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

 

FORM 10-K

 

(Mark One)
x		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

or

o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from  to 

Commission file number 001-34891

 

THE KEYW HOLDING CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Maryland		27-1594952
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

1334 Ashton Road, Suite A, Hanover, Maryland 21076

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (443) 270-5300

 

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

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share		NASDAQ Global Market

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

(Title of Each Class)

 

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

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

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 x No o

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer o		Accelerated filer x
Non-accelerated filer o (Do not check if smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting company o

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s Common Stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2011 was approximately $298,910,000.

As of February 24, 2012 there were 25,859,267 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

A list of the Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules in this Report on Form 10-K begins on page 82.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents
FORM 10-K
The KEYW Holding Corporation

Item No.		Page
PART I
— Introductory Statement			1
1. Business			1
1A. Risk Factors			13
1B. Unresolved Staff Comments			27
2. Properties			28
3. Legal Proceedings			28
4. Mine Safety Disclosures			28
PART II
5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities			29
6. Selected Financial Data			31
7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation			34
7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk			44
8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data			44
9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants and Financial Disclosure			44
9A. Controls and Procedures			45
9B. Other Information			45
PART III
10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance			46
11. Executive Compensation			54
12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters			77
13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence			80
14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services			81
PART IV
15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules			82

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

The information contained in this report pertains to the registrant, The KEYW Holding Corporation (“KEYW”). References in this annual report to “KEYW,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to The KEYW Holding Corporation and its subsidiaries. References to “Predecessor” and “ICCI” refer to Integrated Computer Concepts, Incorporated, which is our predecessor for accounting purposes. We also refer to KEYW as “Successor” in this annual report.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The matters discussed in this Annual Report may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause our actual results, activity levels, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, activity levels, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “could”, “expect”, “estimate”, “may”, “potential”, “will”, and “would”, or similar words. You should read statements that contain these words carefully because they discuss our future expectations, contain projections of our future results of operations or of our financial position, or state other forward-looking information. There may be events in the future that we are not able to predict or control accurately, and numerous factors may cause events, our results of operations, financial performance, achievements, or industry performance, to differ materially from those reflected in the forward-looking statements. The factors listed in the section captioned “Risk Factors,” contained in this Annual Report, as well as any cautionary language in this Annual Report, provide examples of such risks, uncertainties, and events.

You should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which apply only as of the date of this Annual Report. Subsequent events and developments may cause our views to change. While we may elect to update the forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so.

GENERAL OVERVIEW

We provide mission-critical cybersecurity, cyber superiority and geospatial intelligence solutions to defense, intelligence and national security agencies. Our solutions, services and products support the collection, processing, analysis, and use of intelligence data and information in the domains of cyberspace and geospace. Our solutions are designed to respond to meet the critical needs for agile intelligence in the cyber age.

Our current customers include the National Security Agency (NSA), other intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense (including major agencies and branches within the Department of Defense) and other federal defense and law enforcement agencies. We believe our innovative solutions, understanding of intelligence and national security missions, management’s long-standing and successful customer relationships and significant management and operational capabilities position us to continue our growth. We are highly focused on assisting our customers in achieving their mission of superiority in cyberspace (cyber superiority), both defensively and offensively, within the entire domain of cyberspace, and doing so in time to observe, respond, and, where possible, prevent threat events, actions and agents from inflicting harm. Additionally, over the past 15 months, we have expanded our solutions to encompass a broad spectrum of geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) capabilities, too. We believe today’s complex, geographically distributed cyber threat environment is driving a convergence of cyber intelligence and geospatial intelligence.

KEYW’s primary areas of expertise include:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We provide a full range of engineering services as well as fully integrated platforms that support the entire intelligence process, including collection, processing, analysis and impact. Our platforms include a number of modified commercial turboprop aircraft for imagery and light detection and ranging (“LIDAR”) collection, products that we manufacture, as well as hardware and software that we integrate using the engineering services of our highly skilled and security-cleared workforce. A hallmark of our capabilities is our ability to respond quickly and decisively to demanding and emergent customer requirements, with agile processes and methods that enable us to satisfy requirements that are constantly changing to meet an agile, aggressive and ever-changing threat environment. We also believe we are well positioned to apply our solutions to growth areas within government intelligence and national defense.

