Commitments and Contingencies
|12 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2013
|Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies||
(11) Commitments and Contingencies
(a) Leases and Other Commitments
We have various non-cancelable operating leases for facilities, equipment, and software with terms between two and fifteen years. The terms of the facilities leases typically provide for certain minimum payments as well as increases in lease payments based upon the operating cost of the facility and the consumer price index. Rent expense is recognized on a straight-line basis for rent agreements having escalating rent terms. Lease expense for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 were as follows (in thousands):
Future minimum annual non-cancelable commitments as of December 31, 2013 are as follows (in thousands):
We signed a lease in 2009 for a building to serve as our headquarters with a rent commencement date of May 1, 2012. Certain terms in the lease agreement resulted in the capitalization of construction costs due to specific accounting rules. We recorded a construction asset and corresponding long-term liability of approximately $27.3 million on May 1, 2012, which represents the construction costs incurred by the landlord as of that date. According to accounting rules, we have forms of continuing involvement that require us to account for this transaction as a financing lease upon commencement of the lease period. The building and building improvements will remain on our consolidated balance sheet and will be depreciated over a 15-year period. Payments made under the lease agreement are applied to service the financing obligation and interest expense based on an imputed interest rate amortizing the obligation over the life of the lease agreement.
Future minimum annual non-cancelable commitments under our new headquarters lease as of December 31, 2013, which are not included in the table above, are as follows (in thousands):
We are one of the primary defendants in a multiple plaintiff wrongful death action in Hawaii related to a fireworks explosion that occurred in April 2011 at a facility operated by one of our subcontractors, which resulted in the death of five subcontractor employees. The litigation is in the early stages, but at this time we believe it is not probable that it will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.
On or about March 8, 2013, a lawsuit, Anchorage v. Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation, et al., was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska at Anchorage by the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska against our wholly owned subsidiary Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation ("ICRC") and two former subcontractors of ICRC. With respect to ICRC, the lawsuit asserts, among other things, breach of contract, professional negligence and negligence in respect of work and services ICRC rendered on the Port of Anchorage Intermodal Expansion Contract with the Maritime Administration, a federal agency with the United States Department of Transportation. On or about April 10, 2013, ICRC removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. Because of the preliminary stage of this lawsuit, we cannot currently determine whether the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.
We have, in the normal course of business, certain claims against us and against other parties and we may be subject to various governmental investigations. In our opinion, the resolution of these claims and investigations will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position. However, the results of any legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef