View:

Download DOC

Download PDF

Download XLS

Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

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

FORM 10-K

Commission file number 0-27231

KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

4810 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121
(858) 812-7300
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code,
of Registrant's principal executive offices)

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

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:
None

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

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

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

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

         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. ý

         Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer or a non-accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act);

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

         The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting stock (Common Stock) held by non-affiliates as of the last business day of the most recently completed second fiscal quarter (June 28, 2009) was approximately $109.2 million, based on the closing sale price on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on that date.*

*

Excludes the common stock held by executive officers, directors and stockholders whose individual ownership exceeds 10% of the Common Stock outstanding on June 28, 2009. This calculation does not reflect a determination that such persons are affiliates for any other purpose.

         The number of shares outstanding of the Registrant's Common Stock was 15,875,919 as of March 5, 2010.

Table of Contents

Documents Incorporated by Reference

        Portions of the registrant's definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A in connection with the registrant's 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the "Proxy Statement") or portions of the registrant's Form 10-K/A, to be filed subsequent to the date hereof, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report. Such Proxy Statement or Form-10K/A will be filed with the Commission not later than 120 days after the conclusion of the registrant's fiscal year ended December 27, 2009.

2

Table of Contents

KRATOS DEFENSE & SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

FORM 10-K

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 27, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3

Table of Contents

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

PART I

Item 1.    Business

        This Annual Report (including the section regarding Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations) contains forward-looking statements regarding our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Words such as "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," "believes," "seeks," "estimates" and similar expressions or variations of such words are intended to identify forward-looking statements, but are not deemed to represent an all-inclusive means of identifying forward-looking statements as denoted in this Annual Report. Additionally, statements concerning future matters are forward-looking statements.

        Although forward-looking statements in our Annual Report reflect our good faith judgment, such statements can only be based on facts and factors currently known by us. Consequently, forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties and actual results and outcomes may differ materially from the results and outcomes discussed in or anticipated by the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences in results and outcomes include, without limitation, those specifically addressed in Item 1A—"Risk Factors" below, as well as those discussed elsewhere in this Annual Report. Readers are urged not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of our Annual Report. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect any event or circumstance that may arise after the date of this Annual Report. Readers are urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made throughout the entirety of this Annual Report, which attempt to advise interested parties of the risks and factors that may affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

        We were incorporated in the state of New York on December 19, 1994 and began operations in March 1995. We reincorporated in the state of Delaware in 1998. On September 12, 2007, we changed our name from Wireless Facilities, Inc. to Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.

Overview

        We are an innovative provider of mission critical engineering, information technology (IT) services and warfighter solutions. We work primarily for the U.S. government and federal government agencies, but we also perform work for state and local agencies and commercial customers. Our principal services are related to, but are not limited to, Command, Control, Communications, Computing, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR); weapons systems lifecycle support and sustainment; military weapon range operations and technical services; missile, rocket and weapons system test and evaluation; missile and rocket mission launch services; public safety, security and surveillance systems; modeling and simulation; unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) systems; and advanced network engineering and information technology services. We offer our customers solutions and expertise to support their mission critical needs by leveraging our skills across our core service areas.

        We derive a substantial portion of our revenue from contracts performed for federal government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), with the majority of our revenue currently generated from the delivery of mission-critical warfighter solutions, advanced engineering services, system integration and system sustainment services to defense and other non-DoD and civilian government agencies. We believe our diversified and stable client base, strong client relationships, broad array of contract vehicles, considerable employee base possessing government security clearances, extensive list of past performance qualifications, and significant management and operational capabilities position us for continued growth.

4

Table of Contents

        Prior to 2008, we were also an independent provider of outsourced engineering and network deployment services, security systems engineering and integration services and other technical services for the wireless communications industry, the U.S. government and enterprise customers. In 2006 and 2007, we undertook a transformation strategy whereby we divested our commercial wireless-related businesses and chose to pursue business with the federal government, primarily the DoD, through strategic acquisitions. On September 12, 2007, we changed our name from Wireless Facilities, Inc. to Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. Our new name reflects our revised focus as a defense contractor and security systems integrator for the federal government and for state and local agencies. In connection with our name change, we changed our NASDAQ Global Market trading symbol to "KTOS".

Current Reporting Segments

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

Kratos Government Solutions (KGS) Segment

        The Kratos Government Solutions segment provides engineering, information technology and weapons systems to federal, state, and local government agencies, but primarily the DoD. Our work includes weapon systems sustainment, lifecycle support and extension; C5ISR services; military range operations and technical services; missile, rocket, and weapons systems test and evaluation; mission launch services; modeling and simulation, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) products and technology, and advanced network engineering and information technology services; and public safety, security and surveillance systems integration. Our KGS segment also provides public safety, security and surveillance systems products and services to the homeland security market with products and services aimed at supporting first responders.

Public Safety and Security (PSS) Segment

        The Public Safety and Security segment provides system design, deployment, integration, monitoring and support services for public safety, security and surveillance networks for state and local governments and commercial customers. Public safety and security networks have been traditionally segregated into systems such as voice, data, access control, video surveillance, temperature control and fire and life safety. We provide services that combine such systems and offer integrated solutions on both Ethernet and IP based platforms. We also offer solutions that combine voice, data, electronic security and building automation systems with fixed or wireless connectivity solutions. Our target markets are healthcare, government, data centers, large scale industrial and manufacturing, correctional facilities, education and sports and entertainment. Our commitments to these markets and our ability to provide feature-rich, cost-effective solutions have allowed us to become one of the larger independent integrators for these types of systems. We maintain regional office locations comprised of Kratos Mid Atlantic, Kratos Southeast, and Kratos Southwest. On June 24, 2009, as a result of continued losses in the Southeast division of PSS, our Board of Directors approved a plan to sell and dispose of this division. The business unit was classified as held for sale and reported in discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements.

5

Table of Contents

Industry Background

U.S. Department of Defense Drives Strategic Priorities for the Company

        The delivery and execution of our mission-critical engineering and support services are driven by the priorities of the U.S. federal government and primarily the Department of Defense. The strategic priorities of the DoD are based in large part on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the first conducted in an era of global terrorism, which identifies key strategic priorities. These priorities are currently focused on mission critical capabilities of the U.S. armed forces and providing the support infrastructure necessary to sustain these forces in a time of heightened warfare readiness and deployment.

        The 2010 Fiscal Year DoD budget is $636.3 billion, an increase of $11.0 billion over Fiscal Year 2009. The total budgetary increase of approximately 2% represents a significant opportunity to key federal government contractors in support of the DoD's war fighter, information technology, and other operational priorities. The 2010 budget includes supplemental funding of $128.2 billion to support overseas contingency operations, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. We believe there will be significant market opportunities for providers of system sustainment, IT and engineering services and solutions to federal government agencies over the next several years, particularly those in the defense and homeland security communities. The President's recent 2011 DoD Budget Request and the QDR are consistent with this outlook.

Focus on Federal Government Transformation

        The federal government, and the DoD in particular, is in the midst of a significant transformation that is driven by the federal government's need to address the changing nature of global threats. A significant aspect of this transformation is the use of C5ISR, and information technology to increase the federal government's effectiveness and efficiency. The result is increased federal government spending on information technology to upgrade networks and transform the federal government from separate, isolated organizations into larger, enterprise level, network-centric organizations capable of sharing information broadly and quickly. While the transformation initiative is driven by the need to prepare for new world threats, adopting these IT transformation initiatives will also improve efficiency and reduce infrastructure costs across all federal government agencies.

        An additional aspect of the military transformation includes significantly enhancing military readiness in areas such as missile defense, weapons system sustainment and extension, and the overall strengthening of intelligence and security. For example, the objective of the DoD as it relates to missile defense is to continue to develop, test, and field missile defense systems to protect America, its allies and deployed forces.

Competitive Strengths

        We have robust past performance qualifications in our respective business areas; including a work force with significant experience on the various systems and for the customers we serve.

Significant and Highly Specialized Experience

        Through existing customer engagements and the government focused acquisitions we have completed over the past several years, we have amassed significant and highly specialized experience in areas directly related to weapon system life cycle extension and sustainment; missile, rocket and weapons system test and evaluation; C5ISR; military range operations and technical services and other highly differentiated services and solutions. This collective experience, or past performance qualifications, is a requirement on the majority of contract vehicles and customer engagements we are

6

Table of Contents

involved in. We believe this presents a significant barrier to entry and positions us for long-term success.

In-Depth Understanding of Client Missions

        We have a history of providing mission-critical services and solutions to our clients, enabling us to develop an in-depth understanding of their missions and technical needs. In addition, a significant number of our employees are located at client sites, giving us valuable strategic insights into clients' ongoing and future program requirements. Our in-depth understanding of our client missions, in conjunction with the strategic location of our employees, enables us to offer technical solutions tailored to our clients' specific requirements and consistent with their evolving mission objectives.

Diverse Base of Key Contract Vehicles

        As a result of our business development focus on securing key contracts, we are a preferred contractor on numerous multi-year government-wide acquisition contracts and multiple award contracts that provide us with the opportunity to bid on hundreds of millions of dollars of business each year against a discrete number of other pre-qualified companies each year. These contracts include Seaport-e, GSA, Passive RFID EPC-1, PES, IT, LOG World, Mobis Millennia Lite, AMCOM Express, Alliant, StocII, Consolidated Acquisition of Professional Services (CAPS), Support Services for Aviation, Air Defense and Missile Systems, Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance Contract, Specialized Engineering, Development and Test Articles/Models and Theoretical Studies and Engineering Research. While the federal government is not obligated to make any awards under these vehicles, we believe that holding preferred positions on these contract vehicles provides us an advantage as we seek to expand the level of services we provide to our clients.

Strategic Geographic Locations and BRAC

        The federal government's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act of 2005 is the congressionally authorized process the Department of Defense has implemented to reorganize its base structure to more efficiently and effectively support U.S. armed forces, increase operational readiness and facilitate new ways of doing business. As a result of the DoD's BRAC transformation, we have concentrated part of our business strategy on building a significant presence in key BRAC receiving locations where the federal government is relocating its personnel as well as related technical and professional services. As we continue to entrench in these key locations, we expect this to be a significant competitive advantage.

Highly Skilled Employees and an Experienced Management Team

        We deliver our services through a highly skilled workforce of approximately 1,800 full-time, part-time and on-call employees in our on-going business. Our senior managers have over several hundred years of collective experience with federal government agencies, the U.S. military, and federal government contractors. Members of our management team have experience growing businesses organically, as well as through acquisitions. The cumulative experience and differentiated expertise of our personnel in our core focus areas along with our sizable employee base, the majority of which hold government security clearances, allow us to qualify for and bid on larger projects in the prime contracting role.

Services and Solutions

        We provide a range of integrated engineering, war fighter, security and information technology services and solutions by leveraging our core service offerings: weapons systems lifecycle sustainment,

7

Table of Contents

support, and extension; C5ISR; military range operations and technical services; missile and rocket test and evaluation; security systems integration; and advanced network engineering and IT services.

Weapon Systems Lifecycle Sustainment, Support and Extension

        We provide weapons systems life cycle sustainment, support, and extension services for the DoD and foreign governments. These services focus on maintaining, testing and repairing certain weapons systems for the war fighter.

C5ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computing, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance)

        In the area of C5ISR, we are involved in a wide range of services, including installation, upgrade and maintenance of command, control, computing, and surveillance systems for customers such as the Joint Inter Agency Task Force-south (JIATF), the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR). We are also involved in the study, research and development of exotic sensors, including EO/IR sensors, for our customers.

Missile Range Operations and Technical Services

        A key area of differentiation for us is within the range and technical service areas we offer. We have resources stationed at many major weapons and targets range locations throughout the United States, including Naval Air Warfare Center Pt. Mugu, Hawaii Pacific Missile Range, Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Our services include aerial targets operations and maintenance, surface targets operations and maintenance, missile systems operations and maintenance, range operations planning and support, hazardous materials management, supply and logistics support, and manufacturing.

