LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 29, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment, and are subject to contingencies related to certain businesses we previously owned. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, cost reimbursements or contributions, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings described below, will have a material adverse effect on the corporation as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on our net earnings in any particular interim reporting period. Among the factors that we consider in this assessment are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if estimable), the progress of the case, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, our experience in similar cases and the experience of other companies, the facts available to us at the time of assessment and how we intend to respond to the proceeding or claim. Our assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress. Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred, GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. We follow a thorough process in which we seek to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and only if we are unable to make such an estimate do we conclude and disclose that an estimate cannot be made. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated below in our discussion of legal proceedings, a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding cannot be estimated. Legal Proceedings As a result of our acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky), we assumed the defense of and any potential liability for two civil False Claims Act lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In October 2014, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in intervention in the first suit, which was brought by qui tam relator Mary Patzer, a former Derco Aerospace (Derco) employee. In May 2017, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in intervention in the second suit, which was brought by qui tam relator Peter Cimma, a former Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (SSSI) employee. In November 2017, the Court consolidated the cases into a single action for discovery and trial. The U.S. Government alleges that Sikorsky and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Derco and SSSI, violated the civil False Claims Act and the Truth in Negotiations Act in connection with a contract the U.S. Navy awarded to SSSI in June 2006 to support the Navy’s T-34 and T-44 fixed-wing turboprop training aircraft. SSSI subcontracted with Derco, primarily to procure and manage spare parts for the training aircraft. The U.S. Government contends that SSSI overbilled the Navy on the contract as the result of Derco’s use of prohibited cost-plus-percentage-of-cost pricing to add profit and overhead costs as a percentage of the price of the spare parts that Derco procured and then sold to SSSI. The U.S. Government also alleges that Derco’s claims to SSSI, SSSI’s claims to the Navy, and SSSI’s yearly Certificates of Final Indirect Costs from 2006 through 2012 were false and that SSSI submitted inaccurate cost or pricing data in violation of the Truth in Negotiations Act for a sole-sourced, follow-on “bridge” contract. The U.S. Government’s complaints assert common law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The U.S. Government further alleged violations of the Anti-Kickback Act and False Claims Act based on a monthly “chargeback,” through which SSSI billed Derco for the cost of certain SSSI personnel, allegedly in exchange for SSSI’s permitting a pricing arrangement that was “highly favorable” to Derco. On January 12, 2018, the Corporation filed a partial motion to dismiss intended to narrow the U.S. Government’s claims, including by seeking dismissal of the Anti-Kickback Act allegations. The Corporation also moved to dismiss Cimma as a party under the False Claims Act’s first-to-file rule, which permits only the first relator to recover in a pending case. The District Court granted these motions, in part, on July 20, 2018, dismissing the Government’s claims under the Anti-Kickback Act and dismissing Cimma as a party to the litigation. The U.S. Government seeks damages of approximately $52 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties. We believe that we have legal and factual defenses to the U.S. Government’s remaining claims. Although we continue to evaluate our liability and exposure, we do not currently believe that it is probable that we will incur a material loss. If, contrary to our expectations, the U.S. Government prevails in this matter and proves damages at or near $52 million and is successful in having such damages trebled, the outcome could have an adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which a liability is recognized and on our cash flows for the period in which any damages are paid. On February 8, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington alleging, among other counts, civil False Claims Act and civil Anti-Kickback Act violations against Mission Support Alliance, LLC (MSA), Lockheed Martin, Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. (LMSI) and a current Lockheed Martin vice president. The dollar amount of damages sought is not specified but DOJ seeks treble damages with respect to the False Claims Act and penalties that are subject to doubling under the Anti-Kickback Act. The allegations relate primarily to information technology services performed by LMSI under a subcontract to MSA and the pricing by MSA and LMSI of those services as well as Lockheed Martin’s payment of standard incentive compensation to certain employees who were seconded to MSA, including the vice president. MSA is a joint venture that holds a prime contract to provide infrastructure support services at DOE’s Hanford facility. On April 23, 2019, the parties each filed partial motions to dismiss the U.S. Government’s False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Act allegations. On January 13, 2020, the court dismissed the Anti-Kickback Act claim against all defendants with prejudice and denied the motions to dismiss the False Claims Act claims. On August 16, 2016, we divested our former Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS) business segment to Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos) in a transaction that resulted in IS&GS becoming part of Leidos (the Transaction). In the Transaction, Leidos acquired IS&GS’ interest in MSA and the liabilities related to Lockheed Martin’s participation in MSA. Included within the liabilities assumed were those associated with this lawsuit. Lockheed Martin transferred to Leidos a reserve of approximately $38 million established by Lockheed Martin with respect to its potential liability and that of its affiliates and agreed to indemnify Leidos with respect to the liabilities assumed for damages to Leidos for 100% of amounts in excess of this reserve up to $64 million and 50% of amounts in excess of $64 million. We cannot reasonably estimate our exposure at this time, but it is possible that a settlement by or judgment against any of the defendants could implicate Lockheed Martin’s indemnification obligations as described above. At present, in view of what we believe to be the strength of the defenses, our belief that Leidos assumed the liabilities, and our view of the structure of the indemnity, we do not believe it probable that we will incur a material loss and have not taken any reserve. On April 24, 2009, we filed a declaratory judgment action against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its Capital Construction Company (collectively, the MTA) asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to find that the MTA is in material breach of our agreement based on the MTA’s failure to provide access to sites where work must be performed and the customer-furnished equipment necessary to complete the contract. The MTA filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that we breached the contract and subsequently terminated the contract for alleged default. The primary damages sought by the MTA are the costs to complete the contract and potential re-procurement costs. While we are unable to estimate the cost of another contractor to complete the contract and the costs of re-procurement, we note that our contract with the MTA had a total value of $323 million, of which $241 million was paid to us, and that the MTA is seeking damages of approximately $190 million. We dispute the MTA’s allegations and are defending against them. Additionally, following an investigation, our sureties on a performance bond related to this matter, who were represented by independent counsel, concluded that the MTA’s termination of the contract was improper. Finally, our