Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jul. 01, 2016
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. Our insurance programs have varying coverage limits and maximums, and insurance companies may seek to not pay any claims we might make. We have also elected to retain a portion of losses that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. As a result, we may be subject to 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. Our insurers are also subject to business risk and, as a result, one or more of them may be unable to fulfill their insurance obligations due to insolvency or otherwise. Additionally, as a contractor providing services to the U.S. 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 U.S., as well as by various government agencies representing jurisdictions outside the U.S. 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. The Company believes, after consultation with counsel, that such guarantees, litigation, U.S. 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 9, 2014, the Company received a Notice of Arbitration from Motiva Enterprises LLC (“Motiva”) alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to an expansion project at the Motiva, Port Arthur, Texas refinery. The arbitration relates to the professional services provided by Bechtel-Jacobs CEP Port Arthur Joint Venture (“BJJV”), a joint venture between Bechtel Corporation and Jacobs, in connection with that project. On March 1, 2016, Motiva submitted an amended Notice of Arbitration, asserting the same causes of actions in its original notice (fraud and breach of fiduciary duty) and is seeking entitlement to monetary relief in excess of $8 billion of alleged actual damages, and presently unquantified punitive damages, attorneys' fees and interest. The non-appealable arbitration is pending in Houston, Texas before the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution and is currently scheduled to begin on September 26, 2016. If BJJV is found liable, this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows, particularly in the short term. However, BJJV has denied liability and is vigorously defending these claims, and based on the information currently available, the Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. On September 30, 2015, Nui Phao Mining Company Limited (“NPMC”) commenced arbitration proceedings against Jacobs E&C Australia Pty Limited (“Jacobs E&C”). The arbitration is pending in Singapore before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. In March 2011, Jacobs E&C was engaged by NPMC for the provision of management, design, engineering, and procurement services for the Nui Phao mine/mineral processing project in Vietnam. In the Notice of Arbitration and in a subsequently filed Statement of Claim and Supplementary Statement of Claim dated February 1, 2016 and February 26, 2016, respectively, NPMC asserts various causes of action and alleges that the quantum of its claim exceeds $167 million. Jacobs has denied liability and is vigorously defending this claim. No hearing date on the merits has been set. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows. On December 7, 2009, the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) initiated an action in the San Francisco County Superior Court against Jacobs Facilities Inc. (“JFI”) and Jacobs Project Management (“JPM”). On June 6, 2011, AOC filed an operative Third Amended Complaint, which added Jacobs as a defendant. The action arises out of an assignment and assumption agreement between AOC and JFI pursuant to which JFI agreed to provide regular maintenance and repairs at certain AOC court facilities. AOC alleged three causes of action: (i) breach of contract based on the expiration of JFI’s contractor’s license before the assignment and assumption agreement was executed; (ii) disgorgement of all fees paid to JFI and JPM under the contract pursuant to California’s Contractors’ State License Law (“CSLL”); and (iii) breach of Jacobs’ parent guarantee agreement. JPM cross-claimed for unpaid sums for services that the licensed JPM had performed pursuant to the assigned contract between August 2009 and November 2009. A jury trial was held on the parties’ CSLL claims in April 2012 and, on May 2, 2012, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the Jacobs entities finding, among other things, that JPM was owed approximately $4.7 million in unpaid fees and that JFI was not required to disgorge the approximate $18.3 million that AOC had paid for its work under the contract. AOC subsequently dismissed its cause of action for breach of contract, and JPM dismissed its cross-claims other than those for its unpaid invoices. AOC’s third cause of action for breach of the parent guaranty was resolved by a stipulation, which provided that if AOC obtains a judgment against JFI, the judgment will also be against its parent, Jacobs. The trial court entered judgment in the Jacobs entities’ favor. On August 20, 2015, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District reversed the jury’s verdict, holding that JFI had violated the CSLL. The Court of Appeal remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether JFI and JPM had “substantially complied” with, and may therefore avoid disgorgement under, the CSLL. The evidentiary hearing on “substantial compliance” in San Francisco Superior Court began the week of July 18, 2016, and the hearing is expected to conclude the week of August 1, 2016. Future post-hearing briefings and a final hearing are pending in the next coming months. The Jacobs entities have contested, and will continue to vigorously contest, the AOC’s claims and will vigorously litigate JPM’s claim for unpaid sums. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

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. Our insurance programs have varying coverage limits and maximums, and insurance companies may seek to not pay any claims we might make. We have also elected to retain a portion of losses that occur through the use of various deductibles, limits, and retentions under our insurance programs. As a result, we may be subject to 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. Our insurers are also subject to business risk and, as a result, one or more of them may be unable to fulfill their insurance obligations due to insolvency or otherwise.

