Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Mar. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies In the normal course of business, we are subject to certain contractual guarantees and litigation. The guarantees to which we are a party generally relate to project schedules and plant performance. Most of the litigation in which we are involved has us as a defendant in workers' compensation; personal injury; environmental; employment/labor; professional liability; and other similar lawsuits. We maintain insurance coverage for various aspects of our business and operations. We have elected, however, to retain a portion of losses that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. This situation may subject us to some future liability for which we are only partially insured, or completely uninsured. We intend to mitigate any such future liability by continuing to exercise prudent business judgment in negotiating the terms and conditions of our contracts. Additionally, as a contractor providing services to the United States federal government and several of its agencies, we are subject to many levels of audits, investigations, and claims by, or on behalf of, the U.S. federal government with respect to our contract performance, pricing, costs, cost allocations, and procurement practices. Furthermore, our income, franchise, and similar tax returns and filings are also subject to audit and investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, most states within the United States as well as by various government agencies representing jurisdictions outside the United States. We record in our Consolidated Balance Sheets amounts representing our estimated liability relating to such claims, guarantees, litigation, and audits and investigations. We perform an analysis to determine the level of reserves to establish for insurance-related claims that are known and have been asserted against us, and for insurance-related claims that are believed to have been incurred based on actuarial analysis, but have not yet been reported to our claims administrators as of the respective balance sheet dates. We include any adjustments to such insurance reserves in our consolidated results of operations. Management believes, after consultation with counsel, that such guarantees, litigation, United States government contract-related audits, investigations and claims, and income tax audits and investigations should not have any material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. On August 1, 2007 the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota suffered a tragic collapse. The bridge was designed and built in the early 1960's. Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. ("Sverdrup & Parcel") provided design services to the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT") on the bridge. Sverdrup & Parcel was a predecessor company to Sverdrup Corporation, a company acquired by Jacobs in 1999. Several lawsuits have been filed against a consultant who had been providing engineering analyses of the bridge prior to its collapse, and against a contractor who was providing maintenance and construction work on the bridge at the time of its collapse. No lawsuits have been filed directly against the Company by any of the primary plaintiffs. The consultant and the contractor have filed suit against the Company claiming that the Company was liable for negligent design services by Sverdrup & Parcel, and against MnDOT claiming that MnDOT had an obligation to inspect, maintain and repair the bridge and that it failed to do so. MnDOT has filed a suit against the Company claiming that it is entitled to be indemnified for any and all amounts that it pays out under its Victims Compensation Fund. We understand that the contractor has settled all of the plaintiffs' claims against it. The contractor's suit against the Company has been dismissed without any compensation being paid by the Company. The Company's motions to dismiss the remaining claims against it by the consultant and MnDOT based on the State Statute of Repose were denied. The Company filed an appeal and the appellate court reversed the trial court and granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consultant's claim. The consultant petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to grant review. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss MnDOT's claim. The Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to grant review. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted the petition for review in both matters. The Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of the consultant's claim. The dismissal is now final and any further claims from the consultant are barred. With regard to the claims by MnDOT against the Company, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed all of MnDOT's contractual indemnity claims against the Company but upheld MnDOT's right to claim reimbursement under the legislation establishing the Victim's Compensation Fund. The latter claim has been remanded back to the trial court. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements. The California Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) filed suit against the Company and two of its subsidiaries alleging breach of contract. The AOC alleges that a contractor's license lapsed and, therefore, the Company must disgorge the amount of fees previously paid by AOC and allow AOC to retain unpaid fees in an aggregate amount of approximately $26.0 million. We filed a counterclaim for breach of contract with respect to the unpaid fees. The Company believes it has successful defenses against AOC's claims and should prevail on its counterclaim. If AOC's claims are decided in its favor, the matter could have an adverse effect on the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter and year in which final judgment is entered.