Missile and Rocket Test and Evaluation

        Through the acquisitions of Haverstick Consulting, Inc. and Digital Fusion, Inc. (DFI), we acquired expertise in the area of missile and rocket test and evaluation services. This includes exclusive rights to the design and manufacture of the motor on the Oriole Rocket System and ancillary hardware for sounding rockets, suborbital research and target services together with both intellectual property and subject matter expertise in sensors and modeling and simulation associated with a wide range of missile technologies. Additionally, this area of our business develops and produces low-cost ballistic missile defense targets. These ballistic missile targets or AEGIS Readiness Assessment Vehicles (ARAVs) are a key element in U.S. ballistic missile defense forces.

Security Systems Integration

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

        We have comprehensive experience providing engineering services at any phase of a project lifecycle including program management, engineering design, system engineering, C5I System INCO, operations and maintenance, integrated telecommunications, and warfare systems training.

        We also develop and produce network management and protection proprietary products—NeuralStar and dopplerVUE.

8

Table of Contents

Learning, Performance and Training Solutions

        Our learning, performance and training solutions consist of a broad range of products and services capabilities to deliver training solutions and web-enabled or satellite based interactive distance learning for customers in the DoD, other government agencies, universities and commercial organizations. Our training solutions include services, product development, and tools addressing a breadth of related disciplines that include human performance factors, job and task analysis, competencies definition, skills and knowledge building via multiple delivery mediums, tracking, assessment, evaluation, and trend analysis. In addition, we develop and provide classroom based and e-learning training and education programs and Net-Centric Human Systems Integration (HSI) solutions.

        We also offer a range of IT services and solutions from conceptual network planning to system service and maintenance. We also offer our proprietary software based network management products via software license and maintenance sales which also serve as a platform for incremental network based services work. We have extensive experience building complex and secure networks for the federal government, and we possess in-depth experience with network operations centers. Our services include network operations centers, help desks, system maintenance, system upgrades, configuration management, data warehousing, COTS selection and integration, and high performance computing.

Our Strategy

        Our strategy is to aggressively grow our business as a leading provider of highly differentiated services in our core areas of focus as noted above by delivering comprehensive, high-end engineering services, technical solutions and information technology solutions to federal government agencies while improving our profitability. To achieve our objective, we intend to:

Accelerate Internal Growth

        We are focused on accelerating our internal growth rate by capitalizing on our current contract base and customer relationships, expanding services provided to our existing clients, expanding our client base and offering new, complementary services.

        Capitalize on Current Contract Base.    We are aggressively pursuing task orders under existing contract vehicles to maximize our revenue and strengthen our client relationships, though there is no assurance that the federal government will make awards up to the ceiling amounts or that we will be awarded any task orders under these vehicles. We have developed several internal tools that facilitate our ability to track, prioritize and win task orders under these vehicles. Combining these tools with our technical expertise, our strong past performance record and our knowledge of our clients' needs, should position us to win additional task orders.

        Expand Services Provided to Existing Clients.    We are focused on expanding the services we provide to our current clients by leveraging our strong relationships, technical capabilities and past performance record, and by offering a wider range of solutions as we continue to acquire companies with new areas of specialization. We believe our understanding of client missions, processes and needs, in conjunction with our full lifecycle IT offerings, positions us to capture new work from existing clients as the federal government continues to increase the volume of IT services contracted to professional services providers. Moreover, we believe our strong past performance record positions us to expand the level of services we provide to our clients as the federal government places greater emphasis on past performance as a criterion for awarding contracts.

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

9

Table of Contents

long-term relationships with federal government agencies, together with our GWAC vehicles, give us opportunities to win contracts with new clients within these agencies.

        Improve Operating Margins.    We believe that we have significant opportunities to increase our operating margins and improve profitability by capitalizing on our corporate infrastructure investments and internally developed tools, improving efficiencies and reducing costs, and concentrating on high value-added prime contracts.

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

        Concentrate on High Value-Added Prime Contracts.    We expect to improve our operating margins as we strive to increase the percentage of revenue we derive from our work as a prime contractor and from engagements where contracts are awarded on a best value, rather than on a low cost, basis. The federal government's move toward performance-based contract awards to realize greater return on its investment has resulted in a shift to greater utilization of best value awards. We believe this shift will enable us to expand our operating margins as we are awarded more contracts of this nature.

Pursue Strategic Acquisitions

        We intend to supplement our organic growth by identifying, acquiring and integrating businesses that meet our primary objective of providing us with enhanced capabilities to pursue a broader cross section of the DoD, DHS and other government markets, complement and broaden our existing client base and expand our primary service offerings. Our senior management team has significant acquisition experience.

        On December 31, 2007, we completed the acquisition of Haverstick Consulting, Inc., an Indianapolis, Indiana based privately-held provider of rocket and missile test and evaluation, weapons systems support, and professional services to the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, NASA, and other federal, state and local agencies. On June 28, 2008, we acquired San Diego-based C4ISR and net-centric warfare solutions provider SYS in a stock-for-stock transaction. In addition, on December 24, 2008, we acquired Huntsville, Alabama based Digital Fusion, Inc. (DFI) in a stock-for-stock transaction. DFI provides technical engineering services and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) products and technology. We continue to evaluate potential acquisition targets. To the extent any future acquisition involves cash consideration, we will need to obtain additional financing through the sale of equity or debt securities to fund any such acquisitions.

Customers

        A representative list of our customers in our KGS segment during 2009 included the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, Missile Defense Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA, FMS, the U.S. Southern Command, and US Intel Community. In our PSS segment, our customers in 2009 included British Petroleum, Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, Lockheed Martin, City of Philadelphia, DuPont Fabros Technologies, Anadarko, Houston Community College, Shire

10

Table of Contents

Pharmaceuticals, Memorial Hermann Hospital System, KIA Motors, Capital Health, and National Alabama Corporation.

        The following table presents our customers from whom we receive more than 10% of our revenue:

Backlog

        As of December 27, 2009, and December 28, 2008, our total backlog was approximately $565 million and $750 million, respectively, of which $124 million was funded as of December 27, 2009 and $160 million was funded as of December 28, 2008. Backlog is our estimate of the amount of revenue we expect to realize over the remaining life of awarded contracts and task orders that we have in hand as of the measurement date. Our total backlog consists of funded and unfunded backlog. We define funded backlog as estimated future revenue under government contracts and task orders for which funding has been appropriated by Congress and authorized for expenditure by the applicable agency, plus our estimate of the future revenue we expect to realize from our commercial contracts that are under firm orders. Our funded backlog does not include the full potential value of our contracts, because Congress often appropriates funds to be used by an agency for a particular program of a contract on a yearly or quarterly basis, even though the contract may call for performance over a number of years. As a result, contracts typically are only partially funded at any point during their term and all or some of the work to be performed under the contracts may remain unfunded unless and until Congress makes subsequent appropriation and the procuring agency allocates funding to the contract.

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

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

11

Table of Contents

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

Employees

        As of December 27, 2009, including the employees from the Haverstick Consulting, Inc., SYS Technologies, and Digital Fusion, Inc. acquisitions, we employed approximately 1,800 full-time, part-time and on-call employees. We have one collective bargaining unit of approximately 20 employees which is represented by the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, White Sands Local Lodge 2515, Alamogordo, New Mexico.

Competition

        Our market is competitive, and includes the full range of federal and non-federal engineering and IT service providers. Many of the companies that we compete against have significantly greater financial, technical and marketing resources, and generate greater revenues than we do. Competition in the federal business segment includes tier one, large federal government contractors, such as Northrop Grumman, SAIC, ITT Industries, Inc., Computer Sciences Corporation, ARINC, Raytheon Corporation, BAE, and CACI. While we view government contractors as competitors, we often team with these companies in joint proposals or in the delivery of our services for customers. Tier two competitors include smaller and mid-tier government contractors such as NCI, Inc., Stanley, Inc., and Dynamics Research Corp. Competition in the PSS segment includes Siemens Building Technology, Johnson Controls, Ingersoll Rand, Convergent, VSE Corporation and Global Defense Technology & Systems, Inc.

        We believe that the principal competitive factors in our ability to win new business include past performance qualifications, domain and technology expertise, the ability to replace contract vehicles, the ability to deliver results within budget (time and cost), reputation, accountability, staffing flexibility including the large number of personnel with government security clearances, and project management expertise. We believe our ability to compete also depends on a number of additional factors including the ability of our customers to perform the services themselves, and competitive pricing for similar services.

Available Information

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

Item 1A.    Risk Factors

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

12

Table of Contents

harmed and the price of our common stock could decline. You should also refer to the other information contained in this report, including our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes.

Our business could be adversely affected by changes in the contracting or fiscal policies of the federal government and governmental entities.

        We derive a significant portion of our revenue from contracts with the U.S. federal government and government agencies and subcontracts under federal government prime contracts, and the success of our business and growth of our business will continue to depend on our successful procurement of government contracts either directly or through prime contractors. Accordingly, changes in government contracting policies or government budgetary constraints could directly affect our financial performance. Among the factors that could adversely affect our business are:

•

changes in fiscal policies or decreases in available government funding, including budgetary constraints affecting federal government spending generally, or specific departments or agencies in particular;



•

the adoption of new laws or regulations or changes to existing laws or regulations;



•

changes in political or social attitudes with respect to security and defense issues;



•

changes in federal government programs or requirements, including the increased use of small business providers;



•

increases in the federal government initiatives related to in-sourcing;



•

changes in or delays related to government restrictions on the export of defense articles and services;



•

potential delays or changes in the government appropriations process; and



•

delays in the payment of our invoices by government payment offices.

        These and other factors could cause governments and government agencies, or prime contractors that use us as a subcontractor, to reduce their purchases under existing contracts, to exercise their rights to terminate contracts at-will or to abstain from exercising options to renew contracts, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Many of our government customers are subject to stringent budgetary constraints. The award of additional contracts from government agencies could be adversely affected by spending reductions or budget cutbacks at these agencies.

Our ability to make payments on our debt will be contingent on our future operating performance, which will depend on a number of factors that are outside of our control.

        Our debt service obligations are estimated to be approximately $10 million in 2010, including approximately $4.5 million of principal repayments. This debt service may have an adverse impact on our earnings and cash flow, which could in turn negatively impact our stock price.

        Our ability to make principal and interest payments on our debt is contingent on our future operating performance, which will depend on a number of factors, many of which are outside of our control. The degree to which we are leveraged could have other important negative consequences, including the following:

•

we must dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flows from operations to the payment of our indebtedness, reducing the funds available for future working capital requirements, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other general corporate requirements;

13

Table of Contents

•

a significant portion of our borrowings are, and will continue to be, at variable rates of interest, which may result in higher interest expense in the event of increases in interest rates over the interest rate floor in our credit agreement;



•

we may be more vulnerable to a downturn in the industries in which we operate or a downturn in the economy in general;



•

we may be limited in our flexibility to plan for, or react to, changes in our businesses and the industries in which we operate;



•

we may be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors that have less debt;



•

we may determine it to be necessary to dispose of certain assets or one or more of our businesses to reduce our debt; and



•

our ability to borrow additional funds in excess of our current financing may be limited.

        We may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations and future borrowings may not be available in amounts sufficient to enable us to pay our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity needs. Moreover, we may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity. In such a case, we cannot make assurances that we will be able to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we are unable to make scheduled debt payments or comply with the other provisions of our debt instruments, our various lenders may be permitted under certain circumstances to accelerate the maturity of the indebtedness owed to them and exercise other remedies provided for in those instruments and under applicable law.

Our new credit facility contains restrictive covenants that could limit our ability to operate our business and, if not satisfied, could result in the acceleration of the amounts due under the credit facility.

        The agreements governing our credit facility subject us to various financial and other covenants with which we must comply. These financial covenants include a maximum total leverage ratio, a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio, and a minimum net asset coverage ratio. In addition, this agreement contains covenants that may significantly restrict our future operations. For example, these covenants include restrictions on our ability to:

•

incur additional debt;



•

create or incur liens;



•

bid on or perform work due to limits on the amount of performance bonds that may be secured by letters of credit;



•

pay dividends or make other equity distributions to our stockholders;



•

make investments;



•

sell assets;



•

issue or become liable on a guarantee;



•

create or acquire new subsidiaries;



•

effect a merger or consolidation of, or sell all or substantially all of our assets; and



•

raise capital using our equity.

