UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

For the quarterly period ended: March 31,September 30, 2007

Commission file number: 1-8443

TELOS CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(703) 724-3800

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

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  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large Accelerated Filer  ¨    Accelerated Filer  ¨    Non-Accelerated Filer  x

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

As of May 7,November 8, 2007, the registrant had outstanding 21,171,202 shares of Class A Common Stock, no par value; and 4,037,628 shares of Class B Common Stock, no par value.

TELOS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

INDEX

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

TELOS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(Unaudited)

(amounts in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

TELOS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(amounts in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

TELOS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(amounts in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

TELOS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(Unaudited)

(amounts in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

TELOS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

Note 1. General and Basis of Presentation

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Telos Corporation and its subsidiaries, including Ubiquity.com, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, and Xacta Corporation and Telos Delaware, Inc., all of whose issued and outstanding share capital is owned by Ubiquity.com, Inc. (collectively, the “Company”). The Company has applied the equity method of accounting for its investment in Enterworks, Inc. (“Enterworks”). The Company has a 60% ownership interest in Telos Identity Management Solutions, LLC and has consolidated its results of operations (see Note 2 – Sale of Assets). The Company also has an investmenta 60% ownership interest in Teloworks, Inc. (“Teloworks,” formerly Enterworks International, Inc.), and has consolidated its results of operations. Seeoperations (see Note 23 – Investment in Enterworks.Enterworks). Significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated.

In the opinion of the Company, the accompanying consolidated financial statements reflect all adjustments (which include normal recurring adjustments) and reclassifications necessary for their fair presentation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. InterimThe presented interim results are not necessarily indicative of fiscal year performance for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, the impact of seasonal and short-term variations. The Company has continued to follow the accounting policies (including its critical accounting policies) set forth in the consolidated financial statements included in its 2006 Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006.

The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. Additionally, as more fully described in Note 67 – Contingencies and Subsequent Events, the Company is involved in an outstanding legal matter and an unfavorable outcome from this matter could result in a material adverse effect upon the Company’s financial position and results of operations. Management’s plans with respect to this matter, as well as other matters, are also disclosed in Note 6.7. These financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Reclassifications

Certain reclassifications have been made to prior year financial statements to conform to the classifications used in the current period.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In February 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” SFAS No. 159 allows an entity the irrevocable option to elect fair value for the initial and subsequent measurement for certain financial assets and liabilities on a contract-by-contract basis. Subsequent changes in fair value of these financial assets and liabilities would be recognized in earnings when they occur. SFAS No. 159 is effective for the Company’s financial statements for the year beginning January 1, 2008, with earlier adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the effect and timing that adoption of this statement will have on its consolidated financial position and results of operations.

In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157 – “Fair Value Measurements,” which defines fair value, establishes a framework for consistently measuring fair value under GAAP, and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date. On November 14, 2007, the FASB reaffirmed its vote against a blanket deferral of SFAS No. 157. For fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, the Company will be required to implement the standard for financial assets and liabilities, as well as for any other assets and liabilities that are carried at fair value on a recurring basis in financial statements. As a result, SFAS No. 157 isbecomes effective as originally scheduled in accounting for the Company beginning January 1, 2008,financial assets and liabilities of financial institutions. The Board did, however, provide a one year deferral for the provisionsimplementation of SFAS No. 157 will be applied prospectively as of that date.for other nonfinancial assets and liabilities. The Company is currently evaluating the effect that adoption of this statement will have on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.

In September 2006, the SEC released Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 108, which provides guidance in the quantification and correction of financial statement misstatements. SAB No. 108 specifies that companies should apply a combination of the “rollover” and “iron curtain” methodologies when making determinations of materiality. The rollover method quantifies a misstatement based on the amount of the error originating in the current year income statement. The iron curtain approach quantifies misstatements based on the effects of correcting the misstatement existing in the balance sheet at the end of the current year, regardless of the year(s) of origination. SAB No. 108 instructs companies to quantify the misstatement under both methodologies and, if either method results in the determination of a material error, the Company must adjust its financial statements to correct the error. SAB No. 108 also reminds preparers that a change from an accounting principle that is not generally accepted to a principle that is generally accepted is a correction of an error. The Bulletin is effective for annual financial statements covering the first fiscal year ending after November 15, 2006. The adoption of this Bulletin did not have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

In July 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. (“FIN”) 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement 109.” FIN 48 prescribes a comprehensive model for recognizing, measuring, presenting and disclosing in the financial statements tax positions taken or expected to be taken on a tax return, including a decision whether to file or not to file in a particular jurisdiction. FIN 48 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006. If there are changes in net assets as a result of application of FIN 48, these will be accounted for as an adjustment to retained earnings. The adoption of this FIN did not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

In February 2006, The FASB issued SFAS No. 155, “Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments—an amendment of FASB Statements No. 133 and 140.” This statement amends SFASs No. 133 and 140 by permitting fair value remeasurement for any hybrid financial instrument with an embedded derivative that otherwise would require bifurcation; clarifying which interest-only strips and principal-only strips are not subject to the requirements of SFAS No. 133; establishing a requirement to evaluate interests in securitized financial assets to identify interests that are freestanding derivatives or that are hybrid financial instruments that contain an embedded derivative requiring bifurcation; clarifying that concentrations of credit risk in the form of subordination are not embedded derivatives; and amending SFAS No. 140 to eliminate the prohibition on a qualifying special-purpose entity from holding a derivative financial instrument that pertains to a beneficial interest other than another derivative financial instrument. The statement is effective for fiscal years beginning after September 15, 2006. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

In June 2005, the FASB issued SFAS No. 154, “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections,” which replaces Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) Opinion No. 20, “Accounting Changes” and SFAS No. 3, “Reporting Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements.” SFAS No. 154 requires that a voluntary change in accounting principle be applied retrospectively with all prior period financial statements presented on the new accounting principle. SFAS No. 154 also requires that a change in method of depreciating or amortizing a long-lived non-financial asset be accounted for prospectively as a change in estimate, and correction of errors in previously issued financial statements should be termed a “restatement.” SFAS No. 154 is effective for accounting changes and correction of errors made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005. The adoption of SFAS No. 154 did not have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

Revenue Recognition

Substantially all of the Company’s contracts are contracts with the U.S. Government. Revenues are recognized in accordance with SAB No. 101, “Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements” as amended by SAB No. 104, “Revenue Recognition.” The Company considers amounts earned upon evidence that an arrangement has been obtained, services are delivered, fees are fixed or determinable, and collectibility is reasonably assured. Additionally, revenues on arrangements requiring the delivery of more than one product or service are recognized in accordance with Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) 00-21, “Accounting for Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables” except as the pronouncement states, on contracts where higher-level GAAP (such as Statement of Position (“SOP”) 97-2 as described below) prevails. Certain of the Company’s contracts involve the complex delivery of technology products and services. Accordingly, such contracts fall within the scope of SOP 81-1. To the extent contracts are incomplete at the end of an accounting period; revenue is recognized on the percentage-of-completion method, on a proportional performance basis.

The Company recognizes revenues for software arrangements upon persuasive evidence of an arrangement, delivery of the software, and determination that collection of a fixed or determinable license fee is probable. Revenues for software licenses sold on a subscription basis are recognized ratably over the related license terms. For arrangements where the sale of software licenses are bundled with other products, including software products, upgrades and enhancements, post-contract customer support (“PCS”), and installation, the relative fair value of each element is determined based on vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”). VSOE is defined by SOP 97-2, “Software Revenue Recognition,” and SOP 98-9, “Modification of SOP 97-2, Software Revenue Recognition With Respect to Certain Transactions,” and is limited to the price charged when the element is sold separately or if the element is not yet sold separately, the fair value assigned under the residual method or the price set by management having the relevant authority. If VSOE does not exist for the allocation of revenue to the various elements of the arrangement, all revenue from the arrangement is deferred until the earlier of the point at which (1) such VSOE does exist or (2) all elements of the arrangement are delivered. PCS revenues, upon being unbundled from a software license fee, are recognized ratably over the PCS period.

Substantially all of the Company’s contracts are contracts with the U.S. Government involving the complex delivery of technology products and services. Accordingly, these contracts are within the scope of the AICPA’s Audit and Accounting Guide for Audits of Federal Government Contractors. To the extent contracts are incomplete at the end of an accounting period; revenue is recognized on the percentage-of-completion method, on a proportional performance basis, using costs incurred in relation to total estimated costs.

Stock-Based Compensation

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123(R), “Share Based Payment,” a revision of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation.” SFAS No. 123(R) supersedes APB Opinion (“APB”) No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees.” SFAS No. 123(R) requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, be recognized in the income statement based on their fair values.

Prior to January 1, 2006, the Company accounted for stock-based compensation using the intrinsic value based method in accordance with APB No. 25. Under APB No. 25, the Company recognized no compensation cost for employee stock options, as the options granted had an exercise price equal to the fair value of the underlying common stock on the date of grant. The Company applied the disclosure provisions of SFAS No. 123, as amended by SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation and Disclosure, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 123.” Under those provisions, the Company provided pro forma disclosures as if the fair value measurement provisions of SFAS No. 123 had been used in determining compensation expense. The Company used the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to determine the pro forma impact under SFAS Nos. 123 and 148 on the Company’s net income. The model utilizes certain information, such as the interest rate on a risk-free security maturing generally at the same time as the option being valued and requires certain other assumptions, such as the expected amount of time an option will be outstanding until it is exercised or expired, to calculate the fair value of stock options granted. Disclosures for the three months ended March 31, 2007 and 2006 are not presented, because stock-based compensation was accounted for under SFAS No. 123(R)’s fair value method during these periods.

Effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123(R), using the modified prospective transition method. Under this transition method, stock-based compensation costs recognized in the income statement as of March 31,September 30, 2006 in the amount of $103,000, include compensation costs for all unvested stock options that were granted prior to December 31, 2005, based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the original provisions of SFAS No. 123. There were no share-based payments granted on or after December 31, 2005. Results for prior periods have not been restated.

Note 2. Sale of Assets

On April 11, 2007, Telos Identity Management Solutions, LLC (“TIMS LLC”) was formed as a limited liability company under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act. The Company contributed substantially all of the assets of its Identity Management

business line and assigned its rights to perform under its U.S Government contract with the Defense Manpower Data Center (“DMDC”) to TIMS LLC. The net book value of assets contributed by the Company totaled $17,000. The Company owned 99.999% of the membership interests of TIMS LLC and certain private equity investors (“Investors”) owned 0.001% of the membership interests of TIMS LLC. On April 20, 2007, the Company sold an additional 39.999% of the membership interests to the Investors in exchange for $6 million in cash consideration. Legal and investment banking expenses directly associated with the transaction amounted to approximately $190,000. As a participant of certain private equity investors, the brother of John B. Wood, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, indirectly holds a 2% effective ownership interest in TIMS LLC.

