Note 6. United States Government Contract Work
We provide substantial work under our government contracts to the United States Department of Defense and other governmental agencies. These contracts include our worldwide United States Army logistics contracts, known as LogCAP, and the U.S. Army Europe (“USAREUR”) contract.
Given the demands of working in Iraq and elsewhere for the United States government, as discussed further below, we have disagreements and have experienced performance issues with the various government customers for which we work. When performance issues arise under any of our government contracts, the government retains the right to pursue remedies, which could include threatened termination or termination, under any affected contract. If any contract were so terminated, we may not receive award fees under the affected contract, and our ability to secure future contracts could be adversely affected, although we would receive payment for amounts owed for our allowable costs under cost-reimbursable contracts. Other remedies that could be sought by our government customers for any improper activities or performance issues include sanctions such as forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines, and suspensions or debarment from doing business with the government. Further, the negative publicity that could arise from disagreements with our customers or sanctions as a result thereof could have an adverse effect on our reputation in the industry, reduce our ability to compete for new contracts, and may also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow.
We have experienced and expect to be a party to various claims against us by employees, third parties, soldiers, subcontractors and others that have arisen out of our work in Iraq such as claims for wrongful termination, assaults against employees, personal injury claims by third parties and army personnel, and subcontractor claims. While we believe we conduct our operations safely, the environments in which we operate often lead to these types of claims. We believe the vast majority of these types of claims are governed by the Defense Base Act or precluded by other defenses. We have a dispute resolution program under which most employment claims are subject to binding arbitration. However, as a result of amendments to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010, certain types of employee claims cannot be compelled to binding arbitration. An unfavorable resolution or disposition of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flow.
Award Fees
In accordance with the provisions of the LogCAP III contract, we earn profits on our services rendered based on a combination of a fixed fee plus award fees granted by our customer. Both fees are measured as a percentage rate applied to estimated and negotiated costs. The LogCAP III customer is contractually obligated to periodically convene Award-Fee Boards, which are comprised of individuals who have been designated to assist the Award Fee Determining Official (“AFDO”) in making award fee determinations. Award fees are based on evaluations of our performance using criteria set forth in the contract, which include non-binding monthly evaluations made by our customers in the field of operations. Although these criteria have historically been used by the Award-Fee Boards in reaching their recommendations, the amounts of award fees are determined at the sole discretion of the AFDO.
On February 19, 2010, KBR was notified by the AFDO that a determination had been made regarding the Company’s performance for the period January 2008 to April 2008 in Iraq. The notice stated that based on information received from various Department of Defense individuals and organizations after the date of the evaluation board held in June 2008, the AFDO made a unilateral decision to grant no award fees for the period of performance from January 2008 to April 2008.
As a result of the AFDO’s adverse determination, in the fourth quarter of 2009, we reversed award fees that had previously been estimated as earned and recognized as revenue. Until we are able to reliably estimate fees to be awarded in the future, we will recognize award fees on the LogCAP III contract in the period they are awarded. In May 2010, we received an award fee of approximately $60 million representing approximately 47% of the available award fee pool for the period of performance from May 2008 through August 2009 which we recorded as an increase to revenue in the second quarter of 2010. We expect to be notified in the second half of 2010 of the results of the Award Fee Evaluation Boards held in late June 2010 for the periods of performance from September 2009 through February 2010 on task orders in Iraq and from September 2009 through May 2010 on task orders in Afghanistan. If our next award fee letter has performance scores and award rates at levels for which we receive an award, our revenues and earnings will increase accordingly.
Prior to the fourth quarter of 2009, we recognized award fees on the LogCAP III contract using an estimated accrual of the amounts to be awarded. Once task orders underlying the work are definitized and award fees are granted, we adjust our estimate of award fees to the actual amounts earned. We used 72% as our accrual rate through the third quarter of 2009.
