U.S. Government Matters
We provide services to various U.S. governmental agencies, which include the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) and the Department of State. We may have disagreements or experience performance issues on our U.S. government contracts. When performance issues arise under any of these contracts, the government retains the right to pursue various remedies, including challenges to expenditures, suspension of payments, fines and suspensions or debarment from future business with the government.
Between 2002 and 2011 we provided significant support to the U.S. Army and other U.S. government agencies in support of the war in Iraq under the LogCAP III contract. We continue to support the U.S. government around the world under the LogCAP IV contract as well as under other contracts. We have been in the process of closeout of the LogCAP III contract since 2011, and we expect the closeout process to continue through at least 2018. As a result of our work under LogCAP III, there are multiple claims and disputes pending between us and the government, all of which need to be resolved to close the contracts. The closeout process includes resolving objections raised by the government through a billing dispute process referred to as Form 1s and Memorandums for Record ("MFRs") and resolving results from government audits. We continue to work with the government to resolve these issues and are engaged in efforts to reach mutually acceptable resolution of these outstanding matters. However, for certain of these matters, we have filed claims with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ("ASBCA") or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("COFC"). We also have matters related to ongoing litigation or investigations involving U.S. government contracts. We anticipate billing additional labor, vendor resolution and litigation costs as we resolve the open matters. At this time, we cannot determine the timing or net amounts to be collected or paid to close out these contracts.
Form 1s
The government has issued Form 1s questioning or objecting to costs we billed to them. We believe the amounts we have invoiced the customer are in compliance with our contract terms; however, we continue to evaluate our ability to recover these amounts from our customer as new information becomes known. A summary of our Form 1s received and amounts associated with our Form 1s is as follows:
|
| | | | | | | |
| March 31, | | December 31, |
Dollars in millions | 2015 | | 2014 |
Form 1s issued by the government and outstanding (a) | $ | 188 |
| | $ | 188 |
|
Amounts withheld by government (included in the Form 1s amount above) (b) | 96 |
| | 96 |
|
Amounts withheld from subcontractors by us | 32 |
| | 32 |
|
Claims loss accruals (c) | 29 |
| | 29 |
|
| |
(a) | Included in the amounts shown is $56 million related to our Private Security matter discussed below in which KBR was granted full recovery of the amounts claimed. See discussion below. |
| |
(b) | Recorded in "claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. We believe these amounts are probable of collection. |
| |
(c) | Recorded as a reduction to "claims and accounts receivable" and in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. At this time, we believe the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the loss accruals we have recorded is remote. |
Summarized below are some of the details associated with individual Form 1s as part of the total explained above.
Private Security. Starting in February 2007, we received a series of Form 1s from the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA") informing us of the government's intent to deny reimbursement to us under the LogCAP III contract for amounts related to the use of private security contractors ("PSCs") by KBR and a subcontractor in connection with its work for KBR providing dining facility services in Iraq between 2003 and 2006. The government challenged $56 million in billings. The government had previously paid $11 million and has withheld payments of $45 million, which as of March 31, 2015 we have recorded as due from the government related to this matter in "claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.
On June 16, 2014, we received a decision from the ASBCA which agreed with KBR's position that the LogCAP III contract did not prohibit the use of PSCs to provide force protection to KBR or subcontractor personnel, that there was a need for force protection and that the costs were reasonable. The ASBCA also found that the Army breached its obligation to provide force protection. Accordingly, we believe that we are entitled to reimbursement by the Army for the amounts charged by our subcontractors, even if they incurred costs for PSCs. The Army has appealed. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we will incur a loss related to this matter is remote, and therefore we have not accrued any loss provisions related to this matter.
Containers. In June 2005, the DCAA questioned billings on costs associated with providing containerized housing for soldiers and supporting civilian personnel in Iraq. The Defense Contract Management Agency ("DCMA") recommended that payment for the billings be withheld pending receipt of additional explanation or documentation to support the subcontract costs. The Form 1 was issued for $51 million in billings. Of this amount, the government had previously paid $25 million and has withheld payments of $26 million, which as of March 31, 2015, we have recorded in "claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.
