Contingencies and Commitments	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
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 their 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, all of which were completed by 1996. 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”), and obtained a judgment that was reversed on appeal and remanded for retrial before a different judge. 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. In the remanded proceedings, the Court subsequently entered judgment in favor of TSP and against LAMTA in the amount of $3.0 million after deducting $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 that TSP’s sureties could recover costs, LAMTA could recover costs for the tunnel handrail trial, and no party could recover attorneys’ fees. TSP appealed the false claims jury verdict on the tunnel handrail claim and other issues, including the denial of TSP’s and its sureties’ request for attorneys’ fees. LAMTA subsequently filed its cross-appeal. In June 2014, the Court of Appeal issued its decision reversing judgment on the People’s Unfair Competition claim and reversing the denial of TSP’s Sureties’ request for attorney’s fees and affirming the remainder of the judgment. In January 2015, payment was made by LAMTA in the amount of $3.8 million in settlement of all outstanding issues except for the attorney’s fees for TSP’s Sureties. Subsequent to the Court of Appeal’s June 2014 decision, LAMTA filed a request for hearing before the California Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision that TSP’s Sureties are entitled to attorney’s fees. In September 2014, the Supreme Court denied the MTA’s petition for Review. In September 2014, the Court of Appeal remitted the case back to the trial court to make further rulings consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal. In November 2014, the court set the hearing on the motion for TSP’s Surety’s attorney’s fees for March 2015, the date of which was subsequently re-set for May 1, 2015. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Matter The Company reconstructed the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Interchange 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, seeking damages 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 allowed 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. In May 2012, the NYSDOT served its answer and counterclaims in the amount of $151 million alleging fraud in the inducement and punitive damages related to 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. The Company does not expect the counterclaim to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements. In November 2014, the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the dismissal of the City’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims based on DBE fraud. Discovery is ongoing. 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 financial statements at that time. Fontainebleau Matter Desert Mechanical Inc. (“DMI”) and Fisk Electric Company (“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. 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 was approximately $125 million set aside from this sale, which is available for distribution to satisfy the creditor claims based on seniority. At that time, the total estimated sustainable lien amount was 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 ruled in October 2012 in an advisory opinion at the request of the Bankruptcy Court that lien priorities would be determined in favor of the mechanic lien holders under Nevada law. In October 2013, a settlement was reached by and among the Statutory Lienholders and the other interested parties. The agreed upon settlement has not had an impact on the Company’s recorded accounting position as of the period ended March 31, 2015. The execution of that settlement agreement continues under the supervision of a mediator appointed by the Bankruptcy Court. 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 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 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 $8.8 million in claims against 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 DBE requirements for the project. In May 2010, the Company served the City with its response to the City’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses. In August 2013, the Court granted TPC’s motion to dismiss the City’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims relating to fraud. In September 2013, the City filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court’s decision; said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court in November 2014. In February 2015, the Court set a due date of July 2015 for the Note of Issue to be filed, at which point it is expected case will be scheduled for trial. 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 project in Las Vegas 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 the amount of $23.2 million, and filed its complaint with the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. 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. WPH 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. WPH revised the amount of their counterclaims to approximately $45 million. Following multiple post-trial motions, final judgment was entered in this matter on March 20, 2014. TSC was awarded total judgment in the amount of $19.7 million on its breach of contract claim, which includes an award of interest up through the date of judgment, plus attorney’s fees and costs. WPH has paid $0.6 million of that judgment. WPH was awarded total judgment in the amount of $3.1 million on its construction defect claims, which includes interest up through the date of judgment. The awards are not offsetting. WPH and its Sureties have filed a notice of appeal. TSC has filed a notice of appeal on the defect award. In July 2014, the Court ordered WPH to post an additional supersedeas bond on appeal, in the amount of $1.7 million, in addition to the lien release bond of $22.3 million, which increases the security up to $24.0 million. Oral argument on the appeals is anticipated to be scheduled for early 2016. 