As of December 31, 2011, KEYW had 827 employees. 716 of our employees hold government security clearances, 640 of which hold Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearances, or TS/SCI clearances, the highest U.S. Government security clearance level.

For 2009, 2010, and 2011 our revenue reflected that of KEYW and our acquisitions, from the date of acquisition, of $39 million, $108 million and $191 million, respectively, on accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“US GAAP”) actual basis. Our 2011 pro forma revenue (calculated as if all companies acquired in 2011 had been acquired as of January 1, 2011) was approximately $215 million. Our 2011 actual revenue is derived from over 150 contracts (including a combination of prime contracts and subcontracts), the ten largest contracts of which account for approximately 26.5% of our 2011 actual revenue, and no one contract accounts for greater than 13% of our 2011 pro forma revenue. The majority of our contracts provide for a total contract period of five years, with an initial contract period of one year and the balance in one-year option periods. Historically, option exercise rates have been in excess of 95%.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company segmented its business into two segments, Services and Integrated Solutions. The Integrated Solutions segment includes all revenue generated from our product sales in addition to revenue generated by services performed in conjunction with our products. Historically, we have segregated this type of revenue in our financials as Products. The addition of Flight Landata, Inc. (“FLD”) in August 2011 qualified the Company for full segment presentation.

Our History

KEYW began operations on August 4, 2008 led by the majority of the former leadership team of Essex Corporation, which was acquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation in January 2007. Under an agreement between KEYW and Northrop Grumman Corporation, KEYW acquired a core set of capabilities (including over 60 employees) and fixed assets from Northrop Grumman Corporation. Since its founding, KEYW has assembled, through a series of highly selective strategic acquisitions, a single distinct platform that provides the high quality and complementary cybersecurity, cyber superiority and intelligence capabilities, solutions and products our customers require.

In 2008, we acquired Integrated Computer Concepts, Incorporated, or ICCI, our predecessor for accounting purposes, and S&H Enterprises of Central Maryland, Inc., or S&H. Both companies are known for their innovations and capabilities in support of the Intelligence Community. The acquisition of ICCI brought KEYW approximately 80 employees working on key NSA programs. ICCI provided a highly regarded

TABLE OF CONTENTS

software engineering team that has been involved on a wide range of programs and contracts over many years. S&H provided strong program management and systems engineering capabilities on a large mission-critical program.

In 2009, we acquired certain assets of Embedded Systems Design, Inc., or ESD, Leading Edge Design & Systems, Inc., or LEDS, and the Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) team of General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems Inc., or GDAIS team, which team supports a large intelligence agency. Both Embedded Systems and LEDS have provided high performance solutions to the Intelligence Community with systems engineering, analysis, and support capabilities. The addition of ESD contributed a hardware systems engineering capability, while LEDS expanded our hardware engineering capabilities, as well as the depth of activity on a large program with our largest customer, the NSA.

In February 2010 we acquired The Analysis Group, LLC, or TAGG, and in March 2010 we acquired Insight Information Technology, LLC, or IIT. TAGG expanded our customer base to include Air Force Intelligence and TAGG’s long-term customer relationship and contracts with this customer, particularly in the area of complex program management requirements. IIT further expanded our program management and systems engineering capabilities, and expanded our activity on a key program with our largest customer.

On October 1, 2010, The KEYW Holding Corporation completed its initial public offering (IPO) and began trading on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol “KEYW”. Our offering including the overallotment, consisted of 10,465,000 shares of our common stock at a price to the public of $10.00 per share. Of the shares in the offering, 9,639,090 were offered by the Company and 825,910 were offered by selling stockholders. KEYW used the proceeds from the offering to repay debt and for working capital, capital expenditures and general corporate purposes, including two acquisitions.

Following our IPO, we acquired Sycamore.US, Inc., or Sycamore in November 2010 and Everest Technology Solutions, Inc., or Everest in December 2010. Both companies add depth of capabilities and experience with our largest customers, as well as expanded our breadth of contracts and experience with other members of the Intelligence Community (“IC”). Sycamore offers a broad range of cyber solutions and support including aerospace software engineering, cybersecurity, independent verification and validation, systems engineering, and risk management. Everest offers a broad range of cyber superiority solutions and support including geospatial intelligence systems, cybersecurity, cloud computing and mission support.

In March 2011, we acquired JKA Technologies, Inc., or JKA. JKA offers a broad range of mission critical cyber superiority solutions and support including network engineering, information assurance, and systems and software engineering.

In May 2011, we acquired Forbes Analytic Software, Inc., or FASI. FASI offers a broad range of mission critical cyber superiority solutions and support including high-end software development, systems and software engineering and integration, and full lifecycle software support, from research and development to operations and maintenance.

In August 2011, we acquired Flight Landata, Inc., or FLD. FLD is a highly regarded provider of agile airborne Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) solutions and Micro Terrain Intelligence to the U.S. Defense Department and the Warfighter with significant operations in overseas theaters.

Our Market Opportunity

Cyberspace

Our market opportunity is defined by the pervasive expanse of cyberspace and the urgent need for the United States to achieve cyber superiority and mastery over this domain. In a document entitled the National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations, the Department of Defense officially defined cyberspace as “a domain characterized by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to store, modify, and exchange data via networked systems and associated physical infrastructures.”

According to the Director of National Intelligence (“DNI”) in his 2011 Annual Threat Assessment, “the national security of the United States, our economic prosperity, and the daily functioning of our government are dependent on a dynamic public and private information infrastructure, which includes telecommunications, computer networks and systems, and the information residing within. In the past year, we have seen a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

dramatic increase in malicious cyber activity targeting US computers and networks; almost two-thirds of US firms report that they have been the victim of cybersecurity incidents or information breaches, while the volume of malicious software (“malware”) on American networks more than tripled from 2009.” In this same document, he states, “In the last year, we have witnessed the emergence of foreign military capabilities in cyber space. This formalization of military cyber capabilities creates another tool that foreign leaders may use to undermine critical infrastructures that were previously assumed secure before or during conflict. The IC is reaching out to the private sector to ensure current understanding of the dynamic cyber environment. More government-private sector and international cooperation is still required across the cybersecurity landscape.” As stated in the DNI 2010 Annual Threat Assessment, his strategy is to create “an integrated and agile intelligence team to help deploy a defensive strategy that is both effective and respectful of American freedoms and values. We are integrating cybersecurity with counterintelligence and improving our ability to understand, detect, attribute, and counter the full range of threats.”

The market opportunity for cyber superiority/cybersecurity has continued to evolve since Defense Secretary Gates directed the establishment of U.S. Cyber Command, a military command focused on cybersecurity, to be based at Fort Meade, MD, which also houses the National Security Agency. According to Secretary Gates, “Cyber Command will bring together more than a half a dozen intelligence and military organizations in support of three overlapping categories of cyber operations,” to protect defense computer networks, coordinate all defense computer operations and provide full-spectrum support for all military and counterterrorism missions, and stand by to support civil authorities and industry partners on an as-needed basis. According to Deputy Defense Secretary Lynn in January 2010, “combining offensive and defensive capabilities under a single roof and bringing those together with the intelligence we need to anticipate attacks will make our cyber operations more effective.”

These decisions put the National Security Agency and Cyber Command, both at Fort Meade, MD, and near our headquarters, at the center of U.S. strategy for cyber superiority and cybersecurity. In November 2010, Secretary Gates further commented on the importance and concentration of cyber expertise during the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council noting that “the only defense the United States has against nation states and other potential threats in the cyber world is the National Security Agency. You cannot replicate the National Security Agency for domestic affairs. There isn’t enough money, there isn’t enough time, and there isn’t enough human talent.” KEYW’s leadership and the strategic assembly of companies and capabilities involved with these customers and programs have been carefully developed as a continuing response to the ever growing threat the U.S. faces from potential cyber attacks.

An additional element of the DNI’s strategy for the Intelligence Community, and an important element that helps define this market opportunity is the need for agility. Agility was identified by DNI as one of the characteristics essential to the IC’s effectiveness. The DNI defined an agile organization as “an enterprise with an adaptive, diverse, continually learning, and mission-driven intelligence workforce that embraces innovation and takes initiative.” In addition, the National Intelligence Strategy identified enhancing cybersecurity as one of six mission objectives that must be accomplished by the Intelligence Community: “Understand, detect, and counter adversary cyber threats to enable protection of the Nation’s information infrastructure.” The DNI, in his Vision 2015 document put forward a strategy for transforming the focus and operation of the Intelligence Community into cyber age operations. He challenged the Intelligence Community to “adopt modern business practices that will make us more effective, efficient, nimble, and accountable.”

