Contingencies, Commitments and Other Circumstances	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies, Commitments and Other Circumstances	Contingencies Litigation and Regulatory Matters Related to the Company’s October 21, 2014 Press Release Announcing the Restatement of Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2014 After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28, 2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer, Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer. On January 31, 2015, the court named two employee retirement systems as Lead Plaintiffs. On March 31, 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed in which John T. McNabb, II, the former chief executive officer who had succeeded Mr. Harl, was added as a defendant. On June 15, 2015, a second amended consolidated complaint was filed. The complaint in the case, now entitled In re Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising out of the restatements of the Company’s first and second quarter 2014 financial statements, its statements regarding debt compliance and liquidity, the decision to shut down the regional business, the delay in filing the 2014 10-K, and the determination that a material weakness existed as of December 31, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages. On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which is still pending. The Company is not able at this time to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. In addition, two shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed. The first, Markovich v. Harl et al, was filed on November 6, 2014 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. The second, Kumararatne v. McNabb et al, was filed on March 4, 2015 in the USDC, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 23, 2015. The Markovich lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Company naming certain current and former officers and members of the Company's board of directors as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleged that the officer and board member defendants breached their fiduciary duties by permitting the Company's internal controls to be inadequate, failing to prevent the restatements, wasting corporate assets, and alleged that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The defendants sought dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to make demand upon the Company’s board to bring the lawsuit and on February 23, 2016, the court sustained the defendants' motion and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. On March 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and asked the court for leave to amend its lawsuit. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion in part, allowing an amended petition, which was filed on April 18, 2016. The amended petition adds Ravi Kumararatne as a plaintiff and claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the former officers and officer and board of director defendants related to the departure of former Company executives, financial controls and compliance with the Company's debt covenants. The Company believes the claims are without merit and will seek dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds the plaintiffs failed to make demand upon the Company’s board to bring the lawsuit. Other The SEC issued an order of investigation on January 29, 2015 and a subpoena on February 3, 2015, requesting information regarding the restatement of the Company's previously issued condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014. The Company provided its full cooperation to the SEC, who on January 25, 2016, sent the Company a letter stating it had concluded its investigation and, based on the information it had, did not intend to recommend an enforcement action against the Company. In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is party to a number of other legal proceedings. Management believes that the nature and number of these proceedings are typical for a firm of similar size engaged in a similar type of business and that none of these proceedings is material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. Commitments From time to time, the Company enters into commercial commitments, usually in the form of commercial and standby letters of credit, surety bonds and financial guarantees. Contracts with the Company’s customers may require the Company to secure letters of credit or surety bonds to secure the Company’s performance of contracted services. In such cases, the letters of credit or bond commitments can be called upon in the event of the Company's failure to perform contracted services. Likewise, contracts may allow the Company to issue letters of credit or surety bonds in lieu of contract retention provisions, where the client otherwise withholds a percentage of the contract value until project completion or expiration of a warranty period. Retention letters of credit or bond commitments can be called upon in the event of warranty or project completion issues, as prescribed in the contracts. The Company also issues letters of credit from time-to-time to secure deductible obligations under its workers compensation, automobile and general liability policies. At March 31, 2016, the Company had approximately $47.1 million of outstanding letters of credit. This amount represents the maximum amount of payments the Company could be required to make if these letters of credit are drawn upon. Additionally, the Company issues surety bonds (primarily performance in nature) that are customarily required by commercial terms on construction projects. At March 31, 2016, these bonds outstanding had a face value at $164.0 million. This amount represents the bond penalty amount of future payments the Company could be required to make if the Company fails to perform its obligations under such contracts. The performance bonds do not have a stated expiration date; rather, each is released when the Company's performance of the contract is accepted by the owner. The Company’s maximum exposure as it relates to the value of the bonds outstanding is lowered on each bonded project as the cost to complete is reduced. As of March 31, 2016, no liability has been recognized for letters of credit or surety bonds. Other Circumstances The Company has the usual liability of contractors for the completion of contracts and the warranty of its work. In addition, the Company acts as prime contractor on a majority of the projects it undertakes and is normally responsible for the performance of the entire project, including subcontract work. Management is not aware of any material exposure related thereto which has not been provided for in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Contingencies