DCAA Audit Issues
The negotiation, administration and settlement of our contracts with the U.S. Government, consisting primarily of Department of Defense contracts, are subject to audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), which serves in an advisory role to government administrative contracting officers who administer our contracts. The scope of these audits include, among other things, the allowability, allocability and reasonableness of incurred costs, approval of annual overhead rates, compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”), compliance with certain unique contract clauses, and audits of certain aspects of our internal control systems. Issues identified during these audits are typically discussed and reviewed with us, and certain matters are included in audit reports issued by the DCAA, with its recommendations to our customer’s administrative contracting officer. We attempt to resolve all issues identified in audit reports by working directly with the DCAA and the administrative contracting officer. When agreement cannot be reached, DCAA may issue a Form 1, “Notice of Contract Costs Suspended and/or Disapproved,” which recommends withholding the previously paid amounts or it may issue an advisory report to the administrative contracting officer. KBR is permitted to respond to these documents and provide additional support. The Company has open Form 1’s from DCAA recommending suspension of payments totaling approximately $356 million associated with our contract costs incurred in prior years, of which approximately $165 million has been withheld from our current billings. As a consequence, for certain of these matters, we have withheld approximately $124 million from our subcontractors under the payment terms of those contracts. In addition, we have outstanding demand letters received from our customer requesting that we remit a total of $135 million of disapproved costs for which we currently do not intend to pay. We continue to work with our administrative contracting officers, the DCAA and our subcontractors to resolve these issues. However, for certain of these matters, we have filed claims with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or the United States Court of Federal Claims.
We self-disallow costs that are expressly not allowable or allocable to government contracts per the relevant regulations. Revenue recorded for government contract work is reduced for our estimate of potentially refundable costs related to issues that may be categorized as disputed or unallowable as a result of cost overruns or the audit process. Our estimates of potentially unallowable costs are based upon, among other things, our internal analysis of the facts and circumstances, terms of the contracts and the applicable provisions of the FAR, quality of supporting documentation for costs incurred, and subcontract terms as applicable. From time to time, we engage outside counsel to advise us on certain matters in determining whether certain costs are allowable. We also review our analysis and findings with the DCMA’s Administrative Contracting Officer (“ACO”) as appropriate. In some cases, we may not reach agreement with the DCAA or the ACO regarding potentially unallowable costs which may result in our filing of claims in various courts. We only include amounts in revenue related to disputed and potentially unallowable costs when we determine it is probable that such costs will result in revenue. We generally do not recognize additional revenue for disputed or potentially unallowable costs for which revenue has been previously reduced until we reach agreement with the DCAA and/or the ACO that such costs are allowable.
Certain issues raised as a result of contract audits and other investigations are discussed below.
Private Security. In February 2007, we received a Form 1 notice from the Department of the Army informing us of their intent to adjust payments under the LogCAP III contract associated with the cost incurred for the years 2003 through 2006 by certain of our subcontractors to provide security to their employees. Based on that notice, the Army withheld its initial assessment of $20 million. The Army based its initial assessment on one subcontract wherein, based on communications with the subcontractor, the Army estimated 6% of the total subcontract cost related to the private security costs. The Army previously indicated that not all task orders and subcontracts have been reviewed and that they may make additional adjustments. In August 2009, we received a Form 1 notice from the DCAA disapproving an additional $83 million of costs incurred by us and our subcontractors to provide security during the same periods. Since that time, the Army withheld an additional $24 million in payments from us bringing the total payments withheld to approximately $44 million as of June 30, 2010 out of the Form 1 notices issued to date of $103 million.
The Army indicated that they believe our LogCAP III contract prohibits us and our subcontractors from billing costs of privately acquired security. We believe that, while the LogCAP III contract anticipates that the Army will provide force protection to KBR employees, it does not prohibit us or any of our subcontractors from using private security services to provide force protection to KBR or subcontractor personnel. In addition, a significant portion of our subcontracts are competitively bid fixed price subcontracts. As a result, we do not receive details of the subcontractors’ cost estimate nor are we legally entitled to it. Further, we have not paid our subcontractors any additional compensation for security services. Accordingly, we believe that we are entitled to reimbursement by the Army for the cost of services provided by us or our subcontractors, even if they incurred costs for private force protection services. Therefore, we believe that the Army’s position that such costs are unallowable and that they are entitled to withhold amounts incurred for such costs is wrong as a matter of law.
In 2007, we provided at the Army's request information that addresses the use of armed security either directly or indirectly charged to LogCAP III. In October 2007, we filed a claim to recover the original $20 million that was withheld which was deemed denied as a result of no response from the contracting officer. To date, we have filed appeals to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”) to recover $44 million of the amounts withheld from us. We believe these sums were properly billed under our contract with the Army. At this time, we believe the likelihood that a loss related to this matter has been incurred is remote. We have not adjusted our revenues or accrued any amounts related to this matter. This matter is also the subject of a separate claim filed by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) for alleged violation of the False Claims Act as discussed further below under the heading “Investigations, Qui Tams and Litigation.” Our appeal to the ASBCA is effectively stayed pending the resolution of the separate claim filed by the DOJ.