        Upon the occurrence of any event of default under our credit agreements, our lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding on our credit facility, together with accrued interest, to be immediately due and payable. If our lenders were to accelerate payment of these amounts, we may not

14

Table of Contents

have sufficient assets to repay them in full. In addition, if we fail to comply with these financial and other covenants, or are otherwise unable to make scheduled debt payments or comply with the other provisions of our debt instruments, our lenders may be permitted under certain circumstances to deny future access to liquidity, seize control of substantially all of our assets and exercise other remedies provided for in those agreements and under applicable law.

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

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

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

        Federal and state tax laws impose restrictions on the utilization of net operating loss and tax credit carryforwards in the event of an "ownership change" for tax purposes as defined by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. Under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code, if a corporation undergoes an "ownership change" (generally defined as greater than 50% change (by value) in its equity ownership over a three year period), the corporation's ability to use its pre-change net operating loss carryforwards and other pre-change tax attributes to offset its post-change income may be limited. At December 27, 2009, we do not believe that any "ownership changes" have occurred which would materially limit the utilization of the loss carryforwards. However, future equity offerings or acquisitions that have equity as a component of the purchase price could result in an "ownership change". If an "ownership change" does occur in the future, utilization of the net operating loss or other tax attributes may be limited.

We derive a substantial amount of our revenues from the sale of our solutions either directly or indirectly to U.S. government entities pursuant to government contracts, which differ materially from standard commercial contracts, involve competitive bidding and may be subject to cancellation or delay without penalty, any of which may produce volatility in our revenues and earnings.

        Government contracts frequently include provisions that are not standard in private commercial transactions, 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;

15

Table of Contents

•

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;



•

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



•

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



•

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

        In addition, government contracts are frequently awarded only after formal competitive bidding processes, which have been and may continue to be protracted and typically impose provisions that permit cancellation in the event that necessary funds are unavailable to the public agency. Competitive procurements impose substantial costs and managerial time and effort in order to prepare bids and proposals for contracts that may not be awarded to us. In many cases, unsuccessful bidders for government agency contracts are provided the opportunity to formally protest certain contract awards through various agencies, administrative and judicial channels. The protest process may substantially delay a successful bidder's contract performance, result in cancellation of the contract award entirely and distract management. We may not be awarded contracts for which we bid, and substantial delays or cancellation of purchases may follow our successful bids as a result of such protests.

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

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

        As of December 27, 2009, and December 28, 2008, our total backlog was approximately $565 million and $750 million, respectively of which $124 million was funded as of December 27, 2009 and $160 million was funded as of December 28, 2008. Funded backlog is estimated future revenue under government contracts and task orders for which funding has been appropriated by Congress and authorized for expenditure by the applicable agency, plus our estimate of the future revenue we expect to realize from our commercial contracts that are under firm orders. Although funded backlog represents only business which is considered to be firm, cancellations or scope adjustments may still occur. Unfunded backlog reflects our estimate of future revenue under awarded government contracts and task orders for which either funding has not yet been appropriated or expenditure has not yet been authorized. Unfunded backlog does not include estimates of revenue from GWAC contracts or GSA schedules beyond awarded or funded task orders, but does include estimates of revenue beyond awarded or funded task orders for other types of IDIQ contracts. The amount of unfunded backlog is not exact or guaranteed and is based upon, among other things, management's experience under such contracts and similar contracts, the particular clients, the type of work and budgetary expectations. Our management may not accurately assess these factors or estimate the revenue we will realize from these contracts, and our unfunded and total backlog may not reflect the actual revenue ultimately received from these contracts.

16

Table of Contents

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

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

        We operate in highly competitive markets and generally encounter intense competition to win contracts from many other firms, including mid-tier federal contractors with specialized capabilities and large defense and IT services providers. Competition in our markets may increase as a result of a number of factors, such as the entrance of new or larger competitors, including those formed through alliances or consolidation. These competitors may have greater financial, technical, marketing and public relations resources, larger client bases and greater brand or name recognition than we do. These competitors could, among other things:

•

divert sales from us by winning very large-scale government contracts, a risk that is enhanced by the recent trend in government procurement practices to bundle services into larger contracts;



•

force us to charge lower prices; or



•

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

        If we lose business to our competitors or are forced to lower our prices, our revenue and our operating profits could decline. In addition, we may face competition from our subcontractors who, from time-to-time, seek to obtain prime contractor status on contracts for which they currently serve as a subcontractor to us. If one or more of our current subcontractors are awarded prime contractor status on such contracts in the future, it could divert sales from us or could force us to charge lower prices, which could cause our margins to suffer.

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

        We continually evaluate opportunities to acquire new businesses as part of our ongoing strategy and we may in the future acquire additional companies that we believe could complement or expand our business or increase our customer base. Acquisitions involve numerous risks, including:

•

difficulties in integrating operations, technologies, accounting and personnel;



•

difficulties in supporting and transitioning customers of acquired companies;



•

difficulties or delays in transitioning federal government contracts pursuant to federal acquisition regulations;



•

diversion of financial and management resources from existing operations;



•

potential loss of key employees;



•

federal acquisition regulations may require us to enter into government novation agreements, a potentially time-consuming process; and



•

inability to generate sufficient revenue to offset acquisition costs.

17

Table of Contents

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

Our financial results may vary significantly from quarter to quarter.

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

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

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

•

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



•

variability in demand for our services and solutions;



•

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



•

timing of award or performance incentive fee notices;



•

timing of significant bid and proposal costs;



•

variable purchasing patterns under GSA Schedule 70 contracts, government wide acquisition contracts (GWACs), blanket purchase agreements and other indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts;



•

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

18

Table of Contents

•

costs related to government inquiries;



•

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



•

strategic investments or changes in business strategy;



•

changes in the extent to which we use subcontractors;



•

seasonal fluctuations in our staff utilization rates;



•

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



•

the length of sales cycles.

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

If we fail to establish and maintain important relationships with government entities and agencies and other government contractors, our ability to bid successfully 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. In addition, we often act as a subcontractor or in "teaming" arrangements in which we and other contractors bid together on particular contracts or programs for the federal government or government agencies. 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.

We derive a significant portion of our revenues from a limited number of customers.

        We have derived, and believe that we will continue to derive, a significant portion of our revenues from a limited number of customers. To the extent that any significant customer uses less of our services or terminates its relationship with us, our revenues could decline significantly. As a result, the loss of any significant client could seriously harm our business. For the year ended December 27, 2009, two customers comprised approximately 60% and 52% of our federal business revenues and total revenues, respectively, and our five largest customers accounted for approximately 72% and 62% of our total federal business revenues and total revenues, respectively. None of our customers are obligated to purchase additional services from us. As a result, the volume of work that we perform for a specific customer is likely to vary from period to period, and a significant client in one period may not use our services in a subsequent period.

19

Table of Contents

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

        Although fixed-price contracts entail a greater risk of a reduced profit or financial loss on a contract compared to other types of contracts we enter into, fixed-price contracts typically provide higher profit opportunities because we may be able to benefit from cost savings. In contrast, cost-plus-fee contracts are subject to statutory limits on profit margins, and generally are the least profitable of our contract types. Our federal government customers typically determine what type of contract we enter into. Cost-plus-fee and fixed-price contracts in our federal business accounted for approximately 36% and 31%, respectively, of our federal business revenues for the year ended December 27, 2009. To the extent that we enter into more cost-plus-fee or less fixed-price contracts in proportion to our total contract mix in the future, our margins and operating results may suffer.

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

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

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 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.

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

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

20

Table of Contents

The loss of any member of our senior management could impair our relationships with federal government clients and disrupt the management of our business.

        We believe that the success of our business and our ability to operate profitably depends on the continued contributions of the members of our senior management. We rely on our senior management to generate business and execute programs successfully. In addition, the relationships and reputation that many members of our senior management team have established and maintain with federal government personnel contribute to our ability to maintain strong client relationships and to identify new business opportunities. We do not have any employment agreements providing for a specific term of employment with any member of our senior management. The loss of any member of our senior management could impair our ability to identify and secure new contracts, to maintain good client relations and to otherwise manage our business.

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

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

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

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

        As a prime contractor, we often rely upon other companies to perform work we are obligated to perform for our clients as subcontractors. As we secure more work under our GWAC vehicles, we expect to require an increasing level of support from subcontractors that provide complementary and supplementary services to our offerings. Depending on labor market conditions, we may not be able to identify, hire and retain sufficient numbers of qualified employees to perform the task orders we expect to win. In such cases, we will need to rely on subcontracts with unrelated companies. Moreover, even in favorable labor market conditions, we anticipate entering into more subcontracts in the future as we expand our work under our GWACs. We are responsible for the work performed by our subcontractors, even though in some cases we have limited involvement in that work.

        If one or more of our subcontractors fail to satisfactorily perform the agreed-upon services on a timely basis or violate federal government contracting policies, laws or regulations, our ability to perform our obligations as a prime contractor or meet our clients' expectations may be compromised. In extreme cases, performance or other deficiencies on the part of our subcontractors could result in a client terminating our contract for default. A termination for default could expose us to liability,

21

Table of Contents

including liability for the agency's costs of procurement, could damage our reputation and could hurt our ability to compete for future contracts.

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 government agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), routinely audit and investigate government contracts and government contractors' administrative processes and systems. These agencies review our performance on contracts, pricing practices, cost structure and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. They also review the adequacy of our compliance with government standards for its accounting and management of internal control systems, including: control environment and overall accounting system, general information technology system, budget and planning system, purchasing system, material management and accounting system, compensation system, labor system, indirect and other direct costs system, billing system and estimating system used for pricing on government contracts. Both contractors and the U.S. Government agencies conducting these audits and reviews have come under increased scrutiny. The current audits and reviews have become more rigorous and the standards to which contractors are being held are being more strictly interpreted, increasing the likelihood of an audit or review resulting in an adverse outcome.

        While we have submitted all applicable incurred cost claims, the actual indirect cost audits by the DCAA have not been completed for fiscal 2005 and subsequent fiscal years. Although we have recorded contract revenues subsequent to fiscal 2004 based upon costs that we believe will be approved upon final audit or review, we do not know the outcome of any ongoing or future audits or reviews and, if future adjustments exceed our estimates, our profitability would be adversely affected.

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

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

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

        We create, implement and maintain IT solutions that are often critical to our clients' operations. We have experienced, and may in the future experience, some systems and service failures, schedule or

22

Table of Contents

delivery delays and other problems in connection with our work. If we experience these problems, we may:

•

lose revenue due to adverse client reaction;



•

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



•

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



•

suffer claims for substantial damages.

        In addition to any costs resulting from product or service warranties, contract performance or required corrective action, these failures may result in increased costs or loss of revenue if clients postpone subsequently scheduled work or cancel, or fail to renew, contracts.

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

Security breaches in sensitive federal government systems could result in the loss of clients and negative publicity.

        Many of the systems we develop, install and maintain involve managing and protecting information involved in intelligence, national security and other sensitive or classified federal government functions. A security breach in one of these systems could cause serious harm to our business, damage our reputation and prevent us from being eligible for further work on sensitive or classified systems for federal government clients. We could incur losses from such a security breach that could exceed the policy limits under our errors and omissions and product liability insurance. Damage to our reputation or limitations on our eligibility for additional work resulting from a security breach in one of the systems we develop, install and maintain could materially reduce our revenue.

Our employees may engage in misconduct or other improper activities, which could cause us to lose contracts.

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

23

Table of Contents

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

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

If we are unable to manage our growth, our business could be adversely affected.

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

We may be harmed by intellectual property infringement claims and our failure to protect our intellectual property could enable competitors to market products and services with similar features.

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

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

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

        Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports. If we cannot provide reliable financial reports, our operating results could be misstated, our reputation may be

24

Table of Contents

harmed and the trading price of our stock could be negatively affected. Our management has concluded that there are no material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 27, 2009. However, there can be no assurance that our controls over financial processes and reporting will be effective in the future or that additional material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal controls will not be discovered in the future. Any failure to remediate any future material weaknesses or implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our operating results, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations or result in material misstatements in our financial statements or other public disclosures. Inferior internal controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock. In addition, from time to time we acquire businesses which could have limited infrastructure and systems of internal controls.

Our stock price may be volatile, which may result in lawsuits against us and our officers and directors.

        The stock market in general and the stock prices of government services companies in particular, have experienced volatility that has often been unrelated to or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. The market price of our common stock has fluctuated in the past and is likely to fluctuate in the future. Factors which could have a significant impact on the market price of our common stock include, but are not limited to, the following:

•

quarterly variations in operating results;



•

announcements of new services by us or our competitors;



•

the gain or loss of significant customers;



•

changes in analysts' earnings estimates;



•

rumors or dissemination of false information;



•

pricing pressures;



•

short selling of our common stock;



•

impact of litigation and government inquiries;



•

general conditions in the market;



•

political and/or military events associated with current worldwide conflicts; and



•

events affecting other companies that investors deem comparable to us.

        Companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have frequently been the subject of securities class action litigation. We and certain of our current and former officers and directors have been named defendants in class action and derivative lawsuits. These matters and any other securities class action litigation and derivative lawsuits in which we may be involved could result in substantial costs to us and a diversion of our management's attention and resources, which could materially harm our financial condition and results of operations.

Our charter documents and Delaware law may deter potential acquirers and may depress our stock price.

        Certain provisions of our charter documents and Delaware law, as well as certain agreements we have with our executives, could make it substantially more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us. These provisions include:

•

authorizing the board of directors to issue preferred stock;



•

prohibiting cumulative voting in the election of directors;

25

Table of Contents

•

prohibiting stockholder action by written consent;



•

establishing advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted on by stockholders at meetings of our stockholders;



•

Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits us from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder unless specific conditions are met; and



•

a number of our executives have agreements with us that entitle them to payments in certain circumstances following a change in control.

We have a stockholder rights plan which may discourage certain types of transactions involving an actual or potential change in control and may limit our stockholders' ability to approve transactions that they deem to be in their best interests. As a result, these provisions may depress our stock price.

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

        A significant portion of our net assets come from goodwill and other intangible assets. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350), we periodically review the carrying values of our goodwill to determine whether such carrying values exceed the fair market value. Our acquired companies are subject to annual review for goodwill impairment. If impairment testing indicates that the carrying value of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the goodwill of the reporting unit is deemed impaired. Accordingly, an impairment charge would be recognized for that reporting unit in the period identified.

        In 2008, as a result of our annual review, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $105.8 million related to our Kratos Government Solutions (KGS) segment, to reflect the declining market and economic conditions through December 28, 2008. In the beginning of 2009, we performed another impairment test for goodwill in accordance with Topic 350 as of February 28, 2009. The test indicated that the book value for the KGS segment exceeded the fair values of the businesses and resulted in our recording a charge totaling $41.3 million in that segment for the impairment of goodwill. The impairment charge was primarily driven by adverse equity market conditions that caused a decrease in current market multiples and our average stock price as of February 28, 2009, compared with the test performed as of December 28, 2008. Future reviews could result in further impairment charges, which could have a significant effect on our financial results.

The commercial business arena in which we operate has relatively low barriers to entry and increased competition could result in margin erosion, which would make profitability even more difficult to sustain.

        Other than the technical skills required in our commercial business, the barriers to entry in this area are relatively low. We do not have any intellectual property rights in this segment of our business to protect our methods, and business start-up costs do not pose a significant barrier to entry. The success of our commercial business is dependent on our employees, customer relations and the successful performance of our services. If we face increased competition as a result of new entrants in our markets, we could experience reduced operating margins and loss of market share and brand recognition.

Item 1B.    Unresolved Staff Comments

        None.

Item 2.    Properties

        Our principal executive offices for all business segments are located in approximately 93,000 square feet of office space in San Diego, California. The lease for such space expires in April 2010. In

26

Table of Contents

anticipation of the expiration of this lease, in December 2009, we executed a sublease agreement for approximately 34,000 square feet of office space beginning on May 1, 2010, and expiring on September 30, 2018. Other corporate resource offices are located in the following locations: Washington, D.C.; Marietta, Georgia; Newport, Delaware; Houston, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; Huntsville, Alabama; Alexandria, Virginia; and Indianapolis, Indiana. We also lease office space to provide local support services to our customers in various regions throughout the United States. The leases on these spaces expire at various times through August 2016. We continually evaluate our current and future space capacity in relation to current and projected future staffing levels. We believe that our existing facilities are suitable and adequate to meet our current business requirements.

Item 3.    Legal Proceedings

IPO Securities Litigation

        Beginning in June 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in several parallel class action shareholder complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, now consolidated under the caption, In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case 01-CV-4779. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO) violated section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company's registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted IPOs of their common stock in the late 1990s and 2000. These complaints have been consolidated into an action captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (the IPO Cases).

        In June 2004, the Issuers (including the Company) executed a partial settlement agreement with the plaintiffs that would have, among other things, resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the Issuers and their officers and directors and the assignment of certain potential Issuer claims to the plaintiffs. On February 15, 2005, the district court issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. On August 31, 2005, the court reaffirmed class certification of the settlement class and preliminary approval of the modified settlement in a comprehensive Order. On February 24, 2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against certain underwriters in connection with certain claims to be assigned under the settlement. On April 24, 2006, the district court held a Final Fairness Hearing to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement, and the court reserved decision at that time. While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants. The district court directed that the litigation proceed within a number of "focus cases" rather than all of the 310 cases that had been consolidated. The Company's case is not one of these focus cases. On October 13, 2004, the district court certified the focus cases as class actions. The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling and on December 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's class certification decision. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition, but clarified that the plaintiffs could seek to certify a more limited class in the district court. In light of the Second Circuit opinion, liaison counsel for all issuer defendants, including the Company, informed the district court that the settlement could not be approved because the defined settlement class, like the litigation class, could not be certified. On June 24, 2007, the district court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement.

        Plaintiffs filed second consolidated amended complaints in the six focus cases on August 14, 2007, and, on September 27, 2007, again moved for class certification. On November 12, 2007, certain of the

27

Table of Contents

defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaints. On March 26, 2008, the district court denied the motions to dismiss except as to section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and those who purchased outside the previously certified class period. The motion for class certification was withdrawn without prejudice on October 10, 2008. On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009. The settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On October 6, 2009, the Court entered an opinion granting final approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of the Court close the IPO Cases. Notices of appeal of this decision have been filed. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the settlement remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of the matter is uncertain.

2004 and 2007 Derivative Securities Litigation

        In August 2004, following the Company's announcement on August 4, 2004 that it intended to restate its financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named as defendants (Defendants) in several securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. These actions were filed on behalf of those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's common stock between April 26, 2000 and August 4, 2004. The lawsuits generally alleged that, during that time period, Defendants made false and misleading statements to the investing public about the Company's business and financial results, causing its stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. Based on these allegations, the lawsuits alleged that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the plaintiffs sought unspecified damages. On January 13, 2009, following a motion by the parties, the Court granted final approval of the settlement of these claims, issued its final judgment on the matter, and entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice.

        In 2004, two derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors: Pedicini v. Wireless Facilities, Inc., Case 04CV1663; and Roth v. Wireless Facilities, Inc., Case 04CV1810. These actions were consolidated into a single action in In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No 04CV1663-JAH. These lawsuits contain factual allegations that are substantially similar to those made in the class action lawsuits, but the plaintiffs in these lawsuits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, waste of corporate assets, violation of Sarbanes Oxley Act section 304, unjust enrichment and insider trading. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek unspecified damages and equitable and/or injunctive relief. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on March 21, 2005. On May 3, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this action, to stay this action pending the resolution of the consolidated non-derivative securities case pending in the Southern District of California, and to dismiss the complaint against certain non-California resident defendants. Pursuant to a request by the court, the defendants' motions were withdrawn without prejudice pending a decision on defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint against the non-California resident defendants. On March 20, 2007, the court ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over five of the six non-California defendants and dismissed them from the federal derivative complaint. On March 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint setting forth all of the same allegations from the original complaint and adding allegations regarding the Company's stock option granting practices. The amended complaint names all of the original defendants (including those dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) as well as nine new defendants. On July 2, 2007, the non-California resident defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On October 17, 2007, the court took the motion under submission without oral argument. On February 26, 2008, the court again ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over five of the six non-California

28

Table of Contents

defendants and dismissed them from the amended federal derivative complaint. Plaintiffs subsequently moved the court for certification and entry of final judgment of the court's order dismissing the non-residents for lack of personal jurisdiction so that the plaintiffs may seek immediate appellate review of the matter. On July 10, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for certification, which was not opposed by defendants. On August 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the personal jurisdictional order. In light of the proposed settlement of all derivative litigation, discussed below, the court has stayed all other matters except as necessary to document and consummate the proposed settlement, pending final approval of the proposed settlement. Similarly, the appellate court has stayed all matters related to plaintiffs' notice of appeal of the personal jurisdictional order pending district court approval of the proposed settlement.

        In August and September 2004, two virtually identical derivative lawsuits were filed in California Superior Court for San Diego County against certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. These actions contain factual allegations similar to those of the federal lawsuits, but the plaintiffs in these cases assert claims for violations of California's insider trading laws, breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs in these actions seek unspecified damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief and disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by defendants. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action—In re Wireless Facilities, Inc. Derivative Litigation, California Superior Court, San Diego County, Lead Case GIC 834253. The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Shareholder Derivative Complaint on October 14, 2004. This action has been stayed pending a decision in federal court on a motion to dismiss the federal derivative lawsuit. In October 2009, the parties notified the Court of the status of the federal action and stipulated to stay the matter for an additional six months. The Court subsequently granted the parties' stipulation and stay request and ordered the parties to file an updated status report in April 2010.

        In October 2009, following a voluntarily mediation and subsequent negotiations related to all of the above-described derivative litigation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the federal and state derivative litigation. The district court granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of their proposed settlement in January 2010 and will hold a hearing on March 29, 2010 to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved as final and whether the court should enter a final judgment order dismissing the matter with prejudice. The details of the settlement are set forth in the settlement papers filed with the court. There is no guarantee, however, that the settlement ultimately will be approved by the court. In addition, defendants continue to believe that plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted if the settlement is not approved as final and the case dismissed. It is impossible at this time to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company.

        The Company has recorded an accrual for a contingent liability associated with the legal proceedings related to the derivative actions of $0.1 million based on the Company's estimate of the potential amount it would have to pay in relation to the settlement of these derivative lawsuits. The Company deposited the $0.1 million into escrow with the court in January 2010. The Company expects the majority of any additional costs incurred in connection with the settlement of these lawsuits to be paid by its Directors' and Officers' liability insurer(s).

Other Litigation and Government Reviews and Investigations

        In addition to the foregoing matters, from time to time, the Company may become involved in various claims, lawsuits and legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and an adverse result in these or other matters may arise from time to time that may harm the Company's business. The Company is currently not aware of any such legal proceedings or claims that it believes will have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse affect on our business, financial condition, operating results or cash flows.

29

Table of Contents

PART II

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

Market Information

        Our Common Stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market and has traded under the symbol "KTOS" since September 17, 2007. Our common stock traded under the symbol "WFII" from November 5, 1999 through September 14, 2007.

        The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices for our Common Stock for the periods indicated, as reported by NASDAQ. Such quotation represents inter-dealer prices without retail markup, markdown or commission and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

30

Table of Contents

        On March 5, 2010 the last sale price of our Common Stock as reported by NASDAQ was $14.00 per share. On March 5, 2010, there were 372 shareholders of record of our Common Stock.

        We have not declared any cash dividends since becoming a public company. We currently intend to retain any future earnings to finance the growth and development of the business and, therefore, do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, our credit facility restricts our ability to pay dividends. Any future determination to pay cash dividends will be at the discretion of our Board and will be dependent upon the future financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements, general business conditions and other relevant factors as determined by our Board.

Performance Graph

        The following performance graph is a comparison of the five year cumulative stockholder return on our common stock against the cumulative total return of the NASDAQ Composite Index, and a peer group composed of the Russell 2000 Stock Index and ATS Corporation, Dynamic Research Corporation, Stanley, Inc., VSE Corporation, and WPCS International, Inc. for the period commencing December 31, 2004 and ending December 27, 2009. The performance graph assumes an initial investment of $100 in our common stock and in each of the indices and peer group. The comparison also assumes that all dividends are reinvested and all returns are market-cap weighted. The historical information set forth below is not necessarily indicative of future performance.

COMPARISON OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
Among Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.

*

$100 invested on 12/31/04 in stock or index, including reinvestment of dividends. Fiscal year ending December 31.