The parties have signed an Amended and Restated Operating Agreement (“Operating Agreement”) which provides for a Board of Directors comprised of five (5) members. The Operating Agreement also provides for two subclasses of membership units, Classes A (the Company) and B (the Investors). The Class A membership unit owns 60% of TIMS LLC, and as such is entitled to receive 60% of the profits, and to appoint three (3) members of the Board of Directors. The Class B membership unit owns 40% of TIMS LLC, and as such is entitled to receive 40% of the profits, and to appoint two (2) members of the Board of Directors.

As indicated in the Operating Agreement, one of the Class A members will be designated the Chairman of the Board. John B. Wood, Chairman and CEO of the Company is to be designated as the Chairman of the Board of TIMS LLC. The Company has entered into a corporate services agreement with TIMS LLC whereby the Company provides certain administrative support services to TIMS LLC, including but not limited to finance, accounting and human resources services.

During the quarter ended September 30, 2007, in accordance with the Operating Agreement, a quarterly cash distribution in the amount of $450,000 was made to Class B Member. No distribution was made to Class A Member.

And as indicated above, the Company owns 60% of TIMS LLC, therefore continues to account for the contributed assets using the consolidation method.

Note 2.3. Investment in Enterworks

Enterworks, Inc.

As of March 31,September 30, 2007, the Company owns 671,301 shares of common stock, 729,732 shares of Series A-1 Preferred Stock, 1,793,903 shares of Series B-1 Preferred Stock, and 8,571,429 shares of Series D Preferred Stock of Enterworks, Inc. (“Enterworks”), representing a fully diluted ownership percentage of 10.8%10.6%. Since its initial investment in Enterworks, the Company has accounted for such investment as prescribed by APB Opinion No. 18, “The Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock,” and continues to do so due to the Company’s continued significant influence through its representation on the Board of Directors of Enterworks.

On March 16, 2007, Enterworks completed a private financing through the issuance of 42,857,143 shares of Series D Preferred Stock to various investors, including Telos. For consideration of the equivalent of $600,000, consisting of $396,000 balance due to the Company from Enterworks, $100,000 of which had been previously evaluated for impairment and reduced to zero in 2006, and a transfer of 20% ownership interest in Teloworks (which had been forfeited by Enterworks in 2006) from the Company to Enterworks, which amounted to approximately $204,000 (which was expensed in 2006), the Company acquired 8,571,429 shares of Enterworks Series D Preferred Stock. In 2007, the Company reduced the $296,000 carrying value of the investment to zero in accordance with APB Opinion No. 18 based on impairment due to the inability of the investee to sustain an earnings capacity which would justify the carrying amount of the investment. As a result of this financing, the Company’s fully diluted ownership percentage increased from 4.7%, as of December 31, 2006, to 10.8% as of March 16, 2007.

Effective as of January 1, 2007, the Company and Enterworks amended their Agreement for Services and Sublease (“Agreement”). Pursuant to the Agreement, Telos shall continue to sublease office space in its Ashburn facility and provide certain general, administrative and support services to Enterworks, for the amount of $180,000 for a period of one year, payable in 12 equal installments of $15,000 per month. Enterworks did not make payments under a similar agreement and arrearage plan that was in effect for 2006, resulting in a balance due to the Company of $100,000 as of March 15, 2007.

Additionally, the Company assumed $296,000 of funding obligations to Teloworks on Enterworks’ behalf, resulting in a total receivable balance due from Enterworks to the Company of $396,000, which was settled as consideration in connection with the Enterworks March 16, 2007 private financing.

Effective January 1, 2007, Enterworks agreed to provide the Company with maintenance and OEM technical product support associated with the worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid-up license for the EPX software purchased in December 2003. In accordance with SFAS No. 142, “Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,” intangible assets acquired shall be initially recognized and measured at fair value. As such, the Company has capitalized $850,000 in consideration paid for EPX software ($100,000 in 2003 and $750,000 in 2004), and has reflected this asset on the balance sheet in “Other Assets.” The net carrying value of the asset is $187,500$62,500 as of March 31,September 30, 2007. Scheduled amortization expense is $187,500$62,500 for the remainder of 2007.

Teloworks, Inc. (formerly Enterworks International, Inc.)

Pursuant to the Teloworks Agreements, the Company and Enterworks are required to fund the operations of Teloworks according to a funding schedule set forth in the Teloworks Agreements. The Company has expensed approximately $780,000 for the first nine months of 2007, which represents approximately $600,000 of its proportionate share of the Teloworks operating expenses, which amountas well as additional funding pursuant to approximately $177,000 for the first quarter ofMarch 2007 Enterworks private financing, as disclosed in the Company’s 2006 Form 10-K and March 2007 Form 10-Q. The Company expensed approximately $707,000 for 2006 (which had previously been disclosed as $463,000). Additionally, the Company assumed $296,000 of funding obligations to Teloworks on Enterworks’ behalf, resulting in a total receivable balance due from Enterworks to the Company of $396,000, such receivable, as stated above, was settled as consideration in connection with the Enterworks March 16, 2007 private financing.2006.

As a result of anthe Enterworks private financing transaction on March 16, 2007, discussedas disclosed in the “Enterworks, Inc.” disclosure above,Company’s 2006 Form 10-K and June 2007 Form 10-Q, the Company currently owns 60% of Teloworks.

Note 3.4. Debt Obligations

Senior Revolving Credit Facility

The Company has a $15 million revolving credit facility (the “Facility”) with Wells Fargo Foothill, (the “Facility”Inc. (“Wells Fargo Foothill”) that is scheduled to mature on October 21, 2008. Under the terms of the Facility, the interest rate is the Wells Fargo “prime rate” plus 1%. Pursuant to the terms of the Facility, in lieu of having interest charged at the rate based on the Wells Fargo prime rate, the Company has the option to have interest on all or a portion of the advances on such Facility be charged at a rate of interest based on the LIBOR Rate, plus 4%. As of March 31, 2007, the Company has not elected the LIBOR rate option. As of March 31,September 30, 2007, the interest rate on the Facility was 9.25%8.75%.

Borrowings under the Facility are collateralized by substantially all of the Company’s assets including inventory, equipment, and accounts receivable. The amount of available borrowings fluctuates based on the underlying asset-borrowing base, as defined in the Facility agreement.

The Facility has various covenants that may, among other things, affect the ability of the Company to merge with another entity, sell or transfer certain assets, pay dividends and make other distributions beyond certain limitations. The Facility also requires the Company to meet certain financial covenants, including Earnings Beforebefore Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA), as defined in the Facility. TheAs of September 30, 2007, the Company was in compliance with the Facility’s financial and Wells Fargo Foothill have amended the EBITDA covenants at various times to reflect revised projections. The Company has complied with its newly established covenants through March 31, 2007.covenants. Based on the Company’s current projection of EBITDA, the Company expects that it will remain in compliance with its EBITDA covenants. Therefore,covenants, and accordingly, the Facility is classified as noncurrent as of March 31,September 30, 2007.

Effective January 1, 2007, the Company and Wells Fargo Foothill have amended the Facility to provide for availability block relief through AprilAt September 30, 2007, to establish EBITDA covenants for 2007, to give consent to the formation of an LLC and subsequent sale of a portion of the membership interests in such LLC (disclosed in Note 6- Contingencies and Subsequent Events), and to provide various waivers in accordance with the Facility. The fees associated with such amendments amounted to $160,000.

At March 31, 2007, the Company had outstanding borrowings of $11.7$9.5 million and unused borrowing availability of $2.0$5.5 million on the Facility. As of May 8,November 13, 2007, the Company has availability under its current arrangement of approximately $1.8$2.1 million. The effective weighted average interest rates (including various fees charged pursuant to the Facility agreement and related amendments) on the outstanding borrowings under the Facility were 10.9%10.6% and 9.9%12.4% for the threenine months ended March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

Senior Subordinated Notes

In 1995, the Company issued Senior Subordinated Notes (“Notes”) to certain shareholders. Such Notes are classified as either Series B or Series C. The Series B Notes are secured by the Company’s property and equipment, but subordinate to the security interests of Wells Fargo Foothill. The Series C Notes are unsecured. The maturity date of such Notes has been extended to October 31, 2008, with interest rates ranging from 14% to 17%, and paid quarterly on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year. The Notes can be prepaid at the Company’s option; however, the Notes contain a cumulative paymentprepayment premium of 13.5% per annum payable upon certain circumstances, which include, but are not limited to, an initial public offering of the Company’s common stock or a significant refinancing (“qualifying triggering event”), to the extent that sufficient net proceeds from either of the above events are received to pay such cumulative prepayment premium. Due to the contingent nature of the cumulative prepayment premium, payment, any associated premium expense can only be quantified and recorded subsequent to the occurrence of such a qualifying triggering event. At March 31,September 30, 2007, if such a qualifying triggering event had occurred, the cumulative prepayment premium payment would have been approximately $18.1$19.7 million.

The balances of the Series B and C Notes were $2.5 million and $2.7 million, respectively, each at March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006.

The carrying value of the Notes as of March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006 is consistent with the fair value as determined by an independent valuation performed by Navigant Consulting, Inc.

The following are maturities of obligations presented by year (in thousands):

Note 4.5. Redeemable Preferred Stock

Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock

The components of the authorized, issued and outstanding senior redeemable preferred stock (“Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock”) are 1,250 Series A-1 and 1,750 Series A-2 senior redeemable preferred shares, respectively, each with $.01 par value.

The Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock carries a cumulative per annum dividend rate of 14.125% of its liquidation value of $1,000 per share. The dividends are payable semiannually on June 30 and December 31 of each year. The liquidation preference of the Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock is the face amount of the Series A-1 and A-2 ($1,000 per share), plus all accrued and unpaid dividends. The Company was required to redeem all shares and accrued dividends outstanding on October 31, 2005. However, on April 14, 2005, Toxford Corporation, the holder of 72.6% of the Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock, extended the maturity of its instruments to October 31, 2008. Subject to limitations set forth below, the Company was scheduled to redeem 27.4% of the outstanding shares and accrued dividends outstanding on October 31, 2005. Among the limitations with regard to the scheduled redemptions of the Senior Redeemable Public Preferred Stock is the legal availability of funds, pursuant to Maryland law. Maryland law also prohibits distributions (including redemptions and dividends) if, after the distribution is made, liabilities exceed assets. Accordingly, due to the Company’s current financial position and the terms of the Wells Fargo Foothill agreement, it is precluded by Maryland law from making the scheduled payment. As the Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock is not due on demand, or callable, within twelve months from March 31,September 30, 2007, the remaining 27.4% is also classified as noncurrent.

The Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock is senior to all other present equity of the Company, including the 12% Cumulative Exchangeable Redeemable Preferred Stock. The Series A-1 ranks on a parity with the Series A-2. The Company has not declared dividends on its Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock since its issuance. At March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006, cumulative undeclared, unpaid dividends relating to Senior Redeemable Preferred stock totaled $6.1$6.3 million and $5.7$5.9 million, respectively.

12% Cumulative Exchangeable Redeemable Preferred Stock

A maximum of 6,000,000 shares of 12% Cumulative Exchangeable Redeemable Preferred Stock (the “Public Preferred Stock”), par value $.01 per share, has been authorized for issuance. The Company initially issued 2,858,723 shares of the Public Preferred Stock pursuant to the acquisition of the Company during fiscal year 1990. The Public Preferred Stock was recorded at fair value on the date of original issue, November 21, 1989, and the Company makes periodic accretions under the interest method of the excess of the redemption value over the recorded value. The Company adjusted its estimate of accrued accretion in the amount of $1.5 million in the second quarter of 2006. Such accretion for the three months ended March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006 was $268,000 and $344,000,$395,000, respectively, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 and 2006 was $803,000 and $2,607,000, respectively. The Company declared stock dividends totaling 736,863 shares in 1990 and 1991. Since 1991, no other dividends, in stock or cash, have been declared. In November 1998, the Company retired 410,000 shares of the Public Preferred Stock. The total number of shares issued and outstanding at March 31,September 30, 2007 was 3,185,586. The stock trades overis now quoted as TLSRP in the NASDAQ/OTCBB Exchange.Pink Sheets. The aggregate fair value of the public preferred stock at March 31,September 30, 2007 was $58.9$73.3 million.

Since 1991, the Company has not declared or paid any dividends on its Public Preferred Stock, based upon its interpretation of restrictions in its Articles of Amendment and Restatement, limitations in the terms of the Public Preferred Stock instrument, specific dividend payment restrictions in the Facility entered into with Wells Fargo Foothill, to which the Public Preferred Stock is subject, and other senior obligations, and limitations pursuant to Maryland law (as discussed above). Pursuant to their terms, the Company is scheduled to redeem the Public Preferred Stock in five annual tranches during the period 2005 through 2009. However, due to its substantial senior obligations, limitations set forth in the covenants in the Facility, foreseeable capital and operational requirements, restrictions and prohibitions of its Articles of Amendment and Restatement, and provisions of Maryland law (as discussed above), the Company did not make the first two scheduled redemption payments, and assuming insufficient liquidity to undertake any stock redemption (which is presently unquantifiable), the Company believes that the likelihood is that it will not be able to make the remaining three scheduled redemption payments as set forth in the terms of the Public Preferred Stock. Accordingly, the Public Preferred Stock is not payable on demand, nor callable, for failure to redeem the Public Preferred Stock in accordance with the redemption schedule set forth in the instrument. The Company has therefore classified these securities as noncurrent liabilities on the balance sheet as of March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to the Facility agreement with Wells Fargo Foothill, whose term expires on October 21, 2008. Under the Facility, the Company agreed that, so long as any credit under the Facility is available and until full and final payment of the obligations under the Facility, it would not make any distribution or declare or pay any dividends (other than common stock) on its stock, or purchase, acquire, or redeem any stock, or exchange any stock for indebtedness, or retire any stock. The Company continues to actively rely upon the Facility and expects to continue to do so until the Facility agreement expires on October 21, 2008.

Accordingly, as stated above, the Company will continue to classify the entirety of its obligation to redeem the Public Preferred Stock as a long-term obligation. The Wells Fargo Foothill Facility prohibits, among other things, the redemption of any stock, common or preferred, until October 21, 2008. The Public Preferred Stock by its terms cannot be redeemed if doing so would violate the terms of an agreement regarding the borrowing of funds or the extension of credit which is binding upon the Company or any subsidiary of the Company, and it does not include any other provisions that would otherwise require any acceleration of the redemption of or amortization payments with respect to the Public Preferred Stock. Thus, the Public Preferred Stock is not and will not be due on demand, nor callable, within twelve months from March 31,September 30, 2007. This classification is consistent with ARB No. 43 and SFAS No. 78, “Classification of Obligations that are Callable by the Creditor.”

Paragraph 7 of Chapter 3A of ARB No. 43 defines a current liability, as follows:

“The term current liabilities is used principally to designate obligations whose liquidation is reasonably expected to require the use of existing resources properly classifiable as current assets, or the creation of other current liabilities. As a balance sheet category, the classification is intended to include obligations for items that have entered into the operating cycle, such as payables incurred in the acquisition of materials and supplies to be used in the production of goods or in providing services to be offered for sale; collections received in advance of the delivery of goods or performance of services; and debts that arise from operations directly related to the operating cycle, such as accruals for wages, salaries, commissions, rentals, royalties, and income and other taxes. Other liabilities whose regular and ordinary liquidation is expected to occur within a relatively short period of time, usually 12 months, are also intended for inclusion, such as short-term debts arising from the acquisition of capital assets, serial maturities of long-term obligations, amounts required to be expended within 1 year under sinking fund provisions, and agency obligations arising from the collection or acceptance of cash or other assets for the account of third persons.”

Paragraph 5 of SFAS No. 78 provides the following:

“The current liability classification is also intended to include obligations that, by their terms, are due on demand or will be due on demand within one year (or operating cycle, if longer) from the balance sheet date, even though liquidation may not be expected within that period. It is also intended to include long-term obligations that are or will be callable by the creditor either because the debtor’s violation of a provision of the debt agreement at the balance sheet date makes the obligation callable or because the violation, if not cured within a specified grace period, will make the obligation callable…”

If, pursuant to the terms of the Public Preferred Stock, the Company does not redeem the Public Preferred Stock in accordance with the scheduled redemptions described above, the terms of the Public Preferred Stock require the Company to discharge its obligation to redeem the Public Preferred Stock as soon as the Company is financially capable and legally permitted to do so.

Dividends on the Public Preferred Stock are paid by the Company, when and if declared by the Board of Directors, and are required to be paid out of legally available funds in accordance with Maryland law. The Public Preferred Stock accrues a semi-annual dividend at the annual rate of 12% ($1.20) per share, based on the liquidation preference of $10 per share and is fully cumulative. Dividends in additional shares of the Public Preferred Stock for 1990 and 1991 were paid at the rate of 6% of a share for each $.60 of such dividends not paid in cash. Dividends on the Public Preferred Stock are paid by the Company, when and if declared by the Board of Directors, and are required to be paid out of legally available funds in accordance with Maryland law. Maryland law also prohibits distributions (including redemptions and dividends) if, after the distribution is made, liabilities exceed assets. For the cash dividends payable since December 1, 1995, the Company has accrued $58.6$60.5 million and $41.1$56.7 million as of March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

In accordance with SFAS No. 150, both the Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock and the Public Preferred Stock have been reclassified from equity to liability. Consequently, for the threenine months ended March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006, accretion and dividends totaling $1.1$4.0 and $16.0 million were accrued and reported as interest expense in the respective periods. Prior to the effective date of SFAS No. 150 on July 1, 2003, such dividends were charged to stockholders’ accumulated deficit.

The carrying value of the accrued Paid-in-Kind (“PIK”) dividends on the Public Preferred Stock for the period 1992 through June 1995 was $4.0 million. Had the Company accrued such dividends on a cash basis for this time period, the total amount accrued would have been $15.1 million. However, as a result of the redemption of the 410,000 shares of the Public Preferred Stock in November 1998, such amounts were reduced and adjusted to $3.5 million and $13.4 million, respectively. The Company’s Charter, Section 2(a) states, “Any dividends payable with respect to the Exchangeable Preferred Stock (“Public Preferred Stock”) during the first six years after the Effective Date (November 20, 1989) may be paid (subject to restrictions under applicable state law), in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors, in cash or by issuing additional full paid and nonassessable shares of Exchangeable Preferred Stock …”. Accordingly, the Board had the discretion to pay the dividends for the referenced period in cash or by the issuance of additional shares of Public Preferred Stock. During the period in which the Company stated its intent to pay PIK dividends, the Company stated its intention to amend its charter to permit thesuch payment of these by the issuance of additional shares of Public Preferred Stock. In consequence, as required by applicable accounting requirements, the accrual for these dividends was recorded at the estimated fair value (as the average of the ask and bid prices) on the dividend date of the shares of Public Preferred Stock that would have been (but were not) issued. This accrual was $9.9 million lower than the accrual would be if the intent was only to pay the dividends in cash, at that date or any later date.

In May 2006, the Board concluded that the accrual of PIK dividends for the period 1992 through June 1995 was no longer appropriate. Since 1995, the Company has disclosed in the footnotes to its audited financial statements the carrying value of the accrued PIK dividends on the Public Preferred Stock for the period 1992 through June 1995 was $4.0 million, and that had the Company accrued cash dividends during this time period, the total amount accrued would have been $15.1 million. As stated above, such amounts were reduced and adjusted to $3.5 million and $13.4 million, respectively, due to the redemption of 410,000 shares of the Public Preferred Stock in November 1998. On May 12, 2006, the Board of Directors voted to confirm that the Company’s intent

with respect to the payment of dividends on the Public Preferred Stock for this period changed from its previously stated intent to pay PIK dividends to that of an intent to pay cash dividends. The Company therefore changed the accrual from $3.5 million to $13.4 million, the result of which was to increase the Company’s negative shareholder equity by the $9.9 million difference between those two amounts, $9.9 million, by recording an additional $9.9 million charge to interest expense for the second quarter of 2006, resulting in a balance of $89.2$91.7 million for the principal amount and all accrued dividends on the Public Preferred Stock as of March 31,September 30, 2007. This action is a change in accounting estimate as defined in SFAS No. 154, “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections” which replaces APB No. 20, “Accounting Changes” and SFAS No. 3, “Reporting Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements.”

Note 5.6. Reportable Segments

As of March 31,September 30, 2007, the Company’s operations are comprised of two operating segments, Managed Solutions and Xacta. Descriptions for each of these operating segments are as follows:

Managed Solutions: Develops, markets and sells integration services that address a wide range of government information technology (IT) requirements. Offerings consist of innovative IT solutions that consist of industry leading IT products from OEMs with complimentary integration and managed support services provided by Telos. Managed Solutions also provides general IT consulting and integration services in support of various U.S. Government customers.

