Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies Financial Condition and Liquidity As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a revolving Facility with Wells Fargo. Borrowings under the Facility are collateralized by substantially all of our assets including inventory, equipment, and accounts receivable. The amount of available borrowings fluctuates based on the underlying asset-borrowing base, in general 85% of our trade accounts receivable, as adjusted by certain reserves (as further defined in the Facility agreement). The Facility provides us with virtually all of the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs. Therefore, maintaining sufficient availability on the Facility is the most critical factor in our liquidity. While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact our availability under the Facility. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize availability on the Facility without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our availability without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability on the Facility unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on the Facility, and therefore our liquidity. We believe that available cash and borrowings under the amended Facility will be sufficient to generate adequate amounts of cash to meet our needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures through the foreseeable future. We anticipate the continued need for a credit facility upon terms and conditions substantially similar to the Facility in order to meet our long term needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures. Our working capital was $1.5 million and $17.3 million as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that we will be in compliance throughout the term of the Facility with respect to the financial and other covenants. Leases Effective November 1, 2013, we entered into a 13-year lease (“the 2013 lease”) that would have expired on October 31, 2026 for the building in Ashburn, Virginia that serves as our corporate headquarters. The 2013 lease was treated as a modification of the prior lease on the property in accordance with ASC 840, “Leases”. The 2013 lease included an option to purchase, assign to, or designate a purchaser on June 1, 2014, which required notice of intent to exercise the option by not later than March 31, 2014. On March 28, 2014, we entered into a definitive agreement with an unrelated third party to assign the purchase option to that third party in return for cash consideration of $1.7 million, payable upon the closing of the purchase transaction, and certain obligations under the agreement, including entering in to a new 15-year lease with the third party upon the third party’s exercise of the purchase option and purchase of the building from the prior landlord. On March 28, 2014, we provided the prior landlord notice of our assignment and exercise of the purchase option. On May 28, 2014 the third party completed the purchase transaction and the 2013 lease was terminated, with no ongoing obligations, by mutual agreement between us and the prior landlord. On the same day we entered into a new lease (“the 2014 lease”) with the third party that expires on May 31, 2029. The 2014 lease was treated as a modification of the prior lease on the property in accordance with ASC 840, “Leases”, and determined to be a capital lease. As a result of the new lease, the corresponding capital asset increased by $5.7 million, resulting in a net book value of the capital asset of $18.3 million and the liability increased by $6.7 million, resulting in a capital obligation of $22.0 million. As part of this treatment, the net cash consideration received in connection with the definitive agreement was treated as a lease incentive that will be amortized over the life of the lease. Legal Proceedings Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P., et al. v. Telos Corporation, et al. As previously disclosed in Note 14 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. (“Costa Brava”), a holder of our Public Preferred Stock, filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Circuit Court”). A second holder of the Company’s Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. (“Wynnefield”), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R.C. Porter, a holder of the Company’s common stock. As of June 30, 2014, Costa Brava owns 12.7% and Wynnefield owns 11.7% of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. On April 24, 2014, a hearing was held on the Company’s (and certain past and present directors’ and officers’) Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs Derivative Claims Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-502 and the Report of the Special Litigation Committee before Judge W. Michel Pierson in the Circuit Court. No decision was issued at the hearing and the matter is still pending. At this state of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to Plaintiffs’ success in relation to any of their assertions in the litigation. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case, the Company and its present and former officers and directors strenuously deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and continue to vigorously defend the matter, and oppose all relief sought by Plaintiffs. Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation As previously disclosed in Note 14 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel, principals of Costa Brava and Class D Directors of Telos filed a lawsuit against the Company on August 2, 2007, and have been engaged in litigation against the Company since that date. No material developments occurred in this litigation during the three months ended June 30, 2014. Other Litigation In addition, 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 condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies

Financial Condition and Liquidity

As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a revolving Facility with Wells Fargo. Borrowings under the Facility are collateralized by substantially all of our assets including inventory, equipment, and accounts receivable. The amount of available borrowings fluctuates based on the underlying asset-borrowing base, in general 85% of our trade accounts receivable, as adjusted by certain reserves (as further defined in the Facility agreement). The Facility provides us with virtually all of the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs. Therefore, maintaining sufficient availability on the Facility is the most critical factor in our liquidity. While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact our availability under the Facility. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize availability on the Facility without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our availability without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability on the Facility unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on the Facility, and therefore our liquidity.

We believe that available cash and borrowings under the amended Facility will be sufficient to generate adequate amounts of cash to meet our needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures through the foreseeable future. We anticipate the continued need for a credit facility upon terms and conditions substantially similar to the Facility in order to meet our long term needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures. Our working capital was $1.5 million and $17.3 million as of June 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that we will be in compliance throughout the term of the Facility with respect to the financial and other covenants.

Leases

Effective November 1, 2013, we entered into a 13-year lease (“the 2013 lease”) that would have expired on October 31, 2026 for the building in Ashburn, Virginia that serves as our corporate headquarters. The 2013 lease was treated as a modification of the prior lease on the property in accordance with ASC 840, “Leases”. The 2013 lease included an option to purchase, assign to, or designate a purchaser on June 1, 2014, which required notice of intent to exercise the option by not later than March 31, 2014.

On March 28, 2014, we entered into a definitive agreement with an unrelated third party to assign the purchase option to that third party in return for cash consideration of $1.7 million, payable upon the closing of the purchase transaction, and certain obligations under the agreement, including entering in to a new 15-year lease with the third party upon the third party’s exercise of the purchase option and purchase of the building from the prior landlord. On March 28, 2014, we provided the prior landlord notice of our assignment and exercise of the purchase option. On May 28, 2014 the third party completed the purchase transaction and the 2013 lease was terminated, with no ongoing obligations, by mutual agreement between us and the prior landlord. On the same day we entered into a new lease (“the 2014 lease”) with the third party that expires on May 31, 2029. The 2014 lease was treated as a modification of the prior lease on the property in accordance with ASC 840, “Leases”, and determined to be a capital lease. As a result of the new lease, the corresponding capital asset increased by $5.7 million, resulting in a net book value of the capital asset of $18.3 million and the liability increased by $6.7 million, resulting in a capital obligation of $22.0 million. As part of this treatment, the net cash consideration received in connection with the definitive agreement was treated as a lease incentive that will be amortized over the life of the lease.

Legal Proceedings

Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P., et al. v. Telos Corporation, et al.

As previously disclosed in Note 14 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. (“Costa Brava”), a holder of our Public Preferred Stock, filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the “Circuit Court”). A second holder of the Company’s Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. (“Wynnefield”), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R.C. Porter, a holder of the Company’s common stock. As of June 30, 2014, Costa Brava owns 12.7% and Wynnefield owns 11.7% of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock.

On April 24, 2014, a hearing was held on the Company’s (and certain past and present directors’ and officers’) Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs Derivative Claims Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-502 and the Report of the Special Litigation Committee before Judge W. Michel Pierson in the Circuit Court. No decision was issued at the hearing and the matter is still pending.

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

Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation

As previously disclosed in Note 14 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel, principals of Costa Brava and Class D Directors of Telos filed a lawsuit against the Company on August 2, 2007, and have been engaged in litigation against the Company since that date. No material developments occurred in this litigation during the three months ended June 30, 2014.

Other Litigation

In addition, 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 condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.