Back to GetFilings.com

Use these links to rapidly review the document
SI INTERNATIONAL, INC. FORM 10-K INDEX
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

Commission File Number
000-50080

SI International, Inc.
(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (703) 234-7000

Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share
(Title of Class)

        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 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. o

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). YES o    NO ý

        The aggregate market value of SI International, Inc. Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 27, 2003 was $59,858,992.

        As of March 4, 2004, there were 8,461,122 shares of SI International, Inc. Common Stock, $0.01 par value per share outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(1)

Certain portions of the registrant's annual report to stockholders for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2003 are incorporated by reference into Part II of this Form 10-K. Certain portions of the definitive proxy statement to be used in connection with SI International, Inc.'s annual meeting of stockholders, which is expected to be filed not later than 120 days after the registrant's fiscal year ended December 27, 2003, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

SI INTERNATIONAL, INC.
FORM 10-K
INDEX

2

BUSINESS INFORMATION

        Throughout this document, we occasionally distinguish between SI International, Inc., as a company separate from its subsidiaries, and SI International, Inc., as a company combined with its subsidiaries. In order to clarify which entity we are referring to in various discussions, we use the terms "SI International, Inc." and "SI International" to refer to SI International, Inc. without its subsidiaries. All other references, including "SI," "the Company," "we" and "us" refer to SI International and its subsidiaries.

PART I

Item 1. Business

        SI International, Inc. was organized as a Delaware corporation under the name of "SI International Incorporated" on October 14, 1998. SI conducts operations both in its own name and through subsidiaries, each of which is located in the U.S. but some of which have international operations.

        Some of the statements under "Business," "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," and elsewhere in this Form 10-K constitute forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as "anticipate," "believe," "could," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "plan," "potential," "should," "will," and "would" or similar words. You should read statements that contain these words carefully because they discuss our future expectations, contain projections of our future results of operations or of our financial position, or state other forward-looking information. We believe that it is important to communicate our future expectations to our investors. However, there may be events in the future that we are not able to predict accurately or control. The factors listed in the section captioned "Business-Risk Factors," as well as any cautionary language in this Form 10-K, provide examples of risks, uncertainties, and events that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations we describe in our forward-looking statements.

        Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which apply only as of the date of this Form 10-K. Subsequent events and developments may cause our views to change. However, while we may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so.

Recent Events

        On January 21, 2004, we completed the purchase of Matcom International Corporation, or Matcom, a provider of information technology, systems engineering, logistics, and training. The acquisition supports our strategic growth plan to expand into new vertical markets and enhance the portfolio of capabilities it provides to the Federal Government. We are currently in the process of integrating Matcom into our business. Under the terms of the merger agreement, we acquired Matcom for $65.8 million in cash. The transaction also included an earnout provision of $7.9 million in the form of subordinated notes of SI International if Matcom achieves certain short-term revenue objectives.

        The transaction was funded through cash-on-hand and borrowings under our credit facility, which was increased from $35 million to $80 million contemporaneously with the closing of the acquisition of Matcom. In addition to amending and restructuring our prior credit facility in order to increase our

3

borrowing capacity, we extended the term of the credit facility, which consists of both revolving credit and term loans, to January 21, 2008.

        As a result of our acquisition of Matcom, we gained approximately 600 additional employees and increased our leased space to 24 offices and 2 warehouses at various U.S. locations for an aggregate of approximately 329,300 square feet in 13 states (including 3 offices (8,750 square feet) that are sub-leased through the remaining term of our primary leases).

        Based upon pro forma consolidated (unaudited) revenue for fiscal year 2003, the end clients from our top 10 contracts, including Matcom, comprised approximately 46% of our fiscal year 2003 and listed as follows:

Overview

        We are a provider of mission critical information technology and network solutions primarily to the Federal Government. Our business is guided by our experienced team of six executive officers, who have an average of 19 years of executive level experience in our industry. Our next level of senior management is comprised of seven individuals who have an average of 28 years of experience in managing government information technology businesses. As of the end of fiscal year 2003, we employed over 1,300 employees, and, following the acquisition of Matcom on January 21, 2004, we have approximately 1,900 employees. Approximately 65% of our employees, including those of Matcom, hold Federal Government security clearances or have passed National Agency Checks. Over 19% of our employees, including those of Matcom, hold Top Secret security clearances. A significant portion of our employees who hold Top Secret security clearances also hold Sensitive Compartmental Information clearances, which permit us to bid on highly classified projects.

        Our broad set of contract vehicles gives us extensive reach and enables us to deliver a full range of our services and solutions to the Federal Government. As of December 27, 2003, we had over 560 active engagements. The strength of our service offerings and information technology expertise allows us to maintain substantial relationships with clients, some of whom have been clients of ours, or of one of our acquired businesses, for over 15 years. In fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002, we derived approximately 84% and 83%, respectively, of our revenue from contracts on which we acted as prime contractor. Acting as a prime contractor provides us with stronger client relationships and visibility and access to new work that are not available when acting as a subcontractor. Our total backlog as of December 27, 2003 was approximately $337 million, of which approximately $58 million was funded. See "—Backlog" for a discussion of how we calculate backlog.

The Federal Government Technology Services Market

        The ongoing transformation of the Federal Government's information systems and communication networks is creating an increase in its demand for information technology services. According to INPUT, an independent market research firm, Federal Government contracted information technology spending is projected to increase from $45.4 billion in government fiscal 2003 to $68.2 billion in government fiscal 2008, representing a compounded annual growth rate of approximately 8.5%.

4

        We expect that the Federal Government's high-priority IT programs, with which SI International is aligned, will continue to grow in the foreseeable future. INPUT forecasts that the percentage of IT spending that is contracted out by the Federal Government will reach a high of 87% of total IT spending in government fiscal 2008.

        We believe the following industry trends will also continue to drive the Federal Government technology services market:

•

Continued focus on mission-critical initiatives. Since the events of September 11, 2001, the Federal Government has made the transformation of its information technology infrastructure a major priority. We believe our core areas of focus are aligned with the most urgent current national priorities. According to INPUT, the information technology services "commercial" segment, which is comprised of software development, design, and consulting, education and training, systems integration, outsourcing, maintenance and processing services, is expected to experience healthy growth, at a 9.9% compounded annual growth rate from government fiscal 2003 through government fiscal 2008. The commercial segment spending for government fiscal 2003 was $18.8 billion and INPUT believes it should exceed $30 billion by government fiscal 2008.



•

Increased Federal Government reliance on outsourcing. According to INPUT, outsourcing services are expected to exhibit high growth rates over the next five years, as much as 12.6% compounded annual growth rate from government year 2003 to government year 2008. Also according to INPUT, the federal outsourcing expenditures were expected to total $8.9 billion in 2003 and can be expected to reach $16.1 billion by 2008.

        We believe that the Federal Government is increasingly turning to the information technology industry to execute support processes and functions that were traditionally performed in-house. In October 2001, the General Accounting Office, or GAO, published a report stating that, of the total Federal Government fiscal 2000 information technology expenditures of $42.3 billion, the Federal Government purchased $13.4 billion of information technology services from outside contractors, compared to $3.7 billion in 1990, representing a compound annual growth rate of 14%. According to INPUT, the size of the Federal Government workforce decreased by 1.1 million workers during the period 1990 through 2000, representing a 22% decline. The General Accounting Office has warned of further attrition due to retirement of Federal Government workers during the period 2003 through 2006.

