Edgar Filing: KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

KTOS 2012 Form 10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K



(Mark One)
ý	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 30, 2012
¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number 001-34460

KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)



Delaware	13-3818604
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)	(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

4820 Eastgate Mall, Suite 200

San Diego, CA 92121

(858) 812-7300

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including

area code, of Registrant’s principal executive offices)

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT



Title of Each Class	Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, par value $0.001	The NASDAQ Global Select Market
Right to purchase Shares of Series C Preferred Stock

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¨ No S

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No S

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ý No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. S

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:



Large accelerated filer o	Accelerated filer ý
Non-accelerated filer o	Smaller reporting company o
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No ý

The aggregate market value of the registrant's voting and non-voting common stock held by non-affiliates as of June 24, 2012, the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $232.0 million, based on the closing sale price for shares of the registrant's common stock as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market on such date. This disclosure excludes shares of common stock held by executive officers, directors and stockholders whose individual ownership exceeds 10% of the common stock outstanding on June 24, 2012 because such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This determination of affiliate status is not necessarily a conclusive determination for any other purpose.

As of March 8, 2013, 56,646,430 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding.

Table of Contents

Documents Incorporated by Reference

Portions of Part II of this annual report on Form 10-K and Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K incorporate information by reference from the registrant's definitive proxy statement filed pursuant to Regulation 14A in connection with the registrant's 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or an amendment to this annual report on Form 10-K to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year covered by this annual report on Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

FORM 10-K

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 30, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS



		Page
PART I
Item 1.	Business	4
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	13
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	27
Item 2.	Properties	27
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	29
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	29
PART II
Item 5.	Market for the Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	29
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	32
Item 7.	Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	33
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	33
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	57
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	57
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	57
Item 9B.	Other Information	61
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	61
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	61
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	61
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	61
Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	61
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	61

Table of Contents

All references to “us,” “we,” “our,” the “Company” and “Kratos” refer to Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and its subsidiaries.

FORWARD‑LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K (this “Annual Report”) contains “forward-looking statements” relating to our future financial performance, the market for our services and our expansion plans and opportunities. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” or “continue,” the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements reflect our current beliefs, expectations and projections, are based on assumptions, and are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results or achievements to differ materially from any future results or achievements expressed in or implied by our forward-looking statements. Many of these factors are beyond our ability to control or predict. As a result, you should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The most important risk and uncertainties that could cause our actual results or achievements to differ materially from the results or achievements reflected in our forward-looking statements, include, but are not limited to those specifically addressed in Item 1A “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report, as well as those discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report. These forward-looking statements reflect our views and assumptions only as of the date such forward-looking statements are made. Except as required by law, we assume no responsibility for updating any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

PART I.

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a specialized security technology business providing mission critical products, services and solutions for domestic and international customers, with our principal customers being agencies of the U.S. Government. Our core capabilities are sophisticated engineering, manufacturing, system integration, and test and evaluation offerings for national security platforms and programs. Our principal products and services are related to Command, Control, Communications, Computing, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (“C5ISR”). We offer our customers products, solutions, services and expertise to support their mission-critical needs by leveraging our skills across our core offering areas in C5ISR.

We manufacture and design specialized electronic components, subsystems and systems for electronic attack, electronic warfare, radar, and missile system platforms; integrated technology solutions for satellite communications; products and solutions for unmanned systems; products and services related to cybersecurity and cyberwarfare; products and solutions for ballistic missile defense; weapons systems trainers; advanced network engineering and information technology services; weapons systems lifecycle support and sustainment; military weapon range operations and technical services; and public safety, critical infrastructure security and surveillance systems. We believe our stable client base, strong client relationships, broad array of contract vehicles, large employee base possessing specialized skills, extensive list of past performance qualifications, and significant management and operational capabilities position us for continued growth.

We were incorporated in the state of New York on December 19, 1994 and began operations in March 1995. We reincorporated in the state of Delaware in 1998.

Table of Contents

Industry Update

In August 2011, Congress and the Administration enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 (the “Budget Control Act”) in order to permit an increase in the federal government's borrowing limit while reducing projected net government spending over the next ten years. The Budget Control Act required $900 billion in immediate cuts to discretionary spending for 2012-2021. It also established a bi-partisan congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Joint Committee”), which was charged with recommending legislation that would reduce net government spending by $1.2 to $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, in addition to the $900 billion in immediate discretionary spending reductions referenced above. The Joint Committee was unable to identify the required reductions, thereby triggering a provision of the Budget Control Act called “sequestration,” which requires very substantial automatic spending cuts, split between defense and non-defense programs, that start in 2013 and continue over a nine-year period.

In January 2013, Congress enacted the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. It addressed a number of tax code provisions and certain spending issues but left in place the sequester (although delaying its implementation to March 1, 2013) and did not address other fiscal matters such as the debt ceiling. Although debate on budget reductions continued through the first two months of 2013, no resolution was reached prior to the March 1, 2013 sequester deadline. As a result, the President was required by law to issue an order canceling $85 billion in budgetary resources across the U.S. Government for the remainder of FY 2013. The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) in its report to Congress of March 1, 2013, entitled “OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration,” calculated that, over the course of the fiscal year, the order requires a 7.8 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and a 5.0 percent reduction in non-exempt non-defense discretionary funding. The sequestration also requires reductions of 7.9 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs. The sequestration report provides calculations of the amounts and percentages by which various budgetary resources are required to be reduced, and a listing of the reductions required for each non-exempt budget account. Federal agencies were directed to apply the same percentage reduction to all programs, projects, and activities within a budget account, as required by Section 256(k)(2) of Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (“BBEDCA”), and to operate in a manner that is consistent with guidance provided by OMB in Memorandum 13-03, Planning for Uncertainty with Respect to Fiscal Year 2013 Budgetary Resources and Memorandum 13-05, Agency Responsibilities for Implementation of Potential Joint Committee Sequestration.

The delay in the sequester has left the DoD less time to enact 2013 automatic spending cuts and adds to uncertainty from such cuts. The nation's debt ceiling is currently expected to be reached in the first half of 2013. The U.S. Government continues to face substantial fiscal and economic challenges that affect funding for its discretionary and non-discretionary budget. Currently, Congress has not passed the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2013 budget. Congress and the Administration continue to debate these issues and the terms of a possible national fiscal approach. It is unclear whether annual appropriations bills will be passed during FY 2013 and the U.S. Government may operate under a continuing resolution for all of FY 2013. If this occurs new contract or program starts will be restricted for the year.

Despite the sequestration order and the budget debate, we believe that spending on modernization and maintenance of defense, intelligence and homeland security assets will continue to be a national priority. The vast majority of our programs are funded in the DoD Base budget and not the Overseas Contingency Operations budget. We also believe that our business is aligned with mission critical national security priorities, particularly in the areas of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, cybersecurity, ballistic missile defense, satellite communications, space programs and science and technology efforts. Nevertheless, the actual impact of sequestration and the federal budget debates are uncertain at this time, and we cannot assure you that these events will not have a significant adverse effect on our business and results of operations. See the risk factor entitled “The U.S. Government provides a significant portion of our revenue, and our business could be adversely affected by changes in the fiscal policies of the U.S. Government and governmental entities.”

Current Reporting Segments

We operate in two principal business segments: Kratos Government Solutions (“KGS”) and Public Safety & Security (“PSS”). We organize our business segments based on the nature of the services offered. Transactions between segments are generally negotiated and accounted for under terms and conditions similar to other government and commercial contracts and these intercompany transactions are eliminated in consolidation. The financial statements in this Annual Report are presented in a manner consistent with our operating structure. For additional information regarding our operating segments, see Note 13 of the notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements. From a customer and solutions perspective, we view our business as an integrated whole, leveraging skills and assets wherever possible.

Table of Contents

Kratos Government Solutions Segment

The KGS segment provides C5ISR products, solutions and services primarily for strategic mission critical national security priorities. Our primary end customers in the KGS segment are U.S. Government agencies, including the DoD, classified agencies, intelligence agencies, civilian agencies, other national security agencies and homeland security related agencies. Our C5ISR products, solutions, and services include the following:

Electronic Warfare/Attack and Intelligence, Reconnaissance and Surveillance. We design and manufacture a wide variety of radio frequency (“RF”) and microwave component subsystems and systems for use in command and control systems, flight instrumentation, weapons sensors, radar, communication systems, electronic warfare and electronic attack systems. Our products are integrated into many of the DoD's ground, air, and sea-based electronic warfare platforms. Certain key programs include the Trident II D5 Missile, EA-18G Growler, P-8 Poseidon, E-2D Hawkeye, RC-135 Rivet Joint, F-15 Eagle, Gripen, F-16 Falcon, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-18 E/F Super Hornet and Firefinder Radar.

Satellite Command and Control, Satellite Communications Support, Signal Monitoring, Interference Detection, and Geolocation. We provide integrated solutions for the satellite communications and reconnaissance markets. Our products encompass satellite ground systems, including specialized equipment and proprietary software for satellite command and control. Our products and services are also focused on assured command and control of satellite links, including monitoring links between satellites, base stations, and mobile assets such as unmanned vehicles; assuring quality of service; and detecting, locating and defending against interference and cyber attacks. Our solutions are also deployed in support of many next-generation military, national security related and civilian satellite systems including GPS (OCX), environmental systems (GOES-R, NPP, NPOESS), strategic warning (SBIRS), communication systems (AEHF, WGS, MUOS, TDRSS, Iridium) and a majority of global commercial SATCOM systems.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (“UAV”). We design, manufacture, test, and operate aerial target drone systems and composite structures, such as the BQM-167A, BQM-167i, and BQM-177A and BQM-177i. We also supply UAV platforms with sensors, avionics and electronic components including electro-optical/infrared sensors, training systems and ground shelters. We also manufacture and provide avionics systems and ground flight control systems for certain UAV platforms. These products and solutions are used on UAV platforms such as the MQ 1C Gray Eagle, MQ-1C Sky Warrior, Gorgon Stare, MQ-8 Fire Scout, RQ-4B Broad Area Maritime Surveillance and the Persistent Threat Detection System ISR platform.

Ballistic Missile Defense Test and Evaluation. We have expertise in the area of ballistic missile test and evaluation services, primarily dedicated to AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense missions. This includes exclusive rights to the marketing of the Oriole Rocket System for target services, sounding rockets and suborbital research. We possess both the intellectual property and subject matter expertise in sensors modeling and simulation associated with a wide range of missile technologies. This area of our business develops and produces low-cost ballistic missile defense targets. These ballistic missile targets or AEGIS Readiness Assessment Vehicles (“ARAV”) are a key test and evaluation component for the U.S. AEGIS based Ballistic Missile Defense forces.

Cyber and IT. We provide a variety of cybersecurity products and services to the DoD and intelligence community. We offer NeuralStar^® and dopplerVUE^® our proprietary software based network management products, via software license and maintenance sales, which also serve as a platform for incremental network-based services work. We have extensive experience building complex and secure networks for the U.S. Government and possess in-depth experience with network operations centers. We also scan our customers' networks for cyber threats. We are involved in a wide range of services, including installation, upgrade and maintenance of command, control, computing, and surveillance systems for customers such as the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. State Department and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.

Learning, Performance and Training Solutions. Our learning, performance and training solutions consist of a broad range of products and service capabilities. We design, manufacture and market full-scale training simulators for fixed-wing aircraft (Harrier, and Prowler), rotary-wing aircraft (UH-60 Blackhawk, CH-47 Chinook, and CH-53 Sea Stallion) and ground combat vehicles (M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, M2/M3 Bradley fighting vehicles and High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems or HIMARS). We deliver training solutions and web-enabled or satellite-based interactive distance learning for customers in the DoD, other government agencies, universities and commercial organizations. Our training solutions include services, product development, and tools addressing a wide range of related disciplines that include deep human performance and competency-based needs analysis. We specialize in delivering full lifecycle manpower, personnel and training support for acquisition programs and a cross-domain analysis program supporting program systems integration requirements. Our innovative design and development group delivers training solutions that span classroom, field, e-learning, simulation, mobile and serious gaming delivery modalities as well as incorporating learning management services in our own learning management platform or client-based solutions.

Table of Contents

Missile Range Operations and Technical Services. A key area of differentiation for us is within the missile and gun range and technical service areas. We have resources stationed at many major range locations throughout the U.S., including Naval Air Warfare Center Pt. Mugu; Hawaii Pacific Missile Range Facility; Fort Bliss, Texas; White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico and Naval Service Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. Our services include aerial target operations and maintenance, surface and undersea target operations and maintenance, missile systems operations and maintenance, range operations planning and support, test and evaluation target launch operations, hazardous materials management, supply and logistics support, and manufacturing.

Weapon Systems Lifecycle Sustainment, Support and Extension. We provide weapons systems lifecycle sustainment, support, and extension services for the DoD and foreign governments. These services focus on maintaining, testing and repairing certain weapons systems such as the Chaparral and HAWK missile systems and the OH-58 Kiowa helicopter.

Manufacturing of Specialized Tactical Combat Products, Shelters and Enclosures for C5ISR Systems, UAVs, Weapons Systems and Warfighters. We provide tactical combat vehicle shelters for C5ISR systems, UAVs, weapons systems and Warfighters. Our tactical military facilities and products include lightweight, high-strength enclosures for widely recognized military programs and platforms such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the DDG-1000 Destroyer, as well as ruggedized and readily transported enclosures. Many of our products include high altitude electromagnetic pulse protection and other types of electromagnetic, electronic warfare and other protections. Our product design approach focuses on highly engineered enclosures and facilities that have the flexibility to be modified to very unique customer specifications. We routinely design, integrate and install other components and systems into our standard products, such as command, control and communication systems infrastructure, racks and cabinets and power distribution and lighting.

Public Safety & Security Segment (Critical Infrastructure Security)

Our PSS segment provides independent integrated solutions for advanced homeland security, public safety, critical infrastructure, and security and surveillance systems for government, industrial and commercial customers. Our solutions include designing, engineering, installing and servicing physical security systems and technologies that protect people, critical infrastructure, strategic assets, and property and make facilities more secure and efficient. We provide solutions in such areas as the design, engineering and operation of command and control centers; the design, engineering, deployment and integration of access control; building automation and control; communications; digital and closed circuit television security and surveillance; fire and life safety; maintenance and services and product support services.

We provide solutions for customers in the critical infrastructure, power generation, power transport, nuclear energy, financial, IT, healthcare, education, transportation and petro-chemical industries, as well as certain government and military customers. For example, we provide biometrics and other access control technologies to customers such as pipelines, electrical grids, municipal port authorities, power plants, communication centers, large data centers, government installations and other commercial enterprises. We have comprehensive experience providing engineering and design services at any phase of a project lifecycle, including program management, engineering design, system engineering, operations and maintenance, and integrated telecommunications.

Security Systems Integration. We have broad experience integrating security services and solutions across a number of network and communications platforms. In particular, our non-federal business has extensive experience and has developed significant customer relationships by providing best-in-class systems integration services on a variety of platforms including digital (IP) surveillance and security, building automation systems and controls, fire and life safety systems, access control and perimeter protection, and service and maintenance of the aforementioned systems.

Competitive Strengths

We believe we have robust intellectual property, capabilities, customer relationships, platform positions and past performance qualifications in our respective business areas, including a work force that is experienced with the various programs we service and the customers we serve. We believe the following key strengths distinguish us competitively:

Significant and highly specialized experience. Through existing customer engagements and the government-focused acquisitions we have completed over the past several years, we have amassed significant and highly specialized experience in areas directly related to C5ISR, including cybersecurity, cyberwarfare, information assurance and situational awareness; military range operations and technical services; missile, rocket, and weapons systems test and evaluation; mission launch services; modeling and simulation; UAV products and technology; advanced network engineering and IT services; and public safety, security and surveillance systems integration. We also produce products and provide solutions and services related to certain C5ISR platforms,

Table of Contents

unmanned system platforms, weapons systems, national security related assets and Warfighter systems, including electronic attack and electronic warfare systems. This collective experience, or past performance qualifications, is a requirement for the majority of our contract vehicles and customer engagements. Many of our approximately 4,300 employees have specialized national security expertise. Many of the products that we produce include or contain our intellectual property. Many of the program positions we have are on a “sole source” basis. We believe these characteristics represent a significant competitive strength and position us to win renewal or follow-on business.

Specialized national security focus aligned with mission-critical national security priorities. Continued concerns related to the threats posed by certain foreign nations and terrorists have caused the U.S. Government to identify national security as an area of functional and spending priority. Budget pressures, particularly related to DoD spending, have placed a premium on developing and fielding relatively low-cost, high-technology solutions to assist in national security missions. Our primary capabilities and areas of focus, listed below, are strongly aligned with the objectives of the U.S. Government:


•	Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance


•	Satellite communications and radio frequency detection


•	Command, control and combat systems


•	Unmanned systems


•	Ballistic missile defense


•	Electronic warfare and attack


•	Cybersecurity and information assurance

Diverse base of key contracts with low concentration. Many of our contracts are single-award, where Kratos is the only awardee by the customer. Additionally, as a result of our business development focus on securing key contracts, we are also a preferred contractor on numerous multi-year, government-wide acquisition contracts (“GWACs”) and multiple award contracts. Our preferred contractor status provides us with the opportunity to bid on billions of dollars of business each year against a discrete number of other pre-qualified companies. We have a highly diverse base of contracts with no contract representing more than 4% of 2012 revenue. Our fixed-price contracts, almost all of which are production contracts, represent approximately 73% of our 2012 revenue. Our cost-plus-fee contracts and time and materials contracts represent approximately 15% and 12%, respectively, of our 2012 revenue. We believe our diverse base of key contracts and low reliance on any one contract provides us with a stable, balanced revenue stream.

In-depth understanding of client missions. We have a reputation for providing mission-critical products, services and solutions to our clients. Our long-term relationships with the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, and U.S. Navy and other national security related customers enable us to develop an in-depth understanding of their missions and technical needs. In addition, the majority of our employees are located at our customer sites, at secure manufacturing facilities or at critical infrastructure locations, all of which provides valuable strategic insight into our clients' ongoing missions and future program requirements. This understanding of our clients' missions, in conjunction with the strategic location of our employees, enables us to offer technical solutions tailored to our clients' specific requirements and evolving mission objectives. In addition, once we are on-site with a customer, we have historically been successful in winning recompete business.

Significant cash flow visibility driven by stable backlog. As of December 30, 2012, our total backlog was approximately $1.3 billion, of which approximately $674.0 million was funded backlog. The majority of our sales are from orders issued under long-term contracts, typically three to five years in duration. Our contract backlog provides visibility into stable future revenue and cash flow over a diverse set of contracts.

Highly skilled employees and an experienced management team. We deliver our services through a skilled workforce of approximately 4,300 employees. Our senior managers have significant experience with U.S. Government agencies, the U.S. military and U.S. Government contractors. Members of our management team have experience growing businesses both organically and through acquisitions. We believe that the cumulative experience and differentiated expertise of our personnel in our core focus areas, coupled with our sizable employee base allows us to qualify for and bid on larger projects in a prime contracting role.

Table of Contents

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to continue to grow our business as a leading provider of highly differentiated technology. products, solutions and services in our core areas of focus, as noted above, by delivering comprehensive, high-end engineering services, technical solutions, product manufacturing, and IT solutions to U.S. Government agencies while improving our margin rates, overall profitability and operating cash flows. To achieve our objective, we intend to focus on internal growth and to eliminate costs where possible.

Accelerate Internal Growth

We are focused on accelerating our internal growth rate by capitalizing on our current contract base and customer relationships, expanding product, solution and service offerings provided to our existing clients, and expanding our client and contract base.

Expand Product, Solution and Service Offerings Provided to Existing Clients. We are focused on expanding the products, solutions and services we provide to our current clients by leveraging our strong relationships, technical capabilities and past performance record, and by offering a wider range of comprehensive products and solutions as we make select investments in specialized products and solutions we believe can be growth areas for us. In regard to new areas of specialization, our recent acquisitions have expanded our product and service offerings to include manufacturing of specialized defense electronics products, integrated technology solutions for satellite communications and specialized unmanned aerial targets and unmanned aerial vehicles. We believe our understanding of client missions, processes and needs, in conjunction with our C5ISR offerings, including cybersecurity, cyberwarfare and situational awareness, positions us to capture new work from existing clients. Moreover, we believe our strong past performance record positions us to expand the level of services we provide to our clients.

Capitalize on Current Contract Base. We are pursuing new program and contract opportunities and awards as we build the business with our expanding customer base, contract portfolio, and product, solution and service offerings. We are aggressively pursuing task orders under existing contract vehicles to maximize our revenue and strengthen our client relationships. We have developed several internal tools that facilitate our ability to track, prioritize and win task orders under these vehicles. Combining these tools with our technical expertise, our strong past performance record and our knowledge of our clients' needs should position us to win additional task orders.

Expand Client and Contract Base. We are also focused on expanding our client base into areas with significant growth opportunities by leveraging our capabilities, industry reputation, long-term client relationships and diverse contract base. We anticipate that this expansion will enable us both to pursue additional higher value work and to further diversify our revenue base across the U.S. Government.

Improve Operating Margins. We believe that we have opportunities to increase our operating margins and improve profitability by capitalizing on our corporate infrastructure investments and internally developed tools, improving efficiencies and reducing costs, and concentrating our efforts on increasing the percentage of revenues generated from high value-added contracts.

Capitalize on Corporate Infrastructure Investments. In recent periods, we have made significant investments in our senior management and corporate infrastructure in anticipation of future revenue growth. These investments included hiring senior executives with significant experience in the national security industry, strengthening our internal controls over financial reporting and accounting staff in support of public company reporting requirements, and expanding our backlog and bid and proposal pipeline. We will be allocating additional resources in our pursuit of new and larger contract opportunities, leveraging our increased scale and robust past performance qualifications. We believe our management experience and corporate infrastructure are more typical of a company with a much larger revenue base than ours. We therefore anticipate that, to the extent our revenue grows, we will be able to leverage this infrastructure base and increase our operating margins.

Strategic Acquisitions

We have acquired and are integrating businesses that meet our primary strategic objectives of expanding our customer relationships, enhancing our current portfolio, increasing our overall past performance qualifications and furthering our strategic positioning on national security priority programs. Our senior management team has significant acquisition experience. See Note 3 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report for further information regarding our acquisitions.

Table of Contents

Acquisitions in the KGS segment

On July 2, 2012, we completed the acquisition of Composite Engineering, Inc. (“CEI”) for approximately $164.2 million. The purchase price including an adjustment for working capital and cash to be paid to the shareholders for the 338(h)(10) election includes $135.0 million in cash, and 4.0 million shares of the Company's common stock, valued at $5.94 per share on July 2, 2012, or $23.8 million. $10.7 million of the cash paid was placed into an escrow account as security for CEI's indemnification obligations as set forth in the CEI purchase agreement and will be reduced by $1.0 million to pay the working capital adjustment owed to us in July 2013. In addition, we paid $2.5 million to retire certain pre-existing CEI debt and settle pre-existing accounts receivable from CEI at its carrying and fair value of $3.0 million. We plan to make an election under Section 338(h)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code, which will result in tax deductible goodwill related to this transaction and as a result we will pay an estimated $1.7 million in additional tax liability incurred by the shareholders of CEI for this election. We estimate that the tax deductible goodwill and intangibles, which is subject to change based upon the final fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed, will be approximately $141.8 million and can be deducted for federal and California state income taxes over a 15-year period.