Xacta:Develops, markets and sells government-validated secure enterprise solutions to the U.S. Government and financial institutions, to address the growing demand for information security solutions. Xacta provides Secure Wireless LAN solutions, Enterprise Messaging solutions, Identity Management solutions, Information Security Consulting services and IT Security Management software solutions.

The accounting policies of the reportable segments are the same as those referred to in Note 1 – General and Basis of Presentation. The Company evaluates the performance of its operating segments based on revenue, gross profit and segment profit (loss) before income taxes and interest income or expense.

Summarized financial information concerning the Company’s reportable segments for the three and nine months ended March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006 is set forth in the following table (in thousands). The “other” column includes corporate related items.

The Company maintains a facility in Germany; however, the Company does not have material international revenues, profit (loss), assets or capital expenditures. The Company’s business is not concentrated in a specific geographical area within the United States, as it has 5 separate facilities located in various states and the District of Columbia.

Note 6.7. Contingencies and Subsequent Events

Telos Identity Management Solutions, LLC

On April 11, 2007, Telos Identity Management Solutions, LLC (“TIMS LLC”) was formed as a limited liability company under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act. The Company contributed all of the assets of its Identity Management business and assigned its rights to perform under its government contract with the Defense Manpower Data Center (“DMDC”) to TIMS LLC. The net book value of assets contributed by the Company totaled $17,000. The Company owned 99.999% of the membership interests of TIMS LLC and certain private equity investors (“Investors”) owned 0.001% of the membership interests of TIMS LLC. On April 20, 2007, the Company sold an additional 39.999% of the membership interests to the Investors in exchange for $6 million in cash consideration. Mr. Wood’s brother holds a 2% interest in TIMS LLC. The Company will utilize all such funds to address ongoing working capital requirements.

The Company had previously attempted to sell 100% of its Identity Management business, but its efforts to find a strategic buyer caused it to conclude that it could not obtain adequate value from a sale of the entire unit. The Company has obtained a fairness opinion from a nationally recognized investment banking firm that the consideration received in the transaction from the financial investor is fair, from a financial point of view, to the Company.

The parties have signed an operating agreement which provides for a Board of Directors comprised of five (5) members. The operating agreement also provides for two subclasses of membership units, Classes A (the Company) and B (the Investors). Class A membership unit owns 60% of TIMS LLC, and as such is entitled to 60% of the profits, and is entitled to appoint three (3) members of the Board of Directors. Class B membership unit owns 40% of TIMS LLC, and as such is entitled to 40% of the profits, and is entitled to appoint two (2) members of the Board of Directors.

As indicated in the operating agreement, one of the Class A members will be designated the Chairman of the Board. John B. Wood, Chairman and CEO of the Company will be designated as the Chairman of the Board of TIMS LLC. The Company has entered into a corporate services agreement with TIMS LLC whereby the Company will provide certain administrative support services to TIMS LLC, including but not limited to finance, accounting and human resources.

Financial Condition and Going Concern ConsiderationsLiquidity

The consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended March 31,September 30, 2007 that are included in this Form 10-Q have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. However,The Company’s working capital deficit was $634,000 as of September 30, 2007, primarily due to total expenses directly related toamounts resulting from unreimbursed litigation-related and other legal expenses, the Company’s working capital deficit was $9.5 million as of March 31, 2007.expenses. Total expenses related to litigation and other legal costs were $3.0$3.1 million (net of $3.4 million in reimbursements by the Company’s insurers) for the first quarternine months of 2007, $5.7 million (net of $3.1 million in reimbursements by the Company’s insurers) for 2006, and $4.1 million for 2005. Such unreimbursed litigation-related and other legal expenses continue to adversely affect working capital, and $8.9$5.1 million of such expenses are unpaid as of March 31,September 30, 2007. TheWhile the Company is actively working with its vendors, including law firms, partners, subcontractors, and subcontractorsWells Fargo Foothill to mitigate the effect of these working capital constraints during this period. As the Company continues to evaluate its performance with the goals of achieving greater consistency in its financial results, increasing cash flow and achieving higher profitability, it has undertaken a company-wide reorganization and cost reduction plan, which was initially presented to the Transaction Committee of the Board in July 2006, and which the Company has begun to execute and continues to implement.

Thereperiod, there can be no assurances as to the continuing ability of the Company to successfully work with vendors, partners and subcontractors or Wells Fargo Foothillsuch parties to mitigate these current working capital constraints. See Note 34 – Debt Obligations. Although no assurances can be given, the Company expects that it will be in compliance throughout the term of the amended credit facility with respect to the financial and other covenants.

Also,Additionally, the Company derives substantially allhas recently experienced a slow down in payments from one of the Company’s significant government payment offices due to complications arising from that office’s payment system conversion. As a result, anticipated payments from this government payment office have been received significantly later than the anticipated payment dates. The Company has been able to utilize its revenue from U.S. Government contracting, and as such itexisting Facility to mitigate the effect of these payment delays. This slow down in payment is annually subjectexpected to be temporary.

Additionally, subsequent to the seasonalitydate of the accompanying financial statements, in accordance with the terms of one the Company’s government contracts for services, the Company was required to provide a performance bond and a payment bond for a system installation at a customer site. The amount of such bond is approximately $4.1 million and the Company has been required to collateralize the entire amount of the bond. The Company provided such collateral on or about October 31, 2007. The terms of the bond requirement allow for a release of a significant amount of the collateral pending satisfactory performance in the March 2008 time frame. While the bond requirement may adversely affect the Company’s liquidity during this time frame, the Company currently believes that the impact of the bond requirement will be mitigated by the Company’s ability to utilize the existing Facility.

The Company has previously disclosed the effect of the cyclicality of the U.S. Government purchasing. As the U.S. Government fiscal year endsbuying season has historically had on September 30, it is not uncommon for U.S. Government agencies to award extra tasks in the weeks immediately prior to the end of its fiscal year in order to avoid the loss of unexpended fiscal year funds. As a result of this cyclicality,revenues, specifically that the Company has historically experienced higher revenuesrevenue in itsthe third and fourth fiscal quarters endingthan in the first and second quarters. While the Company has experienced significant revenue growth for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, and December 31, respectively, with2007 over the paceprior year, there can be no assurances that such growth will continue for the remainder of orders substantially reduced during the Januaryyear or that revenue for the remainder of the year will exceed the revenue to June time period.date.

The Company believes that available cash and borrowings under the Facility will be sufficient to generate adequate amounts of cash to meet the Company’s needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures for 2007.

Notice of Delisting

On April 18, 2007 The Company anticipates the Company was notified by the National Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”) that its securities will be removed from quotationneed for continued reliance on the Over-the Counter Bulletin Board (“OTCBB”) because the Company filed three periodic reports late in the past twenty-four months, in violation of the OTCBB eligibility rules. On April 23, 2007 the Company appealed this decisiona credit facility upon terms and conditions substantially similar to the NASD Hearings Panel. On May 7, 2007existing Facility in order to meet the Company appliedCompany’s long term needs for a waiver of late filing from the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance. As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, no determination has been made with regard to either matter.operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures.

Legal Proceedings

Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P.

As previously reported, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. (“Costa Brava”), a holder of the Company’s 12% Cumulative Exchangeable Redeemable Preferred Stock (“Public Preferred Stock”), filed a lawsuit on October 17, 2005 in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City in the State of Maryland (“Complaint”) against the Company, its directors, and certain of its officers. According to Amendment No. 623 to Schedule 13D filed by Costa Brava on October 18, 2005,25, 2007, Costa Brava owns 15.9%16.4% of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock.Stock as of September 30, 2007.

The Complaint alleges that the Company and its officers and directors have engaged in tactics to avoid paying mandatory dividends on the Public Preferred Stock, and asserts that the Public Preferred Stock has characteristics of debt instruments even though issued by the Company in the form of stock. Costa Brava alleges, among other things, that the Company and an independent committee of the Board of Directors have done nothing to improve what they claim to be the Company’s insolvency, or its ability to redeem the Public Preferred Stock and pay accrued dividends. They also challenge the bonus payments to the Company’s officers and directors, and consulting fees paid to the holder of a majority of the Company’s common stock.

On December 22, 2005, the Company’s Board of Directors established a special litigation committee (“Special Litigation Committee”) comprised of independent directors to review and evaluate the matters raised in the derivative suit filed against the Company by Costa Brava relating to the Company’s Public Preferred Stock.

On January 9, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative, to stay the action until the Special Litigation Committee had sufficient time to properly investigate and respond to Costa Brava’s demands. On March 30, 2006, Judge Albert J. Matricciani granted the motions in part and denied them in part, but also denied the alternative request for a stay.

On February 8, 2006, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. (“Wynnefield”) filed a motion to intervene. An order was entered on May 25, 2006 by Judge Matricciani, designating Wynnefield Partners as the plaintiff with Costa Brava in the lawsuit. Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs.”

On April 28, 2006, the Company filed its answer to the Complaint.

On May 26, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the sale or disposal of Xacta Corporation or any of its assets until the lawsuit is resolved on the merits. Subsequently, an order was issued dismissing the motion without prejudice on October 26, 2006. However, the Plaintiffs objected to the wording of the order, insisting that the Company give Plaintiffs at least 30-day prior notice of any pending transaction. Nevertheless, on January 29, 2007, the Court reissued the order, dismissing the Plaintiff’s motion without the notice requirement.

On August 30, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for receivership following the resignations of six of the nine members of the Board of Directors on August 16, 2006. However, as previously reported on August 22, 2006, within a week of the resignations, three new independent board members were added. Then the announcement of two additional independent board members was made on October 31, 2006, bringing the total board membership to eight. Thus, the board and all board committees, including the Special Litigation Committee and the Transaction Committee have been fully reconstituted.

The hearing on the motion for receivership was held on October 18, 2006 in Baltimore, Maryland. As previously reported, the Plaintiffs’ motion for receivership was denied on November 29, 2006.

On February 15, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed their second motion for preliminary injunction to prevent the sale or disposal of any corporate assets outside the ordinary course until such time that two new Class D directors have been elected. This followed the Plaintiff’s February 7, 2007 letter to the corporate secretary requesting a special meeting to elect new Class D directors to replace the two board seats left vacant by the resignations in August 2006. As previously reported, theThe special meeting is scheduled fortook place on May 31, 2007 and continued on June 18, 2007. Two Class D directors were elected at the June 18, 2007 meeting by the holders of Public Preferred Stock. The hearing on the motion was held on April 16, 2007. On April 19, 2007, Judge Matricciani issued an opinion denying the Plaintiffs’ motion.