declaratory judgment action was later amended to include claims for monetary damages against the MTA of approximately $95 million. This matter was taken under submission by the District Court in December 2014, after a five-week bench trial and the filing of post-trial pleadings by the parties. We continue to await a decision from the District Court. Although this matter relates to our former IS&GS business, we retained the litigation when we divested IS&GS in 2016. Environmental Matters We are involved in proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater contamination, disposal of hazardous substances, and other environmental matters at several of our current or former facilities, facilities for which we may have contractual responsibility, and at third-party sites where we have been designated as a potentially responsible party (PRP). A substantial portion of environmental costs will be included in our net sales and cost of sales in future periods pursuant to U.S. Government regulations. At the time a liability is recorded for future environmental costs, we record assets for estimated future recovery considered probable through the pricing of products and services to agencies of the U.S. Government, regardless of the contract form (e.g., cost-reimbursable, fixed-price). We continually evaluate the recoverability of our assets for the portion of environmental costs that are probable of future recovery by assessing, among other factors, U.S. Government regulations, our U.S. Government business base and contract mix, our history of receiving reimbursement of such costs, and efforts by some U.S. Government representatives to limit such reimbursement. We include the portions of those environmental costs expected to be allocated to our non-U.S. Government contracts or determined not to be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts, in our cost of sales at the time the liability is established. At March 29, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $812 million and $810 million, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. We have recorded assets for the portion of environmental costs that are probable of future recovery totaling $705 million and $703 million at March 29, 2020 and December 31, 2019, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent assets on our consolidated balance sheets, for the estimated future recovery of these costs, as we consider the recovery probable based on the factors previously mentioned. We project costs and recovery of costs over approximately 20 years. Environmental remediation activities usually span many years, which makes estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of uncertainties with respect to assessing the extent of the contamination as well as such factors as changing remediation technologies and changing regulatory environmental standards. There are a number of former and present operating facilities that we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. We perform quarterly reviews of the status of our environmental remediation sites and the related liabilities and receivables. Additionally, in our quarterly reviews, we consider these and other factors in estimating the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation activities, and record a liability when it is probable that a loss has occurred or will occur and the loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount of liability recorded is based on our estimate of the costs to be incurred for remediation at a particular site. We do not discount the recorded liabilities, as the amount and timing of future cash payments are not fixed or cannot be reliably determined. We reasonably cannot determine the extent of our financial exposure in all cases as, although a loss may be probable or reasonably possible, in some cases it is not possible at this time to estimate the loss or reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We also pursue claims for recovery of costs incurred or for contribution to site remediation costs against other PRPs, including the U.S. Government, and are conducting remediation activities under various consent decrees, orders, and agreements relating to soil, groundwater, sediment, or surface water contamination at certain sites of former or current operations. Under agreements related to certain sites in California, New York and Washington, the U.S. Government reimburses us an amount equal to a percentage, specific to each site, of expenditures for certain remediation activities in the U.S. Government’s capacity as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition to the proceedings and potential proceedings discussed above, California previously established a maximum level of the contaminant hexavalent chromium in drinking water of 10 parts per billion (ppb). This standard was successfully challenged by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) for failure to conduct the required economic feasibility analysis. In response to the court’s ruling, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency, withdrew the hexavalent chromium standard from the published regulations, leaving only the 50 ppb standard for total chromium. The State Board has indicated it will work to re-establish a hexavalent chromium standard. Further, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is considering whether to regulate hexavalent chromium. California is also reevaluating its existing drinking water standard of 6 ppb for perchlorate, and the U.S. EPA is taking steps to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. If substantially lower standards are adopted, in either California or at the federal level for perchlorate or for hexavalent chromium, we expect a material increase in our estimates for environmental liabilities and the related assets for the portion of the increased costs that are probable of future recovery in the pricing of our products and services for the U.S. Government. The amount that would be allocable to our non-U.S. Government contracts or that is determined not to be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts would be expensed, which may have a material effect on our earnings in any particular interim reporting period. We are also evaluating the potential impact of existing and contemplated legal requirements addressing a class of compounds known generally as per- and polyfluoroalkyl compounds (PFAS). PFAS compounds have been used ubiquitously, such as in fire-fighting foams, manufacturing processes, and stain- and stick-resistant products (e.g., Teflon, stain-resistant fabrics). Because we have used products and processes over the years containing some of those compounds, it is likely that they exist as contaminants at many of our cleanup sites. Governmental authorities have announced plans, and in some instances have begun, to regulate certain of these compounds at extremely low concentrations in drinking water, which could lead to increased cleanup costs at many of our sites. Letters of Credit, Surety Bonds and Third-Party Guarantees We have entered into standby letters of credit and surety bonds issued on our behalf by financial institutions, and we have directly issued guarantees to third parties primarily relating to advances received from customers and the guarantee of future performance on certain contracts. Letters of credit and surety bonds generally are available for draw down in the event we do not perform. In some cases, we may guarantee the contractual performance of third parties such as joint venture partners. We had total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees aggregating $3.2 billion and $3.6 billion at March 29, 2020 and December 31, 2019. Third-party guarantees do not include guarantees issued on behalf of subsidiaries and other consolidated entities. At March 29, 2020 and December 31, 2019, third-party guarantees totaled $725 million and $996 million, of which approximately 67% and 76% related to guarantees of contractual performance of joint ventures to which we currently are or previously were a party. These amounts represent our estimate of the maximum amounts we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the joint venture, joint venture partners or divested businesses. Generally, we also have cross-indemnities in place that may enable us to recover amounts that may be paid on behalf of a joint venture partner. In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, performance on contractual obligations, technical capabilities and credit quality of our current and former joint venture partners and the transferee under novation agreements all of which include a guarantee as required by the FAR. There were no material amounts recorded in our financial statements related to third-party guarantees or novation agreements.

