Commitments And Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	9. Commitments and contingencies *Commercial commitments* The obligations of Great Lakes under the Credit Agreement are unconditionally guaranteed, on a joint and several basis, by each existing and subsequently acquired or formed material direct and indirect domestic subsidiary of the Company. As of June 30, 2012, the Company had no borrowings and $33,447 of letters of credit outstanding, resulting in $141,553 of availability under the Credit Agreement. At June 30, 2012, the Company was in compliance with its various covenants under its Credit Agreement. Performance and bid bonds are customarily required for dredging and marine construction projects, as well as some demolition projects. In September 2011, the Company entered into a new bonding agreement with Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) under which the Company can obtain performance, bid and payment bonds. The new bonding agreement contains no restrictive covenants and lesser collateral requirements than the previous bonding agreement. The Company has used Zurich for all bonding requirements beginning in September 2011. Bid bonds are generally obtained for a percentage of bid value and amounts outstanding typically range from $1,000 to $10,000. At June 30, 2012, the Company had outstanding performance bonds valued at approximately $269,419; however, the revenue value remaining in backlog related to these projects totaled approximately $147,080. The Company has a $24,000 international letter of credit facility that it uses for the performance and advance payment guarantees on the Company’s foreign contracts. As of June 30, 2012, Great Lakes had $11,725 of letters of credit outstanding under this facility. At June 30, 2012, the Company also had $250,000 of 7.375% senior notes outstanding, which mature in February 2019. Certain foreign projects performed by the Company have warranty periods, typically spanning no more than one to three years beyond project completion, whereby the Company retains responsibility to maintain the project site to certain specifications during the warranty period. Generally, any potential liability of the Company is mitigated by insurance, shared responsibilities with consortium partners, and/or recourse to owner-provided specifications. *Legal proceedings and other contingencies* As is customary with negotiated contracts and modifications or claims to competitively bid contracts with the federal government, the government has the right to audit the books and records of the Company to ensure compliance with such contracts, modifications, or claims, and the applicable federal laws. The government has the ability to seek a price adjustment based on the results of such audit. Any such audits have not had, and are not expected to have, a material impact on the financial position, operations, or cash flows of the Company. Various legal actions, claims, assessments and other contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business are pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. These matters are subject to many uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters could ultimately be decided, resolved, or settled adversely to the Company. Although the Company is subject to various claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business, except as described below, the Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings or environmental claims. The Company records an accrual when it is probable a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not believe any of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would be expected to have a material effect on results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. The Company or its former subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership, was named as a defendant in approximately 251 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000. The claims were filed on behalf of seamen or their personal representatives alleging injury or illness from exposure to asbestos while employed as seamen on Company-owned vessels. In these cases, the Company is typically one of many defendants, including manufacturers and suppliers of products containing asbestos, as well as other vessel owners. Following certain administrative proceedings, counsel for plaintiffs agreed to name a group of cases that they intended to pursue and to dismiss the remaining cases without prejudice. Plaintiffs previously named 40 cases against the Company that they intended to pursue, each of which involves one plaintiff. The remaining cases against the Company were dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs in the dismissed cases could file a new lawsuit if they develop a new disease allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos on board our vessels. Of the 40 named cases, three were subsequently dismissed, leaving 37 cases remaining. The Company is presently unable to quantify the amounts of damages being sought in the remaining lawsuits because none of the complaints specify a damage amount. Based on preliminary discovery and settlement demands received to date, the Company does not believe that it is probable that losses from these claims could be material, and an estimate of a range of losses relating to these claims cannot reasonably be made. Based on the foregoing, management does not believe that any of the remaining 37 lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On August 26, 2009, the Company’s subsidiary, NASDI, LLC (“NASDI”), received a letter stating that the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is investigating alleged violations of the Massachusetts Solid Waste Act. The Company believes that the Massachusetts Attorney General is investigating illegal dumping activities at a dump site NASDI contracted with to have waste materials disposed of between September 2007 and July 2008. Per the Massachusetts Attorney General’s request, NASDI executed a tolling agreement regarding the matter in 2009 and engaged in further discussions with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office in the second quarter of 2011 but has had no further contact with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office since then. The matter remains open, and, to the Company’s knowledge, no proceedings have currently been initiated against NASDI. Should a claim be brought, NASDI intends to defend itself vigorously. Based on consideration of all of the facts and circumstances now known, the Company does not believe this claim will have a material impact on its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On March 27, 2011, NASDI received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in the District of Massachusetts directing NASDI to furnish certain documents relating to certain projects performed by NASDI since January 2005. The Company conducted an internal investigation into this matter and continues to fully cooperate with the federal grand jury subpoena. Based on the early stage of the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation and the limited information known to the Company, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s views of the issues being investigated, any action the U.S. Attorney may take, or the impact, if any, that this matter may have on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to these two NASDI matters as the Company does not believe, based on information currently known to it, that a loss relating to these matters is probable, and an estimate of a range of potential losses relating to these matters cannot reasonably be made. During the prior quarter ended March 31, 2012, a favorable judgment was rendered in the Company’s loss of use claim related to the dredge New York allision in the approach channel to Port Newark, New Jersey. In January 2008, the Company filed suit against the M/V Orange Sun and her owners for damages incurred by the Company in connection with the allision. Following a bench trial in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York, the Court issued an opinion and order in the Company’s favor, entitling Great Lakes to $11,736 in damages plus pre-judgment interest. Judgment was rendered in the aggregate amount of $13,272. Defendants timely appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and briefing on the appeal is expected to be completed before the end of the year. The Company cannot be assured when the appeal will be heard or predict the outcome of the appellate process.