Containers. In June 2005, the DCAA recommended withholding certain costs associated with providing containerized housing for soldiers and supporting civilian personnel in Iraq. The Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”) recommended that the costs be withheld pending receipt of additional explanation or documentation to support the subcontract costs. We have not received a final determination by the DCMA and continue to provide information as requested by the DCMA. As of June 30, 2010, approximately $30 million of costs have been suspended under Form 1 notices and withheld from us by our customer related to this matter of which $28 million has been withheld by us from our subcontractors. In April 2008, we filed a counterclaim in arbitration against one of our LogCAP III subcontractors, First Kuwaiti Trading Company, to recover approximately $51 million paid to the subcontractor for containerized housing as further described under the caption First Kuwaiti Trading Company arbitration below. We will continue working with the government and our subcontractors to resolve the remaining amounts. We believe that the costs incurred associated with providing containerized housing are reasonable and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter and we do not believe that we face a risk of significant loss from any disallowance of these costs in excess of the amounts we have withheld from subcontractors and the loss accruals we have recorded. At this time, the likelihood that a loss in excess of the amount accrued for this matter is remote.
Dining facilities. In 2006, the DCAA raised questions regarding our billings and price reasonableness of costs related to dining facilities in Iraq. We responded to the DCMA that our costs are reasonable. Since 2007, the DCAA has sent Form 1 notices totaling $187 million suspending costs related to these dining facilities until such time we provide documentation to support the price reasonableness of the rates negotiated with our subcontractor and demonstrate that the amounts billed were in accordance with the contract terms. We believe the prices obtained for these services were reasonable and intend to vigorously defend ourselves on this matter. We filed claims in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to recover $57 million of the $77 million withheld from us by the customer. With respect to questions raised regarding billing in accordance with contract terms, as of June 30, 2010, we believe it is reasonably possible that we could incur losses in excess of the amount accrued for possible subcontractor costs billed to the customer that were possibly not in accordance with contract terms. However, we are unable to estimate an amount of possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the amount accrued related to any costs billed to the customer that were not in accordance with the contract terms. We believe the prices obtained for these services were reasonable, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter and we do not believe we face a risk of significant loss from any disallowance of these costs in excess of amounts withheld from subcontractors. As of June 30, 2010, we had withheld $87 million in payments from our subcontractors pending the resolution of these matters with our customer.
Additionally, one of our subcontractors, Tamimi, has filed for arbitration to recover approximately $35 million for payments we have withheld from them pending the resolution of the Form 1 notices with our customer. Should we not reach a favorable resolution of the Form 1 notices, the subcontract terms allow us to offset the amounts owed to our subcontractor to the extent we do not receive payment from our customer related to these questioned costs.
Transportation costs. The DCAA, in performing its audit activities under the LogCAP III contract, raised a question about our compliance with the provisions of the Fly America Act. Subject to certain exceptions, the Fly America Act requires Federal employees and others performing U.S. Government-financed foreign air travel to travel by U.S. flag air carriers. There are times when we transported personnel in connection with our services for the U.S. military where we may not have been in compliance with the Fly America Act and its interpretations through the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the Comptroller General. As of June 30, 2010, we have accrued an estimate of the cost incurred for these potentially non-compliant flights with a corresponding reduction to revenue. The DCAA may consider additional flights to be noncompliant resulting in potential larger amounts of disallowed costs than the amount we have accrued. At this time, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses that may have been incurred, if any, in excess of the amount accrued. We will continue to work with our customer to resolve this matter.
Construction services. In the third quarter of 2009, we received Form 1 notices from the DCAA disapproving approximately $28 million in 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 DCAA claims the costs billed to the U.S. Navy primarily related to subcontract costs that were either inappropriately bid, included unallowable profit markup or were unreasonable. In April 2010, we met with the U.S. Navy in an attempt to settle the potentially unallowable costs. As a result of the meeting, approximately $7 million of the potentially unallowable costs were deemed allowable by our customer and less than $1 million was deemed unallowable. Settlement of the remaining $20 million is pending further discussions with the customer regarding the applicable provisions of the FAR and interpretations thereof, as well as providing additional supporting documentation to the customer. As of June 30, 2010, the U.S. Navy has withheld approximately $10 million from us. We believe we undertook adequate and reasonable steps to ensure that proper bidding procedures were followed and the amounts billed to the customer were reasonable and not in violation of the FAR. As of June 30, 2010, we have accrued our estimate of probable loss related to this matter; however, it is reasonably possible we could incur additional losses.
Investigations, Qui Tams and Litigation
The following matters relate to ongoing litigation or investigations involving U.S. government contracts.