*

The chart reflects the 1-for-10 reverse stock split of Kratos common stock on September 10, 2009.

        Copyright© 2009 S&P, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.

        The performance graph above and related text are being furnished solely to accompany this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Item 201(e) of Regulation S-K, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of ours, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

31

Table of Contents

Item 6.    Selected Financial Data

        The following selected consolidated financial data should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes thereto and with "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" which are incorporated in Item 7 or included elsewhere in this Report on Form 10-K. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of operating results to be expected in the future.

32

Table of Contents

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

        This report contains forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events or our future financial performance. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as "may," "will," "should," "expect," "plan," "anticipate," "believe," "estimate," "predict," "potential" or "continue," the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology. These statements are only predictions. Actual events or results may differ materially. Factors that may cause our results to differ include, but are not limited to: changes in the scope or timing of our projects; changes or cutbacks in spending by the U.S. Department of Defense which could cause delays or cancellations of key government contracts; the timing, rescheduling or cancellation of significant customer contracts and agreements, or consolidation by or the loss of key customers; failure to successfully consummate acquisitions or integrate acquired operations; failure to establish and maintain important relationships with government entities and agencies and other government contractors could limit our ability to bid successfully for new business; and competition in the marketplace which could reduce revenues and profit margins.

        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. Moreover, neither we, nor any other person, assume responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the forward- looking statements. We are under no obligation to update any of the forward- looking statements after the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K to conform such statements to actual results or to changes in our expectations.

        Certain of the information set forth herein, including costs and expenses that exclude the impact of stock-based compensation expense, amortization expense of purchased intangibles for 2007, 2008 and 2009, and the stock option investigation and related costs in 2007 and recovery of a portion of these costs in 2008, may be considered non-GAAP financial measures. We believe this information is useful to investors because it provides a basis for measuring the operating performance of our business and our cash flow, excluding the effect of stock-based compensation expense that would normally be included in the most directly comparable measures calculated and presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Our management uses these non-GAAP financial measures along with the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures in evaluating our operating performance, capital resources and cash flow. Non-GAAP financial measures should not be considered in isolation from, or as a substitute for, financial information presented in compliance with GAAP, and non-financial measures we report may not be comparable to similarly titled amounts reported by other companies.

        The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our audited Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Report and other reports and filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Readers are also urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made by us which attempt to advise interested parties of the factors which affect our business, including without limitation the disclosures made under the caption "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," and Item 1A—Risk Factors.

Overview

        We are an innovative provider of mission critical engineering, information technology (IT) services and warfighter solutions. We work primarily for the U.S. government and federal government agencies, but we also perform work for state and local agencies and commercial customers. Our principal services are related to, but are not limited to, Command, Control, Communications, Computing, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR); weapons systems lifecycle support and sustainment; military weapon range operations and technical services; missile, rocket and weapons system test and evaluation; missile and rocket mission launch services; public safety, security and surveillance systems; modeling and simulation; unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) products and

33

Table of Contents

technology; and advanced network engineering and information technology services. We offer our customers solutions and expertise to support their mission-critical needs by leveraging our skills across our core service areas.

        We derive a substantial portion of our revenue from contracts performed for federal government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), with the majority of our revenue currently generated from the delivery of mission-critical warfighter solutions, advanced engineering services, system integration and system sustainment services to defense and other non-DoD and civilian government agencies. We believe our diversified and stable client base, strong client relationships, broad array of contract vehicles, considerable employee base possessing government security clearances, extensive list of past performance qualifications, and significant management and operational capabilities position us for continued growth.

        Prior to 2008, we were also an independent provider of outsourced engineering and network deployment services, security systems engineering and integration services and other technical services for the wireless communications industry, the U.S. government and enterprise customers. In 2006 and 2007, we undertook a transformation strategy whereby we divested our commercial wireless-related businesses and chose to pursue business with the federal government, primarily the DoD, through strategic acquisitions. On September 12, 2007, we changed our name from Wireless Facilities, Inc. to Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. Our new name reflects our revised focus as a defense contractor and security systems integrator for the federal government and for state and local agencies. In connection with our name change, we changed our NASDAQ Global Market trading symbol to "KTOS".

Current Reporting Segments

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

Kratos Government Solutions Segment (KGS)

        Our Kratos Government Solutions segment provides engineering, information technology and technical services to federal, state, and local government agencies, but primarily the DoD. Our work includes weapon systems lifecycle support and extension; C5ISR; military range operations and technical services; missile, rocket, and weapon systems test and evaluation; mission launch services; public safety and security services; advanced network engineering and information technology services; and public safety, security and surveillance systems integration. Our KGS segment also focuses on the homeland security market with products and services aimed at supporting first responders.

Public Safety & Security Segment (PSS)

        Our Public Safety & Security segment provides system design, deployment, integration, monitoring and support services for public safety, security and surveillance networks for state and local governments and commercial customers. Public safety and security networks have been traditionally segregated into systems such as voice, data, access control, video surveillance, and temperature control and fire and life safety. We provide services that combine such systems and offer integrated solutions

34

Table of Contents

on both Ethernet and IP based platforms. We also offer solutions that combine voice, data, electronic security and building automation systems with fixed or wireless connectivity solutions. Our target markets are healthcare, government, data centers, large scale industrial and manufacturing, correctional facilities, education and sports and entertainment. Our commitments to these markets and our ability to provide feature-rich, cost-effective solutions have allowed us to become one of the larger independent integrators for these types of systems. We maintain regional office locations, comprised of Kratos Mid-Atlantic, Kratos Southeast, and Kratos Southwest.

        On June 24, 2009, as a result of the continued operating losses in the Southeast division of our Public Safety & Security segment, our Board of Directors approved a plan to sell and dispose of the Southeast division. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 205 Presentation of Financial Statements, this business unit has been classified as held for sale and reported in discontinued operations. We recorded a $2.0 million impairment charge in the second quarter of 2009 related to management's estimate of the fair value of the business.

Recent Acquisitions

        On December 31, 2007, we completed our acquisition of Indianapolis, Indiana headquartered Haverstick Consulting, Inc. (Haverstick) as part of our KGS segment. Haverstick provides rocket and missile test and evaluation, weapons systems support, and professional services to the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, NASA, and other federal, state and local agencies. Through the Haverstick acquisition, we expanded our customer relationship within the DoD and enhanced our presence with the U.S. Air Force, a key growth area for Haverstick.

        The total purchase price for the Haverstick acquisition was $92.0 million, including transaction costs incurred by us of $0.8 million. The purchase price paid to Haverstick of $91.2 million was paid in a combination of $70.3 million of cash and common stock valued at $19.4 million based on 748,000 shares at a price of $26.00 per share, the average closing price of Kratos shares of common stock for the two days prior to, including, and the two days subsequent to the public announcement of the acquisition on November 5, 2007, and a working capital adjustment of $1.5 million. We held back $8.6 million, $1.2 million in cash and $7.4 million in stock, to secure any negative working capital adjustments required by the merger agreement and our indemnity rights. The holdback consideration, which accrued interest in accordance with the terms of the agreement until paid, was to be initially released on the 12th month and 21st month after the date of the acquisition. As a result of a claims notice we filed in relation to an indemnity claim which could have exceeded the amount of the holdback consideration payable due to Haverstick, we did not make the December 2008 holdback payment. In March 2009, our indemnity claim against Haverstick was resolved and the December holdback payment of $4.3 million was paid. The final holdback payment of $4.3 million was made in October 2009.

        In addition to the indemnity holdback, the agreement also called for a post closing working capital adjustment. In February 2008, we and Haverstick agreed on the working capital calculation called for in the agreement. The calculation resulted in a working capital adjustment due to Haverstick in an amount of $1.5 million. The working capital adjustment was paid in April 2008 with 69,731 shares of common stock valued at $1.3 million and cash of $0.2 million. To fund the acquisition, we secured a new credit facility of $85.0 million arranged by KeyBanc Capital Markets. The credit facility, which included a $25.0 million line of credit and $60.0 million in term notes, replaced a previous credit facility, which had an outstanding principal balance of $6.0 million on December 31, 2007. Until the date on which the shares of stock issued to Haverstick became saleable interest accrued on the value of the closing stock at a floating rate of one-month LIBOR plus four percent (4%) per annum. The shares became saleable on June 30, 2008 and 16,769 additional shares were issued in satisfaction of the accrued interest.

35

Table of Contents

        On June 28, 2008, we completed our merger with SYS, a San Diego-based company. The merger enhanced our position as a premier mid-tier federal, state and local government contractor in the United States in the areas of C4ISR, IT services and public safety and homeland security solutions. The merger created a broad, complementary set of business offerings, and positions us to deliver capabilities to a wider spectrum of customers.

        We issued 2.5 million shares to SYS shareholders in the acquisition, for a total purchase price of $55.9 million including direct transaction costs of $2.4 million. Each share of SYS common stock was converted into the right to receive 0.12582 shares of Kratos common stock. The value of the Kratos common stock issued in the acquisition was derived from the number of shares of Kratos common stock issued, or 2.5 million, at a price of $20.22 per share, the average closing price of Kratos shares of common stock for the two days prior to, including, and the two days subsequent to the public announcement of the acquisition on February 21, 2008. Following the closing of the acquisition, we implemented a plan to restructure and/or exit certain business activities of SYS. The plan included a comprehensive assessment of personnel, relocation of personnel, facility consolidation and exit strategies for certain lines of business. The plan provided for approximately $2.0 million of restructuring costs associated with personnel, and additional costs of $0.5 million for facilities consolidation. The restructuring costs were primarily associated with businesses subsequently sold and are accounted for in discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. As of December 27, 2009, approximately $1.6 million of the restructuring and facilities consolidation costs have been paid.

        In addition, we identified three business units of SYS that were not core to our business strategy and/or were dilutive to profitability. We completed the sale of these businesses in the first quarter of 2009 for an aggregate cash consideration of approximately $0.4 million. We expect the divestiture of these businesses to slightly reduce revenues going forward, and increase profitability and cash flow. These businesses have been classified as discontinued operations in our Consolidated Financial Statements for each of the years in the three year period ended December 27, 2009.

        On December 24, 2008 we acquired Huntsville, Alabama based Digital Fusion, Inc. (DFI). DFI provides C4ISR and technical engineering services, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) products and technology and has significant engineering, modeling and simulation capabilities. The acquisition of DFI provides us with new customers and an expanded contract vehicle portfolio, in addition to expanding the range of service offerings to our existing customers. Principal customers of DFI include the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC), Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command (ARSTRAT), NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, and certain classified customers.

        The total stock for stock transaction was valued at approximately $37.0 million, including transaction costs of $0.9 million. We issued 2.3 million shares to DFI shareholders and assumed outstanding DFI options, which resulted in the assumption of options to acquire approximately 1.0 million Kratos shares. The value of the purchase price related to the common stock issued was derived from the number of shares of Kratos common stock issued of 2.3 million, based on 12.8 million shares of DFI common stock outstanding and the exchange ratio of 0.17933 for each DFI share, at a price of $12.70 per share, the average closing price of Kratos shares of common stock for the two days prior to, including, and the two days subsequent to the public announcement of the merger on November 24, 2008. The fair value of the options assumed that were allocated to goodwill based upon the Black-Scholes pricing model was $7.0 million. The fair value of unvested options which are related to future service will be expensed as the service is performed.

36

Table of Contents

Divestiture of Wireless Network Business

        On December 28, 2006, our Board approved a plan to divest portions of our business where critical mass had not been achieved. This plan involved the divestiture of our European, Middle Eastern, and African (EMEA) operations and our remaining South American operations. The EMEA operations were sold to LCC International, Inc. (LCC) on March 9, 2007 for $4.0 million in cash, $3.3 million of which was received on that date. We also received approximately $1.8 million from our EMEA operations prior and subsequent to the closing date as payment on outstanding intercompany debt. The balance of the $0.7 million sales price was withheld as security for the satisfaction of certain indemnification obligations and was payable on March 31, 2008. Based upon our review of the financial statements of the buyer, as of December 31, 2007, we had concern about their ability to pay this holdback, due to their available liquidity. We recorded a reserve of $0.7 million for this receivable. In May 2008, we reached an agreement with LCC for the payment of the $0.7 million holdback amount, under which LCC agreed to pay the outstanding balance in $0.1 million increments each month commencing June 30, 2008. We have not yet received any payments due according to the agreement. While we intend to vigorously pursue collection of the amounts, there is a substantial likelihood that we will not receive payment of the amount due, in light of LCC's apparent available liquidity.