We are a party to or have property subject to litigation and other proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including matters arising under provisions relating to the protection of the environment, and are subject to contingencies related to certain businesses we previously owned. These types of matters could result in fines, penalties, cost reimbursements or contributions, compensatory or treble damages or non-monetary sanctions or relief. We believe the probability is remote that the outcome of each of these matters, including the legal proceedings described below, will have a material adverse effect on the corporation as a whole, notwithstanding that the unfavorable resolution of any matter may have a material effect on our net earnings in any particular interim reporting period. Among the factors that we consider in this assessment are the nature of existing legal proceedings and claims, the asserted or possible damages or loss contingency (if estimable), the progress of the case, existing law and precedent, the opinions or views of legal counsel and other advisers, our experience in similar cases and the experience of other companies, the facts available to us at the time of assessment and how we intend to respond to the proceeding or claim. Our assessment of these factors may change over time as individual proceedings or claims progress.

Although we cannot predict the outcome of legal or other proceedings with certainty, where there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may have been incurred, GAAP requires us to disclose an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss or make a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. We follow a thorough process in which we seek to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, and only if we are unable to make such an estimate do we conclude and disclose that an estimate cannot be made. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated below in our discussion of legal proceedings, a reasonably possible loss or range of loss associated with any individual legal proceeding cannot be estimated.