In January 2012, President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta published a major defense policy document “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21^st Century Defense”. In this document, the critical importance of cyber superiority and the need for continued investment are strongly affirmed. “Modern armed forces cannot conduct high-tempo, effective operations without reliable information and communication networks and assured access to cyberspace and space. Today space systems and their supporting infrastructure face a range of threats that may degrade, disrupt, or destroy assets. Accordingly, the United States Department of Defense (“DoD”) will continue to work with domestic and international allies and partners and invest in advanced capabilities to defend its networks, operational capability, and resiliency in cyberspace and space.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

For national security reasons, there is limited detailed information published on intelligence spending or the amount of intelligence spending dedicated for cyber warfare. The Director of National Intelligence disclosed that the 2011 National Intelligence Program Budget was $54.6 billion and the Military Intelligence Budget was $24 billion, for a combined Intelligence Budget of $78.6 billion. According to INPUT, a provider of market information for U.S. Government business, the federal cybersecurity market is expected to achieve a 9.1% annual growth rate through 2015. Driving this growth, they cite a 445% increase in cyber threats since 2006 and increased reliance on the internet, networked systems, and connectivity as creating opportunities for cyber attackers to disrupt government operations, as well as U.S. critical infrastructure.

As a result of these decisions and actions, our customers have clearly defined agility, cyber superiority, and cybersecurity as a critical market opportunity. We believe that KEYW is strongly positioned based on its capabilities, competitive strengths, and strategy, to be a leader in this well funded and critical market.

Geospace

Since our IPO, we have expanded our capabilities in geospatial intelligence. These capabilities are highly complementary to our cyber superiority capabilities. Geospatial intelligence tools and technologies for managing and correlating vast amounts of data, all within a common geo-reference model, are highly relevant and leveragable in cyberspace. In addition, the domains of cyberspace and geospace are rapidly converging within the intelligence and defense communities. Attribution and effective remediation of hostile actions in cyberspace frequently requires finding the perpetrators in geospace, and correlating other knowledge that is accessible using geospatial intelligence tools and data.

Capabilities and Customer Solutions

Services

The majority of our revenue is derived from services that we provide our U.S. Government customers in delivering cybersecurity and cyber superiority solutions. Our services include a full range of technical and program management capabilities needed to conceptualize, build, integrate, and support intelligence systems and capabilities. Virtually all of our work requires high-level security clearances, and the descriptions and details of this work are classified. As a result, this work can only be described at a high level, and examples of the systems and solutions we create can only be generally described. Approximately 84% of our revenue in 2011, on an actual basis, was derived from our services work.

Our services work includes developing strategic and systems architectures for solutions; finding, developing, and integrating hardware and software components to build these solutions, and testing these solutions to confirm that they meet our customers’ requirements. As a result, our engineers are involved in writing software programs in a wide variety of programming languages, developing specialized hardware components, and integrating a variety of custom-developed as well as commercial-off-the-shelf components into solution platforms that support one or more elements of the Intelligence Process. Our services work includes the following activities and capabilities:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Integrated Solutions

Our Integrated Solutions segment includes product revenue and any services based revenue that originated from a product. As an example, the revenue associated with our flight operations was created by our development and sale of electro-optic sensors to the government.

Approximately 16% of our revenue in 2011 was derived from this segment. The 2011 revenue split for this segment was approximately 62% product-related services and 38% products. Our hardware products are typically low-volume products, typically ordered in volumes of less than 500 units that meet specific customer needs to create intelligence insight and advantage by capturing information that help identify, locate, and monitor activity that is of interest to our intelligence agency customers. Our products are in active use in hostile environments, and are constantly undergoing modifications based on customer feedback to make them more effective. Our hardware products are sold at fixed prices (volume discounts are available for significant orders), along with a one year warranty.