        On April 20, 2007, we entered into an Equity Purchase Agreement to sell our wholly-owned subsidiary WFI de Brazil Techlogia en Telecommunications LTDA to Strategic Project Services, LLC (SPS). The consideration included the assumption of substantially all outstanding liabilities of WFI Brazil, nominal cash consideration, and additional earn-out consideration based on 25% of net receivables collected subsequent to the closing date. With respect to the additional earn-out consideration, we have not received and do not anticipate receiving any payments.

        On May 29, 2007, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with LCC International, Inc. for the sale of all of the assets used in the conduct of the operation of our engineering services business of our Wireless Network Services segment that provided engineering services to the non-government wireless communications industry in the United States, for aggregate consideration of $46.0 million. LCC delivered a subordinated promissory note for the principal amount of $21.6 million (the Subordinated Promissory Note), paid $17.0 million at closing and paid final working capital adjustments of $2.4 million through an amendment to the Subordinated Promissory Note. We retained an estimated $5.0 million in net working capital. The transaction was completed on June 4, 2007. On July 5, 2007, we sold the $21.6 million Subordinated Promissory Note to Silver Point Capital, L.P. (Silver Point) in a transaction arranged by KeyBanc Capital Markets ("KeyBanc"). We received approximately $19.6 million in net cash proceeds, reflecting a discount from par value of less than five percent and aggregate transaction fees of approximately $1.0 million, which includes a $0.8 million fee to KeyBanc, an affiliate of our lender. On January 30, 2008, we received net proceeds of approximately $2.3 million on the working capital adjustment from Silver Point, net of a $0.1 million discount from par value. We did not provide any guaranty for LCC's payment obligations under the note.

        On July 7, 2007, we entered into a definitive agreement with an affiliate of Platinum Equity to sell our deployment services business of our Wireless Network Services segment for total consideration payable of $24.0 million, including $18.0 million in cash at closing (subject to typical post closing working capital adjustments) and an aggregate $6.0 million in a three-year earn-out arrangement. The transaction closed on July 24, 2007. As a result of these engineering and deployment services divestitures in 2007, the Wireless Network Services segment has been classified as a discontinued operation in this Annual Report for all prior years presented in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 205 Presentation of Financial Statements.

        On July 16, 2008, we came to an agreement with Platinum Equity on a working capital adjustment of $5.0 million. In connection with that agreement, the earn-out arrangement was terminated. The adjustment was to be paid in installments, with the final installment paid on August 4, 2009.

37

Table of Contents

Key Financial Statement Concepts

        As of December 27, 2009, we consider the following factors to be important in understanding our financial statements.

        Kratos Government Solutions' business with the U.S. government and prime contractors is generally performed under cost reimbursable, fixed-price or time and materials contracts. Cost reimbursable contracts for the government provide for reimbursement of costs plus the payment of a fee. Some cost reimbursable contracts include incentive fees that are awarded based on performance on the contract. Under fixed-price contracts, we agree to perform certain work for a fixed price. Under time and materials contracts, we are reimbursed for labor hours at negotiated hourly billing rates and reimbursed for travel and other direct expenses at actual costs plus applied general and administrative expenses. Our Public Security and Safety contracts are primarily fixed-price contracts whereby revenue is recognized using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting under the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 605 Revenue Recognition. For contracts offered on a time and material basis, we recognize revenues as services are performed.

        Cost of revenues includes direct compensation, living, travel and benefit expenses for project-related personnel, payments to third-party subcontractors, cost of materials, project-related incentive compensation based upon the successful achievement of certain project performance goals, allocation of overhead costs and other direct project-related expenses. Selling, general and administrative expenses include compensation and benefits for corporate service employees and similar costs for billable employees whose time and expenses cannot be assigned to a project (underutilization costs), expendable computer software and equipment, facilities expenses and other operating expenses not directly related and/or allocated to projects. General and administrative costs include all corporate and administrative functions that support existing operations and provide infrastructure to facilitate our future growth. Additionally, our sales personnel and senior corporate executives have, as part of their compensation packages, periodic and annual bonus/commission incentives based on the attainment of specified performance goals.

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

        We believe that our Kratos Government Solutions segment will build and expand our customer relationships within the DoD, Department of Homeland Security and other non-DoD state and local agencies by taking advantage of the significant opportunities for companies with substantial expertise in advanced engineering and information technology. We believe we will experience continued growth in revenues and operating income from this operating segment. The acquisitions of Haverstick on December 31, 2007, SYS on June 28, 2008, and DFI on December 24, 2008 resulted in the addition of over 1,000 highly skilled technical professionals and engineers with expertise in the areas of military weapons and target range support as well as targets and missile operations and maintenance.

38

Table of Contents

Results of Operations

Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 28, 2008 to the Year ended December 27, 2009

        Revenues.    Revenues by operating segment for the years ended December 28, 2008 and December 27, 2009 are as follows (in millions):

        Revenues increased $48.3 million from $286.2 million in 2008 to $334.5 million in 2009. The increase of $57.6 million in our Kratos Government Solutions segment was partially due to the acquisitions of DFI on December 24, 2008 and SYS on June 28, 2008 which resulted in an increase in revenue of $88.6 million. This increase in revenue was partially offset by reductions due to the substantial completion of two weapons systems contracts, the planned reductions of acquired small business set aside contract work, pass through work and other contract work in the Kratos Government Solutions segment. The Public Safety & Security segment was negatively impacted by the current adverse economic environment as a result of delays in capital improvement projects and the construction of new buildings.

        As described in the section "Critical Accounting Principles and Estimates" and in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, a portion of our revenue is derived from fixed-price contracts whereby revenue is calculated using the percentage-of-completion method based on the ratio of total costs incurred to date compared to estimated total costs to complete the contract. These estimates are reviewed monthly on a contract-by-contract basis, and are revised periodically throughout the life of the contract such that adjustments to profit resulting from revisions are made cumulative to the date of the revision. Significant management judgments and estimates, including the estimated costs to complete projects, which determine the project's percent complete, must be made and used in connection with the revenue recognized in any accounting period. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of our revenue for any period if management makes different judgments or utilizes different estimates. During the reporting periods contained herein, we did experience revenue and margin adjustments of certain projects based on the aforementioned factors, but the effect of such adjustments, both positive and negative, when evaluated in total were determined to be immaterial to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

        Cost of revenues.    Cost of revenues increased $37.2 million or 16.3% from $228.0 million for the year ended December 28, 2008 to $265.2 million for the year ended December 27, 2009 primarily due to the increase in total revenues. The increase was primarily attributable to cost of revenues of approximately $74.5 million related to the DFI and SYS acquisitions, partially offset by reduced costs related to the reductions in revenues described above. Gross margin during the year ended December 27, 2009 of 20.7% increased slightly from a 2008 gross margin of 20.3%.

        Selling, general and administrative expenses.    Selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) increased 8.0% from $48.9 million to $52.8 million for the years ended December 28, 2008 and December 27, 2009, respectively. The increase of $3.9 million was partially due to an increase in costs of $7.9 million from the acquisitions of DFI and SYS, offset by a decrease in corporate and other expenses in our commercial divisions due to the implementation of cost reduction initiatives. Included in the selling, general and administrative expenses for 2008 and 2009 are amortization of purchased intangibles of $4.9 million and $5.7 million, respectively. The increase in amortization year over year was primarily a result of the DFI and SYS acquisitions. As a percentage of revenues, selling, general and administrative expenses decreased from 17.1% in 2008 to 15.8% in 2009. Excluding the impact of

39

Table of Contents

the amortization of purchased intangibles, SG&A expenses decreased from 15.4% to 14.1% of revenues for 2008 and 2009, respectively, reflecting the leverage on increased revenues and the implementation of cost reduction initiatives.

        Research and development expenses.    Research and development (R&D) expenses increased from $0.9 million for the year ended December 28, 2008 to $1.8 million for the year ended December 27, 2009 as a result of R&D expenses incurred by DFI and SYS which were acquired on December 24, 2008 and June 28, 2008, respectively.

        Recovery of unauthorized issuance of stock options, stock option investigation and related fees and litigation settlement.    In 2008, we recovered $4.5 million, through insurance reimbursements, of costs and losses related to the stock option investigation in 2007. In September 2009, we reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the outstanding 2004 and 2007 derivative lawsuits. The benefit in 2009 of $0.2 million is a result of the reduction in our estimated accrual related to this litigation, offset by expenses related to government inquiries by the Department of Justice, which was completed in 2009, related to our historical stock option granting practices.

        Impairment of goodwill.    In December 2008, we concluded that the decision to exit three businesses obtained with the SYS acquisition and included with our KGS reporting segment met the criteria to be classified as held for sale and was a triggering event under FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other that required a review of goodwill and intangibles assets with indefinite lives. Because the three business units were never integrated into the KGS reporting unit, and the benefits of the acquired goodwill were never realized by the rest of the reporting unit, the goodwill of the disposed businesses was not adjusted based upon the relative fair values of the businesses disposed and businesses retained.

        Because of the timing of the disposals mentioned above, the required impairment test of the KGS goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives was included with our required annual impairment test of goodwill. The annual impairment test for goodwill was performed using a discounted cash flow analysis supported by comparative market multiples to determine the fair values of our segments versus their book values. The test as of December 28, 2008, indicated that the book values for the KGS segment, excluding DFI (which was purchased on December 24, 2008), exceeded the fair values of these businesses and resulted in our recording a non-cash charge totaling $105.8 million in our KGS segment for the impairment of goodwill.

        The impairment charge is primarily driven by adverse equity market conditions that caused a decrease in market multiples and our average stock price as of December 28, 2008, compared with the impairment test performed as of December 31, 2007. In our analysis, we use the income approach and validate its reasonableness by considering our market capitalization based upon an average of our stock price for a period prior to and subsequent to the date we perform our analysis. The average market price of our stock as of December 28, 2008 was $12.90 which equates to a 45% drop in our average stock price and corresponding market capitalization from December 31, 2007 which had an average stock price of $23.50. We reconcile the fair value of our reporting units which is calculated using the income approach to our market capitalization. As a result of this reconciliation, it was noted that investors were requiring a higher rate of return, and therefore, our discount factor which is based upon an estimated market participant weighted average cost of capital (WACC) increased 250 basis points from 11.5% in our year end impairment test in 2007 compared to 14% in our year end impairment test in 2008. This change was the key factor contributing to the $105.8 million impairment charge that we recorded in the fourth quarter of 2008.

        During the first quarter of 2009, we determined that a triggering event had occurred in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other. This resulted in an impairment charge of $41.3 million during the first quarter of 2009. The impairment charge was primarily driven by adverse

40

Table of Contents

equity market conditions that caused a decrease in market multiples and our average stock price as of February 28, 2009, compared with the impairment test performed as of December 28, 2008. In our analysis, we use the income approach and validate its reasonableness by considering our market capitalization based upon an average of our stock price for a period prior to and subsequent to the date we performed our analysis. The average market price of our stock as of February 28, 2009 was $7.80 which equates to a 39% drop in our average stock price and corresponding market capitalization from December 28, 2008 which had an average stock price of $12.90. We reconcile the fair value of our reporting units which is calculated using the income approach to our market capitalization. As a result of this reconciliation, it was noted that investors were requiring a higher rate of return, and therefore, our discount factor which is based upon an estimated market participant weighted average cost of capital (WACC) increased 300 basis points from 14% in our year end impairment test in 2008 as compared to 17% in our 2009 first quarter interim impairment test. This change was the key factor contributing to the $41.3 million goodwill impairment charge that we recorded in the first quarter of 2009.

        Our historical growth rates and operating results are not indicative of our future growth rates and operating results as a consequence of our transformation from a commercial wireless service provider to a U.S. government defense contractor. The decline in revenues on a pro forma basis after considering recent acquisitions, which we expected, is primarily due to the impact of the conversion of our work as a prime contractor under certain legacy small business awards to that of a subcontractor. This change resulted in an award of an overall smaller portion of the entire project as the contracts were recompeted and the original term of the small business contracts were completed. The conversion of work as a prime to a subcontractor related to legacy small business contracts awarded to acquired companies is not uncommon in the government defense contractor industry for companies that have been acquisitive. Certain of the contract awards that were legacy small business awards to businesses which we acquired may result in a reduction of revenues when these contracts are completed and recompeted and awarded to us as a subcontractor rather than as a prime contractor. We believe that the expected impact to our revenues will not be material related to this conversion. Our projected growth rates take into consideration this anticipated impact on small business awards.