On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and added Mr. John R. C. Porter, the Company’s majority shareholder, as a defendant. The Company filed its motion to strike/dismiss and motion for summary judgment on March 28, 2007. The motion states that the court should strike or dismiss as a matter of law or on summary judgment certain claims. The hearing on the motion originally scheduled for April 25, 2007 took place on May 8, 2007 before Judge Matricciani.

On May 29, 2007, Telos filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs alleging interference with its relationship with Wells Fargo Foothill, and a related motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 4, 2007, the Court entered a consent order in which the Plaintiffs agreed to cease and desist communications with Wells Fargo Foothill regarding a proceeding in England that settled over three years ago. The court’sPlaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction on June 19, 2007. Telos filed its reply on July 9, 2007. The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction took place on August 27, 2007. On the following day, the Court issued a ruling concerning thisgranting Telos’ motion.

On June 6, 2007, although the Court denied the Company’s motion to strike the second amended complaint and the motion for partial summary judgment, it granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The following counts were dismissed: Count I alleging fraudulent conveyance; Count II requesting a permanent and preliminary injunction related to the fraudulent conveyance allegations; and Count V allegation against Mr. John Porter for shareholder oppression. The following counts were not dismissed: Count III requesting appointment of a receiver; Count IV requesting to dissolve the corporation; Count VI regarding the fiduciary duty of the directors; and Count VII regarding the fiduciary duty of the officers.

On July 20, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee issued its final report and found that there was no evidence to support the derivative claims, and no instance of bad faith, breach of duty or self-interested action or inaction. Further, Special Litigation Committee counsel recommended that the Company take all action necessary and appropriate that is consistent with these findings. Subsequently, on July 27, 2007, the Company filed a motion to stay the litigation pending briefing and hearing on the report of the Special Litigation Committee and also to stay further discovery in the underlying case. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to stay on August 1, 2007. A copy of the report of the Special Litigation Committee was filed with a motion to file under seal with the Court on August 2, 2007. The Company filed its reply to the Plaintiffs’ response on August 3, 2007.

The hearing on the motion to stay and the motion to file under seal was held on August 7, 2007. The Court issued an order later that same day, reserving its ruling. On August 29, 2007, after the hearing held the day before, the Court denied the motion to file under seal and the motion to stay the litigation on August 29, 2007 but permitted limited discovery on the Special Litigation Committee report. Subsequently, while the underlying litigation and discovery is still going forward, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee produced numerous documents to the Plaintiffs. In addition, the current and former members of the committee have been deposed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss as recommended by the Special Litigation Committee and its report on August 24, 2007. Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed on November 9, 2007, and the Company’s reply was filed on November 19, 2007. The hearing on the motion is expected byscheduled for November 21, 2007.

On September 14, 2007 Plaintiffs filed a motion to challenge the endCompany’s designation of Maycertain highly confidential materials. The Company filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion on September 24, 2007 and Plaintiffs filed their reply on October 2, 2007. On November 6, 2007, following a hearing on November 5, 2007, the Court issued a discovery order denying Plaintiffs’ request to reclassify the challenged documents as “confidential.” Such Court order also applies to any and all documents produced to Plaintiffs in theHamot et al. v. Telos Corporation litigation as well as to documents provided to Messrs. Hamot and Siegel in their capacity as Class D directors of the Company.

At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to Plaintiffs’ success in any of their assertions. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this litigation, the Company and its officers and directors strenuously deny Plaintiffs’ claims, will vigorously defend the matter, and will continue to oppose the relief sought.

Other LitigationHamot et al. v. Telos Corporation

On August 2, 2007, Mr. Seth W. Hamot and Mr. Andrew R. Siegel, principals of Costa Brava Partnership III L.P. and recently elected to the Board as Class D Directors on June 18, 2007, filed a complaint against the Company and a motion for a temporary restraining order with the Maryland Circuit Court for the City of Baltimore. The complaint alleged that certain company documents and records had not been promptly provided to them as requested, and that these documents are necessary to fulfill their fiduciary duty as directors. On the same day, this matter was assigned to Judge Matricciani. The hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order was held on August 7, 2007. The Court issued an order the following day on August 8, 2007, stating that the Plaintiffs should sign a temporary confidentiality order that would allow them to receive the documents requested. The Court further stated that Telos may redact any such documents provided to Plaintiffs for privilege regarding matters related to the Costa Brava litigation, and temporarily for highly confidential information. The Court reserved on the final determination of the issue of highly confidential information and also on the option for a temporary restraining order until the hearing scheduled for August 27, 2007.

Plaintiffs failed to sign the temporary confidentiality order and as a result were not provided with any documentation for a Board meeting held on August 9, 2007. On August 22, 2007 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which alleged that the Company was denying them the ability to effectively review, examine, consider and question future regulatory filings and all other important actions and undertakings of the Company.

On August 28, 2007, following a hearing on August 27, 2007, the Court converted Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction and stated that Plaintiffs were entitled to documents in response to reasonable requests for information pertinent and necessary to perform their duties as members of the Board. In addition, the Court noted that during the pendency of the shareholder litigation, it was not inclined to permit Messrs. Hamot and Siegel, through the guise of their newly acquired director status, to avoid their currently binding commitments under the stipulation and protective order entered on July 7, 2006. Pursuant to the terms of such order the Company is entitled to designate documents produced in discovery or submitted to the Court as “confidential” or “highly confidential” and to withhold from Plaintiffs information protected by the work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege.

On September 24, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a new motion for temporary restraining order as well as a second amended verified complaint with the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in which they requested that the Court “compel Telos to adhere to the Telos

Amended and Restated Bylaws” and alleged that provisions concerning the noticing of Board committee meetings and the recording of Board meeting minutes had been violated and that in addition, Mr. Wood’s service as both CEO and Chairman of the Board was improper and impermissible under the Company’s Bylaws. The Company filed its answer to the second amended verified complaint on October 10, 2007. The hearing on this motion for temporary restraining order was held on October 11, 2007. The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion on October 12, 2007. On the same day, the Court issued an amended preliminary injunction order stating that Plaintiffs are entitled to receive written responses to requests for board of directors or board committee minutes within 7 days of any such requests and copies of such minutes within 15 days of any such requests, as well as written responses to all other requests for information and/or documents related to Plaintiffs’ duties as directors within 7 days of such requests and all board of directors appropriate information and/or documents within 30 days of any such requests. The Court further stated that in all other respects, the preliminary injunction order of August 28, 2007 shall remain in full force and effect.

As noted above underCosta Brava Partnership III, L.P.,the Court issued a discovery order denying Plaintiffs’ request to reclassify the challenged documents as “confidential.” Such Court order also applies to any and all documents produced in theHamot et al. v Telos Corporation litigation as well as documents provided to Messrs. Hamot and Siegel in their capacity as Class D directors of the Company.

At this stage of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to Plaintiffs’ success in any of their assertions. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this litigation, the Company and its officers and directors strenuously deny Plaintiffs’ claims, will vigorously defend the matter, and will continue to oppose the relief sought.

In addition to the above-referenced litigations, the Company is a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, while the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty, the final outcome of such known matters will not, based upon all available information, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Item 2.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

General

As of March 31,September 30, 2007, the Company’s operations are comprised of two operating segments, Managed Solutions and Xacta.

Managed Solutions: Develops, markets and sells integration services which address a wide range of government information technology (“IT”) requirements. Offerings consist of innovative IT solutions consisting of the reselling of industry leading IT products from original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”) withand complementary integration and managed support services provided by Telos. Managed Solutions also provides general IT consulting and integration services in support of various U.S. Government customers. Telos has global experience with integration engagements to anticipate and address the requirements of defense and federal agencies of any scope. Technical capabilities include a 67,000-square-foot assembly and integration area and warehouse facilities, as well as the Telos Customer Support Center (“TCSC”), which provides 24/7/365 help desk and field support.

Xacta: Develops, markets and sells government-validated secure enterprise solutions to the U.S. Government and financial institutions, to address the growing demand for information security solutions. Xacta provides Secure Network solutions, Enterprise Messaging solutions, Identity Management solutions, (formerly known as Enterprise Credentialing solutions), Information Security Consulting services and IT Security Management software solutions.

Backlog

The Company’s total backlog was $103.8$169.9 million and $113.1$179.7 million at March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively. Backlog was $92.1 million at December 31, 2006. The total backlog of each of the segments at March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006 was as follows: Managed Solutions Group—$26.6Group - $57.1 million and $20.5$52.3 million, respectively; and Xacta—$77.2Xacta - $112.8 million and $92.6$127.4 million, respectively.

Such backlog amounts include both funded backlog (unfilled firm orders for the Company’s products for which funding has been both authorized and appropriated), and unfunded backlog (firm orders for which funding has not been appropriated). Funded backlog as of March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006 was $86.0$142.5 million and $67.0$108.6 million, respectively. Of these amounts, approximately $59.7$85.5 million and $46.9$56.5 million, respectively, were for Xacta’s business with the remaining amount attributed to Managed Solutions.

Consolidated Results of Operations

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Telos Corporation and its subsidiaries, including Ubiquity.com, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, Xacta Corporation and Telos Delaware, Inc., all of whose issued and outstanding share capital is owned by Ubiquity.com, Inc. (collectively, the “Company”). The Company has applied the equity method of accounting for its investment in Enterworks, Inc. (“Enterworks”). The Company has a 60% ownership interest in Telos Identity Management Solutions, LLC and has consolidated its results of operations (see Note 2 – Sale of Assets). The Company also has a 60% ownership interest in Teloworks, Inc. (“Teloworks,” formerly Enterworks International, Inc.), and has consolidated its results of operations (see Note 3 – Investment in Enterworks). Significant intercompany transactions have been eliminated.

The Company’s operating cycle involves many types of solution, product and service contracts with varying delivery schedules. Accordingly, results of a particular quarter, or quarter-to-quarter comparisons of recorded sales and operating profits, may not be indicative of future operating results and the following comparative analysis should therefore be viewed in such context.

The condensed consolidated statements of operations include the results of Telos Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries. As the Company continues to evaluate its performance with the goals of achieving greater consistency in its financial results, increasing cash flow and achieving higher profitability, it has undertaken a company-wide reorganization and cost reduction plan, which was initially presented to the Transaction Committee of the Board in July 2006, and which the Company has begun to execute and continues to implement.