Included in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets is $30 million of payments withheld from subcontractors related to pay-when-paid contractual terms. At this time, we believe that the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the amounts we have withheld from subcontractors and the loss accruals we have recorded is remote.
There are three related actions stemming from the DCMA's action to disallow and withhold funds. First, in April 2008, we filed a counterclaim in arbitration against our LogCAP III subcontractor, First Kuwaiti Trading Company, to recover the amounts we paid to the subcontractor for containerized housing if we should lose the contract dispute with the government over the validity of the container claims. Those claims are still pending. Second, during the first quarter of 2011, we filed a complaint before the ASBCA to contest the Form 1s and to recover the amounts withheld from us by the government. At the request of the government, that complaint was dismissed without prejudice in January 2013 so that the government could pursue its False Claims Act ("FCA") suit described below. We are free to re-file the complaint in the future. Third, this matter is also the subject of a separate claim filed by the Department of Justice ("DOJ") for alleged violation of the FCA as discussed further below under the heading “Investigations, Qui Tams and Litigation.”
CONCAP III. From February 2009 through September 2010, we received Form 1s from the DCAA disapproving billed costs related to work performed under our CONCAP III contract with the U.S. Navy to provide emergency construction services primarily to government facilities damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma. The Form 1 was issued for $25 million in billings. The government had previously paid $15 million and has withheld payments of $10 million, which as of March 31, 2015 we have recorded as due from the government related to this matter in "claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.
In February 2012, the Contracting Officer rendered a Contracting Officer Final Determination (“COFD”) disallowing $15 million of direct costs. We filed an appeal with the ASBCA in June 2012. Trial was held before the ASBCA in September 2014, and post hearing briefs were filed in November 2014. We expect it will take several months before a ruling is issued on this matter. We believe we undertook adequate and reasonable steps to ensure that proper bidding procedures were followed and the amounts billed to the government were reasonable and not in violation of the Federal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR") and that the ASBCA will rule in our favor. As of March 31, 2015, we have accrued our estimate of probable loss related to an unfavorable settlement of this matter recorded in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. At this time, we believe that the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the amounts we have accrued is remote.
Other. The government has issued Form 1s for other matters questioning $56 million of billed costs. For these matters, the government previously paid $41 million and has withheld payment of $15 million, which we have recorded in "claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. We have accrued our estimate of probable loss in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. At this time, we believe that the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the amounts we have accrued is remote.
We have other matters (not related to Form 1s) in dispute with the government either in the COFC or before the ASBCA. These claims represent $11 million in claimed costs primarily associated with the pass-through of subcontractor claims associated with a termination for convenience in Iraq. We have accrued $4 million as our estimate of probable loss in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. At this time, we believe that the likelihood we would incur a loss related to these matters in excess of the amounts we have accrued is remote.
Audits
In addition to reviews being performed by the U.S. government through the Form 1 process, the negotiation, administration and settlement of our contracts, consisting primarily of DoD contracts, are subject to audit by the DCAA, which serves in an advisory role to the DCMA. The DCMA is responsible for the administration of our contracts. The scope of these audits include, among other things, the validity of incurred costs, provisional approval of annual billing rates, approval of annual overhead rates, compliance with the FAR and Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”), compliance with certain unique contract clauses and audits of certain aspects of our internal control systems. We attempt to resolve all issues identified in audit reports by working directly with the DCAA and the Administrative Contracting Officers ("ACOs").
As a result of these audits, there are risks that costs we have claimed as recoverable may be assessed by the government to be unallowable. We believe our claims are in compliance with our contract terms. In some cases, we may not reach agreement with the DCAA or the ACOs regarding potentially unallowable costs which may result in our filing of claims in various courts such as the ASBCA or the COFC. We have accrued our estimate of potentially unallowable costs using a combination of specific estimates and our settlement rate experience with the government. At March 31, 2015, we have accrued $35 million as our estimate of probable loss as a reduction to "claims and accounts receivable" and in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. These accrued amounts are associated with years for which we have or do not have audit reports. We have received completed audit reports for both direct & indirect incurred costs for the years 2004 through 2010 and have not received completed audit reports for 2011 through 2013. Additionally, we have reached an agreement with the government on definitive incurred cost rates for the years 2003 through 2007 and 2009.