        We believe that homeland security will have the greatest impact on three specific segments of the IT market: information security, communications, and knowledge management. We believe that the rapid pace of technological innovations and the Federal Government's increasing reliance on complex information technology infrastructure, combined with a decline in executive branch civilian employees, make it increasingly difficult for many governmental agencies to operate and upgrade their information technology systems. We expect that several trends will contribute to the Federal Government's increased use of service providers to fulfill a larger portion of its information technology responsibilities, and we believe that we will continue to gain new engagements to the extent that the Federal Government increases its reliance on outsourcing for its information technology needs. These trends include:

•

The aging of the Federal Government's workforce. According to INPUT, the average age of Federal Government employees increased from 42 years of age in 1990 to 46 years of age in 2003, and that the government has estimated that more than 30% of current personnel in supervisory positions will be eligible for retirement by 2007. In April 2001, the GAO concluded in a report that the Federal Government's human capital challenges are adversely affecting the ability of many agencies to carry out their missions.

5

•

Increased Federal Government emphasis on competitive sourcing. The current administration has made competitive sourcing a major initiative of its management agenda. According to the President's Management Agenda, which was issued in 2001 and for which progress reports continue to be issued, including most recently during 2003, nearly half of all U.S. government employees perform tasks that are available in the commercial marketplace. To the extent that the Federal Government workforce declines, we believe that the Federal Government will have an increased need for entities that offer the technical skills, familiarity with government processes and procedures and skilled personnel that are necessary to meet the diverse information technology requirements of the various Federal Government agencies.

Increased spending on homeland security and intelligence.

        In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, there has been an increased emphasis on homeland security, intelligence and national defense, including the protection of critical infrastructure. According to INPUT, the IT budget request for the Department of Homeland Security, as identified by the Office of Management and Budget, increased 25% from government fiscal 2003 to government fiscal 2004. The total addressable IT budget for the Department of Homeland Security was set at $2.6 billion in fiscal year 2003 and is expected to grow to $4.9 billion in fiscal year 2008, assuming a compound annual growth rate of 13.2%.

        As part of this additional proposed spending, on April 18, 2002 the government announced a new Unified Command, the U.S. Northern Command, which is headquartered in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The U.S. Northern Command's "mission is homeland defense and civil support, specifically: conduct operations to deter, prevent, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories, and interests within the assigned area of responsibility; and as directed by the President or Secretary of Defense, provide military assistance to civil authorities including consequence management operations.

        Although the total amount to be spent for intelligence applications is classified, based on available information, INPUT believes that the unreported IT spending in the intelligence community may be as much as $10 billion in fiscal year 2003. We believe that there will continue to be increases in spending on federal intelligence activities, which are expected to represent significant opportunities for us.

        Increased simplicity of procurement.    Through changes that began with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, or FASA 94, the Federal Government has developed a variety of accelerated contracting methods. Federal Governmental agencies have increasingly been able to rely on multiple contracting vehicles to procure needed services in an expedient manner. According to INPUT, the average time to procure products and services was approximately 55% less in government fiscal 2001 than it was in government fiscal 1995.

Our Core Strengths

        We strategically built our business to respond specifically to the federal information technology marketplace. We believe that our core strengths position us to respond to the long-term trends and changing demands of our market.

Our Experienced Management Team

        Our business is guided by our experienced team of six executive officers who have an average of 19 years of executive level experience in our industry and a history of successfully growing information technology service providers. Our principal founders, Ray Oleson and Walter Culver, each have more than 34 years of managerial experience in our industry. Our executive officers have served as presidents, chief operating officers, and chief financial officers at Fortune 500 and industry-leading public companies. Our executive officers also have strong backgrounds in identifying, acquiring and

6

integrating businesses. Members of our management team have acquired and successfully integrated, in the aggregate, 20 businesses, four of them since our formation in 1998 and are in the process of integrating our most recent acquisition, Matcom, which we acquired in January 2004. In addition to our strong team of executive officers, our senior management is comprised of seven individuals who have an average of 28 years experience in managing government information technology businesses.

Our Corporate Culture

        Our corporate culture is based on respect for clients, personnel, business partners and management. We view our commitment to this culture of respect as a cornerstone of our company. We believe that our culture helps us build the relationships necessary to gain an in-depth understanding of our clients' needs, business practices and information technology and network systems. Further, we believe our culture is a factor in helping our employee turnover rate remain low compared to other companies in our industry, helping us to maintain client domain knowledge and provide consistent service to our clients. Further, we believe that our commitment to respect, combined with quality of performance, is an important factor in retaining clients and winning new referrals.

Focus on Information Technology Services

        We deliver a full spectrum of information technology services and solutions that address challenges common to many Federal Government agencies and commercial companies. Our capabilities position us to capitalize on the Federal Government's increasing demand for information technology services. We integrate our technical areas of expertise into comprehensive solutions covering information technology applications, systems engineering, network and telecommunications engineering and outsourcing. Our focus on end-to-end information technology solutions allows us to leverage our knowledge and experience to provide best practices across many Federal Government agencies and industries.

        Our skilled employees use their advanced technological training and extensive experience to implement our state-of-the-practice solutions. As of the end of fiscal year 2003, we employed over 1,300 employees, many of whom possess security clearances and National Agency Checks that allow us to bid on and perform classified work for the Federal Government.

Knowledge of Federal Government Contracting and Federal Agencies

        We believe that our in-depth knowledge of Federal Government contracting and the governmental agencies we serve and their procurement processes allows us to provide better solutions for our clients' needs. Our experienced team of executive officers and senior managers brings to us their many years of experience and extensive contacts in the industry. They provide us with an understanding of our clients' needs and procedures, as well as valuable mission-specific information. We believe that the insight provided by our officers and managers allows us to design solutions that are responsive to our clients' mission-critical needs.

Successful Integration of Acquired Businesses

        We believe that a critical component of our success is our ability to identify, acquire and integrate companies that build or expand our suite of services to serve our clients' needs more effectively. Prior to the formation of SI International in 1998, members of our management team participated in a total of 16 acquisitions. We believe that this experience provides a basis for our disciplined approach to identifying acquisition candidates and integrating acquired companies. By integrating corporate infrastructures such as marketing and sales, accounting, human resources and internal networks, we can save the expense of redundant functions. In addition, by integrating operations, we establish a

7

corporate-wide mission which can reduce internal competition and promote the cross-selling of newly augmented skill sets to increase our client base.

        Within the 15-month period from January 1999 through March 2000, we identified, acquired and integrated four Federal Government information technology services companies with aggregate revenues of approximately $105 million, measured for the 12 months prior to their respective acquisition dates. Through each of these acquisitions, we built and expanded our information technology capabilities and expanded our client relationships. We applied our disciplined acquisition processes to integrate the acquired companies and successfully grew these businesses. We are applying similar processes to integrate Matcom, which we acquired in January 2004.

Our Growth Strategy

        We have implemented the following strategies in order to reach our goal of becoming a leading provider of information technology and network solutions to our clients:

•

Maintain and expand our existing client relationships. We maintain relationships with our existing clients by adhering to our culture of respect and providing quality performance. We believe this helps us win renewals of our engagements. In addition, we use our knowledge of our clients' needs to identify additional opportunities and cross-sell new services to them.



•

Leverage our existing client base to win new clients. We believe satisfied clients are one of our most effective marketing tools. Since FASA 94 went into effect, client referrals have become a crucial component of expedited procurement processes and are key to our winning new contracts. Since we focus on technology infrastructure improvement, we are able to transfer our skills readily from client to client. We plan to continue building a network of clients and leveraging these relationships to gain access to new clients. We have launched a Major Programs initiative through which we intend to compete for large contracts over longer procurement periods. We believe that favorable client referrals are strategically important to our winning these opportunities.



