Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

8. Commitments and contingencies

Commercial commitments

Performance and bid bonds are customarily required for dredging and marine construction projects, as well as some environmental & infrastructure projects. The Company has bonding agreements with Argonaut Insurance Company, Berkley Insurance Company, Chubb Surety and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, under which the Company can obtain performance, bid and payment bonds. The Company also has outstanding bonds with Travelers Casualty, Surety Company of America and Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”). Bid bonds are generally obtained for a percentage of bid value and amounts outstanding typically range from $1,000 to $10,000. At March 31, 2020, the Company had outstanding performance bonds with a notional amount of approximately $1,241,762 of which $17,401 relates to projects from the Company’s historical environmental & infrastructure businesses. The revenue value remaining in backlog related to these projects totaled approximately $450,312.

In connection with the sale of its historical demolition business, the Company was obligated to keep in place the surety bonds on pending demolition projects for the period required under the respective contract for a project and issued Zurich a letter of credit related to this exposure. In February 2017, the Company was notified by Zurich of an alleged default triggered on a historical demolition surety performance bond in the aggregate of approximately $20,000 for failure of the contractor to perform in accordance with the terms of a project. In May 2017, Zurich drew upon the letter of credit in the amount of $20,881. In order to fund the draw on the letter of credit in May 2017, the Company had to increase the borrowings on its revolving credit facility. As the outstanding letters of credit previously reduced the Company’s availability under the revolving credit facility, this draw down on the Company’s letter of credit did not impact its liquidity or capital availability.

Pursuant to the terms of sale of its historical demolition business, the Company received an indemnification commitment from the buyer for losses resulting from the bonding arrangement. In April 2020, the Court granted the Company’s motion for entry of final judgment in the amount of $21,934 based upon the buyer’s default of its obligations to indemnify the Company for losses resulting from the bonding arrangement, and the Court is in the process of entering that final judgment. The Company cannot estimate the amount or range of collectible recoveries related to the indemnification. It does, however, intend to aggressively pursue collection from the buyer for such payment.

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. The Company will defend itself vigorously on all matters. 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.

On April 23, 2014, the Company completed the sale of NASDI, LLC (“NASDI”) and Yankee Environmental Services, LLC (“Yankee”), which together comprised the Company’s historical demolition business, to a privately owned demolition company. On January 14, 2015, the Company and its subsidiary, NASDI Holdings, LLC, brought an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery to enforce the terms of the Company's agreement to sell NASDI and Yankee. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company received cash of $5,309 and retained the right to receive additional proceeds based upon future collections of outstanding accounts receivable and work in process existing at the date of close. The Company seeks specific performance of the buyer’s obligation to collect and to remit the additional proceeds, and other related relief. Defendants have filed counterclaims alleging that the Company misrepresented the quality of its contracts and receivables prior to the sale. The Company denies defendants’ allegations.

In June 2019, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana informed the Company that it intends to file criminal charges against the Company in connection with a September 2016 oil spill. The oil spill occurred during the Company’s Cheniere Ronquille project, allegedly resulting in the discharge of around 160 barrels of crude oil in Bay Long, Louisiana. The Company has cooperated with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in its investigation of the oil spill and believes that criminal charges are not warranted.

On September 27, 2019, the EPA Region 4 filed an administrative complaint against the Company relating to a project the Company performed at PortMiami from 2013-2015. The EPA is alleging violations of Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (“MPRSA”) and failure to report violations of the MPRSA. The EPA seeks the statutory maximum penalty of $75 per violation of the MPRSA. The Company disagrees with the EPA on whether violations occurred and, if any violation did occur, the appropriate penalty calculation.

Except as noted above, the Company has not accrued any amounts with respect to the above 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.

Lease obligations

The Company leases certain operating equipment and office facilities under long-term operating leases expiring at various dates through 2026. The equipment leases contain renewal or purchase options that specify prices at the then fair value upon the expiration of the lease terms. The leases also contain default provisions that are triggered by an acceleration of debt maturity under the terms of the Company’s Amended Credit Agreement, or, in certain instances, cross default to other equipment leases and certain lease arrangements require that the Company maintain certain financial ratios comparable to those required by its Amended Credit Agreement. Additionally, the leases typically contain provisions whereby the Company indemnifies the lessors for the tax treatment attributable to such leases based on the tax rules in place at lease inception. The tax indemnifications do not have a contractual dollar limit. To date, no lessors have asserted any claims against the Company under these tax indemnification provisions.