Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	16. Commitments and Contingencies The Company records amounts representing its probable estimated liabilities relating to claims, guarantees, litigation, audits and investigations. The Company relies in part on qualified actuaries to assist it in determining the level of reserves to establish for insurance-related claims that are known and have been asserted against it, and for insurance-related claims that are believed to have been incurred based on actuarial analysis, but have not yet been reported to the Company’s claims administrators as of the respective balance sheet dates. The Company includes any adjustments to such insurance reserves in its consolidated results of operations. The Company is a defendant in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated balance sheet or statements of income or cash flows. In some instances, the Company guarantees that a project, when complete, will achieve specified performance standards. If the project subsequently fails to meet guaranteed performance standards, the Company may either incur additional costs or be held responsible for the costs incurred by the client to achieve the required performance standards. At December 31, 2013, the Company was contingently liable in the amount of approximately $294.0 million under standby letters of credit issued primarily in connection with general and professional liability insurance programs and for payment and performance guarantees. In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into various agreements providing financial or performance assurances to clients on behalf of certain unconsolidated partnerships, joint ventures and other jointly executed contracts. These agreements are entered into primarily to support the project execution commitments of these entities. The guarantees have various expiration dates. The maximum potential payment amount of an outstanding performance guarantee is the remaining cost of work to be performed by or on behalf of third parties. On projects where the Company has additional exposure including for delay or consequential damages, the policy is to cap those damages in order to limit this exposure and, in any case, to cap the performance guarantees themselves. Generally, under joint venture arrangements, if a partner is financially unable to complete its share of the contract, the other partner(s) will be required to complete those activities. The Company generally only enters into joint venture arrangements with partners who are reputable, financially sound and who carry appropriate levels of surety bonds for the project in order to adequately assure completion of their assignments. The Company does not expect that these guarantees will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated balance sheet or statements of income or cash flows. *Global Linguists Solutions Joint Venture* On October 5, 2011 and February 8, 2012, the U.S. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) issued DCAA Forms 1 questioning costs incurred by Global Linguists Solutions (GLS), an equity method joint venture, of which McNeil Technologies Inc., which the Company acquired in August 2010, is an interest holder. The questioned costs were incurred by GLS during fiscal 2009, a period prior to the acquisition. Specifically, the DCAA questioned direct labor, associated burdens, and fees billed to the U.S. government under a contract for the U.S. Army for linguists that allegedly did not meet specific contract requirements. As a result of the issuance of the DCAA Forms 1, the U.S. government has withheld approximately $19 million from payments on current year billings pending final resolution. GLS is performing a review of the issues raised in the Forms 1 in order to respond fully to the questioned costs. Based on a preliminary review, GLS believes that it met the applicable contract requirements in all material respects. Additionally, on April 20, 2012, GLS received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense requesting documentation related to the same contract with the United States Army. GLS has responded to the government’s request and is cooperating in the government’s investigation. If the DCAA Forms 1 are not overruled and subsequent appeals are unsuccessful or there are unfavorable consequences from the Inspector General’s investigation, these events could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations. *AECOM Australia* In 2005 and 2006, the Company’s main Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a client consortium as part of their project to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in Australia. To fund the motorway’s design and construction, the client formed a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that raised approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank loans. The SPV (and certain affiliated SPVs) went into insolvency administrations in February 2011. A class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012. Separately, KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012. WestLB, one of the lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 18, 2012. Centerbridge Credit Partners (and a number of related entities) and Midtown Acquisitions (and a number of related entities), both claiming to be assignees of certain other lending banks, previously filed their own proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia and then subsequently withdrew the lawsuits. All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia’s role in connection with the above described traffic forecast. None of the lawsuits specify the amount of damages sought and the damages sought by WestLB are duplicative of damages already included in the receivers’ claim. AECOM Australia intends to vigorously defend the claims brought against it. *Hawaii Project* The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) informed the Company in May 2011 that the USAO and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are investigating potential criminal charges in connection with services a subsidiary of the Company provided to the operator of the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill in Hawaii. The Company has cooperated fully with the investigation and, as of this date, no actions have been filed. The Company believes that the investigation will show that there has been no criminal wrongdoing on its part or any of its subsidiaries and, if any actions are brought, the Company intends to vigorously defend against such actions. The services performed by the subsidiary included the preparation of a pollution control plan, which the operator used to obtain permits necessary for the operation of the landfill. The USAO is investigating whether flooding at the landfill that resulted in the discharge of waste materials and storm water into the Pacific Ocean in December 2010 and January 2011 was due in part to reliance on information contained in the plan prepared by a subsidiary of the Company.