In connection with the CEI acquisition certain CEI personnel entered into long-term employment agreements with us. On July 2, 2012, we granted restricted stock units (“RSUs”) for an aggregate 2.0 million shares of common stock as long-term retention inducement grants to certain employees of CEI who have joined Kratos. The RSUs had an estimated value of $11.9 million on the grant date, cliff vest on the fourth anniversary of the closing of the CEI acquisition, or earlier upon the occurrence of certain events, and are being accounted for as compensation expense over this four year period.

To fund the acquisition of CEI, on May 14, 2012, we sold 20.0 million shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $5.00 per share in an underwritten public offering. We received gross proceeds of approximately $100.0 million and net proceeds of approximately $97.0 million after deducting underwriting fees and other offering expenses. We used the net proceeds from this offering to fund a portion of the purchase price for the acquisition of CEI. In addition, we borrowed $40.0 million from our revolving line of credit to partially fund the purchase price of CEI.

CEI is a vertically integrated manufacturer and developer of unmanned aerial target systems and composite structures used for national security programs. Its drones are designed to replicate some of the most lethal aerial threats facing Warfighters and strategic assets. CEI's customers include U.S. and foreign governments.

On November 15, 2011, we acquired SecureInfo Corporation (“SecureInfo”) for $20.3 million in cash, which included a $1.5 million earn-out payment made in the first quarter of 2012. Based in northern Virginia, SecureInfo is a leading cybersecurity company specializing in assisting defense, intelligence, civilian government and commercial customers to identify, understand, document, manage, mitigate and protect against cybersecurity risks while reducing information security costs and achieving compliance with applicable regulations, standards and guidance. SecureInfo offers strategic advisory, operational cybersecurity and cybersecurity risk management services and is a recognized leader in the rapidly evolving fields of cloud security, continuous monitoring and cybersecurity training. Customers include the DoD, DHS and large commercial customers, including market-leading cloud computing service providers.

On July 27, 2011, we acquired Integral Systems, Inc. (“Integral”) in a cash and stock transaction valued at $241.1 million. As consideration for the acquisition of Integral, each Integral stockholder (i) received $5.00 per share of Integral common stock, in cash, for an aggregate payment of approximately $131.4 million and (ii) was issued 0.588 shares of our common stock for each share of Integral common stock held by each such stockholder, for an aggregate of approximately 10.4 million shares of our common stock valued at $108.7 million. The cash portion of the acquisition was substantially funded with the gross proceeds from the sale of our 10% Senior Secured Notes due 2017 in the aggregate principal amount of $115.0 million issued on July 27, 2011.

In addition, upon completion of the merger (i) each outstanding Integral stock option with an exercise price less than $13.00 per share was, if the holder thereof had so elected in writing, canceled in exchange for an amount in cash equal to the product of the total number of shares of Integral common stock subject to such in-the-money option, multiplied by the aggregate value of the excess, if any, of $13.00 over the exercise price per share subject to such option, less the amount of any tax withholding, (ii) each outstanding Integral stock option with an exercise price equal to or greater than $13.00 per share and each Integral in-the-money option the holder of which had not made the election described in (i), above, was converted into an option to purchase our common stock, with the number of shares subject to such option adjusted to equal the number of shares of Integral common stock subject to such out-of-the-money option multiplied by 0.9559, rounded up to the nearest whole share, and the per share exercise price under each such option adjusted by dividing the per share exercise price under such option by

Table of Contents

0.9559, rounded up to the nearest whole cent, and (iii) each outstanding share of restricted stock granted under an Integral equity plan or otherwise, whether vested or unvested, was canceled and converted into the right to receive $13.00, less the amount of any tax withholding.

Integral is a global provider of products, systems and services for satellite command and control, telemetry and digital signal processing, data communications, enterprise network management and communications information assurance. Integral specializes in developing, managing and operating secure communications networks, both satellite and terrestrial, as well as systems and services to detect, characterize and geolocate sources of radio frequency interference. Integral's customers include U.S. and foreign commercial, government, military and intelligence organizations. For almost 30 years, customers have relied on Integral to design and deliver innovative commercially-based products, solutions and services that are cost-effective and reduce delivery schedules and risk.

On March 25, 2011, we acquired Herley Industries, Inc. (“Herley”) in a cash tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Herley common stock. The shares of Herley common stock were purchased at a price of $19.00 per share. Accordingly, we paid total aggregate cash consideration of $270.7 million in respect of the shares of Herley common stock and certain in-the-money options, which were exercised upon the change in control of Herley. In addition, upon completion of the merger, all unexercised options to purchase Herley common stock were assumed by us and converted into options to purchase our common stock, entitling the holders thereof to receive 1.3495 shares of our common stock for each share of Herley common stock underlying the options. Herley is a leading provider of microwave technologies for use in command and control systems, flight instrumentation, weapons sensors, radar, communication systems, electronic warfare and electronic attack systems. Herley has served the defense industry for approximately 45 years by designing and manufacturing microwave devices for use in high-technology defense electronics applications. It has established relationships, experience and expertise in the military electronics, electronic warfare and electronic attack industry. Herley's products represent key components in the national security efforts of the U.S., as they are employed in mission critical electronic warfare, electronic attack, electronic warfare threat and radar simulation, command and control network, and cyber warfare/cybersecurity applications.

Acquisition in the PSS segment

On December 30, 2011, we acquired selected assets of a critical infrastructure security and public safety system integration business (the “Critical Infrastructure Business”) for approximately $18.8 million which includes a final agreement on the working capital adjustment. The Critical Infrastructure Business designs, engineers, deploys, manages and maintains specialty security systems at some of the United States' most strategic asset and critical infrastructure locations. Additionally, these security systems are typically integrated into command and control system infrastructure or command centers. Approximately 15% of the revenues of the Critical Infrastructure Business are recurring in nature due to the operation, maintenance or sustainment of the security systems once deployed.

Customers

A representative list of our customers in our KGS segment during 2012 included the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marines, Missile Defense Agency, the DHS, NASA, Foreign Military Sales (“FMS”), the U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Intelligence Community and certain classified customers. In 2012, representative customers in the PSS segment included Port of Long Beach, Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, Prudential, New York University, Fidelity, Scripps Clinic, PNC Bank, Halliburton, AT&T, Chevron, Mellon Bank, Calpine Power Plants, Capital Health, DuPont Fabros, BP America, University of Houston, Meridian Health and Memorial Hermann Hospital System.

Revenue from the U.S. Government (which includes FMS) includes revenue from contracts for which we are the prime contractor as well as those for which we are a subcontractor and the ultimate customer is the U.S. Government. Revenues from U.S. Government agency customers in aggregate accounted for approximately 87%, 74% and 65% of total revenues in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively.

Backlog

As of December 25, 2011 and December 30, 2012, our backlog was approximately $1.1 billion and $1.3 billion, respectively, of which $472.0 million was funded in 2011 and $674.0 million was funded in 2012. Backlog is our estimate of the amount of revenue we expect to realize over the remaining life of awarded contracts and task orders that we have in hand as of the measurement date. Our total backlog consists of funded and unfunded backlog. We define funded backlog as estimated future revenue under government contracts and task orders for which funding has been appropriated by Congress and authorized for expenditure by the applicable agency, plus our estimate of the future revenue we expect to realize from our commercial contracts that are under firm orders. Our funded backlog does not include the full potential value of our contracts

Table of Contents

because Congress often appropriates funds to be used by an agency for a particular program of a contract on a yearly or quarterly basis even though the contract may call for performance over a number of years. As a result, contracts typically are only partially funded at any point during their term, and all or some of the work to be performed under the contracts may remain unfunded unless and until Congress makes subsequent appropriation and the procuring agency allocates funding to the contract.

Unfunded backlog reflects our estimate of future revenue under awarded government contracts and task orders for which either funding has not yet been appropriated or expenditure has not yet been authorized. Our total backlog does not include estimates of revenue from government-wide acquisition contracts or General Services Administration schedules beyond awarded or funded task orders, but our unfunded backlog does include estimates of revenue beyond awarded or funded task orders for other types of indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts based on our experience under such contracts and similar contracts. Unfunded backlog also includes priced options, which consist of the aggregate contract revenues expected to be earned as a result of a customer exercising an option period that has been specifically defined in the original contract award.

Contracts undertaken by us may extend beyond one year. Accordingly, portions are carried forward from one year to the next as part of backlog. Because many factors affect the scheduling of projects, no assurance can be given as to when revenue will be realized on projects included in our backlog. Although funded backlog represents only business that is considered to be firm, we cannot guarantee that cancellations or scope adjustments will not occur. The majority of funded backlog represents contracts with terms that would entitle us to all or a portion of our costs incurred and potential fees upon cancellation by the customer.

Management believes that year-to-year comparisons of backlog are not necessarily indicative of future revenues. The actual timing of receipt of revenues, if any, on projects included in backlog could change because many factors affect the scheduling of projects. In addition, cancellation or adjustments to contracts may occur. Backlog is typically subject to large variations from quarter to quarter as existing contracts are renewed or new contracts are awarded. Additionally, all U.S. Government contracts included in backlog, whether or not funded, may be terminated at the convenience of the U.S. Government.

Employees

As of December 30, 2012, we had a work force of approximately 4,300 full-time, part-time and on-call employees, many of whom hold an active national security clearance.

Competition

Our market is competitive and includes the full range of companies in the U.S. defense industry and the information, services and security integration industries. Many of the companies that we compete against have significantly greater financial, technical and marketing resources and generate greater revenues than we do. Competition in the federal business segment includes tier one, large U.S. Government contractors such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, SAIC, ITT Systems, Computer Sciences Corporation, ARINC, Raytheon, BAE Systems, and CACI. While we view government contractors as competitors, we often team with these companies in joint proposals or in the delivery of our services for customers. Tier two competitors include smaller and mid-tier government contractors such as AeroVironment, Anaren, API Technologies, Dynamics Research Corporation, iRobot and Mercury Computer Systems. Intense competition and long operating cycles are both key characteristics of our business within the defense industry. It is common in the defense industry for work on major programs to be shared among a number of companies. A company competing to be a prime contractor or subcontractor on an award may, upon final award of the contract to another competitor, become a subcontractor for the final prime contractor. It is not unusual to compete for a contract award with a peer company and, simultaneously, perform as a supplier to or be a customer of that same competitor on other contracts, or vice versa. The nature of major defense programs, conducted under binding contracts, allows companies that perform well to benefit from a level of program continuity not frequently found in other industries. Competition in the PSS segment includes Siemens Building Technology, Johnson Controls, Diebold, and Convergint Technologies.

We believe that the principal competitive factors in our ability to win new business include past performance qualifications, customer relationships, domain and technology expertise, intellectual property positions, the ability to replace contract vehicles, the ability to deliver results within budget (time and cost), reputation, accountability, staffing flexibility, including the large number of personnel with government security clearances, and project management expertise. We believe our ability to compete also depends on a number of additional factors, including the ability of our customers to perform the services themselves and competitive pricing for similar services. There is intense competition among many companies in the IT and services markets, which are generally more labor intensive with highly competitive margin rates and contract performance periods of shorter duration. Competitors in the IT and services markets include the defense industry participants mentioned

Table of Contents

above as well as many other large and small entities with specialized expertise. Our ability to successfully compete in the IT and services markets depends on a number of factors. The most important factor is the ability to deploy skilled professionals, many of whom require national security clearances, at competitive prices across the diverse spectrum of these markets.

In the U.S. defense industry, IT, and services markets, the U.S. Government has stressed competition and affordability in connection with its future procurement of products and services. This may lead to fewer sole source awards, as well as more emphasis on cost competitiveness. In addition, the DoD has announced several initiatives to improve efficiency, refocus priorities, modify contract terms, and enhance DoD best practices including those used to procure goods and services from defense contractors. See the Industry Background section in Item 7 “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Item 1A “Risk Factors” contained within this Annual Report. These initiatives, when implemented, together with planned reductions in defense spending levels, are likely to result in fewer new opportunities for our industry as a whole with more demanding terms. A reduced opportunity set is likely to intensify competition within the industry as companies compete for a more limited set of new programs.

Available Information

We file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). We make available on our website under “Investor Relations/SEC Filings,” free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with or furnish them to the SEC. Our website address is www.kratosdefense.com.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

You should carefully consider the following risk factors and all other information contained herein as well as the information included in this Annual Report and other reports and filings made with the SEC in evaluating our business and prospects. Risks and uncertainties, in addition to those we describe below, that are not presently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may also impair our business operations. If any of the following risks occur, our business and financial results could be harmed and the price of our common stock could decline. You should also refer to the other information contained in this Annual Report, including our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes.

Risks Related to Our Business

The U.S. Government provides a significant portion of our revenue, and our business could be adversely affected by changes in the fiscal policies of the U.S. Government and governmental entities.

In fiscal 2010, 2011 and 2012, we generated 87%, 74% and 65%, respectively, of our total revenues from contracts with the U.S. Government (including all branches of the U.S. military), either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. We expect to continue to derive most of our revenues from work performed under U.S. Government contracts. As a result, any reductions or other government budgetary constraints and any changes in government contracting policies could adversely affect our financial performance.

With the passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (“Budget Control Act”), current projections of the DoD indicate that government spending is expected to decrease. Part I of the Budget Control Act provided for a reduction in defense spending by at least $487 billion over a ten year period. Part II provided the potential for substantial additional automatic reductions split between defense and non-defense programs, through a process known as "sequestration."

In January 2013, Congress enacted the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. It addressed a number of tax code provisions and certain spending issues but left in place the sequester (although delaying its implementation to March 1, 2013) and did not address other fiscal matters such as the debt ceiling. Although debate on budget reductions continued through the first two months of 2013, no resolution was reached prior to the March 1, 2013 sequester deadline. As a result, the President was required by law to issue an order canceling $85 billion in budgetary resources across the U.S. Government for the remainder of FY 2013. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its report to Congress of March 1, 2013, entitled “OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration,” calculated that, over the course of the fiscal year, the order requires a 7.8 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and a 5.0 percent reduction in non-exempt non-defense discretionary funding. The sequestration also requires reductions of 7.9 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs. The sequestration report provides calculations of the amounts and percentages by which various budgetary resources are required to be reduced, and a listing of the reductions required for each non-exempt budget account. Federal agencies were directed to apply the same percentage reduction to all programs, projects, and activities within a budget account, as required by Section 256(k)(2) of Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (BBEDCA), and to operate in a manner

Table of Contents

that is consistent with guidance provided by OMB in Memorandum 13-03, Planning for Uncertainty with Respect to Fiscal Year 2013 Budgetary Resources and Memorandum 13-05, Agency Responsibilities for Implementation of Potential Joint Committee Sequestration.

The continuing resolution and pending decisions related to sequestration and the debt ceiling may decrease overall government funding for defense and homeland security, result in delays in the procurement of our products and services due to lack of funding, cause the U.S. Government and government agencies to reduce their purchases under existing contracts, or cause them to exercise their rights to terminate contracts at-will or to abstain from exercising options to renew contracts, any of which would have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows.

If we fail to establish and maintain important relationships with government agencies and prime contractors, our ability to successfully maintain and develop new business may be adversely affected.

Our reputation and relationship with the U.S. Government, and in particular with the agencies of the DoD and the U.S. intelligence community, are key factors in maintaining and developing new business opportunities. In addition, we often act as a subcontractor or in “teaming” arrangements in which we and other contractors bid together on particular contracts or programs for the U.S. Government or government agencies. We expect to continue to depend on relationships with other prime contractors for a portion of our revenue for the foreseeable future. Negative press reports regarding conflicts of interest, poor contract performance, employee misconduct, information security breaches or other aspects of our business, regardless of accuracy, could harm our reputation. Additionally, as a subcontractor or team member, we often lack control over fulfillment of a contract, and poor performance on the contract could tarnish our reputation, even when we perform as required. As a result, we may be unable to successfully maintain our relationships with government agencies or prime contractors, and any failure to do so could materially adversely affect our ability to maintain our existing business and compete successfully for new business.

If our subcontractors or suppliers fail to perform their contractual obligations, our performance and reputation as a contractor and our ability to obtain future business could suffer.

As a prime contractor, we often rely upon other companies as subcontractors to perform work we are obligated to perform for our clients. As we secure more work under certain of our contract vehicles, we expect to require an increasing level of support from subcontractors that provide complementary and supplementary services to our offerings. We are responsible for the work performed by our subcontractors, even though in some cases we have limited involvement in that work. If one or more of our subcontractors fail to satisfactorily perform the agreed-upon services on a timely basis or violate U.S. Government contracting policies, laws or regulations, our ability to perform our obligations as a prime contractor or meet our clients' expectations may be compromised. In extreme cases, performance or other deficiencies on the part of our subcontractors could result in a client terminating our contract for default. A termination for default could expose us to liability, including liability for the agency's costs of re-procurement, could damage our reputation and could hurt our ability to compete for future contracts.

We also are required to procure certain materials and parts from supply sources approved by the U.S. Government. The inability of a supplier to meet our needs or the appearance of counterfeit parts in our products could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

We face intense competition from many competitors that have greater resources than we do, which could result in price reductions, reduced profitability or loss of market share.

We operate in highly competitive markets and generally encounter intense competition to win contracts from many other firms, including mid-tier federal contractors with specialized capabilities and large defense and IT services providers. Competition in our markets may increase as a result of a number of factors, such as the entrance of new or larger competitors, including those formed through alliances or consolidation, or the reduction in the overall number of government contracts. We may also face competition from prime contractors for whom we currently serve as subcontractors or teammates if those prime contractors choose to offer client services of the type that we are currently providing. Recently, procurement awards have been

Table of Contents

based on lowest price, technically acceptable proposals. In addition, we may face competition from our subcontractors who, from time-to-time, seek to obtain prime contractor status on contracts for which they currently serve as a subcontractor to us.

Many of our competitors have greater financial, technical, marketing and public relations resources, larger client bases and greater brand or name recognition than we do. These competitors could, among other things:


•	divert sales from us by winning very large‑scale government contracts, a risk that is enhanced by the recent trend in government procurement practices to bundle services into larger contracts and the recent trend of awards on a lowest price, technically acceptable basis;


•	divert sales from us by the award of government contracts to our competitors who may be willing to bid at substantially lower prices;


•	force us to charge lower prices; or


•	adversely affect our relationships with current clients, including our ability to continue to win competitively awarded engagements in which we are the incumbent.

If we lose business to our competitors or are forced to lower our prices, our revenue and our operating profits could decline.

Our business is dependent upon our ability to keep pace with the latest technological changes.

The market for our services is characterized by rapid change and technological improvements. Failure to respond in a timely and cost effective way to these technological developments would result in serious harm to our business and operating results. We have derived, and we expect to continue to derive, a substantial portion of our revenues from providing innovative engineering services and technical solutions that are based upon today's leading technologies and that are capable of adapting to future technologies. As a result, our success will depend, in part, on our ability to develop and market service offerings that respond in a timely manner to the technological advances of our customers, evolving industry standards and changing client preferences.

Loss of our GSA contracts or GWACs would impair our ability to attract new business.

We are a prime contractor under several GSA contracts and GWAC vehicles. We believe that our ability to provide services under these contracts will continue to be important to our business because of the multiple opportunities for new engagements each contract provides. If we were to lose our position as prime contractor on one or more of these contracts, we could lose substantial revenues and our operating results could suffer. GSA contracts and other GWACs typically have a one or two-year initial term with multiple options exercisable at the government client's discretion to extend the contract for one or more years. We cannot be assured that our government clients will continue to exercise the options remaining on our current contracts, nor can we be assured that our future clients will exercise options on any contracts we may receive in the future.

Government contracts differ materially from standard commercial contracts, involve competitive bidding and may be subject to cancellation or delay without penalty.

Government contracts frequently include provisions that are not standard in private commercial transactions and are subject to laws and regulations that give the U.S. Government rights and remedies not typically found in commercial contracts, including provisions permitting the U.S. Government to:


•	terminate our existing contracts;


•	reduce potential future income from our existing contracts;


•	modify some of the terms and conditions in our existing contracts;


•	suspend or permanently prohibit us from doing business with the U.S. Government or with any specific government agency;


•	impose fines and penalties;


•	subject us to criminal prosecution;


•	suspend work under existing multiple year contracts and related task orders if the necessary funds are not appropriated by Congress;


•	decline to exercise an option to extend an existing multiple year contract; and


•	claim rights in technologies and systems invented, developed or produced by us.

In addition, government contracts are frequently awarded only after formal competitive bidding processes, which have been and may continue to be protracted and typically impose provisions that permit cancellation in the event that necessary funds are unavailable to the public agency. Competitive procurements impose substantial costs and managerial time and effort

Table of Contents

in order to prepare bids and proposals for contracts that may not be awarded to us. In many cases, unsuccessful bidders for government agency contracts are provided the opportunity to formally protest certain contract awards through various agencies, administrative and judicial channels. The protest process may substantially delay a successful bidder's contract performance, result in cancellation of the contract award entirely and distract management. We may not be awarded contracts for which we bid, and substantial delays or cancellation of purchases may follow our successful bids as a result of such protests.

Certain of our government contracts also contain “organizational conflict of interest” clauses that could limit our ability to compete for certain related follow-on contracts. For example, when we work on the design of a particular solution, we may be precluded from competing for the contract to install that solution. While we actively monitor our contracts to avoid these conflicts, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to avoid all organizational conflict of interest issues.

We may not receive the full amounts estimated under the contracts in our backlog, which could reduce our revenue in future periods below the levels anticipated and which makes backlog an uncertain indicator of future operating results.

As of December 30, 2012, our total backlog was approximately $1.3 billion, of which $674.0 million was funded. Funded backlog is estimated future revenue under government contracts and task orders for which funding has been appropriated by Congress and authorized for expenditure by the applicable agency, plus our estimate of the future revenue we expect to realize from our commercial contracts that are under firm orders. Although funded backlog represents only business which is considered to be firm, cancellations or scope adjustments may still occur. The remaining $635.0 million of our total backlog as of December 30, 2012 is unfunded. Unfunded backlog reflects our estimate of future revenue under awarded government contracts and task orders for which either funding has not yet been appropriated or expenditure has not yet been authorized. Unfunded backlog does not include estimates of revenue from GWAC or GSA schedules beyond awarded or funded task orders but does include estimates of revenue beyond awarded or funded task orders for other types of indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts. The amount of unfunded backlog is not exact or guaranteed and is based upon, among other things, management's experience under such contracts and similar contracts, the particular clients, the type of work and budgetary expectations. Our management may not accurately assess these factors or estimate the revenue we will realize from these contracts, and our unfunded and total backlog may not reflect the actual revenue ultimately received from these contracts.

