seeking declaratory relief concerning contract interpretation. STP filed its answer to WSDOT’s complaint and filed a counterclaim against WSDOT and Hitachi seeking damages of $667 million. Trial is scheduled for October 2019.

As of June 30, 2019, the Company has concluded that the potential for a material adverse financial impact due to the Insurers’ denial of coverage and WSDOT’s legal actions is neither probable nor remote, and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. With respect to STP’s claims against the Insurers, WSDOT and Hitachi, management has included an estimate of the total anticipated recovery, concluded to be both probable and reliably estimable, in receivables or costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings recorded to date. To the extent new facts become known or the final recoveries vary from the estimate, the impact of the change will be reflected in the financial statements at that time.