Contingencies and Commitments

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Contingencies and Commitments [Abstract]

Contingencies and Commitments

(7) Contingencies and Commitments

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in litigation and are contingently liable for commitments and performance guarantees arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company and certain of its clients have made claims arising from the performance under its contracts. The Company recognizes certain significant claims for recovery of incurred cost when it is probable that the claim will result in additional contract revenue and when the amount of the claim can be reliably estimated. These assessments require judgments concerning matters such as litigation developments and outcomes, the anticipated outcome of negotiations, the number of future claims and the cost of both pending and future claims.  In addition, because most contingencies are resolved over long periods of time, liabilities may change in the future due to various factors.

Several matters are in the litigation and dispute resolution process.  The following discussion provides a background and current status of these matters.

Tutor-Saliba-Perini Joint Venture vs. Los Angeles MTA Matter

During 1995 Tutor-Saliba-Perini (“Joint Venture”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LAMTA”), seeking to recover costs for extra work required by LAMTA in connection with the construction of certain tunnel and station projects. In 1999, LAMTA countered with civil claims under the California False Claims Act against the Joint Venture, Tutor-Saliba and the Company jointly and severally (together, “TSP”).

Between 2005 and 2010, the court granted certain Joint Venture motions and LAMTA capitulated on others which reduced the number of false claims LAMTA may seek and limited LAMTA’s claims for damages and penalties.  In September 2010, LAMTA dismissed its remaining claims and agreed to pay the entire amount of the Joint Venture’s remaining claims plus interest.   The Court subsequently entered judgment in favor of TSP and against LAMTA in the amount of $3 million.  This amount is after deducting the amount of $0.5 million, representing the tunnel handrail verdict plus accrued interest against TSP.  The parties filed post-trial motions for costs and fees.  The Court ruled TSP’s sureties could recover costs, LAMTA could recover costs for the tunnel handrail trial, and no party could recover attorneys’ fees.  In April 2011, TSP filed a notice of appeal regarding the false claims jury verdict on the tunnel handrail claim and other issues, and LAMTA subsequently filed its notice of cross-appeal.  In October 2011, TSP filed a notice of appeal regarding the Court’s order denying TSP and its Sureties’ request for attorneys’ fees.  In March 2012, the Court finalized the preparation of the record for the Court of Appeal with the filing of opening briefs expected in the 3rd Quarter 2012.  The appeal of this case is expected to take at least a year.

The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

Perini/Kiewit/Cashman Joint Venture-Central Artery/Tunnel Project Matter

Perini/Kiewit/Cashman Joint Venture (“PKC”), a joint venture in which the Company holds a 56% interest and is the managing partner, is currently pursuing a series of claims, instituted at different times over the course of the past ten years, for additional contract time and/or compensation against the Massachusetts Highway Department (“MHD”) for work performed by PKC on a portion of the Central Artery/Tunnel (“CA/T”) project in Boston, Massachusetts.  During construction, MHD ordered PKC to perform changes to the work and issued related direct cost changes with an estimated value, excluding time delay and inefficiency costs, in excess of $100 million. In addition, PKC encountered a number of unforeseen conditions during construction that greatly increased PKC’s cost of performance. MHD has asserted counterclaims for liquidated damages and backcharges.

Certain of PKC’s claims have been presented to a Disputes Review Board (“DRB”) which consists of three construction experts chosen by the parties. To date, five DRB panels have issued several awards and interim decisions in favor of PKC’s claims, amounting to total awards to PKC in excess of $128 million, of which $110 million were binding awards.