•

Pursue strategic acquisitions. We plan to continue utilizing our disciplined methodology to identify, evaluate and integrate strategic acquisitions. We have acquired and successfully integrated four businesses since 1999 and we are in the process of integrating our fifth acquisition, Matcom, which we acquired in January 2004. These acquisitions have positioned us with strategically important technical skills in important client areas. For example, in mid-1999 we recognized that functional skills in military space applications in Colorado Springs would be an important growth area. We acquired SI International Engineering, Inc., formerly System Technology Associates, Inc., headquartered in Colorado Springs, which positions us to respond to the needs of the recently formed U.S. Northern Command, which is headquartered in that city.

Our Areas of Practice

        We provide information technology and network solutions in the following eight practice areas to supplement our clients needs in Defense Transformation, Homeland Defense, Mission Critical Outsourcing and Federal Information Technology (IT) Modernization.

        Software Development.    Our software development practice delivers custom software integrated with commercial off-the-shelf products to meet our clients' software requirements. We bring an understanding of complex software development and integration techniques for detailed design, implementation, testing, configuration control and documentation. We also provide enterprise-wide data management as well as testing and independent verification and validation services. Our technical staff is skilled in state-of-the-practice technologies such as C++, J2EE, Power Builder and Oracle Tools.

8

Our software development process had been externally assessed at the Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model for Software—Level 2 indicating standardized, repeatable processes are utilized.

        Systems Consulting.    Our systems consulting practice supports the modeling, simulation and prototyping of solutions. Our work includes feasibility studies, strategic planning, systems development consulting, quality assurance, project management, organizational assessment, system and transition planning and acquisition support. To aid us in our work, we utilize state-of-the-practice technologies such as enterprise architecture modeling tools and StarSafe, a software tool suite we developed for use in designing secure system solutions.

        eSolutions.    Our eSolutions practice delivers software implementation services that web-enable legacy applications intended to leverage an organization's utilization of the worldwide web (internet, intranet or extranet) to facilitate its business strategies and processes. We provide our clients with feasibility studies, system planning, systems development, migration planning, quality assurance, systems integration and user training. Our technical staff utilizes tools such as Microsoft.Net, Oracle Tools and Microsoft Visual Basic and Front Page, to help them deliver software integration services.

        Information Security.    Our information security practice delivers analyses, methods and technologies that enable our clients to secure their information against unauthorized access and service disruption. Our solutions are designed to protect and defend information systems against malicious actions, reduce the threat to system security and proactively manage risk. We provide security policy and procedure development, threat determination and risk assessment, vulnerability analysis, system security engineering, network defense, secure document processing, applications and web security, security evaluation and accreditation and training.

        Learning Solutions.    Our learning solutions practice designs, develops and delivers training and performance support to meet our clients' individual and organizational learning and performance needs. We provide distance learning, web-based training, computer-based training, instructor-led training, electronic performance support, performance-centered interface design, knowledge management, help desk staffing and management and local area network operations. Our technical staff is skilled in instructional systems design, usability engineering, software engineering, multimedia and graphic design and online documentation.

        Systems Engineering.    Our systems engineering practice delivers mission and requirements analysis, operational architecture modeling and development, system design, validation and verification, integrated logistics support, life cycle engineering and complex simulation and modeling. Our technical staff is skilled in command, control, communications, computer and intelligence, engineering, object oriented analysis and design, system testing, requirements traceability and specialty disciplines, including electro-magnetic pulse engineering, reliability/maintainability/availability engineering and safety and environmental engineering. Many of these skills are focused on space applications.

        Network Solutions.    Our network solutions practice designs, develops and deploys a full range of telecommunications network and infrastructure solutions for our government and commercial clients. These solutions span voice, narrowband, broadband and wireless technologies. Applications include large scale enterprise networks for government, highly secure networks and central office build-outs for commercial carriers.

        Mission-Critical Outsourcing.    Our mission-critical outsourcing practice uses our domain expertise to operate our systems and processes that are vital to our clients' businesses. We offer professional services to perform network operations, sustaining engineering, administrative processing and overall program management.

9

Clients

        We provide our services primarily to Federal Government clients such as the U.S. Air Force Space Command, U.S. Army, the Department of State, the Immigration and Naturalization Service which has now transitioned to become the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland Security, and the intelligence community. In fiscal 2003, we derived approximately 94% of our total revenue from Federal Governmental agencies and approximately 6% of our total revenue from commercial clients.

        Our largest client is the Department of Defense. We derived approximately 55% of our total revenue in fiscal 2003 and approximately 49% of our total revenue in fiscal 2002 from the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. In fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002, services we provided to the U.S. Air Force Space Command represented 38% and 37% of our total revenue, respectively, and consisted of approximately 300 separate engagements. We also derived approximately 20% of each of our fiscal 2003 and 2002 revenue from the Department of State. Each of these entities consists of a substantial number of separate offices, each of which typically exercises independent decision making and funding authority. We believe our contract base among these separate offices is well diversified. As of December 27, 2003, we had over 560 active engagements. In fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002, we derived approximately 84% and 83%, respectively, of our revenue from contracts on which we acted as prime contractor and derived approximately 16% and 17%, respectively, of our revenue from contracts on which we acted as a subcontractor.

        We often subcontract portions of work to be performed under a contract or task order under which we are the prime contractor. Approximately 13% of our total revenue in fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002, respectively, was generated by work performed by subcontractors. The subcontractors are sometimes responsible for critical portions of the contracted services. Our subcontracting arrangements typically specify that all terms of the primary contract pass down to the subcontractor. We are not dependent upon any one subcontractor or group of subcontractors to provide a substantial degree of work for us. In addition, it is typical that a subcontractor on one engagement may be a competitor or a client in other situations. We believe that cultivating good relationships with our subcontractors is necessary to maintain our competitive position as well as to facilitate meeting performance obligations under our contracts.

Backlog

        Backlog is our estimate of the amount of revenue we expect to realize over the remaining life of awarded contracts and task orders 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 future revenue we expect to realize from our commercial contracts. Unfunded backlog is the difference between total backlog and funded backlog. 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 GWAC contracts, or General Services Administration, or GSA, 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, or ID/IQ, contracts, such as our contract with the U.S. Air Force Space Command.

        Our total backlog as of December 27, 2003 was approximately $337 million, of which approximately $58 million was funded. However, there can be no assurance that we will receive the amounts we have included in our backlog or that we will ultimately recognize the full amount of our

10

funded backlog as of December 27, 2003 that we estimate will be recognized as revenue during fiscal 2004 or thereafter.

        We believe that backlog is not necessarily indicative of the future revenue that we will actually receive from contract awards that are included in calculating our backlog. We assess the potential value of contracts for purposes of backlog based upon several subjective factors. These subjective factors include our judgments regarding historical trends (i.e., how much revenue we have received from similar contracts in the past), competition (i.e., how likely are we to successfully keep all parts of the work to be performed under the contract) and budget availability (i.e., how likely is it that the entire contract will receive the necessary funding). If we do not accurately assess each of these factors, or if we do not include all the variables that affect the revenue that we recognize from our contracts, the potential value of our contracts, and accordingly, our backlog, will not reflect the actual revenue received from contracts and task orders. As a result, there can be no assurance that we will receive amounts included in our backlog or that monies will be appropriated by Congress or otherwise made available to finance contracts and task orders included in our backlog. Many factors that affect the scheduling of projects could alter the actual timing of revenue on projects included in backlog. There is always the possibility that the contracts could be adjusted or cancelled. We adjust our backlog on a quarterly basis to reflect modifications to or renewals of existing contracts, awards of new contracts or approvals of expenditures. See "Risk Factors—The calculation of our backlog is subject to numerous uncertainties, and we may not receive the full amounts of revenue estimated under the contracts included in our backlog, which could reduce our revenue in future periods."

Competition

        We operate in markets that are highly competitive and include a large number of participants. We compete with many companies, both large and small, for our contracts. We do not have a consistent number of competitors against whom we repeatedly compete. If we anticipate that our combined resources may create a competitive advantage, we may team with other companies to perform work under contracts. These and other companies in our market may compete more effectively than we can because they are larger, have greater financial and other resources, have better or more extensive relationships with governmental officials involved in the procurement process and have greater brand or name recognition.

        As a result of the diverse requirements of the Federal Government and our commercial clients, we frequently form teams with the companies in our markets in order to compete for large procurements, while bidding against them in other situations.

        In each of our practice areas, we generally bid against companies of varying sizes and specialties, from small businesses to multi-billion dollar corporations. Because of the current industry trend toward consolidation, some of these companies may emerge better able to compete with us. Therefore, it is essential that we differentiate ourselves from these companies. We believe that our technical abilities, client relationships, past performance, cost containment, reputation and ability to provide quality personnel give us a strong presence in the markets we serve. In addition, we believe that our culture of respect for and commitment to our clients and business partners greatly aids our business. While we believe these factors help to set us apart from other companies in our markets, we may not be able to continue to maintain our competitive position, as new companies enter the marketplace and alliances and consolidations among competitors emerge. Some companies in our markets have longer operating histories, greater financial and technological capabilities, greater brand or name recognition and larger client bases than we have.

11

Government Contracting and Regulatory Processes

        For fiscal 2003, approximately 94% of our revenue was derived from work performed under Federal Government contracts. The government contracting process differs in many ways from commercial contracting, and involves a high degree of Federal Government regulation and oversight.

        Historically, agencies of the Federal Government wishing to procure services from contractors have been required to prepare a request for proposal, known as an RFP, or some similar form of solicitation. The RFP is typically an extensive document describing the services desired and the terms and conditions that form the final agreement, including the criteria the soliciting agency will use to select the service provider. Interested parties submit proposals in response to the RFP, which the agency evaluates, often requesting additional information and multiple discussions with bidders prior to final award of the contract.

        In recent years, the Federal Government has taken steps to streamline the procurement process. For example, in 1994, the enactment of the FASA 94 made the procurement process substantially faster and less burdensome for companies that qualify for a bidders list. FASA 94 was the first of several statutory and regulatory changes in recent years that significantly altered government procurement practices by increasing the number and types of procurement contract "vehicles" available to Federal Government clients to satisfy their requirements. Federal Governmental agencies are now more likely to use flexible contract vehicles that permit a number of firms to compete for specific orders. The General Services Administration Multiple Award Schedule, or GSA MAS, Program is an example of a flexible contract vehicle employed by the Federal Government. Under the MAS Program, GSA contracts with multiple vendors to provide goods and services, at predetermined prices, to specified authorized buyers. GSA schedules are listings of services and products, along with their respective prices, offered by approved contractors. The schedules are maintained by the GSA for use by any federal agency or other authorized entity. A contractor must successfully complete a pre-qualification process in order to be selected by the GSA for inclusion of the contractor's goods or services on a GSA Schedule. When an agency selects services under a GSA schedule contract, the soliciting agency, or the GSA on its behalf, conducts a bidding process, limited to qualified GSA schedule contractors. The process typically involves substantially less time and cost than the historical, non-GSA bidding process.

        In addition to the GSA MAS program, we also hold other ID/IQ contracts with other individual agencies, which are generally known as task order contracts. These are essentially umbrella contracts that set forth the basic terms and conditions under which the agency may order goods and services from one, and in some cases, more than one, contractor. Contractors undergo a competitive pre-selection process to become eligible to perform work under ID/IQ contracts. A soliciting agency issues task orders for goods or services to be performed or provided under a contract. When task orders are issued under multiple award ID/IQ contracts, each awardee typically has an opportunity to be considered for the task order. The agency desiring contract services may conduct a competition among the interested awardees, resulting in the issuance of a task order to a single contractor. These contracts have increased competition and pricing pressure by concentrating work under fewer contracts, and requiring competition both prior to the initial award of the contract and throughout the term of the contract in order to obtain task orders for the services we provide, requiring that we make sustained post-award marketing efforts to realize revenue under each such contract. Moreover, even if we are qualified to work on a particular new contract or a contract subject to renewal, we might not be awarded business because of the Federal Government's policy and practice of procuring goods and services from multiple contractors in order to maintain a diverse base of contractors. In addition, ID/IQ contracts do not obligate the Federal Government to purchase goods or services above the minimum levels set forth in the contract.

        A task order calls for a specific set of services to be delivered by the contractor to a particular client agency. In our experience, the key factors in bidding successfully for these task orders are

12

technical merit, cost, relevant past performance considerations and client trust. From time to time we are also party to GWACs, which are ID/IQ contracts that permit the aggregation of multiple agencies' requirements in a single contract, in order to encourage contractors to offer the best possible prices and to reduce the costs associated with multiple acquisitions.

        For single-award large scale contracts, such as those targeted by our Major Program initiative, interested contractors submit information indicating their desire to perform the required services. The agency then solicits competitive proposals or bids from qualified contractors by providing them with a formal RFP, or similar solicitation. The RFP typically describes the desired services, terms and conditions, and evaluation criteria the agency will use. Bidders then submit proposals in response to the RFP, and the agency evaluates the proposals and makes the award determination. Agencies are encouraged to award contracts on a "best value" basis. This means that the contractor selected for the award should, in the agency's judgment, provide the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement, including technical merit, cost and relevant past performance considerations. The entire bid process can sometimes take a year or more.

        The competitive bidding process presents a number of risks, including the following:

•

we expend substantial funds, managerial time and effort to prepare bids and proposals for contracts that we may not win;



•

we may be unable to estimate accurately the resources and cost that will be required to service any contract we win, which could result in substantial cost overruns; and



•

we may encounter expense and delay if our competitors protest or challenge awards of contracts to us in competitive bidding, and any such protest or challenge could result in a requirement to resubmit bids on modified specifications or in the termination, reduction or modification of the awarded contract.

        The government contracts for which we compete typically have multiple year terms, and if we are unable to win a particular contract, we generally will be foreclosed from competing again for that contract until its expiration several years later. In addition, upon the expiration of a contract, if the client requires further services of the type provided by the contract, there is frequently a competitive rebidding process.

Laws and Regulations Affecting Our Business

        Federal Government contracts are subject to a number of federal laws and regulations, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or FAR, and Cost Accounting Standards. These statutes and regulations contain several rules that may affect us significantly.

        The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits Federal Government employees from committing government funds, by contract or otherwise, in excess or in advance of appropriations, unless authorized by a specific statute. Since Congress usually appropriates funds on a fiscal year basis, many of our contracts are funded by the applicable agency annually as Congress makes appropriations for future fiscal years. In addition, since funds are often allocated to agencies by the Office of Management and Budget, many of our contracts are incrementally funded.

        Disappointed bidders and contractors excluded from competing for government contracts and task orders may submit an objection to a contracting officer or the GAO within time limits specified under FAR and GAO bid protest remedies. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims also has bid protest jurisdiction. Performance under a contract being protested may be suspended while the protest is pending, and in cases where the contract is found to have been improperly awarded, the contract may be terminated.