The principal element of the Company’s operating expenses as a percentage of sales for the three and nine months ended March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006 are as follows:

Financial Data by Market Segment

Sales, gross profit, and gross margin by market segment for the periods designated below are as follows:

Three Months Ended September 30, 2007 Compared with Three Months Ended September 30, 2006

The Company’s sales for the firstthird quarter of 2007 were $40.2$61.0 million, an increase of $15.0$25.9 million or 59.7%73.8%, compared to the firstthird quarter 2006 sales of $25.2$35.1 million. Such increase consists of an $18.2 million increase in sales from Managed Solutions, primarily attributable to increased sales from the U.S. Air Force NETCENTS (Network-Centric Solutions) contract, and a $12.4$7.7 million increase in sales from Xacta, primarily attributable to increased sales from the NETCENTS contract in its Secure Messaging and Secure Network solutionsSolutions business lines, and a $3.0 million increase in sales from Managed Solutions.line. On a nonsegmented basis, as displayed on the face of the statementCondensed Consolidated Statement of operations,Operations (see Item 1—Financial Statements), product revenue increased from $10.3$22.7 million for the firstthird quarter in 2006 to $19.5$39.7 million for the same period in 2007, primarily attributable to increasedan increase in product sales of $4.4reselling activities from the NETCENTS contract in Managed Solutions and $4.5 in the Secure Messaging business lines.line. Services revenue increased from $14.8$12.4 million for the firstthird quarter in 2006 to $20.7$21.3 million for the same period in 2007, primarily attributable to increase in revenue in the Secure Network solutionsSolutions business line.

The Company’s cost of sales for the firstthird quarter of 2007 was $27.3$52.0 million, an increase of $6.7$20.5 million compared to the same period in 2006, due primarily to the increase in sales.

The Company’s gross profit for the firstthird quarter of 2007 increased by $8.4$5.4 million, to $12.9$9.0 million, compared to the same period in 2006. Gross margin increased to 32.0%14.7% in the firstthird quarter of 2007, from 17.9%10.2% in the same period in 2006. The increase in gross margin is2006, primarily attributable to thean increase in sales of highhigher margin business lines.offerings including services/solutions and proprietary software. The Xacta gross margin increased to 46.9%36.6% in the firstthird quarter of 2007, from 27.0%19.1% for the same period in 2006, primarily due to increases in solutions sales in the Secure Network Solutions business line and proprietary software sales in the Secure Messaging and Information Assurance business lines and solutions sales in the Secure Network solutions business line, as well as cost reductionscontrol measures and reorganizations implemented in the fourth quarter of 2006. The Managed Solutions gross margin decreased to (2.9%)0.6% in the firstthird quarter of 2007, from 2.6%2.5% for the same period in 2006, dueprimarily attributable to several factors including continued downward pressure on pricesmargins in the product reselling sector and increased orders under the NETCENTS contract that have realizedcarried smaller margins, and working capital constraints which have, in some cases, limited the Company’s supplier options with respect to order fulfillment.margins. On a nonsegmented basis, as displayed on the face of the statementCondensed Consolidated Statement of operations,Operations, in the third quarter of 2007 compared to the same period in 2006, gross margin attributable to products increased to 28.9% in8.2% from 4.5%, primarily due to approximately a 2% increase as a result of proprietary software sales, and approximately a 2% increase due to an enhancement to the firstCompany’s cost allocation system so as to account for project revenues and cost of sales on a more detailed basis that allowed for a more detailed matching of costs to revenue on contracts containing both products and services. In the third quarter of 2007 from 10.0% forcompared to the same period in 2006, gross margin attributable to services increased to 26.9% from 20.7%, primarily due to increased software salesapproximately a 9% increase in services margin in the Secure Messaging and Information Assurance business lines. Gross margin attributable to services increased to 34.9% in the first quarter of 2007, from 23.3% for the same period in 2006, primarilylines, offset by approximately a 3% decrease due to solutions sales in the Secure Network solutions business line.aforementioned enhancement to the Company’s cost allocation system.

The Company’s selling, general, and administrative expense (“SG&A”) for the firstthird quarter of 2007 was $9.1$6.1 million, a decrease of approximately $1.3$1.1 million or 12.7%15.7% compared to the same period in 2006, primarily due to cost reductions implementedan increase in insurance reimbursements which had the fourth quartereffect of 2006.reducing net litigation-related expenses.

The Company’s operating income for the firstthird quarter of 2007 was $3.8$2.9 million, compared to $5.9 million of operating loss of $3.6 million in the same period in 2006, due primarily to an increase in gross profit noted above.

The Company’s interest expense for the firstthird quarter of 2007 was $2.1 million, a decrease of $54,000$124,000 compared to the same period in 2006.

The Company recorded a full valuation allowance against its deferred tax assets as of March 31,September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006. The Company maintained its full valuation position during the quarter ended March 31,September 30, 2007.

The Company’s net income for the firstthird quarter of 2007 was $1.7 million,$337,000, an increase of $9.8$6.2 million compared to the $8.1$5.9 million net loss in the same period in 2006, primarily attributable to the increase in sales of higher margin business lines.

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2007 Compared with Nine Months Ended September 30, 2006

The Company’s sales for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 were $162.6 million, an increase of $66.5 million or 69.2%, compared to sales of $96.1 million in the same period in 2006. Such increase consists of a $44.9 million increase in sales from Managed Solutions, primarily attributable to increased sales from the NETCENTS contract and the ARISS (Army Recruiting Information Support System) program, and a $21.7 million increase in sales from Xacta, primarily attributable to increased sales from the NETCENTS contract in its Secure Network Solutions and Secure Messaging business lines. On a nonsegmented basis, as displayed on the face of the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, product revenue increased from $48.4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $98.6 million for the same period in 2007, primarily attributable to an increase in product reselling activities in Managed Solutions. Services revenue increased from $47.6 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 to $64.0 million for the same period in 2007, primarily attributable to an increase in revenue in the Secure Network Solutions business line.

The Company’s cost of sales for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 was $129.3 million, an increase of $48.3 million compared to the same period in 2006, due primarily to the increase in sales as discussed above.

The Company’s gross profit for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 increased by $18.2 million, to $33.3 million, compared to the same period in 2006. Gross margin increased to 20.5% in the nine months ended September 30, 2007, from 15.7% in the same period in 2006. The increase in gross margin is attributable to the increase in sales of higher margin business offerings including services/solutions and proprietary software. The Xacta gross margin increased to 40.1% in the nine months ended September 30, 2007, from 24.8% for the same period in 2006, primarily due to increases in solutions sales in the Secure Network Solutions business line and proprietary software sales in the Secure Messaging business line, as well as cost control measures and reorganizations implemented in the fourth quarter of 2006. The Managed Solutions gross margin decreased to 2.3% in the nine months ended September 30, 2007, from 2.6% for the same period in 2006, primarily attributable to margin increase in the second quarter due to the ARISS sales, offset by continued downward pressure on margins in the product reselling sector and increased orders under the NETCENTS contract that have carried smaller margins. On a nonsegmented basis, as displayed on the face of the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations, gross margin attributable to products increased to 14.4% in the nine months ended September 30, 2007, from 5.2% for the same period in 2006, primarily due to approximately a 4% increase as a result of proprietary software sales, and approximately a 5% increase due to an enhancement to the Company’s cost allocation system so as to account for project revenues and cost of sales on a more detailed basis that allowed for a more detailed matching of costs to revenue on contracts containing both products and services. Gross margin attributable to services increased to 29.8% in the nine months ended September 30, 2007, from 26.3% for the same period in 2006, primarily due to approximately a 9% increase in services margin in the Secure Network Solutions business line, offset by approximately a 5% decrease due to the aforementioned enhancement to the Company’s cost allocation system.

The Company’s selling, general, and administrative expense (“SG&A”) for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 was $22.4 million, a decrease of approximately $2.1 million or 8.7% compared to the same period in 2006, primarily due to an increase in insurance reimbursements which had the effect of reducing net litigation-related expenses.

The Company’s operating income for nine months ended September 30, 2007 was $10.8 million, compared to $9.5 million operating loss in the same period in 2006, due primarily to an increase in gross profit noted above.

The Company’s interest expense for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 was $6.3 million, a decrease of $12.0 million compared to the same period in 2006, due primarily to the accretion and dividend accrual adjustments on the public preferred stock during the second quarter of 2006, as discussed in Note 5 – Redeemable Preferred Stock.

The Company recorded a full valuation allowance against its deferred tax assets as of September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006. The Company maintained its full valuation position during the nine months ended September 30, 2007.

The Company’s net income for the nine months ended September 30, 2007 was $9.9 million, an increase of $37.8 million compared to the $27.9 million net loss in the same period in 2006, primarily attributable to the increase in sales of higher margin business lines, $5.8 million gain on sale of TIMS LLC membership interest, and a decrease of $12.0 million in interest expense related to the public preferred stock as discussed above.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

In addition to the Company’s common stock, the Company’s capital structure consists of a revolving credit facility, subordinated notes, capital lease obligations, and redeemable preferred stock.

Senior Revolving Credit Facility

The Company has a $15 million revolving credit facility (the “Facility”) with Wells Fargo Foothill, (the “Facility”Inc. (“Wells Fargo Foothill”) that is scheduled to mature on October 21, 2008. Under the terms of the Facility, the interest rate is the Wells Fargo “prime rate” plus 1%. Pursuant to the terms of the Facility, in lieu of having interest charged at the rate based on the Wells Fargo prime rate, the Company has the option to have interest on all or a portion of the advances on such Facility be charged at a rate of interest based on the LIBOR Rate, plus 4%. As of March 31, 2007, the Company has not elected the LIBOR rate option. As of March 31,September 30, 2007, the interest rate on the Facility was 9.25%8.75%.

Borrowings under the Facility are collateralized by substantially all of the Company’s assets including inventory, equipment, and accounts receivable. The amount of available borrowings fluctuates based on the underlying asset-borrowing base, as defined in the Facility agreement.

The Facility has various covenants that may, among other things, affect the ability of the Company to merge with another entity, sell or transfer certain assets, pay dividends and make other distributions beyond certain limitations. The Facility also requires the Company to meet certain financial covenants, including Earnings Beforebefore Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA), as defined in the Facility. TheAs of September 30, 2007, the Company was in compliance with the Facility’s financial and Wells Fargo Foothill have amended the EBITDA covenants at various times to reflect revised projections. The Company has complied with its newly established covenants through March 31, 2007.covenants. Based on the Company’s current projection of EBITDA, the Company expects that it will remain in compliance with its EBITDA covenants. Therefore,covenants, and accordingly, the Facility is classified as noncurrent as of March 31,September 30, 2007.