In December 2010, the Suffolk County Superior Court granted MHD’s motion for summary judgment to vacate the Third DRB Panel’s awards to PKC for approximately $55 million.  The Court granted the motion on the grounds that the arbitrators do not have authority to decide whether particular claims are subject to the arbitration provision of the contract.  MHD subsequently moved to vacate approximately $12 million of the Fourth DRB Panel’s total awards to PKC on the same arbitrability basis that the Third DRB’s awards were vacated.  In October 2011, the Suffolk County Superior Court followed its earlier arbitrability rulings holding that the Fourth DRB exceeded its authority in deciding arbitrability with respect to certain of the Fourth DRB Panel’s awards (approximately $8 million of the $12 million discussed above).  PKC is pursuing an appeal of the Superior Court decisions.  That appeal has been fully briefed by the parties and a hearing is scheduled for May 2012.

Subject to the results of further proceedings as a result of the PKC’s appeal of the Court’s decisions with respect to the Third and Fourth DRB Panel’s awards to PKC, the remaining claims to be decided by the DRB primarily consist of interest awards on the previous Third and Fourth DRB rulings in PKC’s favor.  In February 2012, PKC received a $22 million payment for an interest award associated with the Second DRB panel’s awards to PKC.  The parties are currently participating in settlement discussions.

Management has made an estimate of the anticipated recovery on this project and it 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 financial statements at that time.

Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Matter

The Company reconstructed the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Interchange (the “Project”) for the New York State Department of Transportation (the “NYSDOT”). The $130 million project was substantially completed in January 2004 and was accepted by the NYSDOT as finally 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 that the NYSDOT is responsible.

In March 2011, the Company filed its claim and complaint with the New York State Court of Claims and served to the New York State Attorney General’s Office, in the amount of $53.8 million.  In May 2011, the 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 the NYSDOT which resulted in an amount of $0.5 million payable to the Company and formally closed out the project, which will allow the Company’s claim to be re-filed.  The Company re-filed its claim in the amount of $53.8 million with the NYSDOT in February 2012 and with the Court of Claims in March 2012.

Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project and it 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 financial statements at that time.

Queensridge Matter

Perini Building Company, Inc. (“PBC”) was the general contractor for the construction of One Queensridge Place, a condominium project in Las Vegas, Nevada.  The developer of the project, Queensridge Towers, LLC / Executive Home Builders, Inc. (“Queensridge”), has failed to pay PBC for work which PBC and its subcontractors performed on the project.  

Subcontractors have brought claims against PBC and have outstanding liens on the property in the amount of approximately $19 million.  PBC also has an outstanding lien on the property in the amount of approximately $24 million, representing unpaid contract balances and additional work; $19 million of PBC’s $24 million lien amount would be paid to subcontractors.  Queensridge has alleged that PBC and its subcontractors are not due amounts sought and that it has back charges from incomplete and defective work.  PBC filed an arbitration demand, asserting $35 million in claims against Queensridge, including $25 million for contract damages and $10 million for punitive damages.

In April 2011, the American Arbitration Association granted PBC’s request for consolidation of claims.  All claims will be arbitrated. The arbitration hearings started in early 2012 and are expected to conclude in late 2012.  At the conclusion of the arbitration, the parties will return to District Court to resolve the lien issues.

Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project and it 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 financial statements at that time.

Gaylord Hotel and Convention Center Matter

In 2005, Gaylord National, LLC (“Gaylord”), as Owner, and Perini Building Company, Inc. / Tompkins Builders, Joint Venture (“PTJV”), as Construction Manager, entered into a contract to construct the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center (the “Project”) in Maryland. The Project is complete and as part of its settlement with Gaylord reached in November 2008, PTJV agreed to pay all subcontractors and defend all claims and lien actions by them relating to the Project.  PTJV has closed out most subcontracts.  Resolution of the issues with the remaining subcontractors may require mediation, arbitration and/or trial.

PTJV is pursuing an insurance claim for approximately $40 million related to work performed by Banker Steel Company, Inc. (“Banker Steel”), a subcontractor, including $11 million for business interruption costs incurred by Gaylord which have effectively been assigned to PTJV. In November 2009, PTJV filed suit against Factory Mutual Insurance Co. (“FM”) in the Maryland federal district court alleging FM breached the insurance contracts and for declaratory judgment with respect to the insurance coverage.  In December 2010, PTJV filed suit against ACE American Insurance Company (“ACE”) in Maryland federal district court alleging ACE breached the general liability insurance contract, requesting a declaratory judgment with respect to the insurance coverage and for bad faith.