        Our contracts are long-term in nature and are supported by significant backlog. Because our contracts are of a long-term nature, a majority of our receivables are with agencies within the U. S. government or we are a subcontractor to a customer whose receivables are with the agencies within the U.S. government, we are not subject to significant short-term changes in operating cash flow. Moreover, because of the nature of our current business, we do not have significant capital expenditure requirements. In addition, we did not assume a recovery of the global or national economy in our cash flow projections in our analysis as of December 28, 2008 or in our analysis as of February 28, 2009. The charge does not impact our normal business operations.

        Impairment and adjustments to the liability for unused office space.    The expense of $0.3 million for the year ended December 28, 2008 was a result of a change in estimate of our excess facility accrual for obligations under facility leases and a write-off of fees related to the withdrawal of our previously filed S-3 and S-4 registration statements, which were no longer useable as a result of a change in regulations. The expense of $0.6 million for the year ended December 27, 2009, was a result of a change in our excess facility accrual due to the consolidation of space at our corporate headquarters following the sale of the SYS commercial businesses and a cancellation of a sublease of one of our tenants due to financial difficulties.

        Other expense, net.    For the year ended December 28, 2008, net other expense was $11.5 million compared to net other expense of $10.3 million for the year ended December 27, 2009. The decrease in expense of $1.2 million for the year ended December 27, 2009 as compared to the year ended December 28, 2008 was primarily driven by a decrease in other expense of $1.6 million as a result of the non-cash charge to mark the derivative related to our credit facility to market. This decrease in

41

Table of Contents

other expense was partially offset by an increase in interest expense of $0.7 million related to the acceleration of the amortization of deferred financing costs due to a $17.5 million early extinguishment of the first lien term loan in October 2009. For additional information regarding this extinguishment of debt, see Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.

        Provision (benefit) for income taxes.    Our effective income tax rate for the year ended December 27, 2009 represented a negative 3% income tax provision compared to a positive 1% income tax benefit for the year ended December 28, 2008. The tax provision for the year ended December 27, 2009 was primarily related to current state income taxes of $1.0 million. The tax benefit of $0.7 million for the year ended December 28, 2008 was comprised of current state income taxes of $1.3 million offset by a benefit of $2.0 million related to a reduction in deferred tax liabilities as a result of the goodwill impairment charge.

        Loss from discontinued operations.    Loss from discontinued operations decreased from a loss of $7.1 million for the year ended December 28, 2008 to a loss of $3.2 million for the year ended December 27, 2009.

        In December 2008, we made the decision to exit three of our acquired SYS businesses that were not core to our stated strategy and that have been dilutive to our profitability. The businesses divested or exited provided interactive video surveillance and information analysis products, digital broadcasting products and incident response management systems. These actions were taken as part of our ongoing integration efforts of recently acquired companies and cost reduction initiatives. In 2008, $4.5 million of the loss is related to asset impairments including goodwill. In 2009, $2.0 million of the loss was related to the impairment of assets of the Southeast division of PSS which reflects management's estimate of the fair value of the business.

        On June 24, 2009, as a result of the continued operating losses in the Southeast division of the Company's Public Safety & Security segment, the Company's Board of Directors approved a plan to sell and dispose of the Southeast division. In accordance with Topic 205, this business unit was classified as held for sale and reported in discontinued operations in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company recorded a $2.0 million impairment charge in the second quarter of 2009 related to management's estimate of the fair value of the business. The Company continues to operate the Southeast division while simultaneously seeking a buyer. The negative cash flow from discontinued operations is primarily a result of this division's continuing business activities. The Company has taken significant cost reduction actions throughout 2009 to improve the operating margins and operating cash flows of this business.

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

        See Note 8 to the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for a further discussion of discontinued operations.

42

Table of Contents

Comparison of Results for the Year Ended December 31, 2007 to the Year Ended December 28, 2008

        Revenues.    Revenues by operating segment for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 28, 2008 are as follows (in millions):

        Revenues increased $105.5 million from $180.7 million in 2007 to $286.2 million in 2008, reflecting an increase of $104.2 million in our Kratos Government Solutions segment, primarily due to the acquisitions of Haverstick on December 31, 2007 and SYS on June 28, 2008. Haverstick revenue in 2008 was $85.5 million and SYS revenue was $33.2 million. This combined increase of $118.7 million from the acquired companies was partially offset by decreases in revenues in the KGS segment of approximately $14.5 million. This decrease was a result of the impact of the conversion of our work as prime to subcontractor on one of our target range projects, which was recompeted earlier in the year and awarded to a small business as well as the timing of deliverables and completion on one of our Foreign Military Sales programs. The increase in the PSS segment was primarily the result of an increase in revenue related to our Southwest division.

        As described in the section "Critical Accounting Principles and Estimates" and in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, a portion of our revenue is derived from fixed-price contracts whereby revenue is calculated using the percentage-of-completion method based on the ratio of total costs incurred to date compared to estimated total costs to complete the contract. These estimates are reviewed monthly on a contract-by-contract basis, and are revised periodically throughout the life of the contract such that adjustments to profit resulting from revisions are made cumulative to the date of the revision. Significant management judgments and estimates, including the estimated costs to complete projects, which determine the project's percent complete, must be made and used in connection with the revenue recognized in any accounting period. Material differences may result in the amount and timing of our revenue for any period if management makes different judgments or utilizes different estimates. During the reporting periods contained herein, we did experience revenue and margin adjustments of certain projects based on the aforementioned factors, but the effect of such adjustments, both positive and negative, when evaluated in total were determined to be immaterial to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

        Cost of revenues.    Cost of revenues increased $77.0 million or 51.0% from $151.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 to $228.0 million for the year ended December 28, 2008 primarily due to the increase in total revenues. The increase was primarily attributable to cost of revenues of approximately $90.6 million related to the Haverstick and SYS acquisitions, partially offset by decreases in cost of revenues as a result of the reduced revenues in the two programs as discussed above. Gross margin during the year ended December 28, 2008 of 20.3% increased from a 2007 gross margin of 16.4%. The increase in gross margin primarily resulted from higher gross margins in our KGS segment as a result of our Haverstick and SYS acquisitions due to the types of program mix as well as classification of costs between cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses in accordance with government accounting standards. In addition, there was improved operational performance in our PSS segment, for which margins increased from 24.3% to 29.1% for the year ended December 31, 2007 and December 28, 2008, respectively.

        Selling, general and administrative expenses.    Selling, general and administrative expenses increased 33.6% from $36.6 million to $48.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 28, 2008, respectively. The increase of $12.3 million was primarily due to an increase in costs reflecting the

43

Table of Contents

acquisitions of Haverstick and SYS, offset by a reduction in corporate expenses. Included in the selling, general and administrative expenses for 2007 and 2008 are amortization of purchased intangibles of $2.7 million and $4.9 million, respectively. The increase in amortization year over year was also a result of the Haverstick and SYS acquisitions. As a percentage of revenues, selling, general and administrative expenses decreased from 20.3% in 2007 to 17.1% in 2008. Excluding the impact of the amortization of purchased intangibles, SG&A decreased from 18.8% to 15.4% of revenues for 2007 and 2008, respectively, reflecting the leverage on increased revenues.

        Research and development expenses.    Research and development (R&D) expenses increased from zero for the year ended December 31, 2007 to $0.9 million for the year ended December 28, 2008 as a result of R&D expenses incurred by SYS which was acquired on June 28, 2008.

        Recovery of unauthorized issuance of stock options, stock option investigation and related fees and litigation settlement.    For the year ended December 31, 2007 our expenses of $15.5 million included $14.0 million in legal, accounting and other professional fees related to our Equity Award Review which was completed in September 2007 and the completed government inquiries by the Department of Justice and the completed SEC investigation. This amount was partially offset by $3.4 million related to the recovery of assets from our settlement with our former stock option administrator related to damages for the theft of our stock options and common stock which occurred in 2002 and 2003 and was discovered during our internal review of our option granting practices. Also included in the expenses of $15.5 million was an estimated $4.9 million related to the costs for the settlement of the 2004 and 2007 securities litigation as a result of a tentative agreement reached during a voluntary mediation in February 2008 and an estimate for the settlement of our derivative litigation.

        During the year ended December 28, 2008, we recovered $4.5 million, through insurance reimbursements, of costs and losses related to the stock option investigation in 2007. We also paid approximately $4.2 million related to the final agreement on the 2004 and 2007 securities litigation in 2008.

        Impairment of goodwill.    In December 2008, we concluded that the decision to exit three businesses obtained with the SYS acquisition and included with our KGS reporting segment met the criteria to be classified as held for sale and was a triggering event under FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other that required a review of goodwill and intangibles assets with indefinite lives. Because the three business units were never integrated into the KGS reporting unit, and the benefits of the acquired goodwill were never realized by the rest of the reporting unit, the goodwill of the disposed businesses was not adjusted based upon the relative fair values of the businesses disposed and businesses retained.

        Because of the timing of the disposals mentioned above, the required impairment test of the KGS goodwill and intangible assets with indefinite lives was included with our required annual impairment test of goodwill. The annual impairment test for goodwill was performed using a discounted cash flow analysis supported by comparative market multiples to determine the fair values of our segments versus their book values. The test as of December 28, 2008, indicated that the book values for the KGS segment, excluding DFI (which was purchased on December 24, 2008), exceeded the fair values of these businesses and resulted in our recording a non-cash charge totaling $105.8 million in our KGS segment for the impairment of goodwill.

        The impairment charge was primarily driven by adverse equity market conditions that caused a decrease in current market multiples and our average stock price as of December 28, 2008, compared with the impairment test performed as of December 31, 2007. In our analysis, we used the income approach and validate its reasonableness by considering our market capitalization based upon an average of our stock price for a period prior to and subsequent to the date we performed our analysis. The average market price of our stock as of December 28, 2008 was $12.90 which equated to a 45%

44

Table of Contents

drop in our average stock price and corresponding market capitalization from December 31, 2007 which had an average stock price of $23.50. We reconciled the fair value of our reporting units which was calculated using the income approach to our market capitalization. As a result of this reconciliation, it was noted that investors were requiring a higher rate of return, and therefore, our discount factor which was based upon an estimated market participant weighted average cost of capital (WACC) increased 250 basis points from 11.5% in our year end impairment test in 2007 compared to 14% in our year end impairment test in 2008. This change was the key factor contributing to the $105.8 million impairment charge that we recorded in the fourth quarter of 2008.

        Our historical growth rates and operating results are not indicative of our future growth rates and operating results as a consequence of our transformation of the Company from a commercial wireless service provider to a U.S. government defense contractor. The decline in revenues on a pro forma basis after considering recent acquisitions, which was expected by us, is primarily due to the impact of the conversion of our work as a prime contractor under certain legacy small business awards to that of a subcontractor. This change resulted in an award of an overall smaller portion of the entire project as the contracts were recompeted and the original term of the small business contracts were completed. The conversion of work as a prime to a subcontractor related to legacy small business contracts awarded to acquired companies is not uncommon in the government defense contractor industry for companies that have been acquisitive. Certain of the contract awards that were legacy small business awards to businesses which we acquired may result in a reduction of revenues when these contracts are completed and recompeted and awarded to us as a subcontractor rather than as a prime contractor. We believe that the expected impact to our revenues will not be material related to this conversion. Our projected growth rates take into consideration this anticipated impact on small business awards.

        Our contracts are long-term in nature and are supported by significant backlog. Because our contracts are of a long-term nature, a majority of our receivables are with agencies within the U. S. government or we are a subcontractor to a customer whose receivables are with the agencies within the U.S. government, we are not subject to significant short-term changes in operating cash flow. Moreover, because of the nature of our current business we do not have significant capital expenditure requirements.