9. Commitments and contingencies

Commercial commitments

The obligations of Great Lakes under the Credit Agreement are unconditionally guaranteed, on a joint and several basis, by each existing and subsequently acquired or formed material direct and indirect domestic subsidiary of the Company. As of June 30, 2012, the Company had no borrowings and $33,447 of letters of credit outstanding, resulting in $141,553 of availability under the Credit Agreement. At June 30, 2012, the Company was in compliance with its various covenants under its Credit Agreement.

Performance and bid bonds are customarily required for dredging and marine construction projects, as well as some demolition projects. In September 2011, the Company entered into a new bonding agreement with Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) under which the Company can obtain performance, bid and payment bonds. The new bonding agreement contains no restrictive covenants and lesser collateral requirements than the previous bonding agreement. The Company has used Zurich for all bonding requirements beginning in September 2011. Bid bonds are generally obtained for a percentage of bid value and amounts outstanding typically range from $1,000 to $10,000. At June 30, 2012, the Company had outstanding performance bonds valued at approximately $269,419; however, the revenue value remaining in backlog related to these projects totaled approximately $147,080.

The Company has a $24,000 international letter of credit facility that it uses for the performance and advance payment guarantees on the Company’s foreign contracts. As of June 30, 2012, Great Lakes had $11,725 of letters of credit outstanding under this facility. At June 30, 2012, the Company also had $250,000 of 7.375% senior notes outstanding, which mature in February 2019.

Certain foreign projects performed by the Company have warranty periods, typically spanning no more than one to three years beyond project completion, whereby the Company retains responsibility to maintain the project site to certain specifications during the warranty period. Generally, any potential liability of the Company is mitigated by insurance, shared responsibilities with consortium partners, and/or recourse to owner-provided specifications.

Legal proceedings and other contingencies

As is customary with negotiated contracts and modifications or claims to competitively bid contracts with the federal government, the government has the right to audit the books and records of the Company to ensure compliance with such contracts, modifications, or claims, and the applicable federal laws. The government has the ability to seek a price adjustment based on the results of such audit. Any such audits have not had, and are not expected to have, a material impact on the financial position, operations, or cash flows of the Company.

Various legal actions, claims, assessments and other contingencies arising in the ordinary course of business are pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. These matters are subject to many uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters could ultimately be decided, resolved, or settled adversely to the Company. Although the Company is subject to various claims and legal actions that arise in the ordinary course of business, except as described below, the Company is not currently a party to any material legal proceedings or environmental claims. The Company records an accrual when it is probable a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company does not believe any of these proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, would be expected to have a material effect on results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

The Company or its former subsidiary, NATCO Limited Partnership, was named as a defendant in approximately 251 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, the majority of which were filed between 1989 and 2000. The claims were filed on behalf of seamen or their personal representatives alleging injury or illness from exposure to asbestos while employed as seamen on Company-owned vessels. In these cases, the Company is typically one of many defendants, including manufacturers and suppliers of products containing asbestos, as well as other vessel owners. Following certain administrative proceedings, counsel for plaintiffs agreed to name a group of cases that they intended to pursue and to dismiss the remaining cases without prejudice. Plaintiffs previously named 40 cases against the Company that they intended to pursue, each of which involves one plaintiff. The remaining cases against the Company were dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs in the dismissed cases could file a new lawsuit if they develop a new disease allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos on board our vessels. Of the 40 named cases, three were subsequently dismissed, leaving 37 cases remaining. The Company is presently unable to quantify the amounts of damages being sought in the remaining lawsuits because none of the complaints specify a damage amount. Based on preliminary discovery and settlement demands received to date, the Company does not believe that it is probable that losses from these claims could be material, and an estimate of a range of losses relating to these claims cannot reasonably be made. Based on the foregoing, management does not believe that any of the remaining 37 lawsuits, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On August 26, 2009, the Company’s subsidiary, NASDI, LLC (“NASDI”), received a letter stating that the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is investigating alleged violations of the Massachusetts Solid Waste Act. The Company believes that the Massachusetts Attorney General is investigating illegal dumping activities at a dump site NASDI contracted with to have waste materials disposed of between September 2007 and July 2008. Per the Massachusetts Attorney General’s request, NASDI executed a tolling agreement regarding the matter in 2009 and engaged in further discussions with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office in the second quarter of 2011 but has had no further contact with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office since then. The matter remains open, and, to the Company’s knowledge, no proceedings have currently been initiated against NASDI. Should a claim be brought, NASDI intends to defend itself vigorously. Based on consideration of all of the facts and circumstances now known, the Company does not believe this claim will have a material impact on its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

On March 27, 2011, NASDI received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in the District of Massachusetts directing NASDI to furnish certain documents relating to certain projects performed by NASDI since January 2005. The Company conducted an internal investigation into this matter and continues to fully cooperate with the federal grand jury subpoena. Based on the early stage of the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation and the limited information known to the Company, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s views of the issues being investigated, any action the U.S. Attorney may take, or the impact, if any, that this matter may have on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to these two NASDI matters as the Company does not believe, based on information currently known to it, that a loss relating to these matters is probable, and an estimate of a range of potential losses relating to these matters cannot reasonably be made.

During the prior quarter ended March 31, 2012, a favorable judgment was rendered in the Company’s loss of use claim related to the dredge New York allision in the approach channel to Port Newark, New Jersey. In January 2008, the Company filed suit against the M/V Orange Sun and her owners for damages incurred by the Company in connection with the allision. Following a bench trial in the

United States District Court in the Southern District of New York, the Court issued an opinion and order in the Company’s favor, entitling Great Lakes to $11,736 in damages plus pre-judgment interest. Judgment was rendered in the aggregate amount of $13,272. Defendants timely appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and briefing on the appeal is expected to be completed before the end of the year. The Company cannot be assured when the appeal will be heard or predict the outcome of the appellate process.