Backlog is typically subject to large variations from quarter to quarter and comparisons of backlog from period to period are not necessarily indicative of future revenues. The contracts comprising our backlog may not result in actual revenue in any particular period or at all, and the actual revenue from such contracts may differ from our backlog estimates. The timing of receipt of revenues, if any, on projects included in backlog could change because many factors affect the scheduling of projects. Cancellation of or adjustments to contracts may occur. Additionally, all U.S. Government contracts included in backlog, whether or not funded, may be terminated at the convenience of the U.S. Government. The failure to realize all amounts in our backlog could adversely affect our revenues and gross margins. As a result, our funded and total backlog as of any particular date may not be an accurate indicator of our future earnings.

A preference for minority-owned, small and small disadvantaged businesses could impact our ability to be a prime contractor on certain governmental procurements.

As a result of the SBA set-aside program, the federal government may decide to restrict certain procurements only to bidders that qualify as minority-owned, small, or small disadvantaged businesses. As a result, we would not be eligible to perform as a prime contractor on those programs and in general would be restricted to no more than 49% of the work as a subcontractor on those programs. An increase in the amount of procurements under the SBA set-aside program may impact our ability to bid on new procurements as a prime contractor or restrict our ability to recompete on incumbent work that is placed in the set-aside program.

U.S. Government in-sourcing could result in loss of business opportunities and personnel.

The U.S. Government has continued to reduce the percentage of contracted services in favor of more federal employees through an initiative called “in-sourcing.” Over time, in-sourcing could have a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Specifically, as a result of in-sourcing federal procurements for services could be fewer and smaller in the future. In addition, work we currently perform could be in-sourced by the federal government and, as a result, our revenues could be reduced. Moreover, our employees working on contracts could also be hired by the government. This loss of our employees would necessitate the need to retain new employees. Accordingly, the effect of in-sourcing, or the continuation of in-sourcing at a faster than expected rate, could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations over time.

Table of Contents

Our business could be negatively impacted by security threats, including cybersecurity threats, and other disruptions.

Many of the systems we develop, install and maintain involve managing and protecting information involved in intelligence, national security and other sensitive or classified U.S. Government functions. We face various security threats, including cybersecurity threats, to gain unauthorized access to this sensitive information. We also face threats to the safety of our directors, officers, and employees; threats to the security of our facilities and infrastructure; and threats from terrorist acts. Although we utilize various procedures and controls to monitor these threats and mitigate our exposure to such threats, there can be no assurance that these procedures and controls will be sufficient in preventing security threats from materializing. If any of these events were to materialize, they could lead to the loss of sensitive information, critical infrastructure, personnel or capabilities essential to our operations and prevent us from being eligible for further work on sensitive or classified systems for U.S. Government clients. Further, any losses we incur from such a security breach could exceed the policy limits under our errors and omissions and product liability insurance. Any losses we incur, any damage to our reputation or any limitations on our eligibility for additional work resulting from a security breach could materially reduce our revenue and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Cybersecurity attacks in particular are evolving and include, but are not limited to, malicious software, attempts to gain unauthorized access to data, and other electronic security breaches that could lead to disruptions in mission critical systems, unauthorized release of confidential or otherwise protected information and corruption of data. We have experienced cybersecurity attacks and may experience them in the future. These events could damage our reputation and lead to financial losses from remedial actions, loss of business, loss of proprietary and trade secret information or potential liability.

If we experience systems or service failure, our reputation could be harmed and our clients could assert claims against us for damages or refunds.

We create, implement and maintain IT solutions that are often critical to our clients' operations. We have experienced, and may in the future experience, some systems and service failures, schedule or delivery delays and other problems in connection with our work. If we experience these problems, we may:


•	lose revenue due to adverse client reaction;


•	be required to provide additional services to a client at no charge;


•	cause clients to postpone, cancel or fail to renew contracts;


•	receive negative publicity, which could damage our reputation and adversely affect our ability to attract or retain clients; and


•	suffer claims for substantial damages.

While many of our contracts limit our liability for consequential damages that may arise from negligence in rendering services to our clients, we cannot ensure that these contractual provisions will be legally sufficient to protect us if we are sued. In addition, our errors and omissions and product liability insurance coverage may not be adequate, may not continue to be available on reasonable terms or in sufficient amounts to cover one or more large claims, or the insurer may disclaim coverage as to some types of future claims. The successful assertion of any large claim against us could seriously harm our business. Even if not successful, these claims could result in significant legal and other costs, may be a distraction to our management and may harm our reputation.

Our financial results may vary significantly from quarter to quarter.

We expect our revenue and operating results to vary from quarter to quarter. Reductions in revenue in a particular quarter could lead to lower profitability in that quarter because a relatively large amount of our expenses are fixed in the short-term. We may incur significant operating expenses during the start-up and early stages of large contracts and may not be able to recognize corresponding revenue in that same quarter. We may also incur additional expenses when contracts are terminated or expire and are not renewed.

In addition, payments due to us from U.S. Government agencies may be delayed due to billing cycles or as a result of failures of government budgets to gain congressional and administration approval in a timely manner. The U.S. Government's fiscal year ends September 30. If a federal budget for the next federal fiscal year has not been approved by that date in each year, our clients may have to suspend engagements that we are working on until a budget has been approved. Any such suspensions may reduce our revenue in the fourth quarter of the federal fiscal year or the first quarter of the subsequent year. The U.S. Government's fiscal year end can also trigger increased purchase requests from clients for equipment and materials. Any increased purchase requests we receive as a result of the U.S. Government's fiscal year end would serve to increase our

Table of Contents

third or fourth quarter revenue, but will generally decrease profit margins for that quarter, as these activities generally are not as profitable as our typical offerings.

Additional factors that may cause our financial results to fluctuate from quarter to quarter include those addressed elsewhere in these Risk Factors and the following, among others:


•	the terms of customer contracts that affect the timing of revenue recognition;


•	variability in demand for our services and solutions;


•	commencement, completion or termination of contracts during any particular quarter;


•	timing of shipments and product deliveries;


•	timing of award or performance incentive fee notices;


•	timing of significant bid and proposal costs;


•	variable purchasing patterns under GSA Schedule 70 contracts, GWACs, blanket purchase agreements and other indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts;


•	restrictions on and delays related to the export of defense articles and services;


•	costs related to government inquiries;


•	strategic decisions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions, divestitures, spin-offs and joint ventures;


•	strategic investments or changes in business strategy;


•	changes in the extent to which we use subcontractors;


•	seasonal fluctuations in our staff utilization rates;


•	changes in our effective tax rate including changes in our judgment as to the necessity of the valuation allowance recorded against our deferred tax assets; and


•	the length of sales cycles.

Significant fluctuations in our operating results for a particular quarter could cause us to fall out of compliance with the financial covenants related to our debt, which if not waived, could restrict our access to capital and cause us to take extreme measures to pay down our debt under the credit facility. In addition, fluctuations in our financial results could cause our stock price to decline.

Our margins and operating results may suffer if we experience unfavorable changes in the proportion of cost-plus-fee or fixed‑price contracts in our total contract mix.

Although fixed-price contracts entail a greater risk of a reduced profit or financial loss on a contract compared to other types of contracts we enter into, fixed-price contracts typically provide higher profit opportunities because we may be able to benefit from cost savings and operating efficiencies. In contrast, cost-plus-fee contracts are subject to statutory limits on profit margins, and generally are the least profitable of our contract types. Our U.S. Government customers typically determine what type of contract we enter into. Cost-plus-fee and fixed-price contracts in our federal business accounted for approximately 24% and 65%, respectively, of our federal business revenues for the year ended December 30, 2012. To the extent that we enter into more cost-plus-fee or less fixed-price contracts in proportion to our total contract mix in the future, our margins and operating results may suffer.

Our cash flow and profitability could be reduced if expenditures are incurred prior to the final receipt of a contract.

We provide various professional services, specialized products, and sometimes procure equipment and materials on behalf of our U.S. Government customers under various contractual arrangements. From time to time, in order to ensure that we satisfy our customers' delivery requirements and schedules, we may elect to initiate procurement in advance of receiving final authorization from the government customer or a prime contractor. If our government or prime contractor customers' requirements should change or if the government or the prime contractor should direct the anticipated procurement to a contractor other than us or if the equipment or materials become obsolete or require modification before we are under contract for the procurement, our investment in the equipment or materials might be at risk if we cannot efficiently resell them. This could reduce anticipated earnings or result in a loss, negatively affecting our cash flow and profitability.

We have incurred and may continue to incur goodwill impairment charges in our reporting entities, which could harm our profitability.

As of December 30, 2012, goodwill represented approximately 46% of our total assets. In accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 350 Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (“Topic 350”), we periodically review the carrying values of our goodwill to determine whether such carrying values exceed the fair market value. Our acquired companies are subject to annual review for goodwill impairment. If impairment

Table of Contents

testing indicates that the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the goodwill of the reporting unit is deemed impaired. Accordingly, an impairment charge would be recognized for that reporting unit in the period identified.

The identification and measurement of impairment involves the estimation of the fair value of reporting units. Accounting for impairment contains uncertainty because management must use judgment in determining appropriate assumptions to be used in the measurement of fair value. The estimates of fair value of reporting units are based on the best information available as of the date of the assessment, incorporate management assumptions about expected future cash flows and contemplate other valuation techniques. Future cash flows can be affected by changes in industry or market conditions among other things.

In 2012, as a result of our annual review, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $82.0 million related to our KGS segment, to reflect the declining market valuations and the economic uncertainty in the U.S. defense industry as a result of uncertainty in our business environment due to the substantial fiscal and economic challenges facing the U.S. Government. Given the current market conditions and continued economic uncertainty in the U.S. defense industry, including sequestration and issues surrounding the national debt ceiling, our future revenues, profits and cash flows could be substantially lower than our current projections. In addition, market-based inputs to the calculations in the impairment test, such as weighted average cost of capital, and market multiples, could also be negatively impacted. Such circumstances may result in the future deterioration of the fair value of our KGS reporting unit and an additional impairment of our goodwill within that unit. Due to continual changes in market and general business conditions, we cannot predict whether, and to what extent, our goodwill and long-lived intangible assets may be impaired in future periods. Any resulting impairment loss could harm our profitability and financial condition.

Failure to properly manage projects may result in additional costs or claims.

Our engagements often involve large scale, highly complex projects. The quality of our performance on such projects depends in large part upon our ability to manage the relationship with our customers and to effectively manage the project and deploy appropriate resources, including third-party contractors and our own personnel, in a timely manner. Any defects or errors or failure to meet clients' expectations could result in claims for substantial damages against us. Our contracts generally limit our liability for damages that arise from negligent acts, error, mistakes or omissions in rendering services to our clients. However, we cannot be sure that these contractual provisions will protect us from liability for damages in the event we are sued. In addition, in certain instances, we guarantee customers that we will complete a project by a scheduled date. If the project experiences a performance problem, we may not be able to recover the additional costs we will incur, which could exceed revenues realized from a project. Finally, if we underestimate the resources or time we need to complete a project with capped or fixed fees, our operating results could be seriously harmed.

We use estimates when accounting for contracts and any changes in such estimates could have an adverse effect on our profitability and our overall financial performance.

When agreeing to contractual terms, our management makes assumptions and projections about future conditions and events, many of which extend over long periods. These projections assess the productivity and availability of labor, complexity of the work to be performed, cost and availability of materials, impact of delayed performance and timing of product deliveries. Contract accounting requires judgment relative to assessing risks, estimating contract revenues and costs, and making assumptions for schedule and technical issues. Due to the size and nature of many of our contracts, the estimation of total revenues and costs at completion is complicated and subject to many variables. For example, assumptions are made regarding the length of time to complete a contract since costs also include expected increases in wages, prices for materials and allocated fixed costs. Similarly, assumptions are made regarding the future impact of our efficiency initiatives and cost reduction efforts. Incentives, awards or penalties related to performance on contracts are considered in estimating revenue and profit rates and are recorded when there is sufficient information to assess anticipated performance. Suppliers' assertions are also assessed and considered in estimating costs and profit rates.

Because of the significance of the judgment and estimation processes described above, it is possible that materially different amounts could be obtained if different assumptions were used or if the underlying circumstances were to change. Changes in underlying assumptions, circumstances or estimates may have a material adverse effect upon the profitability of one or more of the affected contracts, future period financial reporting and performance. See the Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates section in Item 7 “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained within this Annual Report.

Table of Contents

Our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and certain other tax attributes may be limited.

Federal and state income tax laws impose restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss (“NOL”) and tax credit carryforwards in the event that an “ownership change” occurs for tax purposes, as defined by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 382”). In general, an ownership change occurs when shareholders owning 5% or more of a “loss corporation” (a corporation entitled to use NOL or other loss carryovers) have increased their ownership of stock in such corporation by more than 50 percentage points during any 3-year period. The annual base Section 382 limitation is calculated by multiplying the loss corporation's value at the time of the ownership change by the greater of the long-term tax-exempt rate determined by the Internal Revenue Service in the month of the ownership change or the two preceding months. In March 2010, an “ownership change” occurred that will limit the utilization of the loss carryforwards. Additionally, in May 2012, another “ownership change” was triggered. As a result of this change in May, the Company's federal annual utilization of NOL carryforwards will be limited to $28.1 million a year for the five years succeeding the initial ownership change and $11.6 million per year thereafter. If the entire limitation amount is not utilized in a year, the excess can be carried forward and utilized in future years. For the year ended December 30, 2012, there was no impact of such limitations on the income tax provision since the amount of taxable income did not exceed the annual limitation amount. In addition, future equity offerings or acquisitions that have equity as a component of the purchase price could also result in an “ownership change.” If and when any other “ownership change” occurs, utilization of the NOL or other tax attributes may be further limited. As discussed elsewhere, deferred tax assets relating to the NOL and credit carryforwards are offset by a full valuation allowance. In addition, utilization of state tax loss carryforwards is dependent upon sufficient taxable income apportioned to the states.

Risks Related to Our Operations

We may need additional capital to fund the growth of our business, and financing may not be available on favorable terms or at all.

We currently anticipate that our available capital resources, including our credit facility and operating cash flow, will be sufficient to meet our expected working capital and capital expenditure requirements for at least the next 12 months. However, these resources may not be sufficient to fund the long-term growth of our business. If we determine that it is necessary to raise additional funds, either through an expansion or refinancing of our credit facility or through public or private debt or equity financings, additional financing may not be available on terms favorable to us, or at all. Disruptions in the capital and credit markets may continue indefinitely or intensify, which could adversely affect our ability to access these markets. Limitations on our borrowing base contained in our credit facility may limit our access to capital, and we could fall out of compliance with financial and other covenants contained in our credit facility which, if not waived, would restrict our access to capital and could require us to pay down our existing debt under the credit facility. Our lenders may not agree to extend additional or continuing credit under our credit facility or waive restrictions on our access to capital. If we were to conduct a public or private offering of securities, any new offering would be likely to dilute our stockholders' equity ownership. If adequate funds are not available or are not available on acceptable terms, we may not be able to take advantage of available opportunities, develop new products or otherwise respond to competitive pressures and our business, operating results or financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Recent acquisitions and potential future acquisitions could prove difficult to integrate, disrupt our business, dilute stockholder value and strain our resources.

During 2011 and 2012, we acquired five companies. In the future, we may acquire additional businesses that we believe could complement or expand our business or increase our customer base. Integrating the operations of acquired businesses successfully or otherwise realizing any of the anticipated benefits of acquisitions, including anticipated cost savings and additional revenue opportunities, involves a number of potential challenges. The failure to meet these integration challenges could seriously harm our financial condition and results of operations. Realizing the benefits of acquisitions depends in part on the integration of operations and personnel. These integration activities are complex and time-consuming, and we may encounter unexpected difficulties or incur unexpected costs, including:


•	our inability to achieve the operating synergies anticipated in the acquisitions;


•	diversion of management attention from ongoing business concerns to integration matters;


•	difficulties in consolidating and rationalizing IT platforms and administrative infrastructures;


•	complexities associated with managing the geographic separation of the combined businesses and consolidating multiple physical locations where management may determine consolidation is desirable;


•	difficulties in integrating personnel from different corporate cultures while maintaining focus on providing consistent, high quality customer service;


•	difficulties or delays in transitioning U.S. Government contracts pursuant to federal acquisition regulations;

Table of Contents


•	challenges in demonstrating to customers of Kratos and to customers of acquired businesses that the acquisition will not result in adverse changes in customer service standards or business focus;


•	possible cash flow interruption or loss of revenue as a result of change of ownership transitional matters; and


•	inability to generate sufficient revenue to offset acquisition costs.

Acquired businesses may have liabilities or adverse operating issues that we fail to discover through due diligence prior to the acquisition. In particular, to the extent that prior owners of any acquired businesses or properties failed to comply with or otherwise violated applicable laws or regulations, or failed to fulfill their contractual obligations to the U.S. Government or other clients, we, as the successor owner, may be financially responsible for these violations and failures and may suffer reputational harm or otherwise be adversely affected. Acquisitions also frequently result in the recording of goodwill and other intangible assets which are subject to potential impairment in the future that could harm our financial results. In addition, if we finance acquisitions by issuing convertible debt or equity securities, our existing stockholders may be diluted, which could affect the market price of our stock. Acquisitions and/or the related equity financings could also impact our ability to utilize our NOL carryforwards. As a result, if we fail to properly evaluate acquisitions or investments, we may not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such acquisitions, and we may incur costs in excess of what we anticipate. Acquisitions frequently involve benefits related to integration of operations. The failure to successfully integrate the operations or otherwise to realize any of the anticipated benefits of the acquisition could seriously harm our results of operations.

If we are unable to manage our growth, our business and financial results could suffer.

Sustaining our growth has placed significant demands on our management, as well as on our administrative, operational and financial resources. For us to continue to manage our growth, we must continue to improve our operational, financial and management information systems and expand, motivate and manage our workforce. Additionally, our future financial results depend in part on our ability to profitably manage our growth on a combined basis with the businesses we have acquired and those we may acquire in the future. If we are unable to manage our growth while maintaining our quality of service and profit margins, or if new systems that we implement to assist in managing our growth do not produce the expected benefits, our business, prospects, financial condition or operating results could be adversely affected.

The loss of any member of our senior management could impair our relationships with U.S. Government clients and disrupt the management of our business.

We believe that the success of our business and our ability to operate profitably depends on the continued contributions of the members of our senior management. We rely on our senior management to generate business and execute programs successfully. In addition, the relationships and reputation that many members of our senior management team have established and maintain with U.S. Government personnel contribute to our ability to maintain strong client relationships and to identify new business opportunities. The loss of any member of our senior management could impair our ability to identify and secure new contracts, to maintain good client relations and to otherwise manage our business.

If we fail to attract and retain skilled employees or employees with the necessary national security clearances, we might not be able to perform under our contracts or win new business.

The growth of our business and revenue depends in large part upon our ability to attract and retain sufficient numbers of highly qualified individuals who have advanced IT and/or engineering skills. These employees are in great demand and are likely to remain a limited resource in the foreseeable future. In addition, certain U.S. Government contracts require us, and some of our employees, to maintain national security clearances. Obtaining and maintaining national security clearances for employees involves a lengthy process, and it is difficult to identify, recruit and retain employees who already hold national security clearances. Further, some of our contracts contain provisions requiring us to staff an engagement with personnel that the client considers key to our successful performance under the contract. In the event we are unable to provide these key personnel or acceptable substitutions, the client may terminate the contract. As a result, if we are unable to recruit and retain a sufficient number of qualified employees, we may lose revenue and our ability to maintain and grow our business could be limited.

Moreover, in a tight labor market, our direct labor costs could increase or we may be required to engage large numbers of subcontractor personnel, which could cause our profit margins to suffer. Conversely, if we maintain or increase our staffing levels in anticipation of one or more projects and the projects are delayed, reduced or terminated, we may underutilize the additional personnel, which would increase our general and administrative expenses, reduce our earnings and possibly harm our results of operations.

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our International Operations

Revenues derived from our international business are subject to global economic downturn and hardship.

Our international business represents 12% of our total revenue, which may be impacted by changes in foreign national priorities and government budgets and may be further impacted by global economic conditions and fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates. Continued international economic uncertainty and reductions in consumer spending may result in reductions in our revenue. Additionally, disruptions in international credit markets may materially limit consumer credit availability and restrict credit availability of our customers. Any reduction in international sales of our solutions, resulting from reductions in consumer spending or continued disruption in the availability of credit to retailers or consumers, could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our international business exposes us to additional risks.

Our operations outside of the United States are subject to risks that are inherent in conducting business under non-United States laws, regulations and customs, including those related to:


•	foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, potentially reducing the United States dollars we receive for sales denominated in foreign currency;


•	the possibility that unfriendly nations or groups could boycott our solutions;


•	political conditions in the markets in which we operate;


•	potential increased costs associated with overlapping tax structures;


•	import-export control;


•	more limited protection for intellectual property rights in some countries;


•	difficulties and costs associated with staffing and managing foreign operations;


•	unexpected changes in regulatory requirements;


•	the difficulties of compliance with a wide variety of foreign laws and regulations;


•	longer accounts receivable cycles in certain foreign countries, whether due to cultural differences, exchange rate fluctuation or other factors;


•	technology transfer restrictions; and


•	changes to our distribution networks.

These risks, individually or in the aggregate, could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. For example, we are subject to compliance with the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar anti-bribery laws, which generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to foreign government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. While our employees and agents are required to comply with these laws, we cannot be sure that our internal policies and procedures will always protect us from violations of these laws, despite our commitment to legal compliance and corporate ethics. The occurrence or allegation of these types of risks may adversely affect our business, performance, prospects, value, financial condition, and results of operations. In addition, our international contracts may include industrial cooperation agreements requiring specific in-country purchases, investments, manufacturing agreements or other financial obligations, known as offset obligations, and provide for penalties if we fail to meet such requirements. The impact of these factors is difficult to predict, but one or more of them could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Risks Related to Our Outstanding Indebtedness

We significantly increased our leverage in connection with the financing of recent acquisitions and we have substantial indebtedness, which could adversely affect our cash flow, financial condition and business.

In connection with the acquisition of Herley and Integral, we incurred $285.0 million and $115.0 million of indebtedness, respectively. As of December 30, 2012, we had approximately $650.3 million of total indebtedness outstanding, which includes $18.7 million of unamortized debt premium, and $0.9 million of capital lease obligations. As a result of this increased indebtedness, our interest payment obligations have increased significantly. The degree to which we are leveraged could have adverse effects on our business, including the following:


•	it may limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industries in which we operate;

Table of Contents


•	it may require us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to payments on our indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures and other general corporate purposes;


•	it may restrict us from making strategic acquisitions or exploiting business opportunities;


•	it may place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt;


•	it may limit our ability to borrow additional funds;


•	it may prevent us from raising the funds necessary to repurchase our outstanding Notes tendered to us if there is a change of control, which would constitute a default under the indenture governing such notes and under our credit facility; and


•	it may decrease our ability to compete effectively or operate successfully under adverse economic and industry conditions.