Effective January 1, 2007, the Company and Wells Fargo Foothill have amended the Facility to provide for availability block relief through AprilAt September 30, 2007, to establish EBITDA covenants for 2007, to give consent to the formation of an LLC and subsequent sale of a portion of the membership interests in such LLC (disclosed in Note 6—Contingencies and Subsequent Events), and to provide various waivers in accordance with the Facility. The fees associated with such amendments amounted to $160,000.

At March 31, 2007, the Company had outstanding borrowings of $11.7$9.5 million and unused borrowing availability of $2.0$5.5 million on the Facility. As of May 8,November 13, 2007, the Company has availability under its current arrangement of approximately $1.8$2.1 million. The effective weighted average interest rates (including various fees charged pursuant to the Facility agreement and related amendments) on the outstanding borrowings under the Facility were 10.9%10.6% and 9.9%12.4% for the threenine months ended March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

Senior Subordinated Notes

The Company’s Senior Subordinated Notes (“Notes”) totaled $5.2 million at March 31,September 30, 2007. The maturity date of such Notes has been extended to October 31, 2008, with interest rates ranging from 14% to 17%, and paid quarterly on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year. During the first threenine months of 2007 and 2006, the Company paid $187,000$566,000 in interest to subordinated note holders. In addition, these notes have a cumulative prepayment premium of 13.5% per annum payable only upon certain circumstances, which if in effect, would be approximately $18.1$19.7 million at March 31,September 30, 2007. See Note 34 – Debt Obligations.

Redeemable Preferred Stock

The Company currently has two primary classes of redeemable preferred stock—Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock and Public Preferred Stock. Each class carries cumulative dividend rates of 12% to 14.125%. At March 31,September 30, 2007, the total carrying amount of redeemable preferred stock, including accumulated and unpaid dividends was $98.3$101.0 million. The Company accrues dividends and provides for accretion related to the redeemable preferred stock. During the first threenine months of 2007 and 2006, the Company recorded $1.1$3.2 million and $13.4 million, respectively, of dividends on the two classes of redeemable preferred stock.

Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock

Redemption for all shares of the Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock plus all accrued dividends on those shares was scheduled, subject to limitations detailed below, on October 31, 2005. However, on April 14, 2005, Toxford Corporation, the holder of 72.6% of the Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock, extended the maturity of its instruments to October 31, 2008. Among the limitations with regard to the scheduled redemptions of the Senior Redeemable Public Preferred Stock is the legal availability of funds, pursuant to

Maryland law. Maryland law also prohibits distributions (including redemptions and dividends) if, after the distribution is made, liabilities exceed assets. Accordingly, due to the Company’s current financial position and the terms of the Wells Fargo Foothill agreement, it is precluded by Maryland law from making the scheduled payment. As the Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock is not due on demand, or callable, within twelve months from March 31,September 30, 2007, the remaining 27.4% is also classified as noncurrent.

Public Preferred Stock

Redemption Provisions

Redemption for the Public Preferred Stock is contractually scheduled from 2005 through 2009. Since 1991, the Company has not declared or paid any dividends on its Public Preferred Stock, based upon its interpretation of restrictions in its Articles of Amendment and Restatement, limitations in the terms of the Public Preferred Stock instrument, specific dividend payment restrictions in the Facility entered into with Wells Fargo Foothill, and other senior obligations and limitations pursuant to Maryland law (as discussed above). Pursuant to their terms, the Company is scheduled, but not required, to redeem the Public Preferred Stock in five annual tranches during the period 2005 through 2009. However, due to its substantial senior obligations, limitations set forth in the covenants in the Facility, foreseeable capital and operational requirements, restrictions and prohibitions of its Articles of Amendment and Restatement, and provisions of Maryland law (as discussed above), and assuming sufficient liquidity to undertake any stock redemption (which is presently unquantifiable), the Company believes the likelihood is that it will not be able to meet the redemption schedule set forth in the terms of the Public Preferred Stock instrument. Moreover, the Public Preferred Stock is not payable on demand, nor callable, for failure to redeem the Public Preferred Stock in accordance with the redemption schedule set forth in the instrument. Therefore, the Company has classified these securities as noncurrent liabilities in the balance sheet as of March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are parties to the Facility agreement with Wells Fargo Foothill, whose term expires on October 21, 2008. Under the Facility, the Company agreed that, so long as any credit under the Facility is available and until full and final payment of the obligations under the Facility, it would not make any distribution or declare or pay any dividends (other than common stock) on its stock, or purchase, acquire, or redeem any stock, or exchange any stock for indebtedness, or retire any stock. The Company continues to actively rely upon the Facility and expects to continue to do so until the Facility agreement expires on October 21, 2008.

Accordingly, as stated above, the Company will continue to classify the entirety of its obligation to redeem the Public Preferred Stock as a long-term obligation. The Wells Fargo Foothill Facility prohibits, among other things, the redemption of any stock, common or preferred, until October 21, 2008. The Public Preferred Stock by its terms cannot be redeemed if doing so would violate the terms of an agreement regarding the borrowing of funds or the extension of credit which is binding upon the Company or any subsidiary of the Company, and it does not include any other provisions that would otherwise require any acceleration of the redemption of or amortization payments with respect to the Public Preferred Stock. Thus, the Public Preferred Stock is not and will not be due on demand, nor callable, within twelve months from March 31,June 30, 2007. This classification is consistent with ARB No. 43 and SFAS No. 78, “Classification of Obligations that are Callable by the Creditor.”

Paragraph 7 of Chapter 3A of ARB No. 43 defines a current liability, as follows:

“The term current liabilities is used principally to designate obligations whose liquidation is reasonably expected to require the use of existing resources properly classifiable as current assets, or the creation of other current liabilities. As a balance sheet category, the classification is intended to include obligations for items that have entered into the operating cycle, such as payables incurred in the acquisition of materials and supplies to be used in the production of goods or in providing services to be offered for sale; collections received in advance of the delivery of goods or performance of services; and debts that arise from operations directly related to the operating cycle, such as accruals for wages, salaries, commissions, rentals, royalties, and income and other taxes. Other liabilities whose regular and ordinary liquidation is expected to occur within a relatively short period of time, usually 12 months, are also intended for inclusion, such as short-term debts arising from the acquisition of capital assets, serial maturities of long-term obligations, amounts required to be expended within 1 year under sinking fund provisions, and agency obligations arising from the collection or acceptance of cash or other assets for the account of third persons.”

Paragraph 5 of SFAS No. 78, provides the following:

“The current liability classification is also intended to include obligations that, by their terms, are due on demand or will be due on demand within one year (or operating cycle, if longer) from the balance sheet date, even though liquidation may not be expected within that period. It is also intended to include long-term obligations that are or will be callable by the creditor either because the debtor’s violation of a provision of the debt agreement at the balance sheet date makes the obligation callable or because the violation, if not cured within a specified grace period, will make the obligation callable…”

If, pursuant to the terms of the Public Preferred Stock, the Company does not redeem the Public Preferred Stock in accordance with the scheduled redemptions described above, the terms of the Public Preferred Stock require the Company to discharge its obligation to redeem the Public Preferred Stock as soon as the Company is financially capable and legally permitted to do so. Therefore, by its very terms, the Public Preferred Stock is not due on demand or callable for failure to make a scheduled payment pursuant to its redemption provisions and is properly classified as a noncurrent liability.

Dividend Provisions

The Public Preferred Stock accrues a semi-annual dividend at the annual rate of 12% ($1.20) per share, based on the liquidation preference of $10 per share and is fully cumulative. Dividends in additional shares of the Public Preferred Stock for 1990 and 1991 were paid at the rate of 6% of a share for each $.60 of such dividends not paid in cash. Dividends on the Public Preferred Stock are paid by the Company, when and if declared by the Board of Directors, and are required to be paid out of legally available funds in accordance with Maryland law. Maryland law also prohibits distributions (including redemptions and dividends) if, after the distribution is made, liabilities exceed assets. For the cash dividends payable since December 1, 1995, the Company has accrued $58.6$60.5 million and $ 41.1$56.7 million as of March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively.

In accordance with SFAS No. 150, both the Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock and the Public Preferred Stock have been reclassified from equity to liability. Consequently, for the threenine months ended March 31,September 30, 2007 and 2006, dividends totaling $1.1$3.2 million and $13.4 million, respectively, were accrued and reported as interest expense in the respective periods. Prior to the effective date of SFAS No. 150 on July 1, 2003, such dividends were charged to stockholders’ accumulated deficit.

The carrying value of the accrued Paid-in-Kind (“PIK”) dividends on the Public Preferred Stock for the period 1992 through June 1995 was $4.0 million. Had the Company accrued such dividends on a cash basis for this time period, the total amount accrued would have been $15.1 million. However, as a result of the redemption of the 410,000 shares of the Public Preferred Stock in November 1998, such amounts were reduced and adjusted to $3.5 million and $13.4 million, respectively. The Company’s Charter, Section 2(a) states, “Any dividends payable with respect to the Exchangeable Preferred Stock (“Public Preferred Stock”) during the first six years after the Effective Date (November 20, 1989) may be paid (subject to restrictions under applicable state law), in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors, in cash or by issuing additional full paid and nonassessable shares of Exchangeable Preferred Stock …”. Accordingly, the Board had the discretion to pay the dividends for the referenced period in cash or by the issuance of additional shares of Public Preferred Stock. During the period in which the Company stated its intent to pay PIK dividends, the Company stated its intention to amend its charter to permit thesuch payment of these dividends by the issuance of additional shares of Public Preferred Stock. In consequence, in accordance with applicable accounting requirements, the accrual for these dividends was recorded at the estimated fair value (as the average of the ask and bid prices) on the dividend date of the shares of Public Preferred Stock that would have been (but were not) issued. This accrual was $9.9 million lower than the accrual would be if the intent was only to pay the dividends in cash, at that date or any later date.

In May 2006, the Board concluded that the accrual of PIK dividends for the period 1992 through June 1995 was no longer appropriate. Since 1995, the Company has disclosed in the footnotes to its audited financial statements the carrying value of the accrued PIK dividends on the Public Preferred Stock for the period 1992 through June 1995 was $4.0 million, and that had the Company accrued cash dividends during this time period, the total amount accrued would have been $15.1 million. As stated above, such amounts were reduced and adjusted to $3.5 million and 13.4 million, respectively, due to the redemption of 410,000 shares of the Public Preferred Stock in November 1998. On May 12, 2006, the Board of Directors voted to confirm that the Company’s intent with respect to the payment of dividends on the Public Preferred Stock for this period changed from its previously stated intent to pay PIK dividends to that of an intent to pay cash dividends. The Company therefore changed the accrual from $3.5 million to $13.4 million, the result of which was to increase the Company’s negative shareholder equity by the $9.9 million difference between those two amounts, $9.9 million, by recording an additional $9.9 million charge to interest expense for the second quarter of 2006, resulting in a balance of $89.2$91.7 million for the principal amount and all accrued dividends on the Public Preferred Stock as of March 31,September 30, 2007. This action is a change in accounting estimate as defined in SFAS No. 154, “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections” which replaces APB No. 20, “Accounting Changes” and SFAS No. 3, “Reporting Accounting Changes in Interim Financial Statements.”