McBride Qui Tam suit. In September 2006, we became aware of a qui tam action filed against us by a former employee alleging various wrongdoings in the form of overbillings of our customer on the LogCAP III contract. This case was originally filed pending the government’s decision whether or not to participate in the suit. In June 2006, the government formally declined to participate. The principal allegations are that our compensation for the provision of Morale, Welfare and Recreation (“MWR”) facilities under LogCAP III is based on the volume of usage of those facilities and that we deliberately overstated that usage. In accordance with the contract, we charged our customer based on actual cost, not based on the number of users. It was also alleged that, during the period from November 2004 into mid-December 2004, we continued to bill the customer for lunches, although the dining facility was closed and not serving lunches. There are also allegations regarding housing containers and our provision of services to our employees and contractors. On July 5, 2007, the court granted our motion to dismiss the qui tam claims and to compel arbitration of employment claims including a claim that the plaintiff was unlawfully discharged. The majority of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed but the plaintiff was allowed to pursue limited claims pending discovery and future motions. Substantially all employment claims were sent to arbitration under the Company’s dispute resolution program and were subsequently resolved in our favor. In January 2009, the relator filed an amended complaint which is nearing completion of the discovery process. Trial for this matter is expected in early 2011. We believe the relator’s claim is without merit and that the likelihood that a loss has been incurred is remote. As of June 30, 2010, no amounts have been accrued.
Godfrey Qui Tam suit. In December 2005, we became aware of a qui tam action filed against us and several of our subcontractors by a former employee alleging that we violated the False Claims Act by submitting overcharges to the government for dining facility services provided in Iraq under the LogCAP III contract. As required by the False Claims Act, the lawsuit was filed under seal to permit the government to investigate the allegations. In early April 2007, the court denied the government’s motion for the case to remain under seal, and on April 23, 2007, the government filed a notice stating that it was not participating in the suit. In August 2007, the relator filed an amended complaint which added an additional contract to the allegations and added retaliation claims. We filed motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration which were granted on March 13, 2008 for all counts except as to the employment issues which were sent to arbitration. The relator filed an appeal and our position was upheld at the Appellate Court level as of January 6, 2010. As no further actions was taken by the relator with regard to the remaining employment issues sent to arbitration, we consider this matter to be concluded.
First Kuwaiti Trading Company arbitration. In April 2008, First Kuwaiti Trading Company, one of our LogCAP III subcontractors, filed for arbitration of a subcontract under which KBR had leased vehicles related to work performed on our LogCAP III contract. First Kuwaiti alleged that we did not return or pay rent for many of the vehicles and sought initial damages in the amount of $39 million. We filed a counterclaim to recover amounts which may ultimately be determined due to the Government for the $51 million in suspended costs as discussed in the preceding section of this footnote titled “Containers.” First Kuwaiti subsequently responded by adding additional subcontract claims, increasing its total claim to approximately $133 million as of June 30, 2010. The first of several arbitration hearings were held during the first quarter of 2010 involving unpaid rents and damages on vehicles and lost vehicles representing approximately $65 million of First Kuwaiti’s total claim. In the second quarter of 2010, the arbitration panel rejected the majority of First Kuwaiti’s claims which primarily related to unpaid rents beyond the expiration of the contractual lease term. The arbitration panel rendered a partial award to First Kuwaiti for damages of approximately $6 million plus an unquantified amount for repair costs on certain vehicles, damages suffered as a result of late vehicle returns, and interest thereon, to be determined at a later date. No payments are expected to occur until all claims are arbitrated and awards finalized. The remaining arbitration hearings are scheduled to occur throughout 2010 and we believe any damages ultimately awarded to First Kuwaiti will be billable under the LogCAP III contract. Accordingly, we have accrued amounts payable and a related unbilled receivable for the amounts awarded to First Kuwaiti pursuant to the terms of the contract.
Paul Morell, Inc. d/b/a The Event Source vs. KBR, Inc. TES is a former LogCAP III subcontractor who provided DFAC services at six sites in Iraq from mid-2003 to early 2004. TES sued KBR in Federal Court in Virginia for breach of contract and tortious interference with TES’s subcontractors by awarding subsequent DFAC contracts to the subcontractors. In addition, the Government withheld funds from KBR that KBR had submitted for reimbursement of TES invoices, and at that time, TES agreed that it was not entitled to payment until KBR was paid by the Government. Eventually KBR and the Government settled the dispute, and in turn KBR and TES agreed that TES would accept, as payment in full with a release of all other claims, the amount the Government paid to KBR for TES’s services. TES filed a suit to overturn that settlement and release, claiming that KBR misrepresented the facts. The trial was completed in June 2009 and in January 2010, the Federal Court issued an order against us in favor of TES in the amount of $15 million in actual damages and interest and $4 million in punitive damages relating to the settlement and release entered into by the parties in May 2005. We recorded un-reimbursable expenses of $19 million for the judgment received. As of December 31, 2009, the full amount of the damages and interest awarded to TES was accrued. In addition, we have filed a notice of appeal with the Court.