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 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 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 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. From June through August 2012, each party filed several motions for summary judgment on certain claims and requests in preparation for trial, which were heard and ruled upon by the Court. The Court granted and denied various requests of each party related to evidence and damages. In December 2012, a jury verdict was received in favor of King County in the amount of $155.8 million and a verdict in favor of VPFK in the amount of $26.3 million. In late April 2013, the Court ruled on post-trial motions and ordered VPFK’s sureties to pay King County’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $14.7 million. All other motions were denied. On May 7, 2013, VPFK paid the full verdict amount and the associated fees, thus terminating any interest on the judgment. VPFK’s notice of appeal was filed on May 31, 2013. King County has appealed approximately $17.0 million of the verdict award in VPFK’s favor and VPFK’s sureties have appealed the Court’s order granting King County’s request for legal fees and costs. Oral argument was held on March 9, 2015 and a decision is expected within three to six months. The ultimate financial impact of King County’s lawsuit is not yet specifically determinable. In the fourth quarter of 2012, management developed a range of possible outcomes and has recorded a charge to income and a contingent liability of $5.0 million in accrued expenses. In developing a range of possible outcomes, management considered the jury verdict, continued litigation and potential settlement strategies. Management determined that there was no estimate within the range of possible outcomes that was more probable than the other and recorded a liability at the low end of the range. As of March 31, 2015, there were no changes in facts or circumstances that led management to believe that there were any changes to the probability of outcomes. The amount of payments in excess of the established contingent liability is recorded in Accounts Receivable on the Company’s Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2015. Estimating and recording future outcomes of litigation proceedings require significant judgment and assumptions about the future, which are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. If a final recovery turns out to be materially less favorable than our estimates, this may have a significant impact on the Company’s financial results. 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. In June 2012, an arbitration panel awarded FSE a total of approximately $11.9 million. Subsequently, the Court affirmed FSE’s position, however, decided that only $8.5 million of the total arbitration award of $11.9 million can be recovered against the payment bond. In December 2014, FSE filed its reply for the motion for re-argument with regard to the reduction in recoverable costs against the payment bond. This matter was fully settled in April 2015 and payment was received. The settlement amount was consistent with the Company’s recorded position and, accordingly, the settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Matter Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. (“R&S”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into a contract with the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA” or “Owner”) for the construction of a 287,000 square-foot facility for NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center Replacement Headquarters and Laboratory in La Jolla, California. The contract work began on May 24, 2010, and was substantially completed in September 2012. R&S incurred significant additional costs as a result of a design that contained errors and omissions, NOAA’s unwillingness to correct design flaws in a timely fashion and a refusal to negotiate the time and pricing associated with change order work. R&S has filed three certified claims against NOAA for contract adjustments related to the unresolved Owner change orders, delays, design deficiencies and other claims. The First Certified Claim was submitted on August 20, 2013, in the amount of $26.8 million ("First Certified Claim") and the second certified claim was submitted on October 30, 2013, in the amount of $2.6 million ("Second Certified Claim") and the Third Certified Claim was submitted on October 1, 2014 in the amount of $0.7 million. NOAA requested an extension of nine months to issue a decision on the First Certified Claim, but did not request an extension of time related to review of the Second Certified Claim. On January 6, 2014, R&S filed suit in the United States Federal Court of Claims on the Second Certified Claim plus interest and attorney's fees and costs. This was followed by submission of a law suit on the First Certified Claim on July 31, 2014. In October 2014, the court ordered that the two lawsuits be consolidated for purposes of oral argument on the respective Motions to Dismiss. In February 2015 the Court denied NOAA’s motion to dismiss the Second Certified Claim. In March 2014 the Contracting Officer issued decisions on all Claims accepting a total of approximately $1.0 million of the Claims. The Court has ordered both parties to submit a joint status summary setting forth whether the case should now be consolidated and a schedule for discovery should be 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 financial statements at that time.

