Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

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. 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.

 On or about March 1, 2017, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, or the JPB, filed a lawsuit against Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., or PTG, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, in connection with a positive train control project on which PTG was engaged prior to termination of its contract by the JPB. PTG had previously filed a lawsuit against the JPB for breach of contract and wrongful termination. The JPB seeks damages in excess of $100.0 million, which the Company is currently disputing. In addition to filing a complaint for breach of contract and wrongful termination, the Company has denied the allegations raised by the JPB and, accordingly, filed affirmative defenses. The Company is currently defending against the JPB’s claims and the parties are still engaged in discovery. The Company also has a professional liability insurance policy to the extent the JPB proves any errors or omissions occurred. At this time, the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcome of the litigation or determine a potential range of loss, if any. The Company has also filed a third-party claim against a subcontractor for indemnification in connection with this matter.

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 United States government did not intervene in this matter as it is allowed to do so under the statute. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the Relator did not meet the applicable statute of limitations. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss. The Relator’s attorney appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit, which ultimately ruled in favor of the Relator, and the Company petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the decision. The Supreme Court reviewed the decision and accepted the position of the Relator.  The case was thus remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  The defendants, including Parsons, will file appropriate pleadings opposing the allegations.  At this time, the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcome of the litigation or determine a potential range of loss, if any.

On or about October 4, 2019, LBH Engineers, LLC (“LBH”) filed a lawsuit against Parsons, PTG, and various other parties in the US District Court of for the Northern District of Georgia, in connection with an alleged infringement of LBH’s patent. LBH seeks damages and costs incurred by LBH, a post-judgment royalty, treble damages if the infringement is found to be willful, among other damages, which the Company and the other defendants are currently disputing. At this time, the Company is unable to determine the probability of the outcome of the litigation or determine a potential range of loss, if any.

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 2010 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.