KEYW owns and operates six Beechcraft King Air B100 turboprop aircraft for the collection of high resolution electro-optical (“EO”) imagery and light detection and ranging (“LIDAR”) data in austere environments. With these aircraft, KEYW provides a turn-key solution for high-resolution EO and LIDAR that includes collection, processing, and productization of actionable intelligence and georeferenced imagery that keeps pace with an agile threat environment. The products KEYW provides are credited by its customers with actionable intelligence that is saving lives. We believe the value demonstrated by our high-resolution EO and LIDAR platforms in current operational theaters should lead to more widespread deployment to other military areas of interest around the globe. Furthermore, we expect to continue improving and increasing the capabilities of these platforms by developing new sensor technologies and better processing capabilities, creating a truly agile “multi-INT” intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platform.

Our hardware engineers work closely with our customers, receiving regular feedback and requests for changes to future products. Our products undergo a continuing process of design and feature enhancement, with upgrades frequently occurring every 90 – 120 days. We build our products to inventory, based on expected customer demand, which allows us to ship our products quickly in response to orders. Our products are typically held in inventory for 60 – 120 days. We offer a one year limited warranty on all of our products covering workmanship and performance to specification. We have experienced no warranty returns on any of our products since we began operations in 2008. We believe that our warranty expenses will be insignificant over the life of the products.

Our agility is an important characteristic of our customer solutions and products. This is because our customer solutions and products frequently must be developed, integrated and tested rapidly and modified as the requirements evolve at a fast pace. Solutions and products that are not agile, i.e. that are static or slow to change, do not meet the needs of our customers as they respond to a rapidly changing threat environment. We

TABLE OF CONTENTS

believe the cyber age operating requirements of the Intelligence Community make the traditional model of engineering and integration, which can take years to go from concept to initial deployment, outmoded. We have worked closely with our customers to replace the traditional engineering model with a model based on agile development methodologies. In this model, significant progress and milestones are expected every 90 days. This requires high levels of skill in both engineering and in program management.

U.S. Federal Government Contracts

We derive substantially all of our revenue from U.S. Government customers. In fiscal years 2011, 2010 and 2009, we generated approximately 97%, 95%, and 100%, respectively, of our total revenue from contracts with the U.S. Government, which has a highly structured and regulated competitive procurement process. Our intelligence and defense customers typically exercise independent contracting authority and do not use General Services Administration or other government-wide acquisition contracts to obtain our services or products.

Subcontracts accounted for approximately 69% of our revenue in 2011, with 31% through prime contracts, on an actual basis. Our prime contracts have been awarded as both sole-source and competitive awards; our subcontracts have been awarded competitively from prime contractors.

Sole-source award contracts

Under a sole-source award contract, the purchase of goods or services is made from a single source without competitive bidding. It is awarded usually, but not always, by a federal government agency after soliciting and negotiating with only one firm. These contracts can be negotiated much more quickly than a typical competitive contract provided that there is adequate demonstration of both need and the likelihood that any attempt to obtain bids would only result in one person or company being able to meet the need. Urgency is often the rationale for sole-source contracts. Sole-source contracts may be awarded on the basis of a variety of different compensation models, including firm-fixed price, time-and-materials, cost-plus-fixed-fee, or level-of-effort contracts based on negotiations, risk, and cost uncertainty.

Single award contracts

Under single award contracts with defined statements of work, a federal government agency solicits, qualifies, and then requests proposals from interested contractors. The agency then evaluates the bids and typically awards the contract to a single contractor for a specified service or product.

Multiple award contracts

Under indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, or ID/IQ, contracts, a federal government agency can form preferred provider relationships with one or more contractors. This category includes agency-specific ID/IQ contracts; blanket purchase agreements, or BPAs; government-wide acquisition contracts, or GWACs; and General Services Administration, or GSA, schedule contracts. These umbrella contracts, often referred to as vehicles, outline the basic terms and conditions under which federal government agencies may order services. ID/IQ contracts are typically managed by one sponsoring agency, and may be either for the use of a specific agency or available for use by any other agency of the federal government. ID/IQ contracts available for use by any agency of the federal government are commonly referred to as GWACs.