Our higher level of indebtedness increases the risk that we may default on our debt obligations. We may be unable to generate sufficient cash flow to pay the interest on our debt. If we are unable to service our indebtedness, we will be forced to adopt an alternative strategy that may include actions such as reducing capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our indebtedness or seeking additional equity capital. These alternative strategies may not be affected on satisfactory terms, if at all, and they may not yield sufficient funds to make required payments on our indebtedness.

If, for any reason, we are unable to meet our debt service and repayment obligations, we would be in default under the terms of the agreements governing our debt, which would allow our creditors at that time to declare certain outstanding indebtedness to be due and payable, which would in turn trigger cross‑acceleration or cross‑default rights between the relevant agreements. In addition, our lenders could compel us to apply all of our available cash to repay our borrowings or they could prevent us from making payments on our indebtedness. If the amounts outstanding under any of our indebtedness were to be accelerated, our assets may not be sufficient to repay in full the money owed to the lenders or to our other debt holders.

We and our subsidiaries may incur more debt, which may increase the risks associated with our substantial leverage, including our ability to service our indebtedness.

The agreements governing our debt permit us, under some circumstances, to incur certain additional indebtedness or obligations. To the extent that we incur additional indebtedness or such other obligations, the risks associated with our substantial leverage described above, including our possible inability to service our debt, would increase.

The agreements governing our debt impose significant operating and financial restrictions on us and our subsidiaries that may prevent us and our subsidiaries from pursuing certain business opportunities and restrict our ability to operate our business.

The indenture and the amended credit and security agreement governing our credit facility subject us, and our subsidiaries, to several financial and other restrictive covenants, including limitations on liens or indebtedness, payment of dividends, transactions with affiliates, and mergers, sales or other dispositions of our assets.

Our credit facility also requires us to comply with specified financial ratios, including a borrowing base availability and minimum fixed charge coverage ratio. Many factors, including events beyond our control, may affect our ability to comply with these covenants and financial ratios. We cannot be sure we will meet our debt-related obligations or that lenders will waive any failure to meet those obligation. Any failure to meet those debt related obligations could result in an event of default under our other indebtedness and the acceleration of such indebtedness.

Risks Related to Our Intellectual Property

We may be unable to protect our intellectual property rights.

We rely on a combination of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and nondisclosure agreements to protect our proprietary intellectual property. Our efforts to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights may not be sufficient. We cannot be sure that our pending patent applications will result in the issuance of patents to us, that patents issued to or licensed by us in the past or in the future will not be challenged or circumvented by competitors or that these patents will remain valid or sufficiently broad to preclude our competitors from introducing technologies similar to those covered by our patents and patent applications. In addition, our ability to enforce and protect our intellectual property rights may be limited in certain countries outside the United States, which could make it easier for competitors to capture market position in such countries by utilizing technologies that are similar to those developed or licensed by us. Competitors also may harm our sales by designing products that mirror the capabilities of our products or technology without infringing our intellectual property rights. If we do

Table of Contents

not obtain sufficient protection for our intellectual property, or if we are unable to effectively enforce our intellectual property rights, our competitiveness could be impaired, which would limit our growth and future revenue.

Some of the technology that is developed by us is developed under contract for our DoD customers. Accordingly, such intellectual property and rights to technology development are owned by the U.S. Government.

We may be harmed by intellectual property infringement claims.

We may become subject to claims from our employees or third parties who assert that software and other forms of intellectual property that we use in delivering services and solutions to our clients infringe upon intellectual property rights of such employees or third parties. Our employees develop some of the software and other forms of intellectual property that we use to provide our services and solutions to our clients, but we also license technology from other vendors. If our employees, vendors, or other third parties assert claims that we or our clients are infringing on their intellectual property rights, we could incur substantial costs to defend those claims. If any of these infringement claims are ultimately successful, we could be required to cease selling or using products or services that incorporate the challenged software or technology, obtain a license or additional licenses from our employees, vendors, or other third parties, or redesign our products and services that rely on the challenged software or technology.

Disclosure of trade secrets could cause harm to our business

We attempt to protect our trade secrets by entering into confidentiality and intellectual property assignment agreements with third parties, our employees and consultants. However, these agreements can be breached and, if they are, there may not be an adequate remedy available to us. In addition, others may independently discover our trade secrets and proprietary information, and in such cases we could not assert any trade secret rights against such party. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally obtained and is using our trade secret is difficult, expensive and time consuming, and the outcome is unpredictable. If we are unable to protect our intellectual property, our competitors could market services or products similar to our services and products, which could reduce demand for our offerings. Any litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights, protect our trade secrets or determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources, with no assurance of success.

Risks Related to Regulatory, Environmental and Legal Issues

Our failure to comply with complex procurement laws and regulations could cause us to lose business and subject us to a variety of penalties.

We must comply with laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of U.S. Government contracts, which affect how we do business with our clients, prime contractors, subcontractors and vendors and may impose added costs on us. New regulations or procurement requirements (including, for example regulations regarding counterfeit and corrupt parts, supply chain diligence and cyber security) or changes to current requirements, could increase our costs and risk of non-compliance. Our role as a contractor to agencies and departments of the U.S. Government results in our being routinely subject to investigations and reviews relating to compliance with various laws and regulations, including those associated with organizational conflicts of interest, procurement integrity, bid integrity and claim presentation, among others. These investigations may be conducted without our knowledge. Adverse findings in these investigations or reviews can lead to criminal, civil or administrative proceedings and we could face civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or debarment from doing business with U.S. Government agencies. In addition, we could suffer serious harm to our reputation and competitive position if allegations of impropriety were made against us, whether or not true. If our reputation or relationship with U.S. Government agencies were impaired, or if the U.S. Government otherwise ceased doing business with us or significantly decreased the amount of business it does with us, our revenue and operating profit would decline.

Our contracts and administrative processes and systems are subject to audits and cost adjustments by the U.S. Government, which could reduce our revenue, disrupt our business or otherwise adversely affect our results of operations.

U.S. Government agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), routinely audit and investigate government contracts and government contractors' administrative processes and systems. These agencies review our performance on contracts, pricing practices, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. They also review the adequacy of our compliance with government standards for our accounting and management of internal control systems, including: control environment and overall accounting system, general IT system, budget and planning system, purchasing system, material management and accounting system, compensation system, labor system, indirect and other direct

Table of Contents

costs system, billing system and estimating system used for pricing on government contracts. Both contractors and the U.S. Government agencies conducting these audits and reviews have come under increased scrutiny. The current audits and reviews have become more rigorous, and the standards to which contractors are being held are being more strictly interpreted, increasing the likelihood of an audit or review resulting in an adverse outcome. During the course of its current audits, the DCAA is closely examining and questioning several of our established and disclosed practices that it had previously audited and accepted, increasing the uncertainty as to the ultimate conclusion that will be reached. In addition, based on a DCAA audit, the U.S. Department of Justice is currently investigating whether one of our subsidiaries violated the federal False Claims Act by overstating its labor and material costs in a contract with the Department of Defense prior to the Company's acquisition of the subsidiary. Under the False Claims Act, the Department of Justice can seek civil penalties plus treble damages.

A finding of significant control deficiencies in our system audits or other reviews can result in decremented billing rates to our U.S. Government customers until the control deficiencies are corrected and our corrections are accepted by DCMA. Government audits and reviews may conclude that our practices are not consistent with applicable laws and regulations and result in adjustments to contract costs and mandatory customer refunds. Such adjustments can be applied retroactively, which could result in significant customer refunds. Our receipt of adverse audit findings or the failure to obtain an “approved” determination of our various accounting and management internal control systems, including our changes to indirect cost and direct labor estimating systems, from the responsible U.S. Government agency could significantly and adversely affect our business, including our ability to bid on new contracts and our competitive position in the bidding process. A determination of non-compliance with applicable contracting and procurement laws, regulations and standards could also result in the U.S. Government imposing penalties and sanctions against us, including withholding of payments, suspension of payments and increased government scrutiny that could delay or adversely affect our ability to invoice and receive timely payment on contracts, perform contracts or compete for contracts with the U.S. Government.

While we have submitted incurred cost claims through 2011, the actual indirect cost audits by the DCAA have not been completed for fiscal 2006 and subsequent fiscal years. Although we have recorded contract revenues subsequent to fiscal 2006 based upon costs that we believe will be approved upon final audit or review, we do not know the outcome of any ongoing or future audits or reviews and, if future adjustments exceed our estimates, our profitability would be adversely affected.

Our employees or others acting on our behalf may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, which could cause us to lose contracts.

We are exposed to the risk that employee fraud or other misconduct from our employees or others acting on our behalf could occur. Misconduct by employees or others could include intentional failures to comply with U.S. Government procurement regulations, engaging in unauthorized activities or falsifying time records. Misconduct by our employees or others acting on our behalf could also involve the improper use of our clients' sensitive or classified information, which could result in regulatory sanctions against us, serious harm to our reputation, a loss of contracts and a reduction in revenues. It is not always possible to deter misconduct, and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in controlling unknown or unmanaged risks or losses, which could cause us to lose contracts or cause a reduction in revenues. In addition, alleged or actual misconduct by employees or others acting on our behalf could result in investigations or prosecutions of persons engaged in the subject activities, which could result in unanticipated consequences or expenses and management distraction for us regardless of whether we are alleged to have any responsibility.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports, our operating results could be misstated, our reputation may be harmed and the trading price of our stock could be negatively affected. Our management has concluded that there are no material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 30, 2012. However, although we continue to devote substantial time and resources to the documentation and testing of our controls, there can be no assurance that our controls over financial processes and reporting will be effective in the future or that material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal controls will not be discovered in the future. Any failure to remediate any future material weaknesses or implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our operating results, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations or result in material misstatements in our financial statements or other public disclosures. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock. In addition, from time to time we acquire businesses which could have limited infrastructure and systems of internal controls.

Table of Contents

We are subject to environmental laws and potential exposure to environmental liabilities. This may affect our ability to develop, sell or rent our property or to borrow money where such property is required to be used as collateral.

We use hazardous materials common to the industries in which we operate. We are required to follow federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations regarding the handling, storage and disposal of these materials, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), and the Toxic Substances Control Act. We could be subject to fines, suspensions of production, alteration of our manufacturing processes or interruption or cessation of our operations if we fail to comply with present or future laws or regulations related to the use, storage, handling, discharge or disposal of toxic, volatile or otherwise hazardous chemicals used in our manufacturing processes. These regulations could require us to acquire expensive remediation equipment or to incur significant other expenses to comply with environmental regulations. Our failure to control the handling, use, storage or disposal of, or adequately restrict the discharge of, hazardous substances could subject us to liabilities and production delays, which could cause us to miss our customers' delivery schedules, thereby reducing our sales for a given period. We may also have to pay regulatory fines, penalties or other costs (including remediation costs), which could materially reduce our profits and adversely affect our financial condition. Permits are required for our operations, and these permits are subject to renewal, modification and, in some cases, revocation.

In addition, under environmental laws, ordinances or regulations, a current or previous owner or operator of property may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of some kinds of petroleum products or other hazardous substances on, under, or in its property, adjacent or nearby property, or offsite disposal locations, without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or caused, the presence of the contaminants, and regardless of whether the practices that resulted in the contamination were legal at the time they occurred. We have incurred, and may incur in the future, liabilities under CERCLA and other environmental laws at our current or former facilities, adjacent or nearby properties or offsite disposal locations. The costs associated with future cleanup activities that we may be required to conduct or finance may be material. The presence of, or failure to remediate properly, hazardous substances may adversely affect the ability to sell or rent the property or to borrow funds using the property as collateral. Additionally, we may become subject to claims by third parties based on damages, including personal injury and property damage, and costs resulting from the disposal or release of hazardous substances into the environment.

New regulations related to “conflict minerals” may cause us to incur additional expenses and could limit the supply and increase the cost of certain metals used in manufacturing our products.

On August 22, 2012, the SEC adopted a new rule requiring disclosures of specified minerals, known as conflict minerals, that are necessary to the functionality or production of products manufactured or contracted to be manufactured by public companies. The new rule, which is effective for calendar 2013 and requires a disclosure report to be filed by May 31, 2014, will require companies to diligence, disclose and report whether or not such minerals originate from the Democratic Republic of Congo or an adjoining country. We will have to apply diligence to discover whether such minerals are used in the manufacture of our products. The new rule could affect sourcing at competitive prices and availability in sufficient quantities of certain minerals used in the manufacture of our products, including tantalum, tin, gold and tungsten. The number of suppliers who provide conflict-free minerals may be limited. In addition, there may be material costs associated with complying with the disclosure requirements, such as costs related to determining the source of certain minerals used in our products, as well as costs of possible changes to products, processes, or sources of supply as a consequence of such verification activities. Since our supply chain is complex, we may not be able to sufficiently verify the origins of the relevant minerals used in our products through the due diligence procedures that we implement, which may harm our reputation. In addition, we may encounter challenges to satisfy those customers who require that all of the components of our products be certified as conflict-free, which could place us at a competitive disadvantage if we are unable to do so.

Litigation may distract us from operating our business.

Litigation that may be brought by or against us could cause us to incur significant expenditures and distract our management from the operation of our business. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that we would prevail in such litigation or resolve such litigation on terms favorable to us, which may adversely affect our financial results and operations.

Natural disasters or severe weather conditions could disrupt our business and result in loss of revenue or higher expenses.

Our business depends on maintaining operations at our facilities and being able to operate at our customer facilities and project locations. A serious, prolonged interruption or damage due to power outage, telecommunications outage, terrorist attack, earthquake, hurricane, fire, flood or other natural disaster, or other interruption could have a material adverse effect on

Table of Contents

our business and financial results. While we insure against certain business interruption risks, such insurance may not adequately compensate us for any losses incurred as a result of natural or other disasters.

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

Some of our contracts with the U.S. Government are classified, which may limit investor insight into portions of our business.

We derive a portion of our revenues from programs with the U.S. Government that are subject to security restrictions (classified programs) that preclude the dissemination of information that is classified for national security purposes. We are limited in our ability to provide details about these classified programs, their risks or any disputes or claims relating to such programs. As a result, you might have less insight into our classified programs than our other businesses and, therefore, less ability to fully evaluate the risks related to our classified business.

The market price of our common stock may be volatile.

The price of our stock has been in the past, and will continue to be, subject to fluctuations as a result of a number of factors, including: our operating results fail to meet market or analysts' expectations; general fluctuations in the stock market; actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results based on reduced and/or delayed government spending or the threat thereof; fluctuations in the stock prices of companies in our industry; changes in earnings estimated by securities analysts or our ability to meet those estimates; and domestic and foreign economic conditions. Such volatility has had a significant effect on the market prices of many companies' securities for reasons unrelated to their operating performance and, in the past, has led to securities class action litigation. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management's attention and resources, which could have an adverse effect on our business.

Certain provisions in our restated certificate of incorporation and seventh amended and restated bylaws, and of Delaware law, may prevent or delay an acquisition of our company, which could decrease the trading price of our common stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, our second amended and restated bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that are intended to deter coercive takeover practices and inadequate takeover bids by making such practices or bids unacceptably expensive to the raider and to encourage prospective acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors rather than to attempt a hostile takeover. These provisions include, among others:

• the inability of our stockholders to call a special meeting;


•	rules regarding how stockholders may present proposals or nominate directors for election at stockholder meetings;

• the right of our board to issue preferred stock without stockholder approval;

• a super-majority requirement to amend our certificate of incorporation or bylaws; and

• the ability of our directors, and not stockholders, to fill vacancies on our board of directors.

Delaware law also imposes some restrictions on mergers and other business combinations between us and any holder of 15% or more of our outstanding common stock.

We believe these provisions may help protect our stockholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors and by providing our board of directors with more time to assess any acquisition proposal. These provisions are not intended to make our company immune from takeovers. In addition, although we believe these provisions collectively provide for an opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board, they would apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders. These provisions may also frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management team by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board, which is responsible for appointing the members of our management.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties

Table of Contents

At December 30, 2012, we owned or leased approximately 2.2 million square feet of floor space at approximately 84 separate locations, primarily in the U.S., for manufacturing, warehousing, research and development, administration and various other uses. At December 30, 2012, we leased to third parties approximately 103,168 square feet of our leased facilities, and had vacant floor space of approximately 115,141 square feet. We continually evaluate our current and future space capacity in relation to current and projected future staffing levels. We maintain our properties in good operating condition and believe that the productive capacity of our properties is adequate to meet current contractual requirements and those for the foreseeable future.

Table of Contents

We have major operations at the following locations:

Kratos Government Solutions: Huntsville, AL; San Diego and Sacramento, CA; Colorado Springs, CO; Fort Walton Beach and Orlando, FL; Woburn, MA; Lanham, MD; Lancaster and Dallastown, PA; Charleston and Walterboro, SC; and Dahlgren, Alexandria and Chantilly, VA. Locations outside the U.S. include France, Israel and the United Kingdom.

Public Safety and Security: Fullerton, CA; Newport, DE; Fairlawn, NJ and Houston, TX.

Corporate and other locations: San Diego, CA.

The following is a summary of our floor space at December 30, 2012:



Square feet (in thousands)	Owned	Leased	Total
Kratos Government Solutions	621	1,355	1,976
Public Safety and Security	—	155	155
Corporate (includes San Diego operations of KGS and PSS segments)	—	34	34
Total	621	1,544	2,165

See Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report on Form 10-K for information regarding commitments under leases.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

See Note 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report on Form 10-K for a further discussion of our legal proceedings

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

None.

PART II

Item 5. Market For Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Our common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market and is traded under the symbol “KTOS.”

The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices for our common stock for the periods indicated, as reported by NASDAQ:

Table of Contents



	High		Low
Year Ended December 30, 2012:
Fourth Quarter	$	5.95	$	4.27
Third Quarter	$	6.04	$	4.71
Second Quarter	$	5.90	$	4.77
First Quarter	$	7.56	$	5.90
Year Ended December 26, 2011:
Fourth Quarter	$	7.89	$	4.65
Third Quarter	$	12.38	$	7.57
Second Quarter	$	14.22	$	10.45
First Quarter	$	14.52	$	12.92

Holders of Record

On March 8, 2013, the closing sale price of our common stock as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market was $4.47 per share. On March 8, 2013, there were 427 shareholders of record of our common stock.

Dividend Policy

We have not declared any cash dividends since becoming a public company. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to finance the growth and development of the business and, therefore, do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, our ability to pay dividends is restricted by both the indenture entered into in connection with the issuance of our 10% Senior Secured Notes due 2017 and our amended credit and security agreement, each as discussed in the section entitled “Liquidity and Capital Resources” in Item 7 “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report. Any future determination to pay cash dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will be dependent upon our future financial condition, results of operations and capital requirements, general business conditions and other relevant factors as determined by our board of directors.

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

The information required by Item 201(d) of Regulation S-K is incorporated by reference to our definitive proxy statement filed in connection with our 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or an amendment to this Annual Report to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the close of our fiscal year ended December 30, 2012.

Table of Contents

Performance Graph

The following performance graph and related information shall not be deemed “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or the Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (the “Exchange Act”), except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference into such filing.

The following performance graph presents a comparison of the five year cumulative stockholder return on our common stock against the cumulative total return of a broad equity market index, the Russell 2000 Stock Index, and an industry index, including an old peer group composed of AeroVironment Inc., CACI International Inc., General Dynamics Corp., L3 Communications Holdings Inc., Lockheed Martin Corp., Mantech International Corp., NCI Inc., SAIC Inc., SRA International Inc., and WPCS International Inc., and a new peer group of AeroVironment, Anaren, API Technologies, Dynamics Research Corporation, iRobot, and Mercury Computer Systems for the period commencing December 31, 2005 and ending December 25, 2011. The new peer group reflects the change in products and solutions we offer as a result of our acquisitions in 2011. The performance graph assumes an initial investment of $100 in our common stock and in each of the Russell 2000 Stock Index and the peer groups, and further assumes that all dividends were reinvested and all returns are market-cap weighted. The historical information set forth below is not necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities; Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities

None.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers

None.

Table of Contents

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes thereto and with Item 7 “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” contained within this Annual Report. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of operating results to be expected in the future.



	December 28, 2008			December 27, 2009			December 26, 2010			December 25, 2011			December 30, 2012
Consolidated Statements of Operations Data:
Revenues	$	286.2		$	334.5		$	408.5		$	713.9		$	969.2
Gross profit	51.3			63.6			84.3			191.2			257.2
Operating income (loss)	(93.2		)	(27.0		)	23.1			29.5			(49.7		)
Provision (benefit) for income taxes	(0.7		)	1.0			(12.7		)	1.9			(1.6		)
Income (loss) from continuing operations	(104.0		)	(38.3		)	14.6			(23.5		)	(112.9		)
Loss from discontinued operations	(7.1		)	(3.2		)	(0.1		)	(0.7		)	(1.5		)
Net income (loss)	$	(111.1	)	$	(41.5	)	$	14.5		$	(24.2	)	$	(114.4	)
Income (loss) from continuing operations per common share
Basic	$	(11.18	)	$	(2.76	)	$	0.88		$	(0.86	)	$	(2.41	)
Diluted	$	(11.18	)	$	(2.76	)	$	0.87		$	(0.86	)	$	(2.41	)
Loss from discontinued operations per common share
Basic	$	(0.77	)	$	(0.23	)	$	(0.01	)	$	(0.02	)	$	(0.03	)
Diluted	$	(0.77	)	$	(0.23	)	$	(0.01	)	$	(0.02	)	$	(0.03	)
Net income (loss) per common share
Basic	$	(11.95	)	$	(2.99	)	$	0.87		$	(0.88	)	$	(2.44	)
Diluted	$	(11.95	)	$	(2.99	)	$	0.86		$	(0.88	)	$	(2.44	)
Weighted average shares:
Basic	9.3			13.9			16.6			27.4			46.9
Diluted	9.3			13.9			16.9			27.4			46.9

	December 28, 2008			December 27, 2009			December 26, 2010			December 25, 2011			December 30, 2012
Consolidated Balance Sheet Data:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	3.7		$	9.9		$	10.8		$	69.6		$	49.0
Working capital	35.0			37.1			65.8			207.2			176.4
Total assets	312.4			241.6			535.7			1,216.0			1,284.0
Short-term debt	6.1			4.7			0.6			1.6			1.5
Long-term debt	76.9			51.6			226.1			631.5			630.1
Long-term debt premium	—			—			—			22.8			18.7
Total stockholders' equity	$	146.9		$	124.9		$	169.9		$	312.6		$	324.1

Table of Contents

The 2010, 2011 and 2012 Consolidated Statements of Operations And Comprehensive Income (Loss) Data and Consolidated Balance Sheet Data have been impacted by the acquisitions we completed in those periods. See Note 3 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of these acquisitions. The Consolidated Statements of Operations And Comprehensive Income (Loss) Data reflects the results from operations for each of the acquired companies from the date of acquisition and forward, which contributed an aggregate $104.8 million, $375.1 million, and $287.3 million increase in revenues from 2009 to 2010; from 2010 to 2011; and 2011 to 2012, respectively. We incurred acquisition related expenses of $3.1 million and $12.5 million for fiscal 2010 and 2011 and a benefit of $2.7 million related to acquisition items for fiscal 2012, respectively. In 2012, we incurred an impairment of goodwill and intangible assets of $96.6 million.

