Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	12. Contingencies The Company is subject to certain lawsuits, claims and assessments that arise in the ordinary course of business. Additionally, the Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at various project sites. Management believes that any significant costs relating to these claims will be reimbursed by applicable insurance and, although there can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably, management believes that the ultimate resolution of any of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A liability is recorded when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. When using a range of loss estimate, the Company records the liability using the low end of the range unless some amount within the range of loss appears at that time to be a better estimate than any other amount in the range. The Company records a corresponding receivable for costs covered under its insurance policies. Management judgment is required to determine the outcome and the estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. Management believes that there are no claims or assessments outstanding which would materially affect the consolidated results of operations or the Company’s financial position. In September 2015, a former Parsons employee filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against us as a qui tam relator on behalf of the United States (the “Relator”) alleging violation of the False Claims Act. The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of these actions, the United States paid in excess of $1 million per month between February and September 2006 that it should have paid to another contractor, plus $2.9 million to acquire vehicles for the contractor defendant to perform its security services. The lawsuit sought (i) that we cease and desist from violating the False Claims Act, (ii) monetary damages equal to three times the amount of damages that the United States has sustained because of our alleged violations, plus a civil penalty of not less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000 for each alleged violation of the False Claims Act, (iii) monetary damages equal to the maximum amount allowed pursuant to §3730(d) of the False Claims Act, and (iv) Relator’s costs for this action, including recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the lawsuit. The United States government did not intervene in this matter as it is allowed to do so under the statute. The parties are concluding discovery and we anticipate that the court will hear dispositive and/or pre-trial motions in early or mid-2023. Depending upon the court’s rulings upon such motions, a trial may be scheduled in 2023. Federal government contracts are subject to audits, which are performed for the most part by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”). Audits by the DCAA and other agencies consist of reviews of our overhead rates, operating systems and cost proposals to ensure that we account for such costs in accordance with the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”). If the DCAA determines we have not accounted for such costs in accordance with the CAS, the DCAA may disallow these costs. The disallowance of such costs may result in a reduction of revenue and additional liability for the Company. Historically, the Company has not experienced any material disallowed costs as a result of government audits. However, the Company can provide no assurance that the DCAA or other government audits will not result in material disallowances for incurred costs in the future. All audits of costs incurred on work performed through 2013 have been closed, and years thereafter remain open. Although there can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably, management believes that their ultimate resolution will not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

12.

Contingencies

The Company is subject to certain lawsuits, claims and assessments that arise in the ordinary course of business. Additionally, the Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at various project sites. Management believes that any significant costs relating to these claims will be reimbursed by applicable insurance and, although there can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably, management believes that the ultimate resolution of any of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. A liability is recorded when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. When using a range of loss estimate, the Company records the liability using the low end of the range unless some amount within the range of loss appears at that time to be a better estimate than any other amount in the range. The Company records a corresponding receivable for costs covered under its insurance policies. Management judgment is required to determine the outcome and the estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. Management believes that there are no claims or assessments outstanding which would materially affect the consolidated results of operations or the Company’s financial position.

In September 2015, a former Parsons employee filed an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against us as a qui tam relator on behalf of the United States (the “Relator”) alleging violation of the False Claims Act. The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of these actions, the United States paid in excess of $1 million per month between February and September 2006 that it should have paid to another contractor, plus $2.9 million to acquire vehicles for the contractor defendant to perform its security services. The lawsuit sought (i) that we cease and desist from violating the False Claims Act, (ii) monetary damages equal to three times the amount of damages that the United States has sustained because of our alleged violations, plus a civil penalty of not less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000 for each alleged violation of the False Claims Act, (iii) monetary damages equal to the maximum amount allowed pursuant to §3730(d) of the False Claims Act, and (iv) Relator’s costs for this action, including recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the lawsuit. The United States government did not intervene in this matter as it is allowed to do so under the statute. The parties are concluding discovery and we anticipate that the court will hear dispositive and/or pre-trial motions in early or mid-2023. Depending upon the court’s rulings upon such motions, a trial may be scheduled in 2023.

Federal government contracts are subject to audits, which are performed for the most part by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”). Audits by the DCAA and other agencies consist of reviews of our overhead rates, operating systems and cost proposals to ensure that we account for such costs in accordance with the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”). If the DCAA determines we have not accounted for such costs in accordance with the CAS, the DCAA may disallow these costs. The disallowance of such costs may result in a reduction of revenue and additional liability for the Company. Historically, the Company has not experienced any material disallowed costs as a result of government audits. However, the Company can provide no assurance that the DCAA or other government audits will not result in material disallowances for incurred costs in the future. All audits of costs incurred on work performed through 2013 have been closed, and years thereafter remain open.

Although there can be no assurance that these matters will be resolved favorably, management believes that their ultimate resolution will not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.