Contractors within the industry compete to be pre-selected to perform work under an ID/IQ contract. An ordering agency then issues delivery orders, commonly known as task orders, for services to be performed under the contract. If the ID/IQ contract has a single prime contractor, only that contractor may be awarded delivery orders. If the contract has multiple prime contractors, the award of each delivery order typically will be competitively determined among the pre-selected contractors.

GSA schedules are listings of services and products, along with their respective prices, offered by federal government contractors. The schedules are negotiated and maintained by the GSA for use by any federal agency or other authorized entity, including state and local governments. When an agency selects services or products under a GSA schedule contract, the competitive process is limited to qualified GSA schedule contractors.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Due to the lower contract procurement costs, reduced procurement time, and increased flexibility associated with multiple award contracts, these vehicles have been utilized frequently in the last decade. Agency-specific ID/IQs have become increasingly prevalent, particularly in the DoD. Access to the relevant vehicles is critical for contractors intending to do business with a specific agency.

Contract types

We generate revenue under various types of contracts, which include time-and-materials (T&M), fixed-price-level-of-effort, firm-fixed-price (FFP) and cost reimbursement contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011 we derived revenue from such contracts on an actual basis, and on a pro forma basis (calculated as if all 2011 acquisitions had been made as of January 1, 2011), as follows:

		Year ended December 31, 2011
		Actual								Pro Forma (unaudited)
Contract Type		(in millions)				(percentage)				(in millions)				(percentage)
Time & Materials		$	106.1				55.7	%		$	112.6				52.3	%
Fixed-Price-Level-of-Effort		$	25.2				13.2	%		$	25.3				11.8	%
Firm-Fixed-Price		$	44.5				23.3	%		$	61.8				28.7	%
Cost Reimbursement		$	14.8				7.8	%		$	15.5				7.2	%

Time-and-materials contracts.  Under a T&M contract, we are paid a fixed hourly rate for each direct labor hour expended and we are reimbursed for allowable material costs and out-of-pocket expenses. To the extent our actual direct labor and associated costs vary in relation to the fixed hourly billing rates among various labor categories provided in the contract, we will generate more or less profit or could incur a loss.

Fixed-price-level-of-effort contracts.  Fixed-price-level-of-effort contracts are substantially similar to T&M contracts except that they require a specified level of effort over a stated period of time.

Firm-fixed-price contracts.  FFP contracts provide for a fixed price for specified products, systems and/or services. If actual costs vary from planned costs on a FFP contract, we generate more or less than the planned amount of profit and may even incur a loss. Our FFP contracts are primarily for our products.

Cost reimbursement contracts.  Cost reimbursement contracts provide for reimbursement of our direct contract costs and allowable and allocable indirect costs, plus a fee.

Backlog

We define backlog to include both funded and unfunded orders for products and services under existing signed contracts, assuming the exercise of all options relating to those contracts, less the amount of revenue we have previously recognized under those contracts. We define funded backlog to be the portion of backlog for which funding currently is appropriated and obligated to us under a contract or other authorization for payment signed by an authorized purchasing authority. Unfunded backlog includes all contract options that have been priced but not funded. Unfunded backlog takes into account contract ceiling value under multiple award contracts, and includes estimates of future potential delivery orders that might be awarded under multiple award ID/IQ contract vehicles, GWACs or GSA schedule contracts.

As of January 1, 2012, our total backlog was $452 million, of which $76 million was funded and $376 million was unfunded.

Total backlog may fluctuate from period to period depending on our success rate in winning contracts and the timing of contract awards, renewals, modifications and cancellations. We expect to recognize a substantial portion of our funded backlog as revenue within the next 12 months. However, the U.S. Government may terminate any contract at any time.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Customers

We derive substantially all of our revenue from contracts with U.S. Government agencies involved with national security missions. In 2011, 51% of our revenue was derived from contracts with the NSA. For 2011, on a pro forma basis (calculated as if all 2011 acquisitions had been made as of January 1, 2011), approximately 47% of our revenue was derived from contracts with the NSA, approximately 22% of our revenue was derived from contracts with DoD, approximately 28% of revenue was derived from other major intelligence agencies and other intelligence, defense, homeland security and law enforcement organizations, and 3% was derived from commercial customers.

Our intelligence and defense customers typically exercise independent contracting authority. We serve customers in either a prime or a subcontractor capacity. Our customers include many of the 16 federal agencies listed below that comprise the Intelligence Community.

