Top bar

About POGO's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database (FCMD)

The government awards contracts to companies with histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations. In the absence of a centralized federal database listing instances of misconduct, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is providing such data. We believe that it will lead to improved contracting decisions and public access to information about how the government spends hundreds of billions of taxpayer money each year on goods and services. Report an instance of misconduct »

Fluor Corporation

Breach of Contract

Date: 09/29/2005 (Date of Settlement)

Misconduct Type: Poor Contract Performance

Enforcement Agency: Non-Governmental

Contracting Party: International

Court Type: Civil

Amount: Unknown

Disposition: Settlement

Synopsis: On June 23, 2005, “Fluor Daniel Caribbean, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Fluor Corporation, received [a]… jury verdict awarding $28.8 million to the developer of a resort hotel project in the Caribbean. Fluor Daniel Caribbean, Inc. was the general contractor on the project, which is located in the Cayman Islands.” “As a consequence, in its second quarter the company recorded a $65 million charge consisting of the jury award, estimated attorney fees and pre-judgment interest, and accounts receivable.” “During the course of the project, Fluor ceased work on extra facilities the developer added to the project scope without demonstrating the availability of funding to pay for such extra work. Fluor continued to perform the original contract base work. In January 2004, Fluor filed suit to force collection of invoices for work that had been performed by Fluor. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the developer terminated Fluor, claiming that Fluor's lack of progress constituted a material breach of the contract.” However, on “September 15, 2005, the judge who tried the case granted Fluor's motion for a new trial, setting aside the unfavorable verdict in its totality. On September 29, 2005, in lieu of a new trial, the parties have stipulated to a judgment of no liability in favor of either side, and the action has been dismissed with prejudice.” This settlement “resulted in the reversal of $32.9 million of” the original $65 million charge.