For those years in which we have received audit reports and negotiated final settlements for both direct and indirect claimed costs, we have experienced an aggregate disallowance rate of approximately 0.1% of claimed costs. For the period 2003 through 2011 we incurred claimed costs of $46 billion; of this amount, we have reached negotiated settlement covering $35 billion and have conceded $40 million.
We only include amounts in revenues related to disputed and potentially unallowable costs when we determine it is probable that such costs will result in the collection of revenues. We generally do not recognize additional revenues for disputed or potentially unallowable costs for which revenues have been previously reduced until we reach agreement with the DCAA and/or the ACOs that such costs are allowable.
In addition to audits of our incurred costs, the government also reviews our compliance with the CAS and the adequacy and compliance of our CAS disclosure statements. We are working with the government to resolve several outstanding alleged CAS non-compliance issues.
Investigations, Qui Tams and Litigation
The following matters relate to ongoing litigation or federal investigations involving U.S. government contracts.
First Kuwaiti Trading Company arbitration. In April 2008, First Kuwaiti Trading Company ("FKTC"), one of our LogCAP III subcontractors providing housing containers, filed for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association of all its claims under various LogCAP III subcontracts. FKTC sought damages in the amount of $134 million. After complete hearings on all of FKTC's claims, an arbitration panel awarded $17 million and interest to FKTC for claims involving damages on lost or unreturned vehicles. In addition, we have determined that we owe FKTC $30 million in connection with other subcontracts. We had an agreement with FKTC that no damages will be paid until our counterclaim is decided, but FKTC filed a motion with the arbitration panel to compel KBR to pay all amounts outstanding. We paid FKTC $15 million in the third quarter of 2014, $4 million in the fourth quarter of 2014 and will pay $3 million on pay-when-paid terms. On March 24, 2015, we received a demand letter from FKTC seeking an additional $3 million; however, a formal claim has not been filed in the arbitration. We have accrued amounts we believe are payable to FKTC in "accounts payable" and "other current liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.
As indicated in the Containers discussion above, we believe any damages ultimately awarded to FKTC will be billable under the LogCAP III contract. At this time, we believe that the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the amounts we have accrued is remote. See the additional legal action with the ASBCA in the container litigation discussed above.
Electrocution litigation. During 2008, a lawsuit was filed against KBR in Pittsburgh, PA, in the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court alleging that the Company was responsible for an electrical incident which resulted in the death of a soldier. This incident occurred at the Radwaniyah Palace Complex near Baghdad, Iraq. It is alleged in the suit that the electrocution incident was caused by improper electrical maintenance or other electrical work. KBR denies that its conduct was the cause of the event and denies legal responsibility. Plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages for personal injury, death and loss of consortium by the parents. On July 13, 2012, the Court granted our motions to dismiss, concluding that the case is barred by the Political Question Doctrine and preempted by the Combatant Activities Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the trial court's dismissal and remanding for further discovery and legal rulings. KBR filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court and on January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. KBR will continue to pursue all available jurisdictional and other dismissal options. At this time, we believe the likelihood we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of March 31, 2015, no amounts have been accrued.
Burn Pit litigation. From November 2008 through March 2013, KBR was served with over 50 lawsuits in various states alleging exposure to toxic materials resulting from the operation of burn pits in Iraq or Afghanistan in connection with services provided by KBR under the LogCAP III contract. Each lawsuit has multiple named plaintiffs and seeks class certification. The lawsuits primarily allege negligence, willful and wanton conduct, battery, intentional infliction of emotional harm, personal injury and failure to warn of dangerous and toxic exposures which has resulted in alleged illnesses for contractors and soldiers living and working in the bases where the pits were operated. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages. All of the pending cases were removed to Federal Court and have been consolidated for multi-district litigation treatment before the U.S. Federal District Court in Baltimore, Maryland. In February 2013, the Court dismissed the case against KBR, accepting all of KBR's defense claims including the Political Question Doctrine; the Combatant Activities Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act; and Derivative Sovereign Immunity. The plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 27, 2013. On March 6, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court vacated the order of dismissal and remanded this multi-district litigation for further action, including a ruling on state tort law and its impact upon the "Contractor on the Battlefield" defenses. KBR filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court and on January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. KBR will continue to pursue all available jurisdictional and other dismissal options. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of March 31, 2015, no amounts have been accrued.
Sodium Dichromate litigation. From December 2008 through September 2009, five cases were filed in various Federal District Courts against KBR by national guardsmen and other military personnel alleging exposure to sodium dichromate at the Qarmat Ali Water Treatment Plant in Iraq in 2003. The majority of the cases were re-filed and consolidated into two cases, with one pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and one pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. A single plaintiff case was filed on November 30, 2012 in the District of Oregon Eugene Division. Collectively, the suits represent approximately 170 individual plaintiffs all of which are current and former national guardsmen or British soldiers who claim they were exposed to sodium dichromate while providing security services or escorting KBR employees who were working at the water treatment plant, claim that the defendants knew or should have known that the potentially toxic substance existed and posed a health hazard, and claim that the defendants negligently failed to protect the plaintiffs from exposure. The plaintiffs are claiming unspecified damages. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) was contractually obligated to provide a benign site free of war and environmental hazards before KBR's commencement of work on the site. KBR notified the USACE within two days after discovering the potential sodium dichromate issue and took effective measures to remediate the site. Services provided by KBR to the USACE were under the direction and control of the military and therefore, KBR believes it has adequate defenses to these claims. KBR also has asserted the Political Question Doctrine and other government contractor defenses. Additionally, studies by the U.S. government and others on the effects of exposure to the sodium dichromate contamination at the water treatment plant have found no long term harm to the soldiers.
Texas Proceedings. After an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on KBR's motion to dismiss regarding its "Contractor on the Battlefield" defenses, on November 7, 2013 a three judge panel of the Court returned the case to the trial court, holding the interlocutory appeal was improperly granted. We sought review by the entire court on this opinion which was denied. On January 23, 2015, the District Court issued several orders dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims except for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On February 2, 2015, KBR filed a motion for summary judgment on this claim which was denied for procedural reasons. The Plaintiffs' filed their choice of law motion for reconsideration of the judge's dismissal of their negligence claims on March 16, 2015 and we filed our choice of law motion on April 15, 2015. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of March 31, 2015, no amounts have been accrued.
Oregon Proceedings. On November 2, 2012 in the Oregon case, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on their claims, and awarded them approximately $10 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages. We filed post-verdict motions asking the court to overrule the verdict or order a new trial. On April 26, 2013, the court ruled for plaintiffs on all issues except one, reducing the total damages to $81 million which consists of $6 million in actual damages and $75 million in punitive damages. Trials for the remaining plaintiffs in Oregon will not take place until the appellate process is concluded. The court issued a final judgment on May 10, 2013, which was consistent with the previous ruling. KBR appealed the ruling. Briefing is complete and oral arguments have not yet been scheduled by the court. Additionally, five amicus curiae briefs have been filed in support of our arguments. Our basis for appeal include the trial court's denial of the Political Question Doctrine, the Combat Activities Exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act, a lack of personal jurisdiction over KBR in Oregon and numerous other legal issues stemming from the court's rulings before and during the trial. We have already filed proceedings to enforce our rights to reimbursement and payment pursuant to the FAR under the RIO contract with the USACE as referenced below.
In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we have also filed a motion for summary reversal of the court's decision on personal jurisdiction due to a recent Supreme Court decision which supports our position that the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction in the case because KBR did not have contact with the state. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has consolidated the motion with our pending appeal. Oral arguments for the appeal will take place on May 4, 2015.
At this time we believe the likelihood that we will ultimately incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of March 31, 2015, no amounts have been accrued.