Long-term relationships between intelligence customers and contractors develop because of the high level of security clearances required to work on projects and unique technical requirements of intelligence customers. For example, some members of our management have been working closely with the NSA for over 25 years, during which time they have completed numerous projects and we have several projects currently on-going with the NSA.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe the following competitive strengths will allow us to take advantage of the trends in our industry:

Cyber superiority, geospatial intelligence and intelligence focused.  We are a company that is entirely focused on delivering cyber superiority, geospatial intelligence and intelligence support for our customers. We accomplish this by delivering a full range of cyber engineering services and solutions, geospatial intelligence services and solutions, and cyber intelligence products. Mastering cyberspace and thereby attaining cyber superiority is a core mission of the Intelligence Community. KEYW is building a platform of capabilities, culture, and technologies that is tailored to meeting this mission. This focus gives our customers faster and more innovative solutions than those offered by our competitors.

Agile intelligence, cybersecurity and cyber age operations expertise.  We have significant experience in building signal and information processing solutions, cybersecurity, cyber superiority and geospatial intelligence solutions, using agile methodologies for the Intelligence Community to support mission critical activities and complex national security problems. The KEYW team has established a strong reputation for responding quickly to customer requirements, and working as a partner with our customers to identify and define these requirements. The changes in the threat environment that have occurred since 2001 have put enormous pressure on the Intelligence Community to respond more quickly and in a more integrated way than ever before. KEYW has a culture of innovation and agility that allows us to respond more quickly and with greater impact than large organizations.

Management’s Intelligence Community experience and relationships.  Our management has significant expertise in the Intelligence Community and a lengthy track record across all members of the Intelligence Community. Our insight into the Intelligence Community’s needs and our mission focus allow us to articulate and support our customers’ needs as they emerge, placing us at the forefront of solutions being offered. The senior members of KEYW’s leadership and technology teams have a record of supporting the Intelligence Community’s programs for the past 20 – 30 years. Our long-term relationships establish the basis of trust required to understand and support mission-critical requirements. During this period, our executives have gained access to the highest levels of the Intelligence Community and provided thought leadership in the transformation of the intelligence process to respond to challenges of cyber age operations and a rapidly changing asymmetrical global threat environment.

Skilled employees with high-level security clearances.  As of December 31, 2011, 87% of our employees have government security clearances, with 77% of our employees holding TS/SCI clearances. This concentration of highly-skilled and cleared personnel allows us to respond quickly to customer requirements and gives us on-going insight into our customers’ toughest national security problems. The requirement for these clearances and the time and process required to attain them are significant barriers to entering this market.

Established contract relationships.  We have a mix of prime contract and subcontract relationships with a long history of strong performance. An increasing number of our contracts are sole-source contracts, which are awarded without competitive bidding, based on innovation, distinct capabilities, and urgent and compelling needs.

ISR sensor development, rapid deployment and sustainment of airborne collection platforms.  Leveraging its broad technical expertise, KEYW matches aircraft to mission requirements and modifies these aircraft with integrated airborne sensor systems for onboard, geospatially referenced digital image collection and processing. KEYW’s integrated airborne collection solutions are complemented by complete flight services and ongoing sustainment and logistics support of the collection platforms. KEYW rapidly deploys its tailored solutions in direct response to the defense community’s most urgent requirements for ISR imagery in support of tactical missions and rapid mapping of large areas in some of the world’s most challenging locations, thus placing the Company at the center of the trend towards actionable intelligence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our Strategy

Our objective is to continue to grow our business as a provider of advanced solutions, including services, products, and fully integrated platforms, to provide cyber and geospatial intelligence to U.S. Government customers and to leverage our capabilities and innovations in this field to government intelligence, defense, civilian customers and the commercial market. Key elements of our strategy to accomplish our continued growth objective include:

Leveraging our distinct culture, which we describe as “Agile DNA,” products and solutions to expand U.S. Government business.  We intend to leverage our high technology capabilities and services, products and solutions to further penetrate the intelligence and defense communities and to expand our participation in other cyber and geospatial intelligence growth areas of the U.S. Government in the homeland security and civilian sectors. We believe this will allow us to apply powerful cyber superiority solutions to the .gov community in a manner that is transparent and respectful of privacy in the civilian and commercial environments.