13

        Certain FAR clauses, such as the Limitation of Cost and Limitation of Funds clauses, limit the Federal Government's liability for expenditures or obligations beyond those authorized by the applicable contract. In many cases, contracts are awarded for only one year with a number (in a number of cases, four) of successive option years. Agencies are not obligated to exercise these option years, but in our experience, most renewal options under our contracts have been exercised. In addition, certain FAR clauses allow the Federal Government to terminate contracts for convenience (i.e., at will), although the Federal Government is obligated to pay for costs incurred.

        Larger contracts may also be subject to the Truth in Negotiations Act and Cost Accounting Standards. The Truth in Negotiations Act requires us to provide current, accurate and complete cost or pricing data in connection with the negotiation of a contract, modification or task order that is not subject to full and open competition or other exceptions to the Act. Cost Accounting Standards are applicable to certain contracts and require the contractor to apply consistent accounting practices and comply with specific cost accounting criteria. "Contract Cost Principles and Procedures" sets forth the rules regarding the allocability and allowability of costs incurred in connection with Federal Government contracts.

        The FAR restricts government contractors from participating in procurements when there is an Organizational Conflict of Interest, or OCI, and, establishes rules for avoiding, mitigating and neutralizing conflicts of interest in the issuance of contracts by the Federal Government. Virtually all government contracts, including ours, are subject to the OCI rules. An OCI may arise because the nature of the work to be performed by a contractor has the potential, absent some restriction on future activities, to result in an unfair competitive advantage to the contractor or impair the contractor's objectivity in performing the contract or providing assistance or advice to the Federal Government. The government contracting officer is responsible for resolving any significant potential OCIs before a contract award is made. Federal Government contractors have an obligation to manage and, if necessary, report an OCI to the contracting officer. We have a company-wide policy regarding care in the acceptance of and compliance with contractual OCI provisions, which includes awareness training programs and coordination and reporting systems. We review new contracts and task orders at the time we receive them for potential OCI issues. Accordingly, we believe that as a result of the systems we have in place, our backlog will not be affected by OCI issues.

        Our books and records are subject to audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or DCAA, and other governmental audit agencies, to ensure that the costs and hourly rates for which we invoice the Federal Government under cost reimbursable and time and materials contracts are in compliance with the Cost Principles, Cost Accounting Standards and FAR invoicing regulations. Each fiscal year, we must submit final cost data to the Federal Government indicating our actual costs incurred for the prior year, exclusive of certain costs that are not recoverable by Federal Government contractors. This data is audited, and subject to adjustments by the auditing agency based upon established guidance, which may affect our recovery on cost reimbursable contracts for prior fiscal years. These audits may also result in assessment of penalties, interest costs and, in extreme cases, debarment. The Federal Government retains a portion of the fee earned by us under cost reimbursable contracts until contract completion and audit by the DCAA. Audits of our business units by the DCAA have been completed for all fiscal years through 2001 without material adjustments. In the opinion of management, the audits for other fiscal years through fiscal year 2003 will not result in adjustments that would have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations; however, future material adjustments are possible.

        Our conduct and performance is also subject to the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act prohibits contractors from knowingly submitting false or fraudulent claims to the Federal Government. We have established standards of conduct for our employees and a reporting mechanism that any of our employees can use to report inappropriate or illegal activities.

14

Risk Factors

Risks Related to Our Industry

We depend on contracts with the Federal Government for most of our revenue, and our business would be seriously harmed if the government ceased doing business with us or significantly decreased the amount of business it does with us.

        We derived 93.7% and 92.1% of our total revenue in fiscal 2003 and in fiscal 2002, respectively, from Federal Government contracts, either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. This includes 54.3% and 49.0% of our total revenue in fiscal 2003 and in fiscal 2002, respectively, that we derived, either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor, from contracts with agencies of the Department of Defense and intelligence community. We expect that we will continue to derive most of our revenue for the foreseeable future from work performed under Federal Government contracts. If we were suspended or prohibited from contracting with the Federal Government generally, or with any significant agency of the Department of Defense or the intelligence community, or if our reputation or relationship with the Federal Government or any significant agency of the Department of Defense or the intelligence community were impaired, or if any of the foregoing otherwise ceased doing business with us or significantly decreased the amount of business it does with us, our business, prospects, financial condition and operating results would be materially adversely affected.

        Our two largest contracts, in terms of revenues, are the contract with the U.S. Air Force Space Command for communications and computer infrastructure for command and control, information management and intelligence and for surveillance and reconnaissance, or C4I2SR, and the National Visa Center, or NVC, contract with the Department of State. The C4I2SR contract generated 22.1% of our total revenues in fiscal 2003 and 23.1% of our total revenues in fiscal 2002. The NVC contract generated 13.9% of our total revenues in fiscal 2003 and 11.0% of our total revenues in fiscal 2002. The C4I2SR and NVC contracts expire in September 2004. Although the NVC contract expires in 2004, aggregate expenditures under this contract are capped at $88 million. We currently are awaiting notification of award by the government of the C4I2TSR contract, which is the successor contract to the C4I2SR contract. We expect to receive a solicitation from the government for the recompetition of the NVC contract during fiscal year 2004. Our third largest contract, in terms of revenues, is our contract with the Department of State for application development services, or ADP/ITPS. The ADP contract generated 5.1% of our total revenues in fiscal 2003 and 7.9% of our total revenues in fiscal 2002. We won the ITPS contract with the Department of State as the follow on contract vehicle to the ADP contract vehicle, which expired in June 2003. The ITPS contract has a five year term, including unexercised options through June 2008. We cannot guarantee that we will win the recompete for the C412TSR and NVC contracts. If we fail to win the recompete for any of these contracts or any of our other major contracts, our business would be materially adversely affected.

Our business could be adversely affected by changes in budgetary priorities of the Federal Government.

        Because we derive a significant portion of our revenue from contracts with the Federal Government, we believe that the success and development of our business will continue to depend on our successful participation in Federal Government contract programs. Changes in Federal Government budgetary priorities could directly affect our financial performance. A significant decline in government expenditures, a shift of expenditures away from programs which call for the types of services that we provide or a change in Federal Government contracting policies, could cause Federal Governmental agencies to reduce their expenditures under contracts, to exercise their right to terminate contracts at any time without penalty, not to exercise options to renew contracts or to delay or not enter into new contracts. Any of those actions could seriously harm our business, prospects, financial condition or operating results. Moreover, although our contracts with governmental agencies often contemplate that our services will be performed over a period of several years, Congress usually must approve funds for

15

a given program each government fiscal year and may significantly reduce or eliminate funding for a program. Significant reductions in these appropriations by Congress could have a material adverse effect on our business. Additional factors that could have a serious adverse effect on our Federal Government contracting business include:

•

changes in Federal Government programs or requirements;



•

budgetary priorities limiting or delaying Federal Government spending generally, or by specific departments or agencies in particular, and changes in fiscal policies or available funding, including potential governmental shutdowns;



•

reduction in the Federal Government's use of technology solutions firms; and



•

an increase in the number of contracts reserved for small businesses, or small business set asides, which could result in our inability to compete directly for these prime contracts.

Our contracts with the Federal Government may be terminated or adversely modified prior to completion, which could adversely affect our business.

        Federal government contracts generally contain provisions, and are subject to laws and regulations, that give the Federal Government rights and remedies not typically found in commercial contracts, including provisions permitting the Federal 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 Federal Government or with any specific government agency;



•

impose fines and penalties;



•

subject us to criminal prosecution;



•

subject the award of some contracts to protest or challenge by competitors, which may require the contracting federal agency or department to suspend our performance pending the outcome of the protest or challenge and which may also require the government to solicit new bids for the contract or result in the termination, reduction or modification of the awarded contract;



•

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.