Commitments and Contingencies

In the normal course of business, we are subject to certain contractual guarantees and litigation. The guarantees to which we are a party generally relate to project schedules and plant performance. Most of the litigation in which we are involved has us as a defendant in workers' compensation; personal injury; environmental; employment/labor; professional liability; and other similar lawsuits. We maintain insurance coverage for various aspects of our business and operations. We have elected, however, to retain a portion of losses that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. This situation may subject us to some future liability for which we are only partially insured, or completely uninsured. We intend to mitigate any such future liability by continuing to exercise prudent business judgment in negotiating the terms and conditions of our contracts.

Additionally, as a contractor providing services to the United States federal government and several of its agencies, we are subject to many levels of audits, investigations, and claims by, or on behalf of, the U.S. federal government with respect to our contract performance, pricing, costs, cost allocations, and procurement practices. Furthermore, our income, franchise, and similar tax returns and filings are also subject to audit and investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, most states within the United States as well as by various government agencies representing jurisdictions outside the United States.

We record in our Consolidated Balance Sheets amounts representing our estimated liability relating to such claims, guarantees, litigation, and audits and investigations. We perform an analysis to determine the level of reserves to establish for insurance-related claims that are known and have been asserted against us, and for insurance-related claims that are believed to have been incurred based on actuarial analysis, but have not yet been reported to our claims administrators as of the respective balance sheet dates. We include any adjustments to such insurance reserves in our consolidated results of operations.

Management believes, after consultation with counsel, that such guarantees, litigation, United States government contract-related audits, investigations and claims, and income tax audits and investigations should not have any material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

On August 1, 2007 the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota suffered a tragic collapse. The bridge was designed and built in the early 1960's. Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. ("Sverdrup & Parcel") provided design services to the Minnesota Department of Transportation ("MnDOT") on the bridge. Sverdrup & Parcel was a predecessor company to Sverdrup Corporation, a company acquired by Jacobs in 1999. Several lawsuits have been filed against a consultant who had been providing engineering analyses of the bridge prior to its collapse, and against a contractor who was providing maintenance and construction work on the bridge at the time of its collapse. No lawsuits have been filed directly against the Company by any of the primary plaintiffs. The consultant and the contractor have filed suit against the Company claiming that the Company was liable for negligent design services by Sverdrup & Parcel, and against MnDOT claiming that MnDOT had an obligation to inspect, maintain and repair the bridge and that it failed to do so. MnDOT has filed a suit against the Company claiming that it is entitled to be indemnified for any and all amounts that it pays out under its Victims Compensation Fund. We understand that the contractor has settled all of the plaintiffs' claims against it. The contractor's suit against the Company has been dismissed without any compensation being paid by the Company. The Company's motions to dismiss the remaining claims against it by the consultant and MnDOT based on the State Statute of Repose were denied. The Company filed an appeal and the appellate court reversed the trial court and granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consultant's claim. The consultant petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to grant review. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss MnDOT's claim. The Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to grant review. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted the petition for review in both matters.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of the consultant's claim. The dismissal is now final and any further claims from the consultant are barred. With regard to the claims by MnDOT against the Company, the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed all of MnDOT's contractual indemnity claims against the Company but upheld MnDOT's right to claim reimbursement under the legislation establishing the Victim's Compensation Fund. The latter claim has been remanded back to the trial court. The Company does not expect this matter to have any material adverse effect on its consolidated financial statements.

The California Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) filed suit against the Company and two of its subsidiaries alleging breach of contract. The AOC alleges that a contractor's license lapsed and, therefore, the Company must disgorge the amount of fees previously paid by AOC and allow AOC to retain unpaid fees in an aggregate amount of approximately $26.0 million. We filed a counterclaim for breach of contract with respect to the unpaid fees. The Company believes it has successful defenses against AOC's claims and should prevail on its counterclaim. If AOC's claims are decided in its favor, the matter could have an adverse effect on the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter and year in which final judgment is entered.