In addition to the goodwill impairment charge discussed above, the 2010, 2011 and 2012 Consolidated Balance Sheet Data reflects the impact of our acquisitions as well as the issuance of $625 million in Senior Secured Notes and the issuance of approximately 39.3 million common shares which were used to fund the acquisitions. See Notes 2, 3 and 5 of our Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of these items.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

In addition to historical information, the following discussion contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results may differ substantially from those referred to herein due to a number of factors, including but not limited to risks described in this Item 7, Item 1A Risk Factors and elsewhere in this Annual Report. These forward-looking statements reflect our views and assumptions only as of the date such forward-looking statements are made. Except as required by law, we assume no responsibility for updating any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our audited Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report and other reports and filings made with the SEC.

Overview

Our primary end customers are U.S. Government agencies, including the DoD, classified agencies, intelligence agencies, other national security agencies and homeland security related agencies. We also conduct business with local, state and foreign governments and domestic and international commercial customers. In fiscal 2010, 2011 and 2012, we generated 87%, 74% and 65%, respectively, of our total revenues from contracts with the U.S. Government (including all branches of the U.S. military), either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. We believe our stable client base, strong client relationships, broad array of contract vehicles, large employee base possessing specialized skills, extensive list of past performance qualifications, and significant management and operational capabilities position us for continued growth.

We were incorporated in the state of New York on December 19, 1994 and began operations in March 1995. We reincorporated in the state of Delaware in 1998.

Table of Contents

Industry Background

In August 2011, Congress and the Administration enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 (the “Budget Act”) in order to permit an increase in the federal government's borrowing limit while reducing projected net government spending over the next ten years. The Budget Control Act required $900 billion in immediate cuts to discretionary spending for 2012-2021. It also established a bi-partisan congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Joint Committee”), which was charged with recommending legislation that would reduce net government spending by $1.2 to $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, in addition to the $900 billion in immediate discretionary spending reductions referenced above. The Joint Committee was unable to identify the required reductions, thereby triggering a provision of the Budget Control Act called “sequestration,” which requires very substantial automatic spending cuts, split between defense and non-defense programs, that start in 2013 and continue over a nine-year period.

In January 2013, Congress enacted the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012. It addressed a number of tax code provisions and certain spending issues but left in place the sequester (although delaying its implementation to March 1, 2013) and did not address other fiscal matters such as the debt ceiling. Although debate on budget reductions continued through the first two months of 2013, no resolution was reached prior to the March 1, 2013 sequester deadline. As a result, the President was required by law to issue an order canceling $85 billion in budgetary resources across the U.S. Government for the remainder of FY 2013. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its report to Congress of March 1, 2013, entitled OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration, calculated that, over the course of the fiscal year, the order requires a 7.8 percent reduction in non-exempt defense discretionary funding and a 5.0 percent reduction in non-exempt non-defense discretionary funding. The sequestration also requires reductions of 7.9 percent to non-exempt defense mandatory programs. The sequestration report provides calculations of the amounts and percentages by which various budgetary resources are required to be reduced, and a listing of the reductions required for each non-exempt budget account. Federal agencies were directed to apply the same percentage reduction to all programs, projects, and activities within a budget account, as required by Section 256(k)(2) of Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended (BBEDCA), and to operate in a manner that is consistent with guidance provided by OMB in Memorandum 13-03, Planning for Uncertainty with Respect to Fiscal Year 2013 Budgetary Resources and Memorandum 13-05, Agency Responsibilities for Implementation of Potential Joint Committee Sequestration.

Current Reporting Segments

We operate in two principal business segments: Kratos Government Solutions and Public Safety & Security. We organize our business segments based on the nature of the services offered. Transactions between segments are generally negotiated and accounted for under terms and conditions similar to other government and commercial contracts and these intercompany transactions are eliminated in consolidation. The Consolidated Financial Statements in this Annual Report are presented in a manner consistent with our operating structure. For additional information regarding our operating segments, see Note 14 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report. From a customer and solutions perspective, we view our business as an integrated whole, leveraging skills and assets wherever possible.

Kratos Government Solutions Segment

Our KGS segment provides products, solutions and services primarily for mission critical national security priorities. KGS customers primarily include national security related agencies, the Department of Defense ("DoD"), Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), intelligence agencies and classified agencies. Our work includes weapon systems sustainment, lifecycle support and extension; C5ISR services, including related cybersecurity, cyberwarfare, information assurance and situational awareness solutions; military range operations and technical services; missile, rocket, and weapons systems test and evaluation; mission launch services; modeling and simulation; UAV products and technology; advanced network engineering and IT services; and public safety, security and surveillance systems integration. We produce products, solutions and services related to certain C5ISR platforms, unmanned system platforms, weapons systems, national security related assets and

Table of Contents

Warfighter systems. The results of our acquisitions of Composite Engineering, Inc., SecureInfo Corporation, Integral Systems, Inc., and Herley Industries, Inc., are included in this segment.

Public Safety & Security Segment

Our PSS segment provides independent integrated solutions for advanced homeland security, public safety, critical information, and security and surveillance systems for government and commercial applications. Our solutions include designing, installing and servicing building technologies that protect people, critical infrastructure assets, information and property and make facilities more secure and efficient. We provide solutions in such areas as the design, engineering and operation of command and control centers, the design, engineering, deployment and integration of access control, building automation and control, communications, digital and closed circuit television security and surveillance, fire and life safety, maintenance, services and product support services. We provide solutions for customers in the critical infrastructure, power generation, power transport, nuclear energy, financial, IT, healthcare, education, transportation and petro-chemical industries, as well as certain government and military customers. For example, we provide biometrics and other access control technologies to customers such as pipelines, electrical grids, municipal port authorities, power plants, communication centers, large data centers, government installations and other commercial enterprises. The results of our acquisition of selected assets of the Critical Infrastructure Business are included in this segment.

2012 and 2011 Strategic Acquisitions

We have supplemented our organic growth by identifying, acquiring and integrating businesses that meet our primary objective of providing us with enhanced capabilities to pursue a broader cross section of the DoD, Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and other government and critical infrastructure markets, complement and broaden our existing client base and expand our primary service offerings. Our senior management team has significant acquisition experience. Since March 2011, we have acquired five companies and selected assets of a critical infrastructure security and safety system integration business, each as discussed below.

Acquisitions in the KGS segment

On July 2, 2012, we completed the acquisition of Composite Engineering, Inc. (“CEI”) for approximately $164.2 million. The purchase price, including an adjustment for working capital and cash to be paid to the shareholders for the 338(h)(10) election, includes $135.0 million in cash, and 4.0 million shares of the Company's common stock, valued at $5.94 per share on July 2, 2012, or $23.8 million. $10.7 million of the cash paid was placed into an escrow account as security for CEI's indemnification obligations as set forth in the CEI purchase agreement and will be reduced by $1.0 million to pay the working capital adjustment owed to us in July 2013. In addition, we paid $2.5 million to retire certain pre-existing CEI debt and settle pre-existing accounts receivable from CEI at its carrying and fair value of $3.0 million. We plan to make an election under Section 338(h)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code, which will result in tax deductible goodwill related to this transaction and as a result we will pay an estimated $1.7 million in additional tax liability incurred by the shareholders of CEI for this election. We estimate that the tax deductible goodwill and intangibles, which is subject to change based upon the final fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed, will be approximately $141.8 million and can be deducted for federal and California state income taxes over a 15-year period.

In connection with the CEI acquisition certain CEI personnel entered into long-term employment agreements with us. On July 2, 2012, we granted restricted stock units (“RSUs”) for an aggregate 2.0 million shares of our common stock as long-term retention inducement grants to certain employees of CEI who have joined Kratos. The RSUs had an estimated value of $11.9 million on the grant date, cliff vest on the fourth anniversary of the closing of the CEI acquisition, or earlier upon the occurrence of certain events, and are being accounted for as compensation expense over this four year period.

Table of Contents

Acquisition in the PSS segment

On December 30, 2011, we acquired selected assets of the Critical Infrastructure Business for approximately $18.8 million, which includes a final agreement on the working capital adjustment. The Critical Infrastructure Business designs, engineers, deploys, manages and maintains specialty security systems at some of the United States' most strategic asset and critical infrastructure locations. Additionally, these security systems are typically integrated into command and control

Table of Contents

system infrastructure or command centers. Approximately 15% of the revenues of the Critical Infrastructure Business are recurring in nature due to the operation, maintenance or sustainment of the security systems once deployed.

Key Financial Statement Concepts

As of December 30, 2012, we consider the following factors to be important in understanding our financial statements.

KGS' business with the U.S. Government and prime contractors is generally performed under cost reimbursable, fixed-price or time and materials contracts. Cost reimbursable contracts for the U.S. Government provide for reimbursement of costs plus the payment of a fee. Some cost reimbursable contracts include incentive fees that are awarded based on performance on the contract. Under time and materials contracts, we are reimbursed for labor hours at negotiated hourly billing rates and reimbursed for travel and other direct expenses at actual costs plus applied general and administrative expenses. In accounting for our long-term contracts for production of products and services provided to the U.S. Government and provided to our PSS segment customers under fixed price contracts, we utilize both cost-to-cost and units produced measures under the percentage-of-completion method of accounting in accordance with the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 605, Revenue Recognition. Under the units produced measure of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting, sales are recognized as the units are accepted by the customer generally using sales values for units in accordance with the contract terms. We estimate profit as the difference between total estimated revenue and total estimated cost of a contract and recognize that profit over the life of the contract based on deliveries or as computed on the basis of the estimated final average unit costs plus profit. We classify contract revenues as product sales or service revenues depending upon the predominant attributes of the relevant underlying contracts.

We consider the following factors when determining if collection of a receivable is reasonably assured: comprehensive collection history; results of our communications with customers; the current financial position of the customer; and the relevant economic conditions in the customer's country. If we have had no prior experience with the customer, we may review reports from various credit organizations to ensure that the customer has a history of paying its creditors in a reliable and effective manner. If the financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate and adversely affect their financial ability to make payments, additional allowances would be required. Additionally, on certain contracts whereby we perform services for a prime/general contractor, a specified percentage of the invoiced trade accounts receivable may be retained by the customer until we complete the project. We periodically review all retainages for collectability and record allowances for doubtful accounts when deemed appropriate, based on our assessment of the associated risks.

We monitor our policies and procedures with respect to our contracts on a regular basis to ensure consistent application under similar terms and conditions as well as compliance with all applicable government regulations. In addition, costs incurred and allocated to contracts with the U.S. Government are routinely audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

We manage and assess the performance of our businesses based on our performance on individual contracts and programs obtained generally from government organizations with consideration given to the Critical Accounting Principles and Estimates. Due to the Federal Acquisition Regulation rules that govern our business, most types of costs are allowable, and we do not focus on individual cost groupings (such as cost of sales or general and administrative costs) as much as we do on total contract costs, which are a key factor in determining contract operating income. As a result, in evaluating our operating performance, we look primarily at changes in sales and service revenues, and operating income, including the effects of significant changes in operating income. Changes in contract estimates are reviewed on a contract-by-contract basis, and are revised periodically throughout the life of the contract such that adjustments to profit resulting from revisions are made cumulative to the date of the revision in accordance with GAAP. Significant management judgments and estimates, including the estimated costs to complete the project, which determine the project's percentage complete, must be made and used in connection with the revenue recognized in any accounting period. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of our revenue for any period if management makes different judgments or utilizes different estimates.

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 25, 2011 to the Year ended December 30, 2012

Revenues. Revenues by operating segment for the years ended December 25, 2011 and December 30, 2012 are as follows (in millions):



	2011		2012		$ Change		% Change
Kratos Government Solutions
Service revenues	$	238.8	$	264.0	$	25.2	10.6	%
Product sales	362.9		519.2		156.3		43.1	%
Total Kratos Government Solutions	601.7		783.2		181.5		30.2	%
Public Safety & Security
Service revenues	112.2		186.0		73.8		65.8	%
Product sales	—		—		—
Total Public Safety & Security	112.2		186.0		73.8		65.8	%
Total revenues	$	713.9	$	969.2	$	255.3	35.8	%

Revenues increased $255.3 million from $713.9 million in 2011 to $969.2 million in 2012. Included in our 2012 revenues are net aggregate increased revenues of $287.3 million generated from the businesses we acquired in 2011 and 2012. Approximately $245.0 million of the increase in the KGS segment was related to aggregate net increased revenues from the acquired businesses. In addition, an increase of approximately $7.0 million was related to organic revenue growth in our ballistic missile defense business, our business in which we provide specialty support services at certain weapons ranges, and our learning and training business. These aggregate increases were partially offset by reductions of $37.4 million in our legacy government service revenues, which have continued to be negatively impacted by increased competitive pricing pressures, the completion of the remaining small business contracts from companies we acquired and continued in-sourcing of our employees by the U.S. Government, as well as reduced orders and timing on shipments in our ground equipment business and legacy weapons systems sustainment business, resulting in an aggregate net reduction of approximately $33.1 million. PSS segment revenue increased by $73.8 million, which was primarily due to the acquisition of the Critical Infrastructure Business on December 30, 2011 as well as organic growth in our legacy PSS business.

Product sales, which are all from the KGS segment, increased $156.3 million from $362.9 million for the year ended December 25, 2011 to $519.2 million for the year ended December 30, 2012. As a percentage of total revenue, product revenues were 50.8% for the year ended December 25, 2011 as compared to 53.6% for the year ended December 30, 2012. The increase in product sales was primarily related to the acquisitions of Integral, Herley and CEI, partially offset by the reduced orders and timing on shipments in our ground equipment business. Service revenues increased by $99.0 million from $351.0 million for the year ended December 25, 2011 to $450.0 million for the year ended December 30, 2012. The increase was primarily related to the acquisitions of Integral, SecureInfo and the Critical Infrastructure Business, partially offset by the reductions in service revenue in other business units in the KGS segment as discussed above.

As described in the “Critical Accounting Principles and Estimates” section of Item 7 “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report, we utilize both the cost-to-cost and units produced measures under the percentage-of-completion method of accounting for recognizing revenue as provided for in Topic 605. When revenue is calculated using the percentage-of-completion method, total costs incurred to date are compared to total estimated costs to complete the contract. These estimates are reviewed monthly on a contract-by-contract basis, and are revised periodically throughout the life of the contract such that adjustments to profit resulting from revisions are made cumulative to the date of the revision. Significant management judgments and estimates, including the estimated costs to complete projects, which determine the project's percentage of completion, must be made and used in connection with the revenue recognized in any accounting period. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of our revenue for any period if management makes different judgments or utilizes different estimates. During the reporting periods contained herein, we did experience revenue and margin adjustments of certain projects based on the aforementioned factors, but the effect of such adjustments, both positive and negative, when evaluated in total were determined to be immaterial to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Table of Contents

Cost of revenues. Cost of revenues increased from $522.7 million for the year ended December 25, 2011 to $712.0 million for the year ended December 30, 2012. The $189.3 million increase in cost of revenues was primarily a result of our acquisitions partially offset by reductions in cost of revenues in our KGS segment as a result of decreased revenue as discussed above.

Gross margin remained fairly flat at 26.8% for the year ended December 25, 2011 compared to 26.5% for the year ended December 30, 2012. Margins on services decreased from 25.7% for the year ended December 25, 2011 to 22.0% for the year ended December 30, 2012, due primarily to a reduction in profit of $3.2 million related to a close-out settlement on a previously acquired contract, the acquisition of the Critical Infrastructure Business, as well as the continued margin pressure experienced in our service business. Margins on products increased for the year ended December 25, 2011 as compared to December 30, 2012 from 27.8% to 30.4%, respectively, as a result of the acquisitions of CEI, Integral and Herley. Margins in the KGS segment increased from 26.2% for the year ended December 25, 2011 to 26.5% for the year ended December 30, 2012 primarily as a result of the higher gross margins from our CEI, Integral, Herley, and SecureInfo acquisitions. Margins in the PSS segment decreased from 30.0% for the year ended December 25, 2011 to 26.5% for the year ended December 30, 2012 as a result of the mix of revenue and due to the acquisition of the Critical Infrastructure Business, for which cost reduction actions were not fully implemented until the fourth quarter of 2012.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. Selling, general and administrative expenses (“SG&A”) increased $52.5 million from $140.6 million for the year ended December 25, 2011 to $193.1 million for the year ended December 30, 2012. The increase was primarily a result of the acquisitions of SecureInfo, Integral, Herley, the Critical Infrastructure Business and CEI. As a percentage of revenues, SG&A increased from 19.7% for fiscal 2011 to 19.9% for fiscal 2012. Excluding amortization of intangibles of $38.0 million for the year ended December 25, 2011 and amortization of intangibles of $43.9 million for the year ended December 30, 2012, SG&A increased as a percentage of revenues from 14.4% to 15.4% for the year ended December 25, 2011 and December 30, 2012, respectively, reflecting the SG&A of our acquisitions of SecureInfo, Integral, Herley, the Critical Infrastructure Business and CEI, which have higher SG&A as a percentage of revenues and corresponding higher gross margin percentages.

Merger and acquisition related items. Merger and acquisition expenses decreased $15.2 million from $12.5 million to a benefit of $2.7 million for the years ended December 25, 2011 and December 30, 2012, respectively. Acquisition expenses are related primarily to our acquisitions of Herley and Integral in 2011. Expenses related to our acquisitions of the Critical Infrastructure Business and CEI in 2012 were offset by a reduction in liabilities of $4.5 million as a result of reaching an agreement over previously disputed fees, a change in estimate of our indemnity obligations related to former directors and officers of Integral as a result of the settlement of the matter against one of the officers in November 2012 and an adjustment to the estimated contingent acquisition consideration owed to SCT. See Notes 3 and 15 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of contingent consideration and our indemnity obligations.

Research and development expenses. Research and development expenses increased from $8.6 million for the year ended December 25, 2011 to $17.8 million for the year ended December 30, 2012 primarily related to the acquisitions of CEI, Integral and Herley, as well as due to select investments we are making to enhance certain satellite and electronic warfare/electronic attack products.

Impairment of goodwill and intangible assets. In 2012, as a result of reduced defense spending, the threat of sequestration and a decrease in current market multiples and our stock price and the corresponding negative impact on the fair value of the KGS reporting unit, we incurred a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of $82.0 million. We also incurred a non-cash intangible asset charge of $14.6 million related to the decision to minimize the use of the Charleston Marine Containers, Inc. and Henry Bros. Electronics, Inc. ("HBE"), trade names as part of our overall branding strategy. For a further discussion of impairment charges, see Note 2 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the Application of Critical Accounting Policies later in this section.

Unused office space and other. The expense of $2.1 million for the year ended December 30, 2012 was a result of an increase in our excess facility accrual due to consolidation of office space at our Lanham, Maryland and Huntsville, Alabama administrative facilities.

Other expense, net. Other expense, net increased from $51.1 million to $64.8 million for the years ended December 25, 2011 and December 30, 2012, respectively. The increase in expense of $13.7 million is primarily related to an increase in interest expense as a result of the Notes issued in March 2011 and July 2011, primarily to fund the Herley and Integral acquisitions. In 2012, the interest expense was partially offset by other income of $1.3 million primarily related to foreign currency transaction gains.

Table of Contents

Provision (benefit) for income taxes. The provision for income taxes decreased from an expense of $1.9 million on a loss of $21.6 million from continuing operations before income taxes for the year ended December 25, 2011 to a benefit of $1.6 million on a loss before income taxes of $114.5 million for the year ended December 30, 2012. The provision for the year ended December 25, 2011 was primarily comprised of taxes of $3.1 million and $0.4 million for state and foreign current taxes, respectively, partially offset by a tax refund settlement of $2.1 million. The benefit for the year ended December 30, 2012 was primarily due to the impairment of goodwill and intangible assets offset by state income taxes. See Note 8 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of our income taxes.

Loss from discontinued operations. Loss from discontinued operations increased from $0.7 million to $1.5 million for the year ended December 25, 2011 and December 30, 2012, respectively. In 2011 and 2012 the loss was primarily due to the operations of the non-core businesses from the Integral acquisition that have been classified as held for sale. Revenues generated by these businesses were approximately $9.2 million and $18.5 million for the year ended December 25, 2011 and December 30, 2012, respectively. Loss before income taxes was $1.3 million and $1.8 million for the years ended December 25, 2011 and December 30, 2012, respectively. Included in the loss for December 30, 2012 is a goodwill impairment charge of 1.5 million. For the year ended December 25, 2011 and December 30, 2012, we recognized a tax benefit of $0.6 million and $0.3 million, respectively, primarily related to the expiration of the statute of limitations for certain domestic and foreign tax contingencies.

The following table presents the results of discontinued operations (in millions):



	Year ended December 25, 2011			Year ended December 30, 2012
Revenue	$	9.2		$	18.5
Loss before taxes	(1.3		)	(1.8		)
Benefit for income taxes	(0.6		)	(0.3		)
Net loss	$	(0.7	)	$	(1.5	)

See Note 9 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of discontinued operations.

Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 26, 2010 to the Year ended December 25, 2011

Revenues. Revenues by operating segment for the years ended December 26, 2010 and December 25, 2011 are as follows (in millions):



	2010	2011	$ Change		% Change
Kratos Government Solutions
Service revenues	248.5	238.8	(9.7	)	(3.9	)%
Product sales	123.7	362.9	239.2		193.4	%
Total Kratos Government Solutions	372.2	601.7	229.5		61.7	%
Public Safety & Security
Service revenues	36.3	112.2	75.9		209.1	%
Product sales	—	—	—
Total Public Safety & Security	36.3	112.2	75.9		209.1	%
Total revenues	408.5	713.9	305.4		74.8	%

Revenues increased $305.4 million from $408.5 million in 2010 to $713.9 million in 2011. The increase in revenue from 2010 to 2011 as a result of our acquisitions was $375.1 million. In the KGS segment, our acquisitions contributed $299.7 million in increased revenue from 2010 to 2011. This increase, which in 2011 includes a full year of revenue for the acquisitions we made in 2010, was offset by a reduction of $70.2 million in revenue from our existing businesses as a result of increased competitive pricing pressure experienced in our legacy services businesses, resulting in the reduction of revenues, and to a lesser extent expected reductions of small business set aside contract work from companies we previously acquired and in-sourcing of our employees by the U.S. Government. Certain of our businesses were also impacted by the Continuing Resolutions for the U.S. Government's Fiscal 2011 and 2012 budgets, as well as contract award delays caused by competitor contract protests. In the PSS segment, the acquisition of HBE contributed $75.4 million of the $75.9 million increase.