        The Federal Government may terminate a contract with us either "for convenience" (for instance, due to a change in its perceived needs or its desire to consolidate work under another contract) or if we default by failing to perform under the contract. If the Federal Government terminates a contract with us for convenience, we generally would be entitled to recover only our incurred or committed costs, settlement expenses and profit on the work completed prior to termination. If the Federal Government terminates a contract with us based upon our default, we generally would be denied any recovery for undelivered work, and instead may be liable for excess costs incurred by the Federal Government in procuring undelivered items from an alternative source. As is common with government contractors, we have experienced and continue to experience occasional performance issues under some of our contracts. We may in the future receive show-cause or cure notices under contracts that, if not

16

addressed to the Federal Government's satisfaction, could give the government the right to terminate those contracts for default or to cease procuring our services under those contracts.

        Our Federal Government contracts typically have terms of one or more base years and one or more option years. Many of the option periods cover more than half of the contract's potential term. Federal governmental agencies generally have the right not to exercise options to extend a contract. A decision to terminate or not to exercise options to extend our existing contracts could have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

        Certain of our Federal 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.

If we fail to establish and maintain important relationships with government entities and agencies, our ability to successfully bid for new business may be adversely affected.

        To develop new business opportunities, we primarily rely on establishing and maintaining relationships with various government entities and agencies. We may be unable to successfully maintain our relationships with government entities and agencies, and any failure to do so could materially adversely affect our ability to compete successfully for new business.

We derive significant revenue from contracts and task orders awarded through a competitive bidding process. If we are unable to win new awards or successfully compete for renewal contracts, our business and prospects may be adversely affected.

        A significant number of our contracts and task orders with the Federal Government are awarded through a competitive bidding process. We expect that much of the business that we will seek in the foreseeable future will continue to be awarded through competitive bidding of new contracts and task orders and contracts subject to renewal. Recently, members of Congress and administration officials have authorized changes to the procurement process intended to increase competition among suppliers to the Federal Government. Budgetary pressures and reforms in the procurement process have caused many Federal Government clients to increasingly purchase goods and services through indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, or ID/IQ, contracts, including General Services Administration contracts, or GSA contracts, and other government-wide acquisition contracts, or GWACs. These contracts have increased competition and pricing pressure by concentrating work under fewer contracts, and requiring competition both prior to the initial award of the contract and throughout the term of the contract in order to obtain task orders for the services we provide, requiring that we make sustained post-award marketing efforts to realize revenue under each such contract. These contracts generally approve particular contractors to provide specified goods and services to the applicable governmental agency but generally do not obligate the agency to purchase any particular amount of goods or services. To procure goods or services under the contract, the agency generally awards task orders to perform specified services or to supply specified goods pursuant to competitive bidding among approved contractors. Thus, the existence of a contract does not ensure future revenue; rather, the contract merely provides us the opportunity to compete for additional work. An agency may administer an ID/IQ contract in which it procures goods and services for itself. Under the same contract, other federal agencies may also procure goods and services. These contracts are known as GWACs. When multiple prime contractors hold GWACs for the same goods and services, all of them are eligible to supply goods and services under the contract. As a result, qualified contractors often compete with each other to obtain task orders under a GWAC. Similarly, GSA contracts, including contracts commonly known as GSA Schedule contracts, are procurement contracts administered by the GSA on behalf of the entire Federal Government. Like GWACs, multiple contractors may be awarded GSA contracts for the same goods and services. As a result, an agency may procure goods and services from any contractor awarded the

17

GSA contract at the prices and on the terms stated in the contract. Moreover, even if we are highly qualified to work on a particular new contract or a contract subject to renewal, we might not be awarded business because of the Federal Government's policy and practice of procuring goods and services from multiple contractors in order to maintain a diverse base of contractors.

        The competitive bidding process presents a number of risks, including the following:

•

we expend substantial funds, managerial time and effort to prepare bids and proposals for contracts that we may not win;



•

we may be unable to estimate accurately the resources and cost that will be required to service any contract we win, which could result in substantial cost overruns; and



•

we may encounter expense and delay if our competitors protest or challenge awards of contracts to us in competitive bidding, and any such protest or challenge could result in a requirement to resubmit bids on modified specifications or in the termination, reduction or modification of the awarded contract.

        The government contracts for which we compete typically have multiple year terms, and if we are unable to win a particular contract, we generally will be foreclosed from competing again for that contract until its expiration several years later. If we are unable to win new contract awards, our business and prospects will be adversely affected. In addition, upon the expiration of a contract, if the client requires further services of the type provided by the contract, there is frequently a competitive rebidding process. Approximately 36% of our revenue recognized during fiscal 2003 was derived from contracts that we expected to become subject to recompetition bids prior to the end of government fiscal 2004 (ending September 30, 2004). There can be no assurance that we will win any particular bid or recompetition bid, or that we will be able to replace business lost upon expiration or completion of a contract, and the termination or nonrenewal of any of our significant contracts or a substantial portion of our other contracts could materially adversely affect our operating results.

Our business may suffer if our facilities or our employees are unable to obtain or retain the security clearances or other qualifications needed to perform services for our clients.

        Many of our Federal Government contracts require employees and facilities used in specific engagements to hold security clearances and to clear National Agency Checks and Defense Security Service checks. Many of our contracts require us to employ personnel with specified levels of education, work experience and security clearances. Depending on the level of clearance, security clearances can be difficult and time-consuming to obtain. If our employees or our facilities lose or are unable to obtain necessary security clearances or successfully clear necessary National Agency or Defense Security Service checks, we may not be able to win new business and our existing clients could terminate their contracts with us or decide not to renew them. To the extent we cannot obtain or maintain the security clearances necessary for our facilities or our employees working on a particular contract or to the extent our facilities or our employees do not successfully clear necessary National Agency Checks or Defense Security Service checks, we may not derive the revenue anticipated from the contract, and our operating results could be materially adversely affected.

We must comply with a variety of laws, regulations and procedures and our failure to comply could harm our operating results.

        We must observe laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of Federal Government contracts which affect how we do business with our clients and impose added costs on our business. For example, the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the industrial security regulations of the Department of Defense and related laws include provisions that:

•

allow our Federal Government clients to terminate or not renew our contracts if we come under foreign ownership, control or influence;

18

•

require us to disclose and certify cost and pricing data in connection with contract negotiations;



•

require us to prevent unauthorized access to classified information; and



•

require us to comply with laws and regulations intended to promote various social or economic goals.

        We are subject to industrial security regulations of the Department of Defense and other federal agencies that are designed to safeguard against foreigners' access to classified information. If we were to come under foreign ownership, control or influence, we could lose our facility security clearances, which could result in our Federal Government customers terminating or deciding not to renew our contracts, and could impair our ability to obtain new contracts.

        In addition, our employees often must comply with procedures required by the specific agency for which work is being performed, such as time recordation or prohibition on removal of materials from a location.

        Our failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations or procedures, including federal procurement regulations and regulations regarding the protection of classified information, could result in contract termination, loss of security clearances, suspension or prohibition from contracting with the Federal Government, civil fines and damages and criminal prosecution and penalties, any of which could materially adversely affect our business.

The Federal Government may revise its procurement or other practices in a manner adverse to us.