The court assigned an April 2012 trial date; however, the parties are still participating in settlement discussions and agreed to submit to a mediation which is expected to occur in the 2nd or 3rd Quarter of 2012.

Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project and it 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 financial statements at that time.

Fontainebleau Matter

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

DMI and Fisk filed liens in Nevada for approximately $44 million, representing unreimbursed costs to date and lost profits, including anticipated profits.  Other unaffiliated subcontractors have also filed liens. In June 2009, DMI filed suit against Turnberry West Construction, Inc. (“Turnberry”), the general contractor, in the 8th Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada, and in May 2010, the court entered an order in favor of DMI for approximately $45 million.  DMI is uncertain as to Turnberry’s present financial condition.

In January 2010, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of the property to Icahn Nevada Gaming Acquisition, LLC and this transaction closed in February 2010.  As a result of a July 2010 ruling relating to certain priming liens there is now approximately $125 million set aside from this sale, which is available for distribution to satisfy the creditor claims based on seniority.  The total estimated sustainable lien amount is approximately $350 million.  The project lender filed suit against the mechanic’s lien claimants, including DMI and Fisk, alleging that certain mechanic’s liens are invalid and that all mechanic’s liens are subordinate to the lender's claims against the property.  The Nevada Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and rule on the issue of lien priority, which once received will be referred to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.

Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project and it 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 financial statements at that time.

MGM CityCenter Matter

Perini Building Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, contracted with MGM MIRAGE Design Group (“MGM”) in March 2005 to construct the CityCenter project in Las Vegas, Nevada (the “Project”).  The Project, which encompasses nineteen separate contracts, is a 66-acre urban mixed use development consisting of hotels, condominiums, retail space and a casino.

The Company achieved substantial completion of the Project in December 2009, and MGM opened the Project to the public on the same date.  In March 2010, the Company filed suit against MGM and certain other property owners in the Clark County District Court alleging several claims including breach of contract, among other items.  In March 2010, the Company also filed a $491 million mechanic’s lien against the Project.

In a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by MGM in March 2010, and in subsequent communications issued, MGM has asserted that it believes it owes substantially less than the claimed amount and that it has claims for losses in connection with the construction of the Harmon Hotel and is entitled to unspecified offsets for other work on the Project. According to MGM, the total of the offsets and the Harmon Hotel claims exceed the amount claimed by the Company.  MGM’s filing and subsequent communications do not specify in any detail the basis for MGM’s belief that it has such claims against the Company.

In May 2010, MGM filed a counterclaim and third party complaint against the Company and its subsidiary Perini Building Company. The court granted the Company and MGM’s joint motion to consolidate all subcontractor initiated actions into the main CityCenter lawsuit.  A trial date has been set for February 2013. MGM has filed a motion to demolish the Harmon Tower, one of the CityCenter buildings.  The Company opposed the motion, and hearings on the motion commenced in March 2012.  These hearings have not yet concluded.  Discovery is ongoing with additional depositions on repair procedures and cost prior to the July hearings.  Trial is set for February 2013.

In public statements, MGM asserted its intent to enter into settlement discussions directly with subcontractors under contract with the Company.  As of March 2012, MGM has reached agreements with subcontractors to settle at a discount $301 million of amounts previously billed to MGM.  The Company has reduced and will continue to reduce amounts included in revenues, cost of construction operations, accounts receivable and accounts payable for the reduction in subcontractor pass-through billings, which the Company would not expect to have an impact on recorded profit.  At March 31, 2012, the Company had approximately $192 million recorded as contract receivables for amounts due and owed to the Company and its subcontractors.  In December 2011, a portion of the amounts owed to one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Fisk, was settled for approximately $15 million.  Included in the Company’s receivables are pass-through subcontractor billings for contract work and retention, and other requests for equitable adjustment for additional work in the amount of $61 million.  As pass-through subcontractor billings are settled, the Company will reduce its mechanic’s lien as appropriate. As of March 31, 2012, the Company’s mechanic’s lien has been reduced to $313 million.