Table of Contents

Product sales, which are all from the KGS segment, increased $239.2 million from $123.7 million for the year ended December 26, 2010 to $362.9 million for the year ended December 25, 2011. As a percentage of total revenue, product revenues were 30.3% for the year ended December 26, 2010 as compared to 50.8% for the year ended December 25, 2011. This increase was primarily related to the acquisitions of Herley and Integral. Service revenue decreased in the KGS segment by $9.7 million from $248.5 million for the year ended December 26, 2010 to $238.8 million for the year ended December 25, 2011. The decrease in service revenue was primarily a result of our acquisition of Integral, which had service revenue of $48.6 million offset by decreases in revenue of $58.2 million due to increased competitive pricing pressures experienced in our legacy services businesses, resulting in the reduction of revenues, and to a lesser extent expected reductions of small business set aside contract work from companies we previously acquired and in-sourcing of our employees by the U.S. Government in certain of our businesses in the KGS segment. The increase in revenue in the PSS segment is a result of the acquisition of HBE.

Cost of revenues. Cost of revenues increased $198.5 million, from $324.2 million for the year ended December 26, 2010 to $522.7 million for the year ended December 25, 2011. The increase in cost of revenues from 2010 to 2011 as a result of our acquisitions was $251.6 million. In the KGS segment, our acquisitions contributed $199.6 million of increased cost of revenues from 2010 to 2011. This increase, which in 2011 includes a full year of revenue for the acquisitions we made in 2010, was offset by a reduction of $49.3 million in cost of revenue from our existing businesses as a result of the reductions in our services revenue described previously. In the PSS segment, the acquisition of HBE contributed $52.0 million of the $53.8 million increase in cost of revenues.

Gross margin increased from 20.6% for the year ended December 26, 2010 to 26.8% for the year ended December 25, 2011. This was primarily the result of the increase in margin on product sales from 16.7% to 27.8% for the years ended December 26, 2010 and December 25, 2011, respectively. This increase was due primarily to the acquisitions of Herley and Integral in 2011. Gross margins on service revenues increased for the year ended December 26, 2010 as compared to December 25, 2011 from 22.3% to 25.7%, respectively, primarily due to the planned reductions of lower margin pass through work and the acquisition of Integral. Margins in the PSS segment decreased from 32.0% for the year ended December 26, 2010 to 30.0% for the year ended December 25, 2011 as a result of lower margins on our larger projects in the southwest division.

Selling, general and administrative expenses. SG&A increased $83.3 million from $57.3 million to $140.6 million for the years ended December 26, 2010 and December 25, 2011, respectively. This increase is primarily a result of our acquisitions, which had an increase in SG&A of $83.3 million and in 2011 includes a full year of SG&A for the acquisitions we made in 2010. Included in the SG&A expenses for 2010 and 2011 are amortization of purchased intangibles of $9.2 million and $38.0 million, respectively. The increase in amortization year over year was a result of a full year of amortization for our 2010 acquisitions as well as our 2011 acquisitions. As a percentage of revenues, selling, general and administrative expenses increased from 14.0% in 2010 to 19.7% in 2011. Excluding the impact of the amortization of purchased intangibles, SG&A expenses increased from 11.8% to 14.4% of revenues for 2010 and 2011, respectively, reflecting higher SG&A margins in our acquisitions as a result of their allocations of costs between SG&A and cost of revenues which was partially offset by leverage on our corporate SG&A as a result of increased revenues.

Research and development expenses. Research and development expenses increased $6.4 million from $2.2 million for the year ended December 26, 2010 to $8.6 million for the year ended December 25, 2011. The increase is primarily a result of our acquisitions of Herley and Integral, which have higher research and development efforts due to their expanded product mix.

Table of Contents

Recovery of unauthorized issuance of stock options, stock option investigation and related fees, and litigation settlement. In September 2010, we reached a settlement with one of our D&O insurance carriers to cover costs related to our completed stock option and DOJ investigations. The settlement received, net of legal expenses, was $1.4 million.

Merger and acquisition expenses. Merger and acquisition expenses for the year ended December 26, 2010 were $3.1 million, primarily related to the acquisitions of Gichner Holdings, Inc., DEI Services Corporation, Southside Container & Trailer, LLC, and HBE. Merger and acquisition expenses were $12.5 million for the year ended December 25, 2011, primarily related to our acquisitions of Herley and Integral.

Other expense, net. For the year ended December 26, 2010, net other expense was $21.2 million compared to net other expense of $51.1 million for the year ended December 25, 2011. The increase in other expense of $29.9 million is primarily related to an increase in interest expense of $28.8 million as a result of the $285.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 10% Senior Secured Notes issued in March 2011 primarily used to fund the Herley acquisition, the issuance of $115.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 10% Senior Secured Notes in July 2011 to fund the acquisition of Integral, and the full year impact of the $225 million in aggregate principal amount of 10% Senior Secured Notes issued in May 2010, to fund the Gichner acquisition and to refinance our existing indebtedness.

Provision (benefit) for income taxes. The provision for income taxes increased from a benefit of $12.7 million on income of $1.9 million from continuing operations before income taxes for the year ended December 26, 2010 to a provision of $1.9 million on a loss before income taxes of $21.6 million for the year ended December 25, 2011. The benefit for the year ended December 26, 2010 was primarily related to the acquisitions of Gichner and DEI. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations (“Topic 805”), we established deferred tax liabilities of approximately $18.2 million for the increase in the financial statement basis of the acquired assets of Gichner, and DEI, respectively. As a result of our ability to recognize deferred tax assets for certain of these deferred tax liabilities, we released the valuation allowances against our deferred tax assets and recognized an income tax benefit of $13.6 million. The provision for the year ended December 25, 2011 was primarily comprised of taxes of $3.1 million and $0.4 million for state and foreign current taxes, respectively, partially offset by a tax refund settlement of $2.1 million.

Loss from discontinued operations. Loss from discontinued operations increased from $0.1 million to $0.7 million for the year ended December 26, 2010 and December 25, 2011, respectively. In 2010, the loss was primarily due to a reduction in liabilities as a result of the final settlement of sales and use tax liabilities related to our discontinued wireless deployment business partially offset by losses in the Southeast Division. In 2011, the loss was primarily due to the operations of the non-core businesses from the Integral acquisition that have been classified as held for sale. Revenues generated by these businesses were approximately $2.2 million and $9.2 million for the year ended December 26, 2010 and December 25, 2011, respectively. Loss before taxes was a loss of $1.0 million for the year ended December 26, 2010 and a loss of $1.3 million for the year ended December 25, 2011. For the year ended December 26, 2010 and December 25, 2011, we recognized a tax benefit of $0.8 million and $0.6 million, respectively, primarily related to the expiration of the statute of limitations for certain domestic and foreign tax contingencies. In August 2010, we divested our Southeast Division for approximately $0.1 million cash consideration and the assumption of certain liabilities.

The following table presents the results of discontinued operations (in millions):



	Year ended December 26, 2010			Year ended December 25, 2011
Revenue	$	2.2		$	9.2
Loss before taxes	(0.9		)	(1.3		)
Benefit for income taxes	(0.8		)	(0.6		)
Net loss	$	(0.1	)	$	(0.7	)

See Note 9 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of discontinued operations.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of December 30, 2012, we had cash and cash equivalents of $49.0 million compared with cash and cash equivalents of $69.6 million as of December 25, 2011, which includes $15.2 million and $14.2 million, respectively, of cash and cash equivalents held by our foreign subsidiaries. We are not presently aware of any restrictions on the repatriation of these funds, although a portion may be considered permanently invested in these foreign subsidiaries. If these funds were

Table of Contents

needed to fund our operations or satisfy obligations in the U.S. they could be repatriated, and their repatriation into the U.S. may cause us to incur additional U.S. income taxes or foreign withholding taxes. Any additional taxes could be offset, in part or in whole, by foreign tax credits. The amount of such taxes and application of tax credits would be dependent on the income tax laws and other circumstances at the time these amounts are repatriated. Based on these variables, it is not practicable to determine the income tax liability that might be incurred if these earnings were to be repatriated. We do not currently intend to repatriate these earnings.

Our total debt, including capital lease obligations, principal due on the Notes, other term debt, and the premium of $18.7 million received on Notes issued, decreased by $5.6 million from $655.9 million on December 25, 2011 to $650.3 million on December 30, 2012. The decrease in debt was primarily the result of the amortization of the premium on the Notes of approximately $4.2 million and a $1.0 million principal payment on a ten-year term loan with a bank in Israel assumed in connection with our acquisition of Herley.

Our operating cash flow is used to finance trade accounts receivable, fund necessary increases in inventory, fund capital expenditures and our ongoing operations, service our debt and make strategic acquisitions. Financing trade accounts receivable is necessary because, on average, our customers do not pay us as quickly as we pay our vendors and employees for their goods and services. Financing increases in inventory balances is necessary to fulfill shipment requirements to meet delivery schedules of our customers. Cash from continuing operations is primarily derived from our customer contracts in progress and associated changes in working capital components. Our accounts receivable balance of $271.9 million at December 30, 2012 includes $1.1 million of receivables due from a Greek customer under a subcontract arrangement Gichner Holdings, Inc. ("Gichner") entered into with the Greek Ministry of Defense (GMoD) in 2004 prior to our acquisition of Gichner in 2010. After numerous delays by our customer and the GMoD, activity has recently resumed on the project. We currently expect product shipments to continue throughout 2013. We do not have any significant direct exposure to European government receivables, and our customers do not rely heavily on European government subsidies or other European government support. We will continue to monitor our exposure to risks relating to European sovereign debt.

A summary of our net cash provided by operating activities from continuing operations from our Consolidated Statements Of Cash Flows is as follows (in millions):



	Year Ended
	December 26, 2010		December 25, 2011		December 30, 2012
Net cash provided by operating activities from continuing operations	$	28.3	$	5.2	$	52.3

Our cash provided by operating activities was impacted by interest and transaction expenses we paid related to the completion of strategic acquisitions in 2010, 2011, and 2012. We paid $15.4 million, $46.2 million, and $64.0 million in interest expense in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively. The increase in interest expense paid from 2010 to 2011and 2012 was a result of the $285.0 million in 10% Senior Secured Notes we issued on March 25, 2011 to fund the acquisition of Herley and the issuance of $115.0 million in 10% Senior Secured Notes we issued on July 27, 2011 to fund the acquisition of Integral, as well as a full years impact of the $225.0 million of 10% Senior Secured Notes we issued in May 2010. Cash provided by operating activities in 2010, 2011 and 2012 also includes $3.1 million, $27.8 million, and $5.4 million, respectively, in transaction costs paid related to our acquisitions. See Note 3 and Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report for a further discussion of our acquisitions and debt. Excluding the payment of transaction expenses, cash provided by operating activities was $31.4 million, $33.0, and $57.7 million in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively.

Table of Contents

Our cash used in investing activities from continuing operations is summarized as follows (in millions):



	Year Ended
	December 26, 2010			December 25, 2011			December 30, 2012
Investing activities:
Cash paid for acquisitions, net of cash acquired	$	(206.5	)	$	(391.1	)	$	(149.4	)
Cash paid for contingent acquisition consideration	(0.4		)	—			—
Proceeds from the disposition of discontinued operations	0.1			—			0.3
Change in restricted cash	(0.1		)	3.0			0.6
Capital expenditures	(2.3		)	(7.5		)	(16.6		)
Net cash used in investing activities from continuing operations	$	(209.2	)	$	(395.6	)	$	(165.1	)

Cash paid for acquisitions accounted for the most significant outlays for investing activities for the years ended December 26, 2010, December 25, 2011, and December 30, 2012, in each case as a result of the implementation of our strategy to diversify our business through strategic acquisitions.

In 2010, we acquired four companies in cash and equity transactions. We acquired Gichner for $132.9 million, net of cash acquired of $0.1 million. We acquired DEI for $9.0 million, net of cash acquired of $0.0 million, and paid $0.4 million related to the DEI Contingent Consideration as a result of a collection milestone that was achieved. We acquired SCT for $11.8 million in cash, net of cash acquired of $0.4 million. On December 15, 2010, we purchased HBE for $52.9 million, net of cash acquired of $2.0 million.

In 2011, we acquired three companies in cash and equity transactions. We paid cash of approximately $248.9 million for Herley, net of cash acquired of $21.8 million. We paid approximately $124.6 million for the cash portion of the purchase of Integral common stock and options and to retire Integral's existing debt and capital leases, net of cash acquired of $6.8 million. We paid approximately $17.3 million in cash, net of cash acquired of $1.4 million for the acquisition of SecureInfo. In addition, we also paid $0.3 million to the SCT shareholders as SCT's indemnification obligations as set forth in the SCT Agreement were met.

On December 30, 2011, we acquired selected assets of the Critical Infrastructure Business for approximately $20.0 million which is reflected in our fiscal 2012 investing activities. On July 2, 2012, we completed the acquisition of CEI and paid approximately $135.0 million for the cash portion of the purchase of CEI common stock and to retire CEI's existing debt and capital leases. We reached settlements of total working capital adjustments owed to us for these acquisitions of $2.2 million which we will receive in 2013.

Capital expenditures consist primarily of investment in machinery, computer hardware and software, and improvement of our physical properties in order to maintain suitable conditions in which to conduct our business. The increase in capital expenditures of $9.1 million from $7.5 million in 2011 to $16.6 million in 2012 is primarily related to the full year's activity for Herley and Integral Systems as well as the 2012 activity for CEI.

Table of Contents

Cash provided by financing activities from continuing operations is summarized as follows (in millions):



	Year Ended
	December 26, 2010			December 25, 2011			December 30, 2012
Financing activities:
Proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt	$	225.0		$	425.7		$	—
Proceeds from the issuance of common stock	24.7			61.1			97.0
Cash paid for contingent acquisition consideration	—			—			(2.5		)
Borrowings under credit facility	61.9			—			50.0
Repayment under credit facility	(119.6		)	(2.7		)	(51.0		)
Purchase of treasury stock	—			(10.9		)	—
Debt issuance costs paid	(11.0		)	(22.1		)	(1.2		)
Proceeds from the exercise of restricted stock units, employee stock options, and employee stock purchase plan	1.7			2.0			—
Other	(0.8		)	(0.7		)	(1.4		)
Net cash provided by financing activities from continuing operations	$	181.9		$	452.4		$	90.9

During the year ended December 26, 2010, cash provided by financing activities was primarily related to the proceeds from the offering of 10% Senior Secured Notes in the aggregate amount of $225.0 million on May 19, 2010. The proceeds were primarily used to finance the acquisitions of Gichner and DEI, as well as, refinance our senior secured credit facility with KeyBank National Association (“KeyBank”) and Bank of America, N.A.

On October 12, 2010, we sold approximately 2.5 million shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $10.20 per share in an underwritten public offering. We received gross proceeds of approximately $25.8 million. After deducting underwriting fees and other offering expenses, we received approximately $24.7 million in net proceeds. We used the net proceeds from this transaction to fund the purchase price for the acquisition of HBE.

During the year ended December 25, 2011, cash provided by financing activities was primarily related to proceeds from equity and debt offerings which we used to finance our acquisitions. In March 2011, to finance the acquisition of Herley, we issued notes in the aggregate principal amount of $285.0 million and received approximately $20.0 million in premium for an effective interest rate on this issuance of 8.5%. In July 2011, to finance the acquisition of Integral, we issued notes in the aggregate principal amount of $115.0 million and received $5.7 million in premium for an effective interest rate of 8.9%. See Note 3 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report for a further discussion of these acquisitions. We also paid debt issuance costs of approximately $22.1 million related to these notes and the amendments to our credit facility discussed below.

In February 2011, we sold approximately 4.9 million shares of our common stock at a purchase price of $13.25 per share in an underwritten public offering. We received gross proceeds from the equity offering of approximately $64.8 million and after deducting underwriting and other offering expenses received approximately $61.1 million in net proceeds.

On December 1, 2011, we paid $10.9 million for a block transaction to repurchase 2.0 million shares of our common stock in the open market from an institutional investor for $5.45 per share.

In April 2012, we paid $2.5 million in contingent acquisition consideration related to the DEI Services Corporation performance milestones achieved in 2011.

On May 15, 2012, we sold 20.0 million shares of common stock at a purchase price of $5.00 per share in an underwritten public offering. We received gross proceeds of $100.0 million. After deducting underwriting and other offering expenses, we received approximately $97.0 million in net proceeds. We used the net proceeds from this offering as well as borrowings of $40.0 million from our revolving line of credit to fund the cash consideration paid to the stockholders of CEI in

Table of Contents

connection with our acquisition in July 2, 2012. In September, 2012, we repaid the $40.0 million borrowed on our revolving line of credit for the acquisition of CEI.

See “Contractual Obligations and Commitments” for a further discussion of our Senior Secured Notes, our Credit Facility and debt obligations.

Cash provided by (used in) discontinued operations is summarized as follows (in millions):



	Year Ended
	December 26, 2010			December 25, 2011			December 30, 2012
Net cash flows provided by (used in) discontinued operations	$	(0.1	)	$	(2.7	)	$	1.3

Operating cash flows used by discontinued operations are primarily due to the Southeast Division of PSS in 2010 and the operations of the non-core businesses from the Integral acquisition that have been classified as held for sale in 2011 and 2012.

10% Senior Secured Notes due 2017

In order to fund our acquisitions in 2010, 2011, and 2012 we have issued equity as discussed above and increased our leverage through a series of financing transactions.

On May 19, 2010, we entered into an Indenture with the guarantors set forth therein and Wilmington Trust FSB (“Wilmington Trust”), as trustee and collateral agent (as amended, the “Indenture”) to issue 10% Senior Secured Notes due 2017 (“Notes”). As of December 30, 2012, we have issued $625.0 million in aggregate principal amount of Notes under this Indenture. The Notes were issued in three separate offerings, each as described more fully below. The Notes have been used to fund acquisitions and for general corporate purposes. They are secured by a lien on substantially all of our assets and the assets of the guarantors thereunder, subject to certain exceptions and permitted liens. The holders of the Notes have a first priority lien on substantially all of our assets and the assets of the guarantors, except accounts receivable, inventory, deposit accounts, securities accounts, cash, securities and general intangibles (other than intellectual property) where the holders of the Notes have a second priority lien to the $110.0 million credit facility described below.

We pay interest on the Notes semi-annually, in arrears, on June 1 and December 1 of each year. The Notes include customary covenants and events of default as well as a consolidated fixed charge ratio of 2.0:1.0 for the incurrence of additional indebtedness. Negative covenants include, among other things, limitations on additional debt, liens, negative pledges, investments, dividends, stock repurchases, asset sales and affiliate transactions. Events of default include, among other events, non-performance of covenants, breach of representations, cross-default to other material debt, bankruptcy, insolvency, material judgments and changes in control. As of December 30, 2012, we were in compliance with the covenants contained in the Indenture governing the Notes.

On or after June 1, 2014, we may redeem some or all of the Notes at 105% of the aggregate principal amount of such Notes through June 1, 2015, 102.5% of the aggregate principal amount of such Notes through June 1, 2016 and 100% of the aggregate principal amount of such Notes thereafter, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the date of redemption. Prior to June 1, 2013, we may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes at 110% of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes, plus accrued and unpaid interest to the redemption date, with the net cash proceeds of certain equity offerings. In addition, we may, at our option, redeem some or all of the Notes at any time prior to June 1, 2014, by paying a “make whole” premium, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the date of redemption. The Company may also at any time purchase outstanding Notes traded on the open market.

$225 Million 10% Senior Secured Note Offering, May 2010

On May 19, 2010, we issued Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $225.0 million in an unregistered offering pursuant to Rule 144A and Regulation S under the Securities Act, and on August 11, 2010, we completed an exchange offer for such Notes pursuant to a registration rights agreement entered into in connection with the issuance thereof. The proceeds were primarily used to finance the acquisitions of Gichner, DEI and SCT.

$285 Million 10% Senior Secured Note Offering, March 2011

Table of Contents

On March 25, 2011, we issued Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $285.0 million in an unregistered offering pursuant to Rule 144A and Regulation S under the Securities Act. We received approximately $314.0 million in cash proceeds from the issuance of such Notes, which includes an approximate $20.0 million of issuance premiums and $9.0 million of accrued interest, which proceeds were used, together with our cash contributions of $45.0 million, to finance the acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Herley, to pay related fees and expenses and for general corporate purposes. The effective interest rate on this issuance was 8.5%. On July 29, 2011, we completed an exchange offer for these Notes pursuant to a registration rights agreement entered into in connection with the issuance thereof.

$115 Million 10% Senior Secured Note Offering, July 2011

On July 27, 2011, we issued Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $115.0 million in an unregistered offering pursuant to Rule 144A and Regulation S under the Securities Act. We received approximately $122.5 million in cash proceeds from the issuance of such Notes, which includes an approximate $5.8 million of issuance premiums and $1.7 million of accrued interest. These proceeds were used to finance, in part, the cash portion of the purchase price for the acquisition of Integral, to refinance existing indebtedness of Integral, to make certain severance payments in connection with the acquisition of Integral and to pay related fees and expenses. The effective interest rate on this issuance was 8.9%. On December 2, 2011, we completed an exchange offer for these Notes pursuant to a registration rights agreement entered into in connection with the issuance thereof.

Other Indebtedness

$110.0 Million Credit Facility

On July 27, 2011, we entered into a credit and security agreement with KeyBank National Association (“KeyBank”), as lead arranger, sole book runner and administrative agent, and East West Bank and Bank of the West, as the lenders (the “2011 Credit Agreement”). The 2011 Credit Agreement amends and restates in its entirety the credit and security agreement, dated as of May 19, 2010, by and among the Company, KeyBank and the lenders named therein (as amended). The 2011 Credit Agreement establishes a five-year senior secured revolving credit facility in the amount of $65.0 million (as amended as described below, the “Amended Revolver”). The Amended Revolver is secured by a lien on substantially all of our assets and the assets of the guarantors thereunder, subject to certain exceptions and permitted liens. The Amended Revolver has a first priority lien on accounts receivable, inventory, deposit accounts, securities accounts, cash, securities and general intangibles (other than intellectual property). On all other assets, the Amended Revolver has a second priority lien junior to the lien securing the Notes.

Borrowings under the Amended Revolver are subject to mandatory prepayment upon the occurrence of certain events, including the issuance of certain securities, the incurrence of certain debt and the sale or other disposition of certain assets. The Amended Revolver includes customary affirmative and negative covenants and events of default, as well as a financial covenant relating to a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio of 1.25. Negative covenants include, among other things, limitations on additional debt, liens, negative pledges, investments, dividends, stock repurchases, asset sales and affiliate transactions. Events of default include, among other events, non-performance of covenants, breach of representations, cross-default to other material debt, bankruptcy and insolvency, material judgments and changes in control.

On November 14, 2011, we entered into a first amendment (the “First Amendment”) to the 2011 Credit Agreement. Among other things, the First Amendment: (i) increased the amount of the Amended Revolver from $65.0 million to $90.0 million; (ii) added to and modified the definitions of certain terms contained in the 2011 Credit Agreement; (iii) added PNC Bank, National Association as a lender under the 2011 Credit Agreement; and (iv) updated certain schedules to the 2011 Credit Agreement.