COFC/ASBCA Claims. During the period of time since the first litigation was filed against us, we have incurred legal defense costs that we believe are reimbursable under the related government contract. We have billed for these costs and filed claims to recover the associated costs incurred to date. In late 2012 and early 2013, we filed suits against the U.S. government in the COFC for denying indemnity in the sodium dichromate cases, for reimbursement of legal fees pursuant to our contract with the government and for breach of contract by the government for failure to provide a benign site as required by our contract. The RIO contract required KBR personnel to begin work in Iraq as soon as the invasion began in March 2003. Due to KBR's inability to procure adequate insurance coverage for this work, the Secretary of the Army approved the inclusion of an indemnification provision in the RIO Contract pursuant to Public Law 85-804.
On March 7, 2014, the COFC issued a ruling on the government's motion dismissing KBR's claims on procedural grounds. The decision did not prohibit us from resubmitting the claims to the contracting officer and we promptly refiled those claims. On April 4, 2014, we submitted a supplemental certified claim to the RIO contracting officer for additional legal fees incurred in defending the sodium dichromate cases. On June 9, 2014, we filed an appeal to the ASBCA due to the contracting officer's failure to issue a final decision on claims totaling approximately $30 million. The USACE filed an answer, denying our claims. We filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to rule in KBR's favor on the 85-804 indemnity clause based on the admissions made by the USACE in its answer. The court has agreed to stay our other claims while we conduct limited discovery on the 85-804 indemnity. On December 23, 2014, we filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment asking the board to find that, based on discovery conducted to date, the sodium dichromate related incidents and litigation are within the definition of the "unusually hazardous risks" language in the 85-804 indemnity agreement.
Qui tams. Of the active qui tams for which we are aware, the government has joined one of them (see DOJ FCA complaint - Iraq Subcontractor below). We believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss in the qui tams the government has not joined is remote and as of March 31, 2015, no amounts have been accrued. Costs incurred in defending the qui tams cannot be billed to the government until those matters are successfully resolved in our favor. If successfully resolved, we can bill 80% of the costs to the government under the controlling provisions of the FAR. As of March 31, 2015, we have incurred $11 million in legal costs to date in defending ourselves in qui tams.
Barko qui tam. Relator Harry Barko was a KBR subcontracts administrator in Iraq for a year in 2004/2005. He filed a qui tam lawsuit in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C.), alleging violations of the FCA by KBR and KBR subcontractors Daoud & Partners and Eamar Combined for General Trading and Contracting. The claim was unsealed in March of 2009. Barko alleges that KBR fraudulently charged the government for the purchase of laundry facilities from Daoud, that KBR paid Daoud for the construction of a substandard man-camp, that Daoud double-billed KBR for labor, that KBR improperly awarded well-drilling subcontracts to Daoud, and that Daoud charged excessive prices for these services and did not satisfactorily complete them. Barko also alleges fraudulent charges arising out of Eamar’s well-drilling services.
The DOJ investigated Barko’s allegations and elected not to intervene. KBR filed its Answer to the First Amended Complaint and a Motion for Summary Judgment. We have had a series of continuing procedural disputes over the application of KBR's attorney-client privileges for KBR's investigative process. First, on February 3, 2014, Barko filed a Motion to Compel production of privileged investigative files, which KBR opposed. On March 6, 2014, in an unprecedented opinion, the District Court granted the motion and ordered KBR to produce the records, thereafter also denying KBR’s motions to stay the order and for interlocutory appeal. On March 12, 2014, KBR filed its Petition for Mandamus with the D.C. Circuit Court, seeking an order reversing the trial court’s order of production. On June 27, 2014, the Circuit Court granted KBR's Petition and vacated the trial court's order of production. On July 28, 2014, Barko appealed the ruling and on September 2, 2014 that appeal was denied. Barko filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 30, 2014, and that petition was denied on January 20, 2015.
Second, after remand from the first Mandamus proceeding, the District Court ordered briefing as to whether KBR waived its privilege, and after extensive briefing, on November 20, 2014, the District Court entered an order finding that KBR had impliedly waived privilege and requiring KBR to produce the same documents which had previously been the subject of the first proceeding. On December 17, 2014, the District Court issued additional orders, denying KBR's Motion for Reconsideration, request for stay and request for immediate appeal. In a separate ruling, the District Court found that some of the documents in question were not privileged at all. On December 19, 2014, KBR filed a second Petition for Mandamus and for entry of Emergency Stay Order in the D.C. Circuit Court. An Administrative Stay was granted and briefing on both the Mandamus and full stay request was ordered. The Court of Appeals has advised that it will hear our Mandamus petition and oral arguments have been set for May 11, 2015.
