DOE Deactivation, Demolition, and Removal Project: WGI Ohio executed a cost-reimbursable task order with the DOE in 2007 to provide deactivation, demolition and removal services at a New York State project site that, during 2010, experienced contamination and performance issues. In February 2011, WGI Ohio and the DOE executed a Task Order Modification that changed some cost-reimbursable contract provisions to at-risk. The Task Order Modification, including subsequent amendments, requires the DOE to pay all project costs up to $105.9 million, requires WGI Ohio and the DOE to equally share in all project costs incurred from $105.9 million to $145.9 million, and requires WGI Ohio to pay all project costs exceeding $145.9 million. In addition, in September 2011, WGI Ohio voluntarily paid a civil penalty related to the contamination incident. Through January 3, 2014, WGI Ohio has incurred total project costs of $261.3 million.

Due to unanticipated requirements and permitting delays by federal and state agencies, as well as delays and related ground stabilization activities caused by Hurricane Irene, WGI Ohio has been required to perform work outside the scope of the Task Order Modification. Based on the changes and delays, requests for equitable adjustment (“REA”) amounting to $47.1 million and proposals related to the hurricane-caused impacts and other directed changes in the amount of $118.0 million were initially submitted to the DOE for approval. Through January 3, 2014, the DOE has approved one of the REAs for $0.9 million and has authorized $31.9 million of additional funding primarily related to the hurricane-caused impacts. Because WGI Ohio and the DOE were unsuccessful in settling the REAs and proposals, during 2013, WGI Ohio submitted several certified claims against the DOE pursuant to the Contracts Disputes Acts seeking recovery of $112.5 million of the above unfunded REA and proposal costs incurred through April 2013 and $5.0 million in fees on the expanded work scope. As of January 3, 2014, WGI Ohio has recorded $81.5 million in accounts receivable for project costs incurred to date in excess of the DOE contracted amount that may not be collected unless and until the claims are favorably resolved. The final project completion costs are not currently estimable due to continuing delays in permitting, other delays, and approval of a final project plan. WGI Ohio can provide no certainty that it will recover the $112.5 million in submitted DOE claims for costs incurred through April 2013 related to REAs, hurricane-caused work or other directed changes, as well as any other project costs after April 2013 that WGI Ohio is obligated to incur to finalize and complete this project including the accounts receivable, any of which could negatively impact URS' future results of operations.

Bolivian Mine Services Agreement: In 2009, a mine service agreement performed by our wholly owned subsidiary, Washington Group Bolivia, was unilaterally terminated for convenience by the mine owner. The mine owner disputed the fair market value of mining equipment it was required to repurchase under the terms of the mine services agreement. Subsequently, on November 16, 2010, Washington Group Bolivia received a formal claim asserting breaches of contractual obligations and warranties, including the failure to adhere to the requisite professional standard of care while performing the mine services agreement. On June 17, 2011, Washington Group Bolivia received a formal demand for arbitration pursuant to the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) asserting claims up to $52.6 million. Washington Group Bolivia brought a $50 million counterclaim on August 3, 2012 against the mine owner asserting claims of wrongful termination and lost productivity. Arbitration on the mine owner's claims and Washington Group Bolivia's counterclaims commenced before the ICC. In the course of the arbitration proceedings, the mine owner has reduced its claims to approximately $32.2 million, while Washington Group Bolivia has refined its counterclaim amount to not more than $62.9 million. On August 9, 2013, a $10.5 million ICC arbitration tribunal award was issued against Washington Group Bolivia and, on September 5, 2013, the mine owner petitioned the United States District Court of Colorado to confirm the ICC arbitration award. On October 1, 2013, Washington Group Bolivia filed a cross motion to partially vacate the ICC arbitration award in the District Court of Colorado. On February 3, 2014, the District Court of Colorado entered judgment confirming the ICC arbitration award and denied Washington Group Bolivia's motion to partially vacate the award.

We have accrued an estimated probable loss of $10.5 million related to this matter; however, we expect the loss to be recoverable under our insurance program.

Canadian Pipeline Contract: In January 2010, a pipeline owner filed an action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Canada against Flint, a company we acquired in May 2012, as well as against a number of other defendants, alleging that the defendants negligently provided pipe coating and insulation system services, engineering, design services, construction services, and other work, causing damage to and abandonment of the line. The pipeline owner alleges it has suffered approximately C$85.0 million in damages in connection with the abandonment and replacement of the pipeline. Flint was the construction contractor on the pipeline project. Other defendants were responsible for engineering and design-services and for specifying and providing the actual pipe, insulation and coating materials used in the line. In January 2011, the pipeline owner served a Statement of Claim on Flint and, in September 2011, Flint filed a Statement of Defense denying that the damages to the coating system of the pipeline were caused by any negligence or breach of contract of Flint. Flint believes the damages were caused or contributed to by the negligence of one or more of the co-defendants and/or by the negligent operation of the pipeline owner.

Flint intends to continue to defend this matter vigorously; however, it cannot provide assurance that it will be successful, in whole or in part, in these efforts. The potential range of loss and the resolution of this matter cannot be determined at this time primarily due to the early stage of the discovery; the substantial uncertainty regarding the actual cause of the damage to or loss of the line; the nature and amount of each individual damage claim against the various defendants; and the uncertainty concerning legal theories and factual bases that the customer may present against all or some of the defendants.

U.K. Joint Venture: On April 12, 2010, one of our U.K. joint ventures sent several bags of low level non-exempt radioactive waste to a waste disposal facility that was not licensed to handle such waste. On November 15, 2012, the U.K. Environment Agency and the U.K. Department for Transport initiated environmental regulatory proceedings against our U.K. joint venture in the Workington Magistrates' Court under the U.K. Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010, the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, the Carriage of Dangerous Goods and the use of Transportable Pressure Equipment Regulations 2009. On February 7, 2013, our U.K. joint venture entered a plea of guilty before the Magistrates' Court and the matter was referred to the Carlisle Crown Court (the “Crown Court”) for sentencing. On June 14, 2013, the Crown Court issued a fine equivalent to approximately $1.2 million. On July 9, 2013, our U.K. joint venture appealed the Crown Court's decision to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. On January 17, 2014, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the fine was not reduced.