On May 4, 2012, we entered into a second amendment (the “Second Amendment”) to the 2011 Credit Agreement. Among other things, the Second Amendment (i) increased the amount of the Amended Revolver from $90.0 million to $110.0 million, (ii) added to and modified the definitions of certain terms contained in the 2011 Credit Agreement, (iii) added Cathay Bank as a lender under the 2011 Credit Agreement, (iv) increased the maximum revolving amount capacity of the 2011Credit Agreement to $135.0 million, and (v) updated certain schedules to the 2011 Credit Agreement.

On May 8, 2012, we entered into a third amendment (the “Third Amendment”) to the 2011 Credit Agreement. Under the terms of the Third Amendment, the definitions of certain terms of the 2011 Credit Agreement were modified and the acquisition of CEI was approved. We used the net proceeds from the sale of 20.0 million shares of our common stock, together

Table of Contents

with a $40.0 million borrowing under the Amended Revolver, to fund the purchase of the CEI and to pay related fees and expenses. In September 2012, we repaid the $40.0 million borrowing under our credit facility.

The amounts of borrowings that may be made under the Amended Revolver are based on a borrowing base and are comprised of specified percentages of eligible receivables, eligible unbilled receivables and eligible inventory. If the amount of borrowings outstanding under the Amended Revolver exceeds the borrowing base then in effect, we are required to repay such borrowings in an amount sufficient to eliminate such excess. The Amended Revolver includes $50.0 million of availability for letters of credit and $10.0 million of availability for swing line loans.

We may borrow funds under the Amended Revolver at a rate based either on LIBOR or a base rate established by KeyBank. Base rate borrowings bear interest at an applicable margin of 1.00% to 1.75% over the base rate (which will be the greater of the prime rate or 0.5% over the federal funds rate, with a floor of 1.0% over one month LIBOR). LIBOR rate borrowings will bear interest at an applicable margin of 3.00% to 3.75% over the LIBOR rate. The applicable margin for base rate borrowings and LIBOR borrowings will depend on the average monthly revolving credit availability. The Amended Revolver also has a commitment fee of 0.50% to 0.75%, depending on the average monthly revolving credit availability. As of December 30, 2012, there were no outstanding borrowings on the Amended Revolver and $15.7 million was outstanding on letters of credit resulting in net borrowing base availability of $89.4 million. We were in compliance with the financial covenants as of December 30, 2012.

Debt Acquired in Acquisition of Herley

We assumed a $10.0 million ten-year term loan with a bank in Israel that Herley entered into on September 16, 2008 in connection with the acquisition of one of its wholly owned subsidiaries. The balance as of December 30, 2012 was $5.7 million, and the loan is payable in quarterly installments of $0.3 million plus interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 1.5%. The loan agreement contains various covenants including a minimum net equity covenant as defined in the loan agreement. We were in compliance with the financial covenants of the loan agreement as of December 30, 2012.

On October 19, 2001, Herley received $3.0 million in proceeds from the East Hempfield Township Industrial Development Authority Variable Rate Demand/Fixed Rate Revenue Bonds Series of 2001 (the “IDA Bonds”). The IDA Bonds were due in varying annual installments through October 1, 2021. Proceeds from the IDA Bonds were used for the construction of a 15,000 square foot expansion of Herley's facilities in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and for manufacturing equipment. The IDA Bonds were paid in full on May 2, 2011.

Notes Acquired in Acquisition of SYS

During 2010, convertible notes of approximately $1.0 million which were acquired as a result of the SYS acquisition were paid in full. In August of 2010, we paid-off approximately $0.5 million of the notes plus accrued interest in cash and holders of approximately $0.5 million of the notes elected to have their notes converted into approximately 45,000 shares of our common stock.

Payments in Connection with Acquisitions

In connection with our business acquisitions, we have agreed to make additional future payments to sellers based on final purchase price adjustments and the expiration of certain indemnification obligations. Pursuant to the provisions of Topic 805, such amounts are recorded at fair value on the acquisition date.

The agreement and plan of merger entered into in connection with our acquisition of SecureInfo provided that upon achievement of certain cash receipts, revenue and EBITDA in 2011, we were obligated to pay the former stockholders of SecureInfo additional cash contingent consideration. In March 2012, we paid $1.5 million related to this contingent consideration.

Pursuant to the terms of the agreement and plan of merger with DEI Services Corporation entered into on August 9, 2010 (“the DEI Agreement”), upon achievement of certain cash receipts, revenue, EBITDA and backlog amounts in 2010, 2011 and 2012, we will be obligated to pay certain additional contingent consideration (the “DEI Contingent Consideration”). We have paid $2.9 million related to the DEI Contingent Consideration of which $2.5 million was paid in April 2012. As of December 30, 2012, the undiscounted amount of future DEI Contingent Consideration that is payable by us under the DEI Agreement is $2.1 million which will be paid in the second quarter of 2013.

Table of Contents

The SCT Agreement provides that upon achievement of certain EBITDA amounts in 2011, 2012 and 2013, we shall pay the former stockholders of SCT certain additional performance-based consideration. The potential undiscounted amount of all future contingent consideration that may be payable by us under the SCT Agreement is between zero and $3.5 million. To date there have been no amounts earned related to 2011 and 2012.

There were no contingent liabilities associated with the acquisition of HBE other than contingent liabilities of $0.4 million associated with HBE's acquisition of Professional Security Technologies LLC (“PST”) in September 2010. The agreement with PST provides that the former shareholders of PST receive a 5% payment for achievement of revenue amounts from certain customers for the period from June 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

We have no off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in Regulation S-K, Item 303(a)(4)(ii).

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following table summarizes our contractual obligations and other commitments at December 30, 2012, and the effect such obligations could have on our liquidity and cash flow in future periods (in millions):



	Payments due/forecast by Period
		Total		2013		2014 - 2015		2016 - 2017		2018 and After
Debt, net of interest(1)		$	630.7	$	1.0	$	2.0	$	627.0	$	0.7
Estimated interest on debt(2)		0.9		0.5		0.4		—		—
Purchase orders(3)		276.7		62.7		125.3		88.7		—
Operating leases(4)		161.2		146.0		15.2		—		—
Capital leases(4)		103.4		18.4		34.6		27.1		23.3
Contingent acquisition payments		2.1		2.1		—		—		—
Unrecognized tax benefits, including interest and penalties(5)		—		—		—		—		—
Total commitments and recorded liabilities		$	1,175.0	$	230.7	$	177.5	$	742.8	$	24.0


(1)	The Notes in the aggregate principal amount of $625 million are due June 1, 2017. See Note 5 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report for further details.


(2)	Includes interest payments based on current interest rates for variable rate debt and the Notes. See Note 5 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within in this Annual Report for further details.


(3)	Purchase orders include commitments in which a written purchase order has been issued to a vendor, but the goods have not been received or services have not been performed.


(4)	We have entered into or acquired various non-cancelable operating lease agreements that expire on various dates through 2022. The amounts include $18.7 million in excess facility costs and exclude expected sublease income. See Note 6 in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report for further details.


(5)	Our Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 30, 2012 included a $3.3 million noncurrent liability for uncertain tax positions, all of which may result in cash payments. The future payments related to uncertain tax positions have not been presented in the table above due to the uncertainty of the amounts and timing of cash settlement with the taxing authorities.

As of December 30, 2012, we have $15.7 million of standby letters of credit outstanding. Our letters of credit are primarily related to milestone payments received from foreign customers for which the customer has not yet received the product, our prior workers compensation program, and our performance bond program for work performed in the PSS segment. Additional information regarding our financial commitments at December 30, 2012 is provided in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this Annual Report, specifically Note 15.

Other Liquidity Matters

Table of Contents

We intend to fund our cash requirements with cash flows from operating activities and borrowings under the Amended Revolver. We believe these sources should be sufficient to meet our cash needs for at least the next 12 months. As discussed in Item 1A, “Risk Factors” contained within this Annual Report, our quarterly and annual operating results have fluctuated in the past and may vary in the future due to a variety of factors, many of which are external to our control. If the conditions in our industry deteriorate or our customers cancel or postpone projects or if we are unable to sufficiently increase our revenues or further reduce our expenses, we may experience, in the future, a significant long-term negative impact to our financial results and cash flows from operations. In such a situation, we could fall out of compliance with our financial and other covenants which, if not waived, could limit our liquidity and capital resources.

Critical Accounting Principles and Estimates

We have identified the following critical accounting policies that affect our more significant judgments and estimates used in the preparation of our Consolidated Financial Statements. The preparation of our financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, stockholders' equity, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. On a periodic basis, as deemed necessary, we evaluate our estimates, including those related to revenue recognition, allowance for doubtful accounts, valuation of inventory including the reserves for excess and obsolete inventory, valuation of long-lived assets including identifiable intangibles and goodwill, accounting for income taxes including the related valuation allowance, accruals for partial self-insurance, contingencies and litigation, contingent acquisition consideration and stock-based compensation. We explain these accounting policies in the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained within this Annual Report and at relevant sections in this discussion and analysis. These estimates are based on the information that is currently available and on various other assumptions that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results could vary from those estimates under different assumptions or conditions and such differences may be material.

Revenue recognition. We generate our revenue from three different types of contractual arrangements: cost-plus-fee contracts, time-and-materials contracts, and fixed-price contracts. Revenue on cost-plus-fee contracts is recognized to the extent of allowable costs incurred plus an estimate of the applicable fees earned. We consider fixed fees under cost-plus-fee contracts to be earned in proportion to the allowable costs incurred in performance of the contract. We recognize the relevant portion of the expected fee to be awarded by the customer at the time such fee can be reasonably estimated, based on factors such as our prior award experience and communications with the customer regarding performance, including any interim performance evaluations rendered by the customer. Revenue on time-and-materials contracts is recognized to the extent of billable rates times hours delivered for services provided, to the extent of material cost for products delivered to customers, and to the extent of expenses incurred on behalf of the customers.

We have three basic categories of fixed price contracts: fixed unit price, fixed price level of effort, and fixed price completion. Revenue recognition methods on fixed-price contracts will vary depending on the nature of the work and the contract terms. Revenues on fixed-price service contracts are recorded as work is performed in accordance with Topic 605. Topic 605 which generally requires revenue to be deferred until all of the following have occurred: (1) there is a contract in place, (2) delivery has occurred, (3) the price is fixed or determinable, and (4) collectability is reasonably assured. Revenues on fixed-price contracts that require delivery of specific items may be recorded based on a price per unit as units are delivered. Revenue for fixed price contracts in which we are paid a specific amount to provide services for a stated period of time is recognized ratably over the service period.

A portion of our fixed price completion contracts are within the scope of Topic 605. For these contracts, revenue is recognized using the percentage-of-completion method based on the ratio of total costs incurred to date compared to estimated total costs to complete the contract. Estimates of costs to complete include material, direct labor, overhead, and allowable indirect expenses for our government contracts. These cost estimates are reviewed and, if necessary, revised monthly on a contract-by-contract basis. If, as a result of this review, we determine that a loss on a contract is probable, then the full amount of estimated loss is charged to operations in the period it is determined that it is probable a loss will be realized from the full performance of the contract. In certain instances, when our customers have requested that we commence work prior to receipt of the contract award and funding we have incurred costs related to that specific anticipated contract, and we believe recoverability of the costs is probable, we may defer those costs incurred until the associated contract has been awarded and funded by the customer.

In accounting for our long-term contracts for production of products provided to the U.S. Government, we utilize both cost-to-cost and units produced measures under the percentage-of-completion method of accounting under the provisions of Topic 605. Under the units produced measure of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting, sales are recognized as the units are accepted by the customer generally using sales values for units in accordance with the contract terms. We estimate profit as the difference between total estimated revenue and total estimated cost of a contract and recognize that profit over the

Table of Contents

life of the contract based on units produced or as computed on the basis of the estimated final average unit costs plus profit. We classify contract revenues as product sales or service revenues depending upon the predominant attributes of the relevant underlying contracts. Significant management judgments and estimates, including but not limited to the estimated costs to complete projects, must be made and used in connection with the revenue recognized in any accounting period. A cancellation, schedule delay, or modification of a fixed-price contract which is accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method may adversely affect our gross margins for the period in which the contract is modified or canceled. Under certain circumstances, a cancellation or negative modification could result in us having to reverse revenue that we recognized in a prior period, thus significantly reducing the amount of revenues we recognize for the period in which the adjustment is made. Correspondingly, a positive modification may positively affect our gross margins. In addition, a schedule delay or modifications can result in an increase in estimated cost to complete the project, which would also result in an impact to our gross margin. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of our revenue for any period if management made different judgments or utilized different estimates.

It is our policy to review any arrangement containing software or software deliverables and services against the criteria contained in FASB ASC Topic 985, Software (“Topic 985”) and related technical practice aids. Under the provisions of Topic 985, we review the contract value of software deliverables and services and determine allocations of the contract value based on Vendor Specific Objective Evidence (“VSOE”). All software arrangements requiring significant production, modification, or customization of the software are accounted for in conformity with Topic 605.

Our contracts may include the provision of more than one of our services (“multiple element arrangements”). In these situations, we apply the guidance of Topic 605. Accordingly, for applicable arrangements, revenue recognition includes the proper identification of separate units of accounting and the allocation of revenue across all elements based on relative fair values, with proper consideration given to the guidance provided by other authoritative literature.

For multiple element arrangements that include hardware products containing software essential to the hardware products' functionality, undelivered software elements that relate to the hardware products' essential software, and undelivered non-software services, we allocate revenue to all deliverables based on their relative selling prices. In such circumstances, we use a hierarchy to determine the selling price to be used for allocating revenue to deliverables: (i) VSOE, (ii) third-party evidence of selling price (“TPE”), and (iii) best estimate of the selling price (“ESP”).

VSOE generally exists only when we sell the deliverable separately and is the price actually charged by us for that deliverable. TPE is determined based on competitor prices for similar deliverables when sold separately. Generally, our offerings contain significant differentiation such that comparable pricing of products with similar functionality cannot be obtained. Furthermore, we are unable to reliably determine what similar competitor products' selling prices are on a stand-alone basis. Therefore, we typically are not able to obtain TPE of selling price. ESP reflects our best estimates of what the selling prices of elements would be if they were sold regularly on a stand-alone basis. We determine ESP for a product or service by considering multiple factors including, but not limited to major product groupings, geographies, market conditions, competitive landscape, internal costs, gross margin objectives and pricing practices. The determination of ESP is made through consultation with our management, taking into consideration our marketing strategy.

We account for multiple element arrangements that consist only of software or software-related products, including the sale of upgrades to previously sold software, in accordance with industry specific software accounting guidance. For such transactions, revenue on arrangements that include multiple elements is allocated to each element based on the relative fair value of each element, and fair value is determined by VSOE. If we cannot objectively determine the fair value of any undelivered element included in such multiple element arrangements, we defer revenue until all elements are delivered and services have been performed, or until fair value can objectively be determined for any remaining undelivered elements. Under certain of our contractual arrangements, we may also recognize revenue for out-of-pocket expenses in accordance with Topic 605. Depending on the contractual arrangement, these expenses may be reimbursed with or without a fee.

Under certain of our contracts, we provide supplier procurement services and materials for our customers. We record revenue on these arrangements on a gross or net basis in accordance with Topic 605. Depending on the specific circumstances of the arrangement we consider the following criteria, among others, for recording revenue on a gross or net basis:


(1)	Whether we act as a principal in the transaction;


(2)	Whether we take title to the products;


(3)	Whether we assume risks and rewards of ownership, such as risk of loss for collection, delivery or returns;

Table of Contents


(4)	Whether we serve as an agent or broker, with compensation on a commission or fee basis; and


(5)	Whether we assume the credit risk for the amount billed to the customer subsequent to delivery.

For our federal contracts, we follow U.S. Government procurement and accounting standards in assessing the allowability and the allocability of costs to contracts. Due to the significance of the judgments and estimation processes, it is likely that materially different amounts could be recorded if we used different assumptions or if the underlying circumstances were to change. We closely monitor compliance with, and the consistent application of, our critical accounting policies related to contract accounting. Business operations personnel conduct periodic contract status and performance reviews. When adjustments in estimated contract revenues or costs are required, any significant changes from prior estimates are included in earnings in the current period. Also, regular and recurring evaluations of contract cost, scheduling and technical matters are performed by management personnel who are independent from the business operations personnel performing work under the contract. Costs incurred and allocated to contracts with the U.S. Government are scrutinized for compliance with regulatory standards by our personnel, and are subject to audit by the DCAA.

From time to time, we may proceed with work based on client direction prior to the completion and signing of formal contract documents. We have a formal review process for approving any such work. Revenue associated with such work is recognized only when it can be reliably estimated and realization is probable. We base our estimates on previous experiences with the client, communications with the client regarding funding status, and our knowledge of available funding for the contract or program.

Allowance for doubtful accounts. We maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses resulting from the potential inability of certain customers to make required future payments on amounts due to us. Management determines the adequacy of this allowance by periodically evaluating the aging and past due nature of individual customer accounts receivable balances and considering the customer's current financial situation as well as the existing industry economic conditions and other relevant factors that would be useful towards assessing the risk of collectability. If the future financial condition of our customers were to deteriorate, resulting in their inability to make specific required payments, additions to the allowance for doubtful accounts may be required. In addition, if the financial condition of our customers improves and collections of amounts outstanding commence or are reasonably assured, then we may reverse previously established allowances for doubtful accounts. Changes to estimates of contract value are recorded as adjustments to revenue and not as a component of the allowance for doubtful accounts. We write off accounts receivable when they become uncollectible and payments subsequently received on such receivables are credited to the allowance for doubtful accounts.

Long-lived and Intangible Assets. We account for long-lived assets in accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 360 Property, Plant, and Equipment (“Topic 360”). Topic 360 addresses financial accounting and reporting for the impairment or disposal of long-lived assets and requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability is measured by comparing the carrying amount of an asset to the expected future net cash flows generated by the asset. If it is determined that the asset may not be recoverable and if the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated fair value, an impairment charge is recognized to the extent of the difference. Topic 360 requires companies to separately report discontinued operations, including components of an entity that either have been disposed of (by sale, abandonment or in a distribution to owners) or classified as held for sale. Assets to be disposed of are reported at the lower of the carrying amount or fair value less costs to sell.

In accordance with Topic 360, we assess the impairment of identifiable intangibles and long-lived assets whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value may not be recoverable. Factors we consider important which could individually or in combination trigger an impairment review include the following:


•	significant underperformance relative to expected historical or projected future operating results;


•	significant changes in the manner of our use of the acquired assets or the strategy for our overall business;


•	significant negative industry or economic trends;


•	significant decline in our stock price for a sustained period; and


•	our market capitalization relative to net book value.

If we determined that the carrying value of intangibles and long-lived assets may not be recoverable based upon the existence of one or more of the above indicators of impairment, we would record an impairment equal to the excess of the carrying amount of the asset over its estimated fair value.

Table of Contents

Goodwill and Purchased Intangibles. The purchase price of an acquired business is allocated to the underlying tangible and intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed based upon their respective fair market values, with the excess recorded as goodwill. Such fair market value assessments require judgments and estimates that can be affected by contract performance and other factors over time, which may cause final amounts to differ materially from original estimates. For acquisitions completed through December 30, 2012, adjustments to fair value assessments are recorded to goodwill over the purchase price allocation period (not exceeding twelve months). Adjustments related to income tax uncertainties for acquired businesses within the allocation periods through December 30, 2012 were also recorded to goodwill.

We have established certain accruals in connection with indemnities and other contingencies from our acquisitions. These accruals and subsequent adjustments have been recorded during the purchase price allocation period for acquisitions. The accruals were determined based upon the terms of the purchase or sales agreements and, in most cases; involve a significant degree of judgment. Management has recorded these accruals in accordance with its interpretation of the terms of the purchase or sale agreements, known facts, and an estimation of probable future events based on management's experience. Any changes to recorded estimates will be recognized through earnings.

We perform our impairment test for goodwill in accordance with Topic 350. We assess goodwill for impairment at the reporting unit level, which is defined as an operating segment or one level below an operating segment, referred to as a component. We determine our reporting units by first identifying our operating segments, and then assessing whether any components of these segments constitute a business for which discrete financial information is available and where segment management regularly reviews the operating results of that component. We aggregate components within an operating segment that have similar economic characteristics. For our annual and interim impairment assessments, we identified our reporting units to be our operating segments, which are the KGS and PSS segments.

We perform impairment tests for goodwill as of the last day of our fiscal year, or when evidence of potential impairment exists. When it is determined that impairment has occurred, a charge to operations is recorded. In order to test for potential impairment, we estimate the fair value of each of our reporting units based on a comparison and weighting of the income approach, specifically the discounted cash flow (“DCF”) method and the market approach, which estimates the fair value of our reporting units based upon comparable market prices and recent transactions and also validates the reasonableness of the implied multiples from the income approach. We reconcile the fair value of our reporting units to our market capitalization by calculating our market capitalization based upon an average of our stock price prior to and subsequent to the date we perform our analysis and assuming a control premium.

In testing for impairment of our goodwill, we make assumptions about the amount and timing of future expected cash flows, terminal growth rates, appropriate discount rates, market multiples, and the control premium a controlling shareholder could be expected to pay:

•

The timing of future cash flows within our DCF analysis is based on our most recent forecasts and other estimates. Our historical growth rates and operating results are not indicative of our projected growth rates and operating results as a consequence of our acquisitions and divestitures. The decline in revenues on a pro forma basis after considering acquisitions, which was expected by us, is primarily due to the impact of the conversion of our work as a prime contractor under certain legacy small business awards to that of a subcontractor as well as the recent commoditization experienced in traditional services businesses. This change resulted in an award of an overall smaller portion of the entire project as the contracts were recompeted and the original term of the small business contracts were completed. The conversion of work as a prime to a subcontractor related to legacy small business contracts awarded to the acquired companies is not uncommon in the government defense contractor industry for companies that have been acquisitive. Our projected growth rates take into consideration this anticipated impact on small business awards.


•	The terminal growth rate is used to calculate the value of cash flows beyond the last projected period in our DCF analysis and reflects our best estimates for stable, perpetual growth of our reporting units.

•

We use estimates of market participant weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”) as a basis for determining the discount rates to apply to our reporting units' future expected cash flows. The significant assumptions within our WACC are: (a) equity risk premium, (b) beta, (c) size premium adjustments, (d) cost of debt and (e) capital structure assumptions. In addition, we use a company specific risk adjustment which is a subjective adjustment that, by its very nature does not include market related data, but instead examines the prospects of the reporting unit relative to the broader industry to determine if there are specific factors which may make it more “risky” relative to the industry.

Table of Contents


•	Recent historical market multiples are used to estimate future market pricing.

•

We use an estimated control premium in reconciling the aggregate value of our reporting units to our market capitalization. As discussed in Topic 350, control premiums may effectively cause a company's aggregate fair value of its reporting unit(s) to exceed its current market capitalization due to the ability of a controlling shareholder to benefit from synergies and other intangible assets that arise from such control. As a result, the measurement of fair value of an entity with a collection of assets and liabilities that operate together to produce cash flows is different from the fair value measurement of that entity's individual securities, hence, the reason a control premium is paid.