(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 their 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, all of which were completed by 1996. 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”), and obtained a judgment that was reversed on appeal and remanded for retrial before a different judge.

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. In the remanded proceedings, the Court subsequently entered judgment in favor of TSP and against LAMTA in the amount of $3.0 million after deducting $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 that TSP’s sureties could recover costs, LAMTA could recover costs for the tunnel handrail trial, and no party could recover attorneys’ fees. TSP appealed the false claims jury verdict on the tunnel handrail claim and other issues, including the denial of TSP’s and its sureties’ request for attorneys’ fees. LAMTA subsequently filed its cross-appeal. In June 2014, the Court of Appeal issued its decision reversing judgment on the People’s Unfair Competition claim and reversing the denial of TSP’s Sureties’ request for attorney’s fees and affirming the remainder of the judgment. In January 2015, payment was made by LAMTA in the amount of $3.8 million in settlement of all outstanding issues except for the attorney’s fees for TSP’s Sureties.

Subsequent to the Court of Appeal’s June 2014 decision, LAMTA filed a request for hearing before the California Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeal’s decision that TSP’s Sureties are entitled to attorney’s fees. In September 2014, the Supreme Court denied the MTA’s petition for Review. In September 2014, the Court of Appeal remitted the case back to the trial court to make further rulings consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal. In November 2014, the court set the hearing on the motion for TSP’s Surety’s attorney’s fees for March 2015, the date of which was subsequently re-set for May 1, 2015.

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

Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Matter

The Company reconstructed the Long Island Expressway/Cross Island Parkway Interchange 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, seeking damages 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 allowed 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. In May 2012, the NYSDOT served its answer and counterclaims in the amount of $151 million alleging fraud in the inducement and punitive damages related to 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. The Company does not expect the counterclaim to have any material effect on its consolidated financial statements.

In November 2014, the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the dismissal of the City’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims based on DBE fraud. Discovery is ongoing.

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 financial statements at that time.

Fontainebleau Matter

Desert Mechanical Inc. (“DMI”) and Fisk Electric Company (“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.

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 was approximately $125 million set aside from this sale, which is available for distribution to satisfy the creditor claims based on seniority. At that time, the total estimated sustainable lien amount was 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 ruled in October 2012 in an advisory opinion at the request of the Bankruptcy Court that lien priorities would be determined in favor of the mechanic lien holders under Nevada law.

In October 2013, a settlement was reached by and among the Statutory Lienholders and the other interested parties. The agreed upon settlement has not had an impact on the Company’s recorded accounting position as of the period ended March 31, 2015. The execution of that settlement agreement continues under the supervision of a mediator appointed by the Bankruptcy Court. 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 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 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 $8.8 million in claims against 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 DBE requirements for the project. In May 2010, the Company served the City with its response to the City’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses. In August 2013, the Court granted TPC’s motion to dismiss the City’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims relating to fraud. In September 2013, the City filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court’s decision; said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court in November 2014. In February 2015, the Court set a due date of July 2015 for the Note of Issue to be filed, at which point it is expected case will be scheduled for trial.

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 project in Las Vegas 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 the amount of $23.2 million, and filed its complaint with the District Court, Clark County, Nevada. 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. WPH 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. WPH revised the amount of their counterclaims to approximately $45 million.

Following multiple post-trial motions, final judgment was entered in this matter on March 20, 2014. TSC was awarded total judgment in the amount of $19.7 million on its breach of contract claim, which includes an award of interest up through the date of judgment, plus attorney’s fees and costs. WPH has paid $0.6 million of that judgment. WPH was awarded total judgment in the amount of $3.1 million on its construction defect claims, which includes interest up through the date of judgment. The awards are not offsetting. WPH and its Sureties have filed a notice of appeal. TSC has filed a notice of appeal on the defect award. In July 2014, the Court ordered WPH to post an additional supersedeas bond on appeal, in the amount of $1.7 million, in addition to the lien release bond of $22.3 million, which increases the security up to $24.0 million. Oral argument on the appeals is anticipated to be scheduled for early 2016.