Litigation and Regulatory Matters Related to the Company’s October 21, 2014 Press Release Announcing the Restatement of Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2014

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ("USDC") on October 28, 2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants in the case were the Company, its former chief executive officer, Robert R. Harl, and its current chief financial officer. On January 31, 2015, the court named two employee retirement systems as Lead Plaintiffs. On March 31, 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed in which John T. McNabb, II, the former chief executive officer who had succeeded Mr. Harl, was added as a defendant. On June 15, 2015, a second amended consolidated complaint was filed. The complaint in the case, now entitled In re Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising out of the restatements of the Company’s first and second quarter 2014 financial statements, its statements regarding debt compliance and liquidity, the decision to shut down the regional business, the delay in filing the 2014 10-K, and the determination that a material weakness existed as of December 31, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages. On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which is still pending. The Company is not able at this time to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

In addition, two shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed. The first, Markovich v. Harl et al, was filed on November 6, 2014 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas. The second, Kumararatne v. McNabb et al, was filed on March 4, 2015 in the USDC, but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 23, 2015. The Markovich lawsuit was filed on behalf of the

Company naming certain current and former officers and members of the Company's board of directors as defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit alleged that the officer and board member defendants breached their fiduciary duties by permitting the Company's internal controls to be inadequate, failing to prevent the restatements, wasting corporate assets, and alleged that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The defendants sought dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to make demand upon the Company’s board to bring the lawsuit and on February 23, 2016, the court sustained the defendants' motion and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. On March 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and asked the court for leave to amend its lawsuit. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion in part, allowing an amended petition, which was filed on April 18, 2016. The amended petition adds Ravi Kumararatne as a plaintiff and claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the former officers and officer and board of director defendants related to the departure of former Company executives, financial controls and compliance with the Company's debt covenants. The Company believes the claims are without merit and will seek dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds the plaintiffs failed to make demand upon the Company’s board to bring the lawsuit.

Other

The SEC issued an order of investigation on January 29, 2015 and a subpoena on February 3, 2015, requesting information regarding the restatement of the Company's previously issued condensed consolidated financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014. The Company provided its full cooperation to the SEC, who on January 25, 2016, sent the Company a letter stating it had concluded its investigation and, based on the information it had, did not intend to recommend an enforcement action against the Company.

In addition to the matters discussed above, the Company is party to a number of other legal proceedings. Management believes that the nature and number of these proceedings are typical for a firm of similar size engaged in a similar type of business and that none of these proceedings is material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

Commitments

From time to time, the Company enters into commercial commitments, usually in the form of commercial and standby letters of credit, surety bonds and financial guarantees. Contracts with the Company’s customers may require the Company to secure letters of credit or surety bonds to secure the Company’s performance of contracted services. In such cases, the letters of credit or bond commitments can be called upon in the event of the Company's failure to perform contracted services. Likewise, contracts may allow the Company to issue letters of credit or surety bonds in lieu of contract retention provisions, where the client otherwise withholds a percentage of the contract value until project completion or expiration of a warranty period. Retention letters of credit or bond commitments can be called upon in the event of warranty or project completion issues, as prescribed in the contracts. The Company also issues letters of credit from time-to-time to secure deductible obligations under its workers compensation, automobile and general liability policies. At March 31, 2016, the Company had approximately $47.1 million of outstanding letters of credit. This amount represents the maximum amount of payments the Company could be required to make if these letters of credit are drawn upon. Additionally, the Company issues surety bonds (primarily performance in nature) that are customarily required by commercial terms on construction projects. At March 31, 2016, these bonds outstanding had a face value at $164.0 million. This amount represents the bond penalty amount of future payments the Company could be required to make if the Company fails to perform its obligations under such contracts. The performance bonds do not have a stated expiration date; rather, each is released when the Company's performance of the contract is accepted by the owner. The Company’s maximum exposure as it relates to the value of the bonds outstanding is lowered on each bonded project as the cost to complete is reduced. As of March 31, 2016, no liability has been recognized for letters of credit or surety bonds.

Other Circumstances

The Company has the usual liability of contractors for the completion of contracts and the warranty of its work. In addition, the Company acts as prime contractor on a majority of the projects it undertakes and is normally responsible for the performance of the entire project, including subcontract work. Management is not aware of any material exposure related thereto which has not been provided for in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.