While our methodology for evaluating goodwill and intangibles for impairment has always used the income and market approach, in the past the market approach was used solely to validate that the fair value derived from the income approach was comparable to its market peers. Beginning 2011, we used a weighting of the income and market approach to derive the fair value of our reporting units which resulted in a more conservative fair value.

The KGS reporting unit was impacted by continued declining market valuations and the economic uncertainty in the U.S. defense industry which resulted in the book value of KGS exceeding its fair value in step one of the impairment test. As a result during our annual test in 2012, we performed the second step of the goodwill impairment test to measure the amount of the impairment loss, if any. The second step of the test requires the allocation of the reporting unit's fair value to its assets and liabilities, including any unrecognized intangible assets, in a hypothetical analysis that calculates the implied fair value of goodwill as if the reporting unit was being acquired in a business combination. If the implied fair value of goodwill is less than the carrying value, the difference is recorded as an impairment loss. Based on the results of the step two analysis, we recorded an $82.0 million goodwill impairment related to the KGS reporting unit. As of December 30, 2012 the fair value of the PSS reporting unit substantially exceeded its carrying value.

We review intangible assets subject to amortization for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be recoverable. Impairment losses, where identified, are determined as the excess of the carrying value over the estimated fair value of the long-lived asset. We assess the recoverability of the carrying value of assets held for use based on a review of projected undiscounted cash flows. Prior to conducting step one of our 2012 goodwill impairment test, we reviewed certain of our long-lived assets for recoverability and recorded intangible asset impairment losses related to a change in the estimated life of trade names of $12.9 million and $1.7 million in our PSS and KGS reporting units, respectively. See Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of these intangible asset and goodwill impairments.

The goodwill of the PSS and KGS reporting units are $35.6 million and $560.9 million, respectively.

As a result of the assumptions used in our analysis, several factors could result in impairment of our $596.5 million goodwill and $106.1 million long-lived intangibles in future periods, including but not limited to, the risks discussed in Item 1A “Risk Factors” contained within this Annual Report and:


•	a decline in our stock price and resulting market capitalization, if we determine the decline is sustained and is indicative of a reduction in the fair value below the carrying value of our reporting units;


•	a decrease in available government funding, including budgetary constraints affecting U.S. Government spending generally, or specific departments or agencies;


•	changes in U.S. Government programs or requirements, including the increased use of small business providers;


•	our failure to reach our internal forecasts could impact our ability to achieve our forecasted levels of cash flows and reduce the estimated discounted value of our reporting units; and


•	volatility in equity and debt markets resulting in higher discount rates.

It is not possible at this time to determine if an impairment charge would result from these factors, or, if it does, whether such charge would be material. We will continue to monitor the recoverability of our goodwill.

Accounting for income taxes and tax contingencies. Topic 740 provides the accounting treatment for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprise's financial statements. Topic 740 prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attribute for the financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. Topic 740 also provides guidance on derecognizing, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition.

Table of Contents

As part of the process of preparing our Consolidated Financial Statements we are required to estimate our provision for income taxes in each of the tax jurisdictions in which we conduct business. This process involves estimating our actual current tax expense in conjunction with the evaluation and measurement of temporary differences resulting from differing treatment of certain items for tax and accounting purposes. These temporary differences result in the establishment of deferred tax assets and liabilities, which are recorded on a net basis and included in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. We then assess on a periodic basis the probability that our net deferred tax assets will be recovered and therefore realized from future taxable income and to the extent we believe that recovery is not more likely than not, a valuation allowance is established to address such risk resulting in an additional related provision for income taxes during the period.

Significant management judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes, our deferred tax assets and liabilities, tax contingencies, unrecognized tax benefits, and any required valuation allowance, including taking into consideration the probability of the tax contingencies being incurred. Management assesses this probability based upon information provided to us by our tax advisers, our legal advisers and similar tax cases. If at a later time our assessment of the probability of these tax contingencies changes, our accrual for such tax uncertainties may increase or decrease.

We have a valuation allowance at December 30, 2012, due to management's overall assessment of risks and uncertainties related to our future ability to realize and, hence, utilize certain deferred tax assets, primarily consisting of net operating losses, carry forward temporary differences and future tax deductions resulting from certain types of stock option exercises, before they expire.

The 2012 effective tax rate at December 30, 2012 for annual and interim reporting periods could be impacted if uncertain tax positions that are not recognized at December 30, 2012 are settled at an amount which differs from our estimate. Finally, during 2012 and thereafter, if we are impacted by a change in the valuation allowance as of December 30, 2012 resulting from a change in judgment regarding the realizability of deferred tax assets beyond December 30, 2012, such effect will be recognized in the interim period in which the change occurs.

Contingencies and litigation. We are currently involved in certain legal proceedings. We estimate a range of liability related to pending litigation where the amount and range of loss can be estimated. We record our estimate of a loss when the loss is considered probable and estimable. Where a liability is probable and there is a range of estimated loss and no amount in the range is more likely than any other number in the range, we record the minimum estimated liability related to the claim in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 450 Contingencies. As additional information becomes available, we assess the potential liability related to our pending litigation and revise our estimates. Revisions in our estimates of potential liability could materially impact our results of operations. See Item 3 “Legal Proceedings” contained within this Annual Report for additional information.

Stock-based Compensation. We account for stock-based compensation arrangements in accordance with the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 718, Compensation-Stock Compensation (“Topic 718”), which requires the measurement and recognition of compensation expense for all stock-based payment awards to employees and directors based on estimated fair values.

The valuation provisions of Topic 718 apply to new awards and to awards that are outstanding on the effective date and subsequently modified or canceled. We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to estimate the fair value of our stock options at the grant date. The Black-Scholes option pricing model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options which have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. Our employee stock options are generally subject to vesting restrictions and are generally not transferable.

Valuing options requires highly subjective assumptions including the expected stock price volatility over the term of the award, the expected life of an option and the number of awards ultimately expected to vest. Changes in these assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimates of an option. Furthermore, the estimated fair value of an option does not necessarily represent the value that will ultimately be realized by an employee. We used historical data to estimate the expected forfeiture rate, intrinsic and historical data to estimate the expected price volatility, and a weighted-average expected life formula to estimate the expected option life. The risk-free rate is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant for the estimated life of the option.

Estimates of stock-based compensation expenses are significant to our Consolidated Financial Statements, but these expenses are based on option valuation models and will never result in the payment of cash by us. For this reason, and because we do not view stock-based compensation to be significant as related to our operational performance, we exclude estimated stock-based compensation expense when evaluating the business performance of our operating segments.

Table of Contents

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In July 2012, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2012-02, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic 350) Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment (“ASU 2012-02”). ASU 2012-02 states that an entity has the option first to assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events and circumstances indicates that it is more likely than not that the indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired. If, after assessing the totality of events and circumstances, an entity concludes that it is not more likely than not that the indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired, then the entity is not required to take further action. However, if an entity concludes otherwise, then it is required to determine the fair value of the indefinite-lived intangible asset and perform the quantitative impairment test by comparing the fair value with the carrying amount in accordance with Subtopic 350-30. An entity also has the option to bypass the qualitative assessment for any indefinite-lived intangible asset in any period and proceed directly to performing the quantitative impairment test. An entity will be able to resume performing the qualitative assessment in any subsequent period. The amendment is effective for annual and interim impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2012. Early adoption is permitted, including for annual and interim impairment tests performed as of a date before July 27, 2012, if a public entity's financial statements for the most recent annual or interim period have not yet been issued or, for nonpublic entities, have not yet been made available for issuance. The adoption of this guidance will result in a change in how we perform our impairment testing for indefinite lived intangible assets. We do not believe that this guidance will have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic 350) (“ASU 2011-08”). ASU 2011-08 is intended to simplify how entities, both public and nonpublic, test goodwill for impairment. ASU 2011-08 permits an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is “more likely than not” that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in Topic 350. The more-likely-than-not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than 50%. ASU 2011-08 is effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is permitted, including for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed as of a date before September 15, 2011, if an entity's financial statements for the most recent annual or interim period have not yet been issued. The adoption of this guidance resulted in a change in how we performed our goodwill impairment assessment; however, it did not have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220)(“ASU 2011-05”). ASU No. 2011-5 revises the manner in which entities present comprehensive income in their financial statements. The guidance requires entities to report the components of comprehensive income in either a single, continuous statement or two separate but consecutive statements. ASU 2011-05 is required to be applied retrospectively. For public entities, the amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011 and early adoption is permitted. We elected early adoption which did not have a material impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRS (“ASU 2011-04”). ASU 2011-04 requires the disclosure of quantitative information about unobservable inputs used in the valuation processes, and a qualitative discussion around the sensitivity of the measurements. The guidance in ASU 2011-04 is to be applied prospectively. For public entities, the amendments are effective during interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. Early application by public entities is not permitted. The provisions of the new guidance did not have a material effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.

Interest Rate and Foreign Currency Risks

We are exposed to market risk, primarily related to interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates.

Exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates relates to our outstanding debt. We are exposed to interest rate risk, primarily through our borrowing activities under the Amended Revolver discussed under "Liquidity and Capital Resources" above. Based on our current outstanding balances, a 1% change in the LIBOR rate would not materially impact our financial position. We manage exposure to these risks through our operating and financing activities and, when deemed appropriate, through the use of derivative financial instruments. Derivative financial instruments are viewed as risk management tools and are not used for speculation or for trading purposes. Derivative financial instruments were contracted with investment grade counterparties to reduce exposure to interest rate risk on our prior credit facilities.

Table of Contents

Exposure to market risk for foreign currency exchange rate risk is related to receipts from customers, payments to suppliers and intercompany loans denominated in foreign currencies. Accordingly, a strengthening of the U.S. dollar ("USD") will negatively impact revenues and gross margins expressed in consolidated USD terms. We currently do not enter into foreign currency forward contracts to manage foreign currency exchange rate risk because to date exchange rate fluctuations have had minimal impact on our operating results and cash flows.

Cash and cash equivalents as of December 30, 2012 were $49.0 million and are primarily invested in money market interest bearing accounts. A hypothetical 10% adverse change in the average interest rate on our money market cash investments and short-term investments would have had no material effect on our net loss for the year ended December 30, 2012.

Commodity Price Risk Management

We purchase commodities for use in our manufacturing processes. We typically purchase these commodities at market prices, and as a result are affected by market price fluctuations. We have decided not to hedge these exposures as they are deemed immaterial.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

Our Consolidated Financial Statements and supplementary data required by this item are set forth at the pages indicated in Item 15(a) (1) and 15(a) (2), respectively.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures.

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Exchange Act, designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC's rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognized that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management necessarily was required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.

As required by Rule 13a-15(b) and 15d-15(b) promulgated under the Exchange Act, we carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this Annual Report. Based on the foregoing, our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of December 30, 2012

Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f), designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that internal controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies and procedures may deteriorate.

Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on the results of our evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 30, 2012.

Table of Contents

Our internal control over financial reporting has been audited by Grant Thornton LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in their report appearing below, which expresses an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 30, 2012.

Table of Contents

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Except as set forth below, there were no changes in our internal control over financial accounting and reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act) during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended December 30, 2012 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Scope of Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

As described throughout this Annual Report, during the year ended December 30, 2012 we acquired CEI which is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours. While our financial statements for the year ended December 30, 2012 include the results of CEI from July 2, 2012 acquisition date through December 30, 2012, as permitted by the rules and regulations of the SEC, our management's assessment of our internal control over financial reporting did not include an evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting for CEI. Further, our management's conclusion regarding the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 30, 2012 does not extend to the internal control over financial reporting for CEI.

We are currently integrating policies, processes, technology and operations for the consolidated company and will continue to evaluate our internal control over financial reporting as we develop and execute our integration plans. Until CEI is fully integrated, we will maintain the operational integrity of its legacy internal control over financial reporting. CEI constituted $166.9 million of total assets as of December 30, 2012 and $68.2 million of revenues for the year then ended.

Table of Contents

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Stockholders

Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.

We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) as of December 30, 2012, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (“Management's Report”). Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. Our audit of, and opinion on, the Company's internal control over financial reporting does not include the internal control over financial reporting of Composite Engineering, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary, whose financial statements reflect total assets and revenues constituting 13.0 and 7.0 percent, respectively, of the related consolidated financial statement amounts as of and for the year ended December 30, 2012. As indicated in Management's Report, Composite Engineering, Inc. was acquired during 2012, and therefore, management's assertion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting excluded internal control over financial reporting of Composite Engineering, Inc.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 30, 2012, based on criteria established in Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by COSO.

We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the year ended December 30, 2012, and our report dated March 12, 2013 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

San Diego, California

March 12, 2013

Table of Contents

Item 9B. Other Information

None

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our definitive proxy statement filed in connection with our 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders or an amendment to this Annual Report to be filed with the SEC within 120 days after the close of our fiscal year ended December 30, 2012.

Item 11. Executive Compensation.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services.

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statements Schedules.


(a)(1)	Financial Statements

The Consolidated Financial Statements of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Report of Grant Thornton LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, are included in a separate section of this Annual Report beginning on page F-1.


(a)(2)	Financial Statement Schedules

Schedules not listed above have been omitted because they are not applicable or are not required or the information required to be set forth therein is included in the Consolidated Financial Statements or the notes thereto.

Table of Contents

(a) (3). Exhibits.



		Incorporated by Reference
Exhibit Number	Exhibit Description	Form	Filing Date/ Period End Date	Exhibit	Filed- Furnished Herewith
2.1+	Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated February 20, 2008 by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., White Shadow, Inc. and SYS.	8-K	02/22/2008 (000-27231)	2.1
2.2+	Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 12, 2010, by and between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and the Stockholders of Gichner Holdings, Inc.	8-K	04/12/2010	2.1
2.3+	Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 5, 2010, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Hammer Acquisition Inc. and Henry Bros. Electronics, Inc.	8-K	10/7/2010	2.1
2.4	Amendment to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated November 13, 2010, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Hammer Acquisition Inc. and Henry Bros. Electronics, Inc.	8-K	11/15/2010	2.1
2.5+	Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 7, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Lanza Acquisition, Co. and Herley Industries, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Annex A to the Prospectus Supplement dated February 8, 2011, pursuant to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.)	424	02/08/11	n/a
2.6+	Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 15, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Integral Systems, Inc., IRIS Merger Sub Inc., and IRIS Acquisition Sub LLC.	8-K	05/18/11	2.1
2.7+	Stock Purchase Agreement, dated May 8, 2012, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Composite Engineering, Inc., and Amy Fournier, the stockholders representative	8-K	05/08/12	2.1
3.1	Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc	10-Q	09/30/2001 (000-27231)	4.1
3.2	Certificate of Ownership and Merger of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. into Wireless Facilities, Inc.	8-K	09/14/2007 (000-27231)	3.1
3.3	Certificate of Amendment to Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.	10-Q	09/27/2009 (001-34460)	3.1
3.4	Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series A Preferred Stock.	10-Q	09/30/2001 (000-27231)	4.2

Table of Contents



		Incorporated by Reference
Exhibit Number	Exhibit Description	Form	Filing Date/ Period End Date	Exhibit	Filed- Furnished Herewith
3.5	Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series B Preferred Stock (included as Exhibit A to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of May 16, 2002 among the Company, Meritech Capital Partners II L.P., Meritech Capital Affiliates II L.P., MCB Entrepreneur Partners II L.P., Oak Investment Partners X, Limited Partnership, Oak X Affiliates Fund, Limited Partnership, Oak Investment Partners IX, L.P, Oak Affiliates Fund, L.P, Oak IX Affiliates Fund-A, L.P, and the KLS Trust dated July 14, 1999).	8-K/A	06/5/2002 (000-27231)	4.1
3.6	Certificate of Designation of Series C Preferred Stock.	8-K	12/17/2004 (000-27231)	3.1
3.7	Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.	8-K	03/15/2011	3.1
4.1	Specimen Stock Certificate.	10-K	12/26/2010	4.1
4.2	Rights Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2004, between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Wells Fargo, N.A.	8-K	12/17/2004 (000-27231)	4.1
4.3	Amendment No. 1 to Rights Agreement, dated as of May 14, 2012, between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Wells Fargo, N.A.	8-K	05/15/2012	4.1
4.4	Indenture, dated as of May 19, 2010, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the Guarantors set forth therein and Wilmington Trust FSB, as Trustee and Collateral Agent (including the Form of 10% Senior Secured Notes due 2017 as an exhibit thereto).	8-K	05/25/2010	4.1
4.5	First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of February 7, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the guarantors listed on Exhibit A thereto and Wilmington Trust FSB, to the Indenture, dated as of May 19, 2010 (as amended or supplemented), among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust FSB, as trustee and collateral agent.	8-K	02/07/2011	10.2
4.6	Supplemental Indenture, dated April 1, 2011, among the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Wilmington Trust FSB, as trustee, to the Indenture (as amended or supplemented), dated as of May 19, 2010, among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust FSB, as trustee and collateral agent.	8-K	04/07/2011	4.1

Table of Contents



		Incorporated by Reference
Exhibit Number	Exhibit Description	Form	Filing Date/ Period End Date	Exhibit	Filed- Furnished Herewith
4.7	Third Supplemental Indenture, dated April 15, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Wilmington Trust FSB, as trustee and collateral agent, to the Indenture, dated as of May 19, 2010 (as amended or supplemented), among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust FSB, as trustee and collateral agent.	8-K	04/20/2011	4.1
4.8	Sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated July 27, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the guaranteeing subsidiaries named therein and Wilmington Trust, National Association (as successor by merger to Wilmington Trust FSB), as trustee and collateral agent, to the Indenture, dated as of May 19, 2010 (as amended or supplemented), among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the guarantors party thereto and Wilmington Trust FSB, as trustee and collateral agent.	8-K	07/29/2011	4.1
4.9	Form of 10% Senior Secured Note due 2017 (issuable in connection with the 2010 exchange offer).	S-4	06/28/10	4.1
4.10	Form of 10% Senior Secured Note due 2017 (issuable in connection with the August 2011 exchange offer).	S-4	06/07/2011	4.2
4.11	Form of 10% Senior Secured Note due 2017 (issuable in connection with the October 2011 exchange offer).	S-4	10/25/2011	4.2
4.12	Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of May 19, 2010, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the Guarantors set forth therein, Jefferies & Company, Inc., B. Riley & Co., LLC, Imperial Capital, LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. and Noble International Investments, Inc.	8-K	05/25/2010	10.4
4.13	Indenture, dated March 25, 2011, by and among Acquisition Co. Lanza Parent, the Guarantors named therein and a party thereto, and Wilmington Trust FSB, as Trustee and Collateral Agent (including the Form of 10% Senior Secured Notes).	8-K	03/29/2011	4.1
4.14	First Supplemental Indenture, date April 4, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Herley Industries, Inc. and Wilmington Trust FSB, as Trustee and Collateral Agent, to the Indenture, dated as of March 25, 2011, among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the Guarantor party thereto and Wilmington Trust FSB, as Trustee and Collateral Agent.	8-K	04/04/2011	4.2

Table of Contents



		Incorporated by Reference
Exhibit Number	Exhibit Description	Form	Filing Date/ Period End Date	Exhibit	Filed- Furnished Herewith
4.15	Registration Rights Agreement, dated March 25, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., Acquisition Co. Lanza Parent, Lanza Acquisition Co., the Guarantors named therein, Jefferies & Company, Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.	8-K	03/29/2011	4.2
4.16	Registration Rights Agreement, dated July 27, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., the guarantors named therein, Jefferies & Company, Inc., KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc. and B. Riley & Co., LLC.	8-K	07/29/2011	4.2
10.1	Commitment Letter, dated February 7, 2011, by and among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Jefferies Group, Inc., Key Capital Corporation and OPY Credit Corp.	8-K	02/07/2011	10.1
10.2#	Form of Indemnification Agreement by and between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and its directors and executive officers.	10-Q	06/26/2011	10.8
10.3#	2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan.	10-Q	9/30/2000 (000-27231)	10.2
10.4#	Form of Stock Option Agreement and Grant Notice used in connection with the 2000 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan.	10-Q	09/30/2000 (000-27231)	10.3
10.5#	Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan.	10-K	12/31/2005 (000-27231)	10.44
10.6#	2005 Equity Incentive Plan.	S-8	08/01/2005 (333-127060)	99.1
10.7#	Form of Stock Option Agreement pursuant to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan.	S-8	08/01/2005 (333-127060)	99.1
10.8#	Form of Restricted Stock Unit Agreement and Form of Notice of Grant under the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan.	8-K	01/17/2007 (000-27231)	99.3
10.9#	Herley Industries, Inc. 1996 Stock Option Plan.	S-8	04/08/2011	4.10
10.10#	Herley Industries, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan.	S-8	04/08/2011	4.11
10.11#	Herley Industries, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan.	S-8	04/08/2011	4.12
10.12#	Herley Industries, Inc. 2000 Stock Option Plan.	S-8	04/08/2011	4.13
10.13#	Herley Industries, Inc. 2003 Stock Option Plan.	S-8	04/08/2011	4.14
10.14#	Herley Industries, Inc. Amended and Restated 2006 New Employee Stock Option Plan.	S-8	04/08/2011	4.15
10.15#	Integral Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated 2002 Stock Option Plan.	S-8	10/25/2011	4.10
10.16#	Integral Systems, Inc. 2008 Stock Incentive Plan.	S-8	10/25/2011	4.11

Table of Contents



		Incorporated by Reference
Exhibit Number	Exhibit Description	Form	Filing Date/ Period End Date	Exhibit	Filed- Furnished Herewith
10.17#	2011 Equity Incentive Plan.	DEF 14A	04/15/2011	n/a
10.18#	Form of Notice of Grant of Restricted Stock Units and Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement pursuant to the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan.	8-K	11/18/2011	10.10
10.19#	Employment Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2010, by and between Kratos Government Solutions, Inc. and Richard Selvaggio.	10-K	12/26/2010	10.14
10.20#	First Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense Engineering Solutions, Inc. and Richard Selvaggio.	10-Q	06/26/2011	10.70
10.21#	Employment Agreement, dated as of July 22, 2010, by and between Kratos Government Solutions, Inc. and David Carter.	10-K	12/26/2010	10.15
10.22#	First Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense Engineering Solutions, Inc. and David Carter.	10-Q	09/25/2011	10.90
10.23#	Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2011, by and between Kratos Government Solutions, Inc. and Phil Carrai.	10-K	12/26/2010	10.16
10.24#	First Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense Engineering Solutions, Inc. and Phil Carrai.	10-Q	06/26/2011	10.60
10.25#	Second Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Eric DeMarco.	10-Q	06/26/2011	10.30
10.26#	Second Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Deanna Lund.	10-Q	6/26/2011	10.40
10.27#	Second Amended and Restated Severance and Change of Control Agreement, dated as of August 4, 2011, by and between Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. and Laura Siegal	10-Q	06/26/2011	10.50