As a result of our acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky), we assumed the defense of and any potential liability for two civil False Claims Act lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In October 2014, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in intervention in the first suit, which was brought by qui tam relator Mary Patzer, a former Derco Aerospace (Derco) employee. In May 2017, the U.S. Government filed a complaint in intervention in the second suit, which was brought by qui tam relator Peter Cimma, a former Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. (SSSI) employee. In November 2017, the Court consolidated the cases into a single action for discovery and trial.

The U.S. Government alleges that Sikorsky and two of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Derco and SSSI, violated the civil False Claims Act and the Truth in Negotiations Act in connection with a contract the U.S. Navy awarded to SSSI in June 2006 to support the Navy’s T-34 and T-44 fixed-wing turboprop training aircraft. SSSI subcontracted with Derco, primarily to procure and manage spare parts for the training aircraft. The U.S. Government contends that SSSI overbilled the Navy on the contract as the result of Derco’s use of prohibited cost-plus-percentage-of-cost pricing to add profit and overhead costs as a percentage of the price of the spare parts that Derco procured and then sold to SSSI. The U.S. Government also alleges that Derco’s claims to SSSI, SSSI’s claims to the Navy, and SSSI’s yearly Certificates of Final Indirect Costs from 2006 through 2012 were false and that SSSI submitted inaccurate cost or pricing data in violation of the Truth in Negotiations Act for a sole-sourced, follow-on “bridge” contract. The U.S. Government’s complaints assert common law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The U.S. Government further alleged violations of the Anti-Kickback Act and False Claims Act based on a monthly “chargeback,” through which SSSI billed Derco for the cost of certain SSSI personnel, allegedly in exchange for SSSI’s permitting a pricing arrangement that was “highly favorable” to Derco. On January 12, 2018, the Corporation filed a partial motion to dismiss intended to narrow the U.S. Government’s claims, including by seeking dismissal of the Anti-Kickback Act allegations. The Corporation also moved to dismiss Cimma as a party under the False Claims Act’s first-to-file rule, which permits only the first relator to recover in a pending case. The District Court granted these motions, in part, on July 20, 2018, dismissing the Government’s claims under the Anti-Kickback Act and dismissing Cimma as a party to the litigation.

The U.S. Government seeks damages of approximately $52 million, subject to trebling, plus statutory penalties. We believe that we have legal and factual defenses to the U.S. Government’s remaining claims. Although we continue to evaluate our liability and exposure, we do not currently believe that it is probable that we will incur a material loss. If, contrary to our expectations, the U.S. Government prevails in this matter and proves damages at or near $52 million and

On February 8, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington alleging, among other counts, civil False Claims Act and civil Anti-Kickback Act violations against Mission Support Alliance, LLC (MSA), Lockheed Martin, Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. (LMSI) and a current Lockheed Martin vice president. The dollar amount of damages sought is not specified but DOJ seeks treble damages with respect to the False Claims Act and penalties that are subject to doubling under the Anti-Kickback Act. The allegations relate primarily to information technology services performed by LMSI under a subcontract to MSA and the pricing by MSA and LMSI of those services as well as Lockheed Martin’s payment of standard incentive compensation to certain employees who were seconded to MSA, including the vice president. MSA is a joint venture that holds a prime contract to provide infrastructure support services at DOE’s Hanford facility. On April 23, 2019, the parties each filed partial motions to dismiss the U.S. Government’s False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Act allegations. On January 13, 2020, the court dismissed the Anti-Kickback Act claim against all defendants with prejudice and denied the motions to dismiss the False Claims Act claims.

On August 16, 2016, we divested our former Information Systems & Global Solutions (IS&GS) business segment to Leidos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos) in a transaction that resulted in IS&GS becoming part of Leidos (the Transaction). In the Transaction, Leidos acquired IS&GS’ interest in MSA and the liabilities related to Lockheed Martin’s participation in MSA. Included within the liabilities assumed were those associated with this lawsuit. Lockheed Martin transferred to Leidos a reserve of approximately $38 million established by Lockheed Martin with respect to its potential liability and that of its affiliates and agreed to indemnify Leidos with respect to the liabilities assumed for damages to Leidos for 100% of amounts in excess of this reserve up to $64 million and 50% of amounts in excess of $64 million.

We cannot reasonably estimate our exposure at this time, but it is possible that a settlement by or judgment against any of the defendants could implicate Lockheed Martin’s indemnification obligations as described above. At present, in view of what we believe to be the strength of the defenses, our belief that Leidos assumed the liabilities, and our view of the structure of the indemnity, we do not believe it probable that we will incur a material loss and have not taken any reserve.

On April 24, 2009, we filed a declaratory judgment action against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and its Capital Construction Company (collectively, the MTA) asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to find that the MTA is in material breach of our agreement based on the MTA’s failure to provide access to sites where work must be performed and the customer-furnished equipment necessary to complete the contract. The MTA filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that we breached the contract and subsequently terminated the contract for alleged default. The primary damages sought by the MTA are the costs to complete the contract and potential re-procurement costs. While we are unable to estimate the cost of another contractor to complete the contract and the costs of re-procurement, we note that our contract with the MTA had a total value of $323 million, of which $241 million was paid to us, and that the MTA is seeking damages of approximately $190 million. We dispute the MTA’s allegations and are defending against them. Additionally, following an investigation, our sureties on a performance bond related to this matter, who were represented by independent counsel, concluded that the MTA’s termination of the contract was improper. Finally, our declaratory judgment action was later amended to include claims for monetary damages against the MTA of approximately $95 million. This matter was taken under submission by the District Court in December 2014, after a five-week bench trial and the filing of post-trial pleadings by the parties. We continue to await a decision from the District Court. Although this matter relates to our former IS&GS business, we retained the litigation when we divested IS&GS in 2016.

We are involved in proceedings and potential proceedings relating to soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater contamination, disposal of hazardous substances, and other environmental matters at several of our current or former facilities, facilities for which we may have contractual responsibility, and at third-party sites where we have been designated as a potentially responsible party (PRP). A substantial portion of environmental costs will be included in our net sales and cost of sales in future periods pursuant to U.S. Government regulations. At the time a liability is recorded for future environmental costs, we record assets for estimated future recovery considered probable through the pricing of products and services to agencies of the U.S. Government, regardless of the contract form (e.g., cost-reimbursable, fixed-price). We continually evaluate the recoverability of our assets for the portion of environmental costs that are probable of

future recovery by assessing, among other factors, U.S. Government regulations, our U.S. Government business base and contract mix, our history of receiving reimbursement of such costs, and efforts by some U.S. Government representatives to limit such reimbursement. We include the portions of those environmental costs expected to be allocated to our non-U.S. Government contracts or determined not to be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts, in our cost of sales at the time the liability is established.

At March 29, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the aggregate amount of liabilities recorded relative to environmental matters was $812 million and $810 million, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. We have recorded assets for the portion of environmental costs that are probable of future recovery totaling $705 million and $703 million at March 29, 2020 and December 31, 2019, most of which are recorded in other noncurrent assets on our consolidated balance sheets, for the estimated future recovery of these costs, as we consider the recovery probable based on the factors previously mentioned. We project costs and recovery of costs over approximately 20 years.