16. Commitments and Contingencies

The Company records amounts representing its probable estimated liabilities relating to claims, guarantees, litigation, audits and investigations. The Company relies in part on qualified actuaries to assist it in determining the level of reserves to establish for insurance-related claims that are known and have been asserted against it, and for insurance-related claims that are believed to have been incurred based on actuarial analysis, but have not yet been reported to the Company’s claims administrators as of the respective balance sheet dates. The Company includes any adjustments to such insurance reserves in its consolidated results of operations.

The Company is a defendant in various lawsuits arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated balance sheet or statements of income or cash flows.

In some instances, the Company guarantees that a project, when complete, will achieve specified performance standards. If the project subsequently fails to meet guaranteed performance standards, the Company may either incur additional costs or be held responsible for the costs incurred by the client to achieve the required performance standards. At December 31, 2013, the Company was contingently liable in the amount of approximately $294.0 million under standby letters of credit issued primarily in connection with general and professional liability insurance programs and for payment and performance guarantees.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into various agreements providing financial or performance assurances to clients on behalf of certain unconsolidated partnerships, joint ventures and other jointly executed contracts. These agreements are entered into primarily to support the project execution commitments of these entities. The guarantees have various expiration dates. The maximum potential payment amount of an outstanding performance guarantee is the remaining cost of work to be performed by or on behalf of third parties. On projects where the Company has additional exposure including for delay or consequential damages, the policy is to cap those damages in order to limit this exposure and, in any case, to cap the performance guarantees themselves. Generally, under joint venture arrangements, if a partner is financially unable to complete its share of the contract, the other partner(s) will be required to complete those activities. The Company generally only enters into joint venture arrangements with partners who are reputable, financially sound and who carry appropriate levels of surety bonds for the project in order to adequately assure completion of their assignments. The Company does not expect that these guarantees will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated balance sheet or statements of income or cash flows.

Global Linguists Solutions Joint Venture

On October 5, 2011 and February 8, 2012, the U.S. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) issued DCAA Forms 1 questioning costs incurred by Global Linguists Solutions (GLS), an equity method joint venture, of which McNeil Technologies Inc., which the Company acquired in August 2010, is an interest holder. The questioned costs were incurred by GLS during fiscal 2009, a period prior to the acquisition. Specifically, the DCAA questioned direct labor, associated burdens, and fees billed to the U.S. government under a contract for the U.S. Army for linguists that allegedly did not meet specific contract requirements. As a result of the issuance of the DCAA Forms 1, the U.S. government has withheld approximately $19 million from payments on current year billings pending final resolution.

GLS is performing a review of the issues raised in the Forms 1 in order to respond fully to the questioned costs. Based on a preliminary review, GLS believes that it met the applicable contract requirements in all material respects.

Additionally, on April 20, 2012, GLS received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense requesting documentation related to the same contract with the United States Army. GLS has responded to the government’s request and is cooperating in the government’s investigation. If the DCAA Forms 1 are not overruled and subsequent appeals are unsuccessful or there are unfavorable consequences from the Inspector General’s investigation, these events could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations.

AECOM Australia

In 2005 and 2006, the Company’s main Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a client consortium as part of their project to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in Australia. To fund the motorway’s design and construction, the client formed a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that raised approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank loans. The SPV (and certain affiliated SPVs) went into insolvency administrations in February 2011.

A class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012. Separately, KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012. WestLB, one of the lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 18, 2012. Centerbridge Credit Partners (and a number of related entities) and Midtown Acquisitions (and a number of related entities), both claiming to be assignees of certain other lending banks, previously filed their own proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia and then subsequently withdrew the lawsuits. All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia’s role in connection with the above described traffic forecast. None of the lawsuits specify the amount of damages sought and the damages sought by WestLB are duplicative of damages already included in the receivers’ claim.

AECOM Australia intends to vigorously defend the claims brought against it.

Hawaii Project

The U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) informed the Company in May 2011 that the USAO and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are investigating potential criminal charges in connection with services a subsidiary of the Company provided to the operator of the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill in Hawaii. The Company has cooperated fully with the investigation and, as of this date, no actions have been filed. The Company believes that the investigation will show that there has been no criminal wrongdoing on its part or any of its subsidiaries and, if any actions are brought, the Company intends to vigorously defend against such actions.

The services performed by the subsidiary included the preparation of a pollution control plan, which the operator used to obtain permits necessary for the operation of the landfill. The USAO is investigating whether flooding at the landfill that resulted in the discharge of waste materials and storm water into the Pacific Ocean in December 2010 and January 2011 was due in part to reliance on information contained in the plan prepared by a subsidiary of the Company.