Borrowing Capacity

At March 31,September 30, 2007, the Company had outstanding debt and long-term obligations of $124.4$124.6 million, consisting of $11.7$9.5 million under the Facility, $5.2 million in subordinated debt, $9.2$8.9 million in capital lease obligations and $98.3$101.0 million in redeemable preferred stock classified as liability in accordance with SFAS No. 150.

The consolidated financial statements for the quarter ended March 31,September 30, 2007 that are included in this Form 10-Q have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. However,The Company’s working capital deficit was $634,000 as of September 30, 2007, primarily due to total expenses directly related toamounts resulting from unreimbursed litigation-related and other legal expenses, the Company’s working capital deficit was $9.5 million as of March 31, 2007.expenses. Total expenses related to litigation and other legal costs were $3.0$3.1 million (net of $3.4 million in reimbursements by the Company’s insurers) for the first quarternine months of 2007, $5.7 million (net of $3.1 million in reimbursements by the Company’s insurers) for 2006, and $4.1 million for 2005. Such unreimbursed litigation-related and other legal expenses continue to adversely affect working capital, and $8.9$5.1 million of such expenses are unpaid as of March 31,September 30, 2007. The

While the Company is actively working with its vendors, including law firms, partners, subcontractors, and subcontractorsWells Fargo Foothill to mitigate the effect of these working capital constraints during this period. As the Company continues to evaluate its performance with the goals of achieving greater consistency in its financial results, increasing cash flow and achieving higher profitability, it has undertaken a company-wide reorganization and cost reduction plan, which was initially presented to the Transaction Committee of the Board in July 2006, and which the Company has begun to execute and continues to implement.

Thereperiod, there can be no assurances as to the continuing ability of the Company to successfully work with vendors, partners and subcontractors or Wells Fargo Foothillsuch parties to mitigate these current working capital constraints. See Note 34 – Debt Obligations. Although no assurances can be given, the Company expects that it will be in compliance throughout the term of the amended credit facility with respect to the financial and other covenants.

Also,Additionally, the Company derives substantially allhas recently experienced a slow down in payments from one of the Company’s significant government payment offices due to complications arising from that office’s payment system conversion. As a result, anticipated payments from this government payment office have been received significantly later than the anticipated payment dates. The Company has been able to utilize its revenue from U.S. Government contracting, and as such itexisting Facility to mitigate the effect of these payment delays. This slow down in payment is annually subjectexpected to be temporary.

Additionally, subsequent to the seasonalitydate of the accompanying financial statements, in accordance with the terms of one the Company’s government contracts for services, the Company was required to provide a performance bond and a payment bond for a system installation at a customer site. The amount of such bond is approximately $4.1 million and the Company has been required to collateralize the entire amount of the bond. The Company provided such collateral on or about October 31, 2007. The terms of the bond requirement allow for a release of a significant amount of the collateral pending satisfactory performance in the March 2008 time frame. While the bond requirement may adversely affect the Company’s liquidity during this time frame, the Company currently believes that the impact of the bond requirement will be mitigated by the Company’s ability to utilize the existing Facility.

The Company has previously disclosed the effect of the cyclicality of the U.S. Government purchasing. As the U.S. Government fiscal year endsbuying season has historically had on September 30, it is not uncommon for U.S. Government agencies to award extra tasks in the weeks immediately prior to the end of its fiscal year in order to avoid the loss of unexpended fiscal year funds. As a result of this cyclicality,revenues, specifically that the Company has historically experienced higher revenuesrevenue in itsthe third and fourth fiscal quarters endingthan in the first and second quarters. While the Company has experienced significant revenue growth for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, and December 31, respectively, with2007 over the paceprior year, there can be no assurances that such growth will continue for the remainder of orders substantially reduced during the Januaryyear or that revenue for the remainder of the year will exceed the revenue to June time period.date.

The Company believes that available cash and borrowings under the Facility will be sufficient to generate adequate amounts of cash to meet the Company’s needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures for 2007. The Company anticipates the need for continued reliance on a credit facility upon terms and conditions substantially similar to the existing Facility in order to meet the Company’s long term needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures.

Contractual Obligations and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

The following summarizes the Company’s contractual obligations at March 31,September 30, 2007, both on and off balance sheet, and their anticipated impact upon the Company’s liquidity and cash flow in future periods (in thousands):

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 1 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for a discussion of recently issued accounting pronouncements.

Forward-Looking Statements

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains forward-looking statements. For this purpose, any statements contained herein that are not statements of historical fact may be deemed to be forward-looking statements. Without limiting the foregoing, the words “believes,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “expects” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. There are a number of important factors that could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, without limitation, those set forth in the risk factors section included in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the SEC.

Item 3.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

The Company is exposed to interest rate volatility with regard to its variable rate debt obligations under its Facility. Effective April 2005, interest on the Facility is charged at 1% over the Wells Fargo “prime rate” (as of March 31,September 30, 2007 the Wells Fargo “prime rate” was 8.25%7.75%), or 5.75%, whichever is higher. The interest rate for the additional availability amount ranged from 12.75% to 13.25% during its term, which was 5% over the Wells Fargo “prime rate.” The effective average interest rates, including all bank fees, for the first threenine months of 2007 and 2006 were 10.9%10.6% and 9.9%12.4%, respectively. The Facility had an outstanding balance of $11.7$9.5 million at March 31,September 30, 2007.

The Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have evaluated the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) under the Exchange Act), as of March 31,September 30, 2007, and concluded that those disclosure controls and procedures are effective in ensuring that information required to be disclosed byin the Company inCompany’s reports filed or submitted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms, and is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding timelyrequired disclosures.

There have been no changes in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended March 31,September 30, 2007 or in other factors that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

Information regarding legal proceedings may be found in Note 67 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

There were no material changes in the Company’s risk factors in the firstthird quarter of 2007.

Item 3.

Defaults upon Senior Securities

Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock

The Company has not declared dividends on its Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock, Series A-1 and A-2, since issuance. At March 31,September 30, 2007, total undeclared unpaid dividends accrued for financial reporting purposes are $6.1$6.3 million for the Series A-1 and A-2 Preferred Stock. The Company was required to redeem all shares and accrued dividends outstanding on October 31, 2005. However, on April 14, 2005, Toxford Corporation, the holder of 72.6% of the Senior Redeemable Preferred Stock, extended the maturity of its instruments to October 31, 2008. Subject to limitations set forth below, the Company was scheduled to redeem 27.4% of the outstanding shares and accrued dividends outstanding on October 31, 2005. Among the limitations with regard to the mandatory redemptions of the Senior Redeemable Public Preferred Stock is the legal availability of funds, pursuant to Maryland law. Maryland law also prohibits distributions (including redemptions and dividends) if, after the distribution is made, liabilities exceed assets. Accordingly, due to the Company’s current financial position, it is precluded by Maryland law from making the scheduled payment.

12% Cumulative Exchangeable Redeemable Preferred Stock

Through November 21, 1995, the Company had the option to pay dividends in additional shares of Preferred Stock in lieu of cash (provided there were no restrictions on payment as further discussed below). As more fully explained in the next paragraph, dividends are payable by the Company, provided that the Company has legally available funds under Maryland law (as discussed above) and is able to pay dividends under its charter and other senior financing documents, when and if declared by the Board of Directors, commencing June 1, 1990, and on each six month anniversary thereof. Dividends in additional shares of the Preferred Stock for 1990 and 1991 were paid at the rate of 6% of a share for each $.60 of such dividends not paid in cash. Dividends for the years 1992 through 1994, and for the dividend payable June 1, 1995, were accrued under the assumption that such dividends would be paid in additional shares of preferred stock and were valued at $4.0 million. Had the Company accrued these dividends on a cash basis, the total amount accrued would have been $15.1 million. However, as a result of the redemption of the 410,000 shares of the Public Preferred Stock in November 1998, such amounts were reduced and adjusted to $3.5 million and $13.4 million, respectively. As more fully disclosed in Note 45 – Redeemable Preferred Stock, in the second quarter of 2006, the Company accrued an additional $9.9 million in interest expense to reflect its intent to pay cash dividends in lieu of stock dividends, for the years 1992 through 1994, and for the dividend payable June 1, 1995. The Company has accrued $58.6$60.5 million in cash dividends as of March 31,September 30, 2007.

Since 1991, the Company has not declared or paid any dividends on its Public Preferred Stock, based upon its interpretation of restrictions in its Articles of Amendment and Restatement, limitations in the terms of the Public Preferred Stock instrument, specific dividend payment restrictions in the Facility entered into with Wells Fargo Foothill, to which the Public Preferred Stock is subject, and other senior obligations, and limitations pursuant to Maryland law (as discussed above). Pursuant to their terms, the Company is scheduled to redeem the Public Preferred Stock in five annual tranches during the period 2005 through 2009. However, due to its substantial senior obligations, limitations set forth in the covenants in the Facility, foreseeable capital and operational requirements, restrictions and prohibitions of its Articles of Amendment and Restatement, and provisions of Maryland law (as discussed above), the Company did not make the first two scheduled redemption payments, and assuming insufficient liquidity to undertake any stock redemption (which is presently unquantifiable), the Company believes that the likelihood is that it will not be able to make the remaining three scheduled redemption payments as set forth in the terms of the Public Preferred Stock. Accordingly, the Public Preferred Stock is not payable on demand, nor callable, for failure to redeem the Public Preferred Stock in accordance with the redemption schedule set forth in the instrument. The Company has therefore classified these securities as noncurrent liabilities on the presented balance sheet as of March 31,September 30, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and throughout all of 2006.

Notice of Delisting

On April 18,As previously disclosed, effective July 13, 2007, the Company was notified by the NASD that its securities will be removed from quotationCompany’s Public Preferred Stock is no longer quoted on the OTCBB, because the Company filed three periodic reports lateand is now quoted as TLSRP in the past twenty-four months, in violation of the OTCBB eligibility rules. On April 23, 2007 the Company appealed this decision to the NASD Hearings Panel. On May 7, 2007 the Company applied for a waiver of late filing from the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance. As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, no determination has been made with regard to either matter.

Part II Items 2 and 4 are not applicable and have been omitted.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

3529