Environmental remediation activities usually span many years, which makes estimating liabilities a matter of judgment because of uncertainties with respect to assessing the extent of the contamination as well as such factors as changing remediation technologies and changing regulatory environmental standards. There are a number of former and present operating facilities that we are monitoring or investigating for potential future remediation. We perform quarterly reviews of the status of our environmental remediation sites and the related liabilities and receivables. Additionally, in our quarterly reviews, we consider these and other factors in estimating the timing and amount of any future costs that may be required for remediation activities, and record a liability when it is probable that a loss has occurred or will occur and the loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount of liability recorded is based on our estimate of the costs to be incurred for remediation at a particular site. We do not discount the recorded liabilities, as the amount and timing of future cash payments are not fixed or cannot be reliably determined. We reasonably cannot determine the extent of our financial exposure in all cases as, although a loss may be probable or reasonably possible, in some cases it is not possible at this time to estimate the loss or reasonably possible loss or range of loss.

We also pursue claims for recovery of costs incurred or for contribution to site remediation costs against other PRPs, including the U.S. Government, and are conducting remediation activities under various consent decrees, orders, and agreements relating to soil, groundwater, sediment, or surface water contamination at certain sites of former or current operations. Under agreements related to certain sites in California, New York and Washington, the U.S. Government reimburses us an amount equal to a percentage, specific to each site, of expenditures for certain remediation activities in the U.S. Government’s capacity as a PRP under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

In addition to the proceedings and potential proceedings discussed above, California previously established a maximum level of the contaminant hexavalent chromium in drinking water of 10 parts per billion (ppb). This standard was successfully challenged by the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) for failure to conduct the required economic feasibility analysis. In response to the court’s ruling, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency, withdrew the hexavalent chromium standard from the published regulations, leaving only the 50 ppb standard for total chromium. The State Board has indicated it will work to re-establish a hexavalent chromium standard. Further, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is considering whether to regulate hexavalent chromium.

California is also reevaluating its existing drinking water standard of 6 ppb for perchlorate, and the U.S. EPA is taking steps to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. If substantially lower standards are adopted, in either California or at the federal level for perchlorate or for hexavalent chromium, we expect a material increase in our estimates for environmental liabilities and the related assets for the portion of the increased costs that are probable of future recovery in the pricing of our products and services for the U.S. Government. The amount that would be allocable to our non-U.S. Government contracts or that is determined not to be recoverable under U.S. Government contracts would be expensed, which may have a material effect on our earnings in any particular interim reporting period.

We are also evaluating the potential impact of existing and contemplated legal requirements addressing a class of compounds known generally as per- and polyfluoroalkyl compounds (PFAS). PFAS compounds have been used ubiquitously, such as in fire-fighting foams, manufacturing processes, and stain- and stick-resistant products (e.g., Teflon, stain-resistant fabrics). Because we have used products and processes over the years containing some of those compounds, it is likely that they exist as contaminants at many of our cleanup sites. Governmental authorities have

We have entered into standby letters of credit and surety bonds issued on our behalf by financial institutions, and we have directly issued guarantees to third parties primarily relating to advances received from customers and the guarantee of future performance on certain contracts. Letters of credit and surety bonds generally are available for draw down in the event we do not perform. In some cases, we may guarantee the contractual performance of third parties such as joint venture partners. We had total outstanding letters of credit, surety bonds and third-party guarantees aggregating $3.2 billion and $3.6 billion at March 29, 2020 and December 31, 2019. Third-party guarantees do not include guarantees issued on behalf of subsidiaries and other consolidated entities.

At March 29, 2020 and December 31, 2019, third-party guarantees totaled $725 million and $996 million, of which approximately 67% and 76% related to guarantees of contractual performance of joint ventures to which we currently are or previously were a party. These amounts represent our estimate of the maximum amounts we would expect to incur upon the contractual non-performance of the joint venture, joint venture partners or divested businesses. Generally, we also have cross-indemnities in place that may enable us to recover amounts that may be paid on behalf of a joint venture partner.

In determining our exposures, we evaluate the reputation, performance on contractual obligations, technical capabilities and credit quality of our current and former joint venture partners and the transferee under novation agreements all of which include a guarantee as required by the FAR. There were no material amounts recorded in our financial statements related to third-party guarantees or novation agreements.