With respect to alleged losses at the Harmon Hotel, the Company has contractual indemnities from the responsible subcontractor, as well as existing insurance coverage that it expects will be available and sufficient to cover any liability that may be associated with this matter.  The Company’s insurance carrier initiated legal proceedings seeking declaratory relief that their insurance policies do not provide for defense or coverage for matters pertaining to the Harmon Towers.  Those proceedings are stayed pending the outcome of the underlying dispute in Nevada District Court.  The Company is not aware of a basis for other claims that would amount to material offsets against what MGM owes to the Company.  The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project and it 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 financial statements at that time.

Honeywell Street/Queens Boulevard Bridges Matter

In 1999, the Company was awarded a contract for reconstruction of the Honeywell Street/Queens Boulevard Bridges (the “Project”) for the City of New York (the “City”).  In June 2003, after substantial completion of the Project, the Company initiated an action to recover $8.75 million in claims from the City on behalf of itself and its subcontractors. In March 2010, the City filed counterclaims for $74.6 million and other relief, alleging fraud in connection with the disadvantaged business enterprise (“DBE”) requirements for the Project. In May 2010, the Company served the City with its response to the City’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses.  Parties are discussing settlement possibilities as discovery efforts continue.  No trial date has been set.

The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

Westgate Planet Hollywood Matter

Tutor-Saliba Corporation (“TSC”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, contracted to construct a time share development in Las Vegas (the “Project”) which was substantially completed in December 2009.  The Company’s claims against the owner, Westgate Planet Hollywood Las Vegas, LLC (“WPH”), relate to unresolved owner change orders and other claims.  The Company filed a lien on the project in April 2010 in the amount of $19.3 million, and filed its complaint in May 2010 with the District Court, Clark County, Nevada.  Included in the Company’s receivables are pass-throughsubcontractor billings for contract work and retention of approximately $12 million. Several subcontractors have also recorded liens, some of which have been released by bonds and some of which have been released as a result of subsequent payment.  Westgate has posted a mechanic’s lien release bond for $22.3 million.

WPH filed a cross-complaint alleging non-conforming and defective work for approximately $51 million, primarily related to alleged defects, misallocated costs, and liquidated damages.  Some or all of the allegations will be defended by counsel appointed by TSC’s insurance carrier.  WPH has since revised the amount of their counterclaims to approximately $45 million. 

TSC filed an amended complaint in May 2011, which increases TSC’s claim to $22.3 million, and replaces the cause of action to foreclose its mechanic’s lien with an action against WPH’s lien release bond.

The Court set trial for September 2012 with the discovery process continuing.   The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project and it 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 financial statements at that time.

100th Street Bus Depot Matter

The Company constructed the 100th Street Bus Depot for the New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) in New York.  Prior to receiving notice of final acceptance from the NYCTA, this project experienced a failure of the brick façade on the building due to faulty subcontractor work.  The Company has not yet received notice of final acceptance of this project from the NYCTA.  The Company contends defective structural installation by the Company’s steel subcontractor caused or was a causal factor of the brick façade failure.

The Company has tendered its claim to the NYCTA Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”) and to Chartis Claims, Inc. (“Chartis”), its insurance carrier.  Coverage was denied in January 2011.  The OCIP and general liability carriers have filed a declaratory relief action in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company seeking court determination that no coverage is afforded under their policies.  The Company believes it has legal entitlement to recover costs under the policies and intends to defend and pursue its claim against the carriers for breach of contract and appropriate associated causes of action.  The Company filed a lawsuit against certain underwriters at Lloyds, London, the excess carrier, Illinois National Insurance Company, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with respect to this claim in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County Superior Court, in June 2011.  This case will be dismissed and the dispute will be heard in the New York action.  Discovery is ongoing and must be completed by June 2012.

Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on this project and it 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 financial statements at that time.

Brightwater Matter

In 2006, the Department of Natural Resources and Parks Wastewater Treatment Division of King County (“King County”), as Owner, and Vinci Construction Grands Projects/Parsons RCI/Frontier-Kemper, Joint Venture (“VPFK”), as Contractor, entered into a contract to construct the Brightwater Conveyance System and tunnel sections (the “Project”) in Washington State. Frontier-Kemper, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is a 20% minority partner in the joint venture.

In April 2010, King County filed a lawsuit alleging damages in the amount of $74 million, plus costs, for VPFK’s failure to complete specified components of the project in the King County Superior Court, State of Washington. Shortly thereafter, VPFK filed a counterclaim in the amount of approximately $75 million, seeking reimbursement for additional costs incurred as a result of differing site conditions, King County’s defective specifications, for damages sustained on VPFK’s tunnel boring machines (“TBM”), and increased costs as a result of hyperbaric interventions. VPFK’s claims related to differing site conditions, defective design specifications, and damages to the TBM were presented to a Dispute Resolution Board (“DRB”).  King County amended the amount sought in its lawsuit to approximately $132 million.  In August 2011, the DRB generally found that King County was liable to VPFK for VPFK’s claims for encountering differing site conditions, including damages to the TBM, but not on VPFK’s alternative theory of defective specifications.  King County has proposed the parties mediate the hyperbaric work claim. VPFK agreed to this request.  Discovery continues and must be completed by June 2012 while the parties continue discussions to identify an agreed upon mediation process.

Trial is currently set for September 2012.

The ultimate financial impact of King County’s lawsuit is not yet determinable.  Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on the submitted claims and it 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 financial statements at that time.

156 Stations Matter

In December 2003, Five Star Electric Corporation (“FSE”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into an agreement with the Prime Contractor Transit Technologies, L.L.C (“Transit”), a Consortium member of Siemens Transportation Transit Technologies, L.L.C (“Siemens”), to assist in the installation of new public address and customer information screens system for each of the 156 stations for the New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) as the owner. Work on the project commenced in early 2004 and is substantially complete.

In June 2007, FSE submitted a Demand for Arbitration against Transit to terminate its subcontract due to the execution of a Cure Agreement between the NYCTA, Siemens and Transit which severely amended FSE’s rights under the Prime Contract, due to Transit’s failure to provide information and equipment in a manner which would allow work to progress according to the approved baseline schedule, and for failure to tender payment in excess of a year. This arbitration demand also sought $18 million in damages caused by subcontract breaches on the part of Transit. On July 17, 2009, FSE unilaterally terminated its contract with Transit and amended its claim to include all costs incurred through the date it ceased work following its termination.  This claim is for approximately $25 million.

In August 2007, FSE commenced action against the Federal Insurance Company and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, the payment bond sureties for the Consortium, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. FSE’s action was amended in November 2009, to include all costs incurred through the date work ceased following its termination. This claim, like the underlying arbitration, alleges damages of $25 million.

In response, Transit notified Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (“Travelers”), FSE’s surety, of its intent to default FSE from the contract for failure to perform. Transit filed a suit against Travelers in May 2011, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, seeking compensation for damages allegedly suffered by Transit as a result of the actions of FSE and Travelers. The cause and amount of the damages are not specified in the suit; however, the damages are for an amount in excess of $25 million up to the contract amount of $36 million.  By an agreement executed in June 2011, Travelers tendered defense to FSE.  Arbitration has been substantially completed, and the final briefings are in process.

The ultimate financial impact of Transit’s lawsuit is not yet determinable.  Management has made an estimate of the total anticipated recovery on the submitted claims and it 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 financial statements at that time.  Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement with the former shareholders of GreenStar, the Company has contractual indemnities for claim losses allowed for by the GreenStar Indemnity Holdbacks as defined in Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.