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 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 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 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. From June through August 2012, each party filed several motions for summary judgment on certain claims and requests in preparation for trial, which were heard and ruled upon by the Court. The Court granted and denied various requests of each party related to evidence and damages.

In December 2012, a jury verdict was received in favor of King County in the amount of $155.8 million and a verdict in favor of VPFK in the amount of $26.3 million. In late April 2013, the Court ruled on post-trial motions and ordered VPFK’s sureties to pay King County’s attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $14.7 million. All other motions were denied. On May 7, 2013, VPFK paid the full verdict amount and the associated fees, thus terminating any interest on the judgment. VPFK’s notice of appeal was filed on May 31, 2013. King County has appealed approximately $17.0 million of the verdict award in VPFK’s favor and VPFK’s sureties have appealed the Court’s order granting King County’s request for legal fees and costs. Oral argument was held on March 9, 2015 and a decision is expected within three to six months.

The ultimate financial impact of King County’s lawsuit is not yet specifically determinable. In the fourth quarter of 2012, management developed a range of possible outcomes and has recorded a charge to income and a contingent liability of $5.0 million in accrued expenses. In developing a range of possible outcomes, management considered the jury verdict, continued litigation and potential settlement strategies. Management determined that there was no estimate within the range of possible outcomes that was more probable than the other and recorded a liability at the low end of the range. As of March 31, 2015, there were no changes in facts or circumstances that led management to believe that there were any changes to the probability of outcomes. The amount of payments in excess of the established contingent liability is recorded in Accounts Receivable on the Company’s Consolidated Condensed Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2015. Estimating and recording future outcomes of litigation proceedings require significant judgment and assumptions about the future, which are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. If a final recovery turns out to be materially less favorable than our estimates, this may have a significant impact on the Company’s financial results. 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.

In June 2012, an arbitration panel awarded FSE a total of approximately $11.9 million. Subsequently, the Court affirmed FSE’s position, however, decided that only $8.5 million of the total arbitration award of $11.9 million can be recovered against the payment bond. In December 2014, FSE filed its reply for the motion for re-argument with regard to the reduction in recoverable costs against the payment bond.

This matter was fully settled in April 2015 and payment was received. The settlement amount was consistent with the Company’s recorded position and, accordingly, the settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Matter

Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. (“R&S”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into a contract with the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA” or “Owner”) for the construction of a 287,000 square-foot facility for NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center Replacement Headquarters and Laboratory in La Jolla, California. The contract work began on May 24, 2010, and was substantially completed in September 2012. R&S incurred significant additional costs as a result of a design that contained errors and omissions, NOAA’s unwillingness to correct design flaws in a timely fashion and a refusal to negotiate the time and pricing associated with change order work.

R&S has filed three certified claims against NOAA for contract adjustments related to the unresolved Owner change orders, delays, design deficiencies and other claims. The First Certified Claim was submitted on August 20, 2013, in the amount of $26.8 million ("First Certified Claim") and the second certified claim was submitted on October 30, 2013, in the amount of $2.6 million ("Second Certified Claim") and the Third Certified Claim was submitted on October 1, 2014 in the amount of $0.7 million.

NOAA requested an extension of nine months to issue a decision on the First Certified Claim, but did not request an extension of time related to review of the Second Certified Claim. On January 6, 2014, R&S filed suit in the United States Federal Court of Claims on the Second Certified Claim plus interest and attorney's fees and costs. This was followed by submission of a law suit on the First Certified Claim on July 31, 2014. In October 2014, the court ordered that the two lawsuits be consolidated for purposes of oral argument on the respective Motions to Dismiss. In February 2015 the Court denied NOAA’s motion to dismiss the Second Certified Claim. In March 2014 the Contracting Officer issued decisions on all Claims accepting a total of approximately $1.0 million of the Claims. The Court has ordered both parties to submit a joint status summary setting forth whether the case should now be consolidated and a schedule for discovery should be set.