Electrocution litigation. During 2008, a lawsuit was filed against KBR alleging that the Company was responsible for an electrical incident which resulted in the death of a soldier. This incident occurred at Al Taqaddum. It is alleged in the suit that the electrocution incident was caused by improper electrical maintenance or other electrical work. We intend to vigorously defend this matter. KBR denies that its conduct was the cause of the event and denies legal responsibility. The case was removed to Federal Court where motion to dismiss was filed. The court has issued a stay in the discovery of the case. The case is pending an appeal of certain pre-trial motions to dismiss that were previously denied. Hearings on the appeal were held in June 2010 and the court has taken the arguments under advisement. We are unable to determine the likely outcome nor can we estimate a range of potential loss, if any, related to this matter at this time. As of June 30, 2010, no amounts have been accrued.
Burn Pit litigation. KBR has been served with over 40 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 who purport to represent a large class of unnamed persons. 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 are operated. All of the pending cases have been removed to Federal Court, the majority of which have been consolidated for multi-district litigation treatment. In the second quarter of 2010, we filed various motions including a motion to strike an amended consolidated petition filed by the plaintiffs and a motion to dismiss which the court has taken under advisement. We intend to vigorously defend these matters. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the litigation is at a preliminary stage, we cannot at this time accurately predict the ultimate outcome nor can we estimate a range of potential loss, if any, related to this matter at this time. Accordingly, as of June 30, 2010, no amounts have been accrued.
Convoy Ambush litigation. In April 2004, a fuel convoy in route from Camp Anaconda to Baghdad International Airport for the U.S. Army under our LogCAP III contract was ambushed resulting in deaths and severe injuries to truck drivers hired by KBR. In 2005, survivors of the drivers killed and those that were injured in the convoy, filed suit in state court in Houston, Texas against KBR and several of its affiliates, claiming KBR deliberately intended that the drivers in the convoy would be attacked and wounded or killed. The suit also alleges KBR committed fraud in its hiring practices by failing to disclose the dangers associated with working in the Iraq combat zone. In September 2006, the case was dismissed based upon the court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the case presented a non-justiciable political question. Subsequently, three additional suits were filed, arising out of insurgent attacks on other convoys that occurred in 2004 and were likewise dismissed as non-justiciable under the Political Question Doctrine.
The plaintiffs in all cases appealed the dismissals to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed and remanded the remaining cases to trial court. In July 2008, the trial court directed substantive discovery to commence including the re-submittal of dispositive motions on various grounds including the Defense Base Act and Political Question Doctrine. In February 2010, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, denying two of our motions to dismiss the case. In March 2010, the trial court granted in part and denied in part our third motion to dismiss the case. In March 2010, we filed appeals on all issues with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and have moved to stay all proceedings in the trial court pending the resolution of these appeals. The cases have been removed from the trial docket and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will now hear all previous motions filed by both parties. We are unable to determine the likely outcome of these cases at this time. As of June 30, 2010, no amounts have been accrued nor can we estimate the amount of potential loss, if any.
DOJ False Claims Act complaint. On April 1, 2010, the DOJ filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia alleging certain violations of the False Claims Act related to the use of private security firms. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we made false or fraudulent claims for payment under the LogCAP III contract because we allegedly knew that they contained costs of services for or that included improper use of private security. We believe these sums were properly billed under our contract with the Army and that the use of private security was not prohibited under LogCAP III. We have filed motions to dismiss the complaint which are currently pending. We have not adjusted our revenues or accrued any amounts related to this matter.
Other Matters
Claims. Included in unbilled receivables in the accompanying balance sheets are unapproved claims for costs incurred under various government contracts totaling $101 million at June 30, 2010 and $113 million at December 31, 2009. Unapproved claims relate to contracts where our costs have exceeded the customer’s funded value of the task order. The unapproved claims at June 30, 2010 include approximately $59 million largely resulting from the de-obligation of 2004 funding on certain task orders that were also subject to Form 1 notices relating to certain DCAA audit issues discussed primarily under Dining Facilities above. The customer de-obligated funds which were nearing the 5-year expiration date of September 30, 2009. We believe such disputed costs will be resolved in our favor at which time the customer will be required to obligate funds from appropriations for the year in which resolution occurs. The unapproved claims outstanding at June 30, 2010 are considered to be probable of collection and have been recognized as revenue.