While we believe it is important to protect the privileges attached to KBR's corporate compliance process, we do not believe that the merits of the underlying claims ultimately will be impacted by a forced disclosure should that occur. We believe the likelihood that we will incur a loss related to this matter is remote, and therefore as of March 31, 2015 we have not accrued any loss provisions related to this matter.
DOJ False Claims Act complaint - Containers. In November 2012, the DOJ filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Rock Island, IL, related to our settlement of delay claims by our subcontractor, FKTC, in connection with FKTC's provision of living trailers for the bed down mission in Iraq in 2003-2004. The DOJ alleges that KBR knew that FKTC had submitted inflated costs; that KBR did not verify the costs; that FKTC had contractually assumed the risk for the costs which KBR submitted to the government; that KBR concealed information about FKTC's costs from the government; that KBR claimed that an adequate price analysis had been done when in fact one had not been done; and that KBR submitted false claims for reimbursement to the government in connection with FKTC's services during the bed down mission. Our contractual dispute with the Army over this settlement has been ongoing since 2005. We believe these sums were properly billed under our contract with the Army and are not prohibited under the LogCAP III contract. We strongly contend that we followed the law and no fraud was committed. On May 6, 2013, KBR filed a motion to dismiss and in March 2014 the motion to dismiss was denied. We filed our answer on May 2, 2014 and on May 23, 2014 the government filed a Motion to Strike certain affirmative defenses which was denied. On September 30, 2014, the District Court granted FKTC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. A scheduling conference was held on December 5, 2014 and we expect discovery to close in October 2015. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter is remote. As of March 31, 2015, no amounts have been accrued.
DOJ False Claims Act complaint - Iraq Subcontractor. In January 2014, the DOJ filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Rock Island, IL, against KBR and two former KBR subcontractors alleging that 3 former KBR employees were offered and accepted kickbacks from these subcontractors in exchange for favorable treatment in the award and performance of subcontracts to be awarded during the course of KBR's performance of the LogCAP III contract in Iraq. The complaint alleges that as a result of the kickbacks, we submitted invoices with inflated or unjustified subcontract prices, resulting in alleged violations of the FCA and the Anti-Kickback Act. While the suit is relatively new, the DOJ's investigation dates back to 2004. We self-reported most of the violations and tendered credits to the government as appropriate. On May 22, 2014, FTKC filed a motion to dismiss which the government opposed. On April 22, 2014, we filed our answer and in May 2014 the government filed a Motion to Strike certain affirmative defenses and this motion was granted on March 30, 2015. We do not believe this limits KBR's ability to fully defend all allegations in this matter. As of March 31, 2015, we have accrued our best estimate of probable loss related to an unfavorable settlement of this matter recorded in "other liabilities" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. At this time, we believe the likelihood that we would incur a loss related to this matter in excess of the amounts we have accrued is remote.
Other Matters
Claims. We have filed claims with the government related to payments not yet received for costs incurred under various government contracts. Included in our condensed consolidated balance sheets are claims for costs incurred under various government contracts totaling $165 million at March 31, 2015. These claims relate to disputed costs and/or contracts where our costs have exceeded the government's funded value on the task order. We have $152 million of claims primarily from de-obligated funding on certain task orders that were also subject to Form 1s relating to certain DCAA audit issues discussed above. We believe such disputed costs will be resolved in our favor at which time the government will be required to obligate funds from appropriations for the year in which resolution occurs. These claims are recorded in "claims and accounts receivable" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The remaining claims balance of $13 million is recorded in "CIE" on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The amounts recorded in CIE represent costs for which incremental funding is pending in the normal course of business. The claims outstanding at March 31, 2015 are considered to be probable of collection and have been previously recognized as revenues.