        Impairment and adjustments to the liability for unused office space.    The expense of $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2007 included $0.8 million for an excess facility accrual for our obligations under facility leases with unused office space as a result of the divestitures of our wireless network services businesses, $0.2 million related to the impairment of leasehold improvements for these facilities, and $0.2 million related to an impairment of fixed assets. The expense of $0.3 million for the year ended December 28, 2008 was a result of a change in estimate of our excess facility accrual for obligations under facility leases and a write-off of fees related to our withdrawal of our previously filed S-3 and S-4 registration statements, which were no longer useable as a result of a change in regulations.

        Other Expense, Net.    For the year ended December 31, 2007, net other expense was $2.3 million compared to net other expense of $11.5 million for the year ended December 28, 2008. The net other expense of $2.3 million in 2007 was primarily attributable to approximately $1.8 million of an impairment charge, recorded in the fourth quarter of 2007, related to the carrying value of investments in unconsolidated affiliates to fair value as well as $1.2 million of interest expense incurred on our previous credit facility. The significant increase in 2008 was primarily driven by interest expense of $9.2 million on the debt used to finance the acquisition of Haverstick on December 31, 2007 and a non-cash mark to market adjustment for financial derivatives of $1.7 million.

        Provision (benefit) for income taxes.    Our effective income tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2007 represented a negative 5% income tax provision compared to a positive 1% income tax benefit for the year ended December 28, 2008. The tax provision for the year ended December 31, 2007 was comprised of current state income taxes of $0.7 million and an increase of deferred tax

45

Table of Contents

liabilities of $0.6 million. The tax benefit of $0.7 million for the year ended December 28, 2008 was comprised of current state income taxes of $1.3 million offset by a benefit of $2.0 million related to a reduction in deferred tax liabilities as a result of the goodwill impairment charge.

        Loss from discontinued operations.    Loss from discontinued operations decreased from a loss of $13.6 million in 2007 to a loss of $7.1 million during 2008. In December 2008, we made the decision to exit three of our acquired SYS businesses that are not core to our stated strategy and that have been dilutive to our profitability. The businesses divested or exited provide interactive video surveillance and information analysis products, digital broadcasting products and incident response management systems. These actions were taken as part of our ongoing integration efforts of recently acquired companies and cost reduction initiatives. Included in the loss for 2008 are asset impairments including goodwill of approximately $4.5 million. These losses were partially offset by the favorable resolution of contingencies related to our wireless businesses which were divested in 2007.

        In 2007, the $13.6 million loss was primarily due to the impairment of assets related to the wireless deployment business of $13.4 million, an impairment of goodwill of $7.2 million related to this business, a $1.9 million loss from the disposal of our deployment business and a $1.1 million excess facility accrual. These charges were all partially offset by a gain of $14.8 million on the sale of the wireless engineering services business operations and a gain of $2.6 million on the sale of the EMEA business.

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

        See Note 8 to the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of discontinued operations.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

        As of December 27, 2009, we had consolidated cash and cash equivalents of $9.9 million, consolidated long-term and short-term debt, including capital lease obligations, of $56.3 million, and consolidated stockholders' equity of $124.9 million. Our principal sources of liquidity are cash flows from operations and borrowings under our credit facility. Our operating cash flow is used to finance trade accounts receivable, fund capital expenditures, our ongoing operations, litigation and government inquiries, service our debt and make strategic acquisitions. Financing trade accounts receivable is necessary because, on average, our customers do not pay us as quickly as we pay our vendors and employees for their goods and services. Cash from continuing operations is primarily derived from our customer contracts in progress and associated changes in working capital components.

46

Table of Contents

Credit Facility

        On March 3, 2010, we entered into a new senior secured credit agreement (the New Credit Agreement) with Key Bank National Association (KeyBank) as Administrative Agent and Lender for a new credit facility (the New Credit Facility) in the aggregate principal amount of $60.0 million. The New Credit Facility is comprised of (i) a $35.0 million term loan facility and (ii) a $25.0 million revolving line of credit. Pursuant to the terms of the New Credit Agreement, the term loan and revolving credit facility are both three year facilities. The proceeds under the New Credit Agreement may be used for general corporate purposes including refinancing of existing bank debt, working capital and acquisitions.

        Also on March 3, 2010, we entered into two Payoff Letters with KeyBank terminating our existing $85.0 million credit facility (the Prior Credit Facility). In connection with the refinancing of the Prior Credit Facility, we borrowed $57.5 million under the New Credit Facility. Approximately $25.0 million of the proceeds were used to pay in full the remaining balance on the first lien term loan under the Prior Credit Facility held by Silverpoint Capital LP (Silverpoint), at par, with no prepayment penalties, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement that we entered into with Silverpoint and KeyBank in October 2009. As a result of the refinance, we expect to record an approximate $2.2 million interest charge related to the write-off of unamortized financing costs related to the Prior Credit Facility. As of March 3, 2010, after giving full effect to the refinancing and repayment in full of the Prior Credit Facility, we had outstanding debt of $35.0 million under the New Credit Facility term loan and $22.5 million under the New Credit Facility revolving line of credit.

        We may borrow funds under the New Credit Agreement (i) at the base rate, determined as the greater of (A) the prime loan rate announced by KeyBank and (B) the sum of the weighted average overnight federal funds rate published by the Federal Reserve Bank plus 50 basis points, or (ii) at the offshore rate, determined by KeyBank as the offered rate for U.S. dollar deposits in the approximate amount of the requested loan and having a maturity comparable to such interest period, which rate appears (A) on the British Bankers' Association internet web page (http://www.bba.org.uk/public/libor/), or via (B) Reuters (BBALIBORS), Bloomberg, Moneyline Telerate (Page 3750) or any other information provider of the British Bankers' Association daily Libor rates as of 11:00 A.M., London time, on the date which is the second day on which banks are open for interbank deposits in London prior to the commencement of such interest period; as adjusted for reserve requirements and rounded upwards if necessary to the next higher 1/100%. Borrowings are subject to a Libor floor rate of 2.75% or a Base Rate floor of 5.25%. Term loan borrowings and revolver borrowings may be subject to an additional 450 basis points and 375 basis points, respectively, based on our credit ratings. In addition, we must pay a fee ranging from 30 basis points per annum to 75 points per annum, based on our credit ratings, on the daily amount of the unused commitments under the revolving credit facility. The initial interest rate under the New Credit Facility for the term loan is 7.25%, compared to the approximate 11.75% interest rate under the Prior Credit Facility term loan. The initial interest under the New Credit Facility for the revolving line of credit is approximately 6.50%, compared to the approximate 6.75% rate under the Prior Credit Facility revolving line of credit.

        Pursuant to certain terms of the New Credit Agreement, in certain instances we are required to prepay outstanding indebtedness prior to its stated maturity date. Specifically, certain non-recurring cash inflows such as proceeds from asset sales, insurance recoveries, and equity offerings as well as certain annual operating cash flows may have to be used to pay down indebtedness and may not be reborrowed.

        The terms of the New Credit Agreement include customary representations and warranties, as well as reporting and financial covenants, customary for financings of this type. The financial covenants include a quarterly maximum leverage ratio of 2.75 through December 31, 2010, reducing to 2.50 thereafter, a quarterly fixed charge coverage ratio of 1.10 through December 31, 2010, with an increase

47

Table of Contents

to 1.25 thereafter. In addition, the covenants include a monthly asset coverage ratio of Eligible Billed Accounts Receivables, as defined, of 1.25 times for outstanding balances of the revolving credit facility.

        The New Credit Agreement provides for the ability to increase the revolving line of credit facility by up to $15 million to a total not to exceed $40 million, in the event that the Administrative Agent elects to secure additional commitments from existing lenders or from new lenders.

        Prior to the above refinancing, the Prior Credit Facility provided for two term loans consisting of a first lien term note of $50.0 million and a second lien term note of $10.0 million, as well as a first lien $25.0 million revolving line of credit. The $10.0 million term loan had a five and one half-year term with principal payments of $25,000 required quarterly beginning on March 31, 2008 through March 31, 2013 with the final balance of $9.5 million due on June 30, 2013. The $50.0 million term loan had a five year term with principal payments of $0.6 million required quarterly beginning on March 31, 2008, $1.3 million in 2009, $2.5 million in 2010, and $4.1 million in 2011 and 2012. The revolving line of credit had an original four year term which which was subsequently extended to December 31, 2012 and contains provisions typical in such arrangements. As of December 27, 2009, the balance on the first lien term loan was $24.9 million, the balance on the second lien term loan was $9.8 million, and the balance on the revolving line of credit was $19.7 million, with $1.5 million of letter of credit outstanding and $3.8 million available. As of December 27, 2009, weighted average interest rate on the debt borrowed during 2009 was 10.12%.

Convertible Notes

        As of December 28, 2008, we had outstanding convertible notes payable totaling $3.1 million which were acquired as a result of the SYS acquisition, of which $0.8 million was payable to related parties. The convertible notes payable are unsecured and subordinated to our bank debt and bear interest at 10% per annum payable quarterly. Principal was due February 14, 2009 and the notes were convertible at any time into shares of common stock at a conversion rate of $28.60 per share. In February 2009, in the interest of preserving cash due to the macroeconomic conditions, we provided each note holder with the option to:

(1)

be paid cash in accordance with the original agreement;



(2)

extend the note for an additional 18 months at the existing 10% rate and modify the conversion feature to the lower of the existing conversion price of $28.60 per share or our closing stock price on February 13, 2009; or



(3)

convert the principal balance into shares of our common stock at the lower of the existing conversion price of $28.60 or our closing stock price on February 13, 2009 less a 10% discount.

        As of December 27, 2009, $2.1 million of the notes had been paid and $1.0 million of the notes had been extended to August 14, 2010, $25,000 of which is payable to a related party. The balance of the outstanding notes of $1.0 million, which is potentially convertible into common stock of Kratos at $10.20 per share or approximately 94,000 shares, is reflected in the current portion of long-term debt in the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet.

Payments in Connection with Acquisitions and Divestitures

        In connection with our business acquisitions, we have agreed to make additional future payments to sellers based on final purchase price adjustments and the expiration of certain indemnification obligations. Pursuant to the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations, such amounts are accrued, and therefore, recorded when the contingency is resolved beyond a reasonable doubt and, hence, the additional consideration becomes payable. In 2007, we paid $4.6 million of working capital adjustments and approximately $4.3 million of the holdback amounts to the former MRC shareholders

48

Table of Contents

in accordance with the Purchase Agreement. In 2009, we paid approximately $3.6 million for the final cash holdback amounts subject to indemnity rights due to MRC and Haverstick. As of December 27, 2009, all obligations related to purchase price holdbacks and indemnification obligations have been paid in full.

        In July 2007, we sold our deployment services business of our Wireless Network Services segment to Platinum Equity. On July 16, 2008, we came to an agreement with Platinum Equity on a working capital adjustment of $5.0 million. In connection with that resolution, the earn-out arrangement provided for in the definitive agreement was terminated. The adjustment was to be paid in installments with the first amount of $2.5 million due on July 31, 2008 and payments of $0.5 million monthly thereafter until paid in full in December 2008. We did not make the scheduled $2.5 million payment due as of July 31, 2008. Payments of $1.0 million were made in August and September of 2008, with an additional $0.5 million paid in December 2008. In March of 2009, we paid another $1.5 million and on August 4, 2009, we paid $1.3 million in full settlement of all amounts due to Platinum Equity.

Cash provided by (used in) operating activities

        A summary of our net cash provided by (used in) operating activities from continuing operations from our consolidated statement of cash flows is as follows (in millions):

        Cash provided by operating activities from continuing operations for 2009 increased by $30.8 million from 2008 as a result of increased collections and a reduction in payments related to legal liabilities of $10.3 million. Days sales outstanding (DSO's) decreased from 107 days (excluding the receivables of DFI in 2008) to 95 days in 2009. In 2008, we made payments of $4.8 million to fund the securities litigation settlement and approximately $5.5 million related to our internal stock investigation we completed in 2007.

        Cash used in operating activities from continuing operations for 2008 increased by $3.7 million from 2007 primarily due to approximately $10.3 million in payments related to legal liabilities discussed above. These amounts were partially offset by cash receipts of approximately $4.9 million resulting from our recovery from the theft of stock options and other recoveries from our various insurance carriers.

Cash used in investing activities

        Cash used in investing activities from continuing operations are summarized as follows (in millions):

49

Table of Contents