        The Federal Government may revise its procurement practices or adopt new contracting rules and regulations, such as cost accounting standards. It could also adopt new contracting methods relating to GSA contracts, GWACs or other government-wide contracts, or adopt new standards for contract awards intended to achieve certain social or other policy objectives, such as establishing new set-aside programs for small or minority-owned businesses. In addition, the Federal Government may face restrictions from new legislation or regulations, as well as pressure from government employees and their unions, on the nature and amount of services the Federal Government may obtain from private contractors. These changes could impair our ability to obtain new contracts or contracts under which we currently perform when those contracts are put up for recompetition bids. Any new contracting methods could be costly or administratively difficult for us to implement, and, as a result, could harm our operating results. For example, the Truthfulness, Responsibility and Accountability in Contracting Act, proposed in 2001, would have limited and severely delayed the Federal Government's ability to use private service contractors. Although this proposal was not enacted, it or similar legislation could be proposed at any time. Any reduction in the Federal Government's use of private contractors to provide federal information technology services could materially adversely impact our business.

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

        Federal governmental agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency, or DCAA, routinely audit and investigate government contracts and government contractors' administrative processes and systems. These agencies review our performance on contracts, pricing practices and cost structure. They also review our compliance with applicable laws, government regulations, policies and standards and the adequacy of our internal control systems and policies, including our purchasing, property, estimating, compensation and management information systems. Any costs found to be improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be reimbursed, and any such costs already reimbursed must be refunded. Moreover, if any of our administrative processes and systems are found not to comply with the applicable requirements, we may be subjected to increased government scrutiny or required to obtain additional governmental approvals that could delay or otherwise adversely affect our ability to compete

19

for or perform contracts. Therefore, an unfavorable outcome to an audit by the DCAA or another government agency, such as the Defense Security Service, or DSS, which verifies security compliance, could materially adversely affect our competitive position and result in a substantial reduction of our revenues. If a government investigation uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeitures of profits, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or debarment from doing business with the Federal Government. In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us.

Failure to maintain strong relationships with other government contractors could result in a decline in our revenue.

        We derived 15.7% of our total revenue in fiscal 2003 and 17.1% of our total revenue in fiscal 2002 from contracts under which we acted as a subcontractor or from "teaming" arrangements in which we and other contractors jointly bid on particular contracts or programs. 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. We expect to continue to depend on relationships with other contractors for a portion of our revenue in the foreseeable future. Moreover, our revenue and operating results could be materially adversely affected if any prime contractor or teammate chooses to offer a client services of the type that we provide or if any prime contractor or teammate teams with other companies to independently provide those services.

The calculation of our backlog is subject to numerous uncertainties, and we may not receive the full amounts of revenue estimated under the contracts included in our backlog, which could reduce our revenue in future periods.

        Backlog is our estimate of the amount of revenue we expect to realize over the remaining life of the awarded contracts and task orders 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 revenues under government contracts and task orders for which funding has been appropriated by Congress and authorized for expenditure by the applicable agency, plus estimated future revenues we expect to receive under signed purchase orders with commercial clients. Unfunded backlog is the difference between total backlog and funded backlog. Unfunded backlog reflects our estimate of future revenues under awarded government contracts and task orders for which either funding has not been appropriated or expenditures have not been authorized. Our total backlog does not include estimates of revenue from GWAC or GSA schedules beyond contract or task order awards, but our unfunded backlog does include estimates of revenue beyond contract or task order awards for other types of ID/IQ contracts, including our C4I2SR contract with the U.S. Air Force Space Command.

        The calculation of backlog is highly subjective and is subject to numerous uncertainties and estimates, and there can be no assurance that we will in fact receive the amounts we have included in our backlog. Our assessment of a contract's potential value is based upon factors such as historical trends, competition and budget availability. In the case of contracts which may be renewed at the option of the applicable agency, we generally calculate backlog by assuming that the agency will exercise all of its renewal options; however, the applicable agency may elect not to exercise its renewal options. In addition, federal contracts typically are only partially funded at any point during their term, and all or some of the work to be performed under a contract may remain unfunded unless and until Congress makes subsequent appropriations and the procuring agency allocates funding to the contract. Our estimate of the portion of backlog from which we expect to recognize revenues in fiscal 2004 or any future period is likely to be inaccurate because the receipt and timing of any of these revenues is dependent upon subsequent appropriation and allocation of funding and is subject to various contingencies, such as timing of task orders, many of which are beyond our control. In addition, we may never receive revenues from some of the engagements that are included in our backlog and this

20

risk is greater with respect to unfunded backlog. The actual receipt of revenues on engagements included in backlog may never occur or may change because a program schedule could change, the program could be canceled, the governmental agency could elect not to exercise renewal options under a contract or could select other contractors to perform services, or a contract could be reduced, modified or terminated. We adjust our backlog on a quarterly basis to reflect modifications to or renewals of existing contracts or task orders, awards of new contracts or task orders, or approvals of expenditures. Additionally, the maximum contract value specified under a government contract or task order awarded to us is not necessarily indicative of the revenues that we will realize under that contract. We also derive revenues from ID/IQ contracts, which typically do not require the government to purchase a specific amount of goods or services under the contract other than a minimum quantity which is generally very small. If we fail to realize revenue included in our backlog, our revenues and operating results for the then current fiscal year as well as future reporting periods could be materially adversely affected.

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 schedule contracts. We believe that our ability to continue 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.

Risks Associated with International Operations.

        Our international business exposes us to additional risks including exchange rate fluctuations, foreign tax and legal regulations and political or economic instability that could materially adversely affect our operating results.

        In connection with our international operations (including international operations under U.S. government contracts), we are subject to risks associated with operating in and selling to foreign countries, including:

•

devaluations and fluctuations in currency exchange rates;



•

changes in or interpretations of foreign regulations that may adversely affect our ability to sell all of our products or repatriate profits to the United States;



•

imposition of limitations on conversions of foreign currencies into dollars;



•

imposition of limitations on or increase of withholding and other taxes on remittances and other payments by foreign subsidiaries or joint ventures;



•

compliance with the local labor laws of the countries in which we operate;



•

hyperinflation or political instability in foreign countries;



•

potential personal injury to our personnel who may be exposed to military conflict situations in foreign countries;



•

imposition or increase of investment and other restrictions or requirements by foreign governments; and

21

•

U.S. arms export control regulations and policies, which govern our ability to supply foreign affiliates and customers.

        Although our international operations are not currently substantial, to the extent we expand our international operations, these and other risks associated with international operations are likely to increase. Although such risks have not harmed our operating results in the past, no assurance can be given that such risks will not materially adversely affect our operating results in the future.

If subcontractors on our prime contracts are able to secure positions as prime contractors, we may lose revenue.

        For each of the past several years, as the GSA schedule contracts and GWACs have increasingly been used as contract vehicles, we have received substantial revenue from government clients relating to work performed by other information technology providers acting as subcontractors to us. In some cases, companies that have not held GSA schedule contracts or secured positions as prime contractors on GWACs have approached us in our capacity as a prime contractor, seeking to perform services as our subcontractor for a government client. Some of these providers that are currently acting as subcontractors to us may in the future secure positions as prime contractors upon renewal of the GSA schedule or a GWAC contract. If one or more of our current subcontractors are awarded prime contractor status in the future, it could reduce or eliminate our revenue for the work they were performing as subcontractors to us. Revenue derived from work performed by our subcontractors represented approximately 13% of our revenue for each of fiscal 2002 and 2003.

Risks Related to Our Business

We have incurred net losses in the past and our revenue and operating results could be volatile.

        In fiscal 2003 and 2002, we had net income attributable to common stockholders of $7.4 million and $529,000, respectively. We incurred net losses attributable to common stockholders of $2.8 million and $2.3 million for fiscal 2001 and 2000, respectively. We cannot assure you that we will not incur net losses attributable to common stockholders in the future.