Additionally, as a contractor providing services to the U.S. 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 U.S., as well as by various government agencies representing jurisdictions outside the U.S.

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.

The Company believes, after consultation with counsel, that such guarantees, litigation, U.S. 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 9, 2014, the Company received a Notice of Arbitration from Motiva Enterprises LLC (“Motiva”) alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to an expansion project at the Motiva, Port Arthur, Texas refinery. The arbitration relates to the professional services provided by Bechtel-Jacobs CEP Port Arthur Joint Venture (“BJJV”), a joint venture between Bechtel Corporation and Jacobs, in connection with that project. On March 1, 2016, Motiva submitted an amended Notice of Arbitration, asserting the same causes of actions in its original notice (fraud and breach of fiduciary duty) and is seeking entitlement to monetary relief in excess of $8 billion of alleged actual damages, and presently unquantified punitive damages, attorneys' fees and interest. The non-appealable arbitration is pending in Houston, Texas before the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution and is currently scheduled to begin on September 26, 2016. If BJJV is found liable, this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows, particularly in the short term. However, BJJV has denied liability and is vigorously defending these claims, and based on the information currently available, the Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

On September 30, 2015, Nui Phao Mining Company Limited (“NPMC”) commenced arbitration proceedings against Jacobs E&C Australia Pty Limited (“Jacobs E&C”). The arbitration is pending in Singapore before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. In March 2011, Jacobs E&C was engaged by NPMC for the provision of management, design, engineering, and procurement services for the Nui Phao mine/mineral processing project in Vietnam. In the Notice of Arbitration and in a subsequently filed Statement of Claim and Supplementary Statement of Claim dated February 1, 2016 and February 26, 2016, respectively, NPMC asserts various causes of action and alleges that the quantum of its claim exceeds $167 million. Jacobs has denied liability and is vigorously defending this claim. No hearing date on the merits has been set. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

On December 7, 2009, the Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) initiated an action in the San Francisco County Superior Court against Jacobs Facilities Inc. (“JFI”) and Jacobs Project Management (“JPM”). On June 6, 2011, AOC filed an operative Third Amended Complaint, which added Jacobs as a defendant. The action arises out of an assignment and assumption agreement between AOC and JFI pursuant to which JFI agreed to provide regular maintenance and repairs at certain AOC court facilities. AOC alleged three causes of action: (i) breach of contract based on the expiration of JFI’s contractor’s license before the assignment and assumption agreement was executed; (ii) disgorgement of all fees paid to JFI and JPM under the contract pursuant to California’s Contractors’ State License Law (“CSLL”); and (iii) breach of Jacobs’ parent guarantee agreement. JPM cross-claimed for unpaid sums for services that the licensed JPM had performed pursuant to the assigned contract between August 2009 and November 2009. A jury trial was held on the parties’ CSLL claims in April 2012 and, on May 2, 2012, the jury returned a special verdict in favor of the Jacobs entities finding, among other things, that JPM was owed approximately $4.7 million in unpaid fees and that JFI was not required to disgorge the approximate $18.3 million that AOC had paid for its work under the contract. AOC subsequently dismissed its cause of action for breach of contract, and JPM dismissed its cross-claims other than those for its unpaid invoices. AOC’s third cause of action for breach of the parent guaranty was resolved by a stipulation, which provided that if AOC obtains a judgment against JFI, the judgment will also be against its parent, Jacobs. The trial court entered judgment in the Jacobs entities’ favor. On August 20, 2015, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District reversed the jury’s verdict, holding that JFI had violated the CSLL. The Court of Appeal remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether JFI and JPM had “substantially complied” with, and may therefore avoid disgorgement under, the CSLL. The evidentiary hearing on “substantial compliance” in San Francisco Superior Court began the week of July 18, 2016, and the hearing is expected to conclude the week of August 1, 2016. Future post-hearing briefings and a final hearing are pending in the next coming months. The Jacobs entities have contested, and will continue to vigorously contest, the AOC’s claims and will vigorously litigate JPM’s claim for unpaid sums. The Company does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.