Lockheed Martin (LOM) Risk Analysis

We must comply with extensive laws and regulations relating to the award, administration and performance of U.S. Government contracts. Government contract laws and regulations affect how we do business with our customers and impose certain risks and costs on our business. A violation of these laws and regulations by us, our employees, others working on our behalf, a supplier or a joint venture partner could harm our reputation and result in the imposition of fines and penalties, the termination of our contracts, suspension or debarment from bidding on or being awarded contracts, loss of our ability to export products or perform services and civil or criminal investigations or proceedings. From time to time, the U.S. Government has proposed contract terms, imposed internal policies, or taken positions that represent fundamental changes from historical practices or that we believe are inconsistent with the FAR or other laws and regulations and that could adversely affect our business. In addition, costs to comply with new government regulations and changing policies and practices can increase our costs, reduce our margins and adversely affect our competitiveness. Also, a portion of our contracts are classified by the U.S. Government, which imposes security requirements that limit our ability to discuss our performance on these contracts, including any specific risks, disputes and claims. Executive Orders. The President has issued multiple Executive Orders (EOs), including two that are intended to (i) simplify and accelerate the procurement process through an overhaul of the FAR and (ii) modernize the defense acquisition process by promoting commercial solutions, use of innovative acquisition authorities, and other existing streamlined processes. The Secretary of War recently released the Department's Acquisition Transformation Strategy that is consistent with these EOs, and also aims to restructure the requirements process, funding authority, and reorganizes the Acquisition workforce. As part of this broader transformation, the U.S. Government is shifting its acquisition strategy toward longer-term contract structures; some contracts that were previously negotiated on an annual basis may now be executed as a multi-year procurement. We expect a revision to the DFARS in the next several months as well. In addition, the President recently issued an EO that could limit certain contractors performing work under critical defense weapons, supplies, and equipment contracts from issuing excessive dividends or owner distributions, making share repurchases, and placing certain restrictions on executive compensation, as well as additional measures. It is expected that this EO will be implemented this year through a new DFARS clause and the EO's restrictions will apply only after the DoW determines that a contractor has failed to meet identified contract performance requirements. While the applicability and full impact of these initiatives on our business is uncertain, we are adapting to meet the changes in U.S. Government buying behaviors and expectations. We will continue to monitor and assess their effects on our business and financial results. Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA). From time to time, we perform work under a UCA with the U.S. Government, which is when we begin performing our obligations before the terms, specifications or price are finally agreed to between the parties. The U.S. Government has the right to unilaterally definitize contracts, which it has exercised in the past and which, absent a successful appeal, obligates us to perform under terms and conditions imposed on us by the U.S. Government and may negatively affect our expected profit and cash flows on a program or impose burdensome terms. Bid Protests. U.S. Government procurement laws permit legal challenges, referred to as bid protests, to the terms of a contract solicitation or the award of a contract. We may encounter bid protests from unsuccessful bidders on new program awards seeking to overturn the award. Unsuccessful bidders also may protest with the goal of being awarded a subcontract for a portion of the work in return for withdrawing the protest. Bid protests can result in significant expenses to us, contract modifications or even loss of the contract award and the resolution can extend the time until contract activity can begin and delay the recognition of sales and defer underlying cash flows and adversely affect our operating results. Our efforts to protest or challenge any bids for contracts that were not awarded to us also may be unsuccessful. Contract Termination. The U.S. Government may terminate any of our government contracts at its convenience or for default based on our performance, either of which could adversely affect our business and financial performance. Generally, prime contractors have similar termination rights under subcontracts related to government contracts. If a contract is terminated for convenience, we generally are protected by provisions covering reimbursement for costs incurred on the contract and profit on those costs. However, to the extent insufficient funds have been appropriated by the U.S. Government to cover our costs upon a termination for convenience, the U.S. Government may assert that it is not required to appropriate additional funding. If a contract is terminated for default, the U.S. Government could make claims to reduce our recovery or recoup its procurement costs and could assess other special penalties, exposing us to liability and adversely affecting our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. In addition, the U.S. Government could terminate a prime contract under which we are a subcontractor, notwithstanding the fact that our performance and the quality of the products or services we delivered were consistent with our contractual obligations as a subcontractor.