        Our revenue and operating results may vary significantly from quarter to quarter. In particular, if the Federal Government does not pass, or delays passing, an appropriation act for each government fiscal year beginning on October 1, or fails to pass a resolution maintaining current funding levels until passage of an appropriation act, federal agencies may be forced to suspend our contracts, delay payments for work performed and delay the award of new and follow-on contracts and task orders due to a lack of funding. We are unable to predict the amount and timing of equipment purchases required by the U.S. Air Force Space Command C4I2SR contract. The timing of purchases under this contract affects our revenue and operating results, sometimes substantially, and we expect that these fluctuations will continue for the term of the contract. Further, the rate at which the Federal Government procures technology may be negatively affected depending on priorities of presidential administrations or senior government officials. Therefore, our historical operating results may not be a good indication of our future performance. Our quarterly operating results may not meet the expectations of securities analysts or investors, which in turn may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock. Our quarterly operating results may also fluctuate due to impairment of goodwill charges required by recent changes in accounting standards.

We may lose money or generate less than anticipated profits if we do not accurately estimate the cost of our performance under fixed price or time and materials contracts.

        Some of our contracts require that we perform on a fixed price basis. We derived 26.6% of our total revenue in fiscal 2003 and 17.3% of our total revenue in fiscal 2002 from fixed price contracts. A fixed price contract generally provides that we will receive a specified price for our performance under the contract, regardless of the cost to us of such performance. This requires that we accurately estimate

22

the cost that we will incur to perform our obligations under any contract at the time that we submit our proposal or offer to the applicable government agency. When making proposals for engagements on a fixed price basis, we rely on our estimates of costs and timing for completing the projects. These estimates are subject to numerous variables and uncertainties, and there can be no assurance that the costs of performing under any fixed price contract will not exceed, perhaps substantially, our estimates. Any increased or unexpected costs or unanticipated delays in connection with the performance of fixed price contracts, including costs and delays caused by factors outside our control, could make these contracts less profitable than anticipated or could cause us to incur losses, which could be substantial, on these contracts. In the past, we have from time to time incurred losses on some fixed price contracts and our profits on some fixed price contracts have been less than anticipated. Our operating results could be materially adversely affected if the actual costs of performing under these contracts exceed our estimates.

        Many of our contracts are performed on a time and materials basis. A time and materials contract typically provides that we are paid a fixed hourly rate for direct labor costs expended and reimbursed for allowable materials, costs and expenses. We derived 35.1% of our total revenues in fiscal 2003 and 42.1% of our total revenues for fiscal 2002 from time and materials contracts. While time and materials contracts are generally subject to less uncertainty than fixed price contracts, to the extent that our actual labor costs are higher than the contract rates, we may lose money on the contract.

Our margins and operating results may suffer if cost reimbursable contracts increase as a percentage of our total government contracts.

        In general, cost reimbursable contracts are the least profitable of our government contracts. Our cost reimbursable contracts generally provide for reimbursement of costs, which are determined to be reasonable, allowable and allocable to the contract, as well as payment of a fee representing the profit margin negotiated between us and the contracting agency, which may be fixed or performance based. Our time and materials contracts generally are more profitable than our cost reimbursable contracts. Cost reimbursable contracts contributed 38.3% and 40.6% of our total revenues in fiscal 2003 and fiscal 2002, respectively. To the extent that cost reimbursable contracts represent an increased proportion of our total government contracts, our operating results could be materially adversely affected.

Our markets are highly competitive, and many of the companies we compete against have substantially greater resources.

        We operate in highly competitive markets that include a large number of participants and involve intense competition to win contracts. Many of our competitors may compete more effectively than we can because they are larger, have greater financial and other resources, have better or more extensive relationships with government officials involved in the procurement process and have greater brand or name recognition. In order to stay competitive in our industry, we must attract and retain the highly skilled employees necessary to provide our services and keep pace with changing technologies and client preferences. In addition, some of our competitors have established alliances or strategic relationships among themselves or with third parties in order to increase their ability to address client needs. As a result, new competitors or alliances among competitors may emerge and compete more effectively than we can. There is also a significant industry trend towards consolidation which may result in the emergence of larger companies that may be better able to compete with us. If we are unable to compete effectively, our business could be materially adversely affected.

Our failure to attract and retain qualified employees, including our executive and senior management team, may adversely affect our business.

        Our continued success depends to a substantial degree on our ability to recruit and retain the technically skilled personnel we need to serve our clients effectively. Our business involves the development of tailored technology solutions for our clients, a process that relies heavily upon the expertise and services of our employees. Competition for skilled personnel in the information technology services industry is intense, and technology service companies often experience high attrition among their skilled employees. Recruiting and training these employees require substantial resources. Our failure to attract and retain technical personnel could increase our costs of performing our contracts, reduce our ability to meet our clients' needs, limit our ability to win new business and constrain our ability to grow.

23

        Certain types of services are subject to the Service Contract Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. These Acts require that the contractor pay to all personnel assigned to the contract at least the prevailing wage and fringe benefits, as established by and in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor. We have an established policy pursuant to which we evaluate RFP's that include Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon Act requirements and, in the event of an award to us, ensure our compliance with these requirements.

Employees

        As of December 27, 2003, we had over 1,300 employees. We have no unionized employees and do not have any collective bargaining agreements. However, we may pursue contracts that will require us to have unionized employees. We believe we have a good relationship with our employees. On January 21, 2004, we acquired Matcom and added approximately 600 employees.

        In addition to attracting and retaining qualified technical personnel, we believe that our success will depend on the continued employment of our executive and senior management team and its ability to generate new business and execute projects successfully. We believe that the personal reputations of our management team members and the business relationships between individual members of our management team and governmental officials involved in the procurement process and related areas are critical elements of obtaining and maintaining client engagements in our industry, particularly with agencies performing classified operations. To create and maintain these client relationships, identify potential business opportunities and establish our reputation among our current and potential clients, we depend on our senior management team. The loss of any of our senior executives could cause us to lose client relationships or new business opportunities, which could materially adversely affect our business.

A substantial majority of our historical growth has been due to acquisitions and we may have difficulty identifying and executing future acquisitions on favorable terms, which may adversely affect our results of operations and stock price.

        A substantial majority of our historical growth was the result of acquisitions, and the selective pursuit of acquisitions remains one of our key growth strategies. We cannot assure you that we will be able to identify and execute suitable acquisitions in the future on terms that are favorable to us, or at all.

        We may encounter other risks in executing our acquisition strategy, including:

•

increased competition for acquisitions which may increase the price of our acquisitions; and



•

our failure to discover material liabilities during the due diligence process, including the failure of prior owners of any acquired businesses or their employees to comply with applicable laws or regulations such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation and health, safety, employment and environmental laws, or their failure to fulfill their contractual obligations to the Federal Government or other clients.

        In connection with any future acquisitions, we may decide to consolidate the operations of any acquired business with our existing operations or to make other changes with respect to the acquired business, which could result in special charges or other expenses. Our results of operations also may be adversely affected by expenses we incur in making acquisitions and, in the event that any goodwill resulting from present or future acquisitions is found to be impaired, by goodwill impairment charges. As of December 27, 2003, we had approximately $39.8 million of goodwill resulting from acquisitions on our balance sheet and, to the extent we make future acquisitions, the amount of goodwill could increase, perhaps substantially. Any of the businesses we acquire may also have liabilities or adverse operating issues.

24

        In addition, our ability to make future acquisitions may require us to obtain additional financing and we may be materially adversely affected if we cannot obtain additional financing for any future acquisitions. To the extent that we seek to acquire other businesses in exchange for our common stock, fluctuations in our stock price could have a material adverse effect on our ability to complete acquisitions and the issuance of c