Pursuing strategic, capability-enhancing acquisitions.  We will continue to pursue selective strategic acquisitions that expand our cyber intelligence platform of capabilities and solutions. This will include companies that are leaders in supporting the U.S. intelligence and defense community, as well as technologies and solutions in cybersecurity and other areas of innovation that are critical to the transformation of the Intelligence Community into cyber age operations.

Fully integrating and accelerating our business development efforts.  As a company that is growing quickly through integrating multiple strategic acquisitions, we plan to capitalize and leverage investments that each of our platform companies have made in the business development function. We intend to capitalize on the collective capabilities, relationships and facilities of our acquisitions to expand the number and scope of our prime contracts, as well as increase the number of sole-source contracts where our agility and innovation can create new solutions to our customers’ toughest problems.

Building and leveraging our research and development efforts.  We intend to continue utilizing company and customer funded research and development to develop technologies, products and solutions that have significant potential for near-term, as well as long-term value in both the government and commercial markets. We will continue to use intellectual property that we create internally or license from other companies in the areas of network traffic intelligence, cybersecurity, cyber intelligence and geospatial intelligence to build products and solutions to further penetrate the intelligence and defense market for cyber superiority.

Competition

We sell our services and products primarily to the intelligence and defense communities. The level of security clearances required for this work limits the range of competitors against whom we compete for customers in both communities. In addition, the number of competitors is limited even further by the level of technical expertise required to deliver products and services to our government customers. We compete either as prime contractor or as a subcontractor, depending on the requirements and scope of the project.

In our market, our competitors include both large competitors that offer a broad range of services and capabilities and smaller boutique organizations that are highly focused on particular capabilities, solutions, and customers. Our larger competitors include divisions of large defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and Northrop Grumman Corporation. We also face competition from a number of large, well-established government contractors such as Science Applications International Corporation, CACI International, Inc. and others. The smaller competitors are generally privately held corporations with strong capabilities in delivering specific elements of a solution for a narrow range of customers. See “Risk Factors” for a description of the various risks we may face from our competitors.

Manufacturing

Our manufacturing capabilities support modest volume product manufacturing consistent with our customers’ needs for products that evolve rapidly and on a regular basis. We use a combination of in-house resources and contract manufacturing support provided by third parties. We believe that this approach to our manufacturing needs allows us to carefully manage capital investment while maintaining our ability to meet surges in the volume of customer requirements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Research and Development

Innovation is an important part of our business model. We look for opportunities to create long-term growth opportunities, on a sole-source basis, by leveraging our in-depth knowledge of our customers’ missions and needs, our Agile DNA and our ability to use internal research and development (IR&D). Our product and solutions business has evolved through a combination of customer development and IR&D. We frequently develop a core capability or technology and then customize this capability or technology to meet specific customer requirements.

A program we call “Encounter” serves as an on-going example of how we use research and development funds to respond to our customers’ needs with agility and to grow our business. Our customer had a technical problem that had been lingering for several years. The customer had spent millions of dollars with several large companies (both integrators and technology companies) searching for a solution, with no near-term solution in sight. Our engineers, knowing the importance of this problem to our customer, looked for new and innovative approaches. After reviewing the concept with our customer, we authorized a proof-of-concept project to begin immediately, prior to our customer’s official approval of the project, to demonstrate the potential of the new approach to our customer without delay. This initial project took approximately six weeks to complete. Armed with the results of this project, we met with our customer to explore how this solution might meet its urgent needs. After the successful demonstration, the customer issued a directed task order to continue the work, while the other contract activities that had not been producing results were cancelled. Our work on this project continues and has produced strong results for our customer. Encounter has expanded into a deployment project, where a number of systems have been integrated and deployed in our customer’s operating environment, and are being supported by us. We expect further development, deployment and ongoing support to continue for a number of years.

Our research and development, or R&D, consists of IR&D that is an allowable expense under U.S. Government contracts and research and development that is performed at our expense. Spending on R&D activities may vary, depending on the opportunities that we see and customer requirements. In 2011, we spent approximately $2.3 million, or 1.2%, of revenue on R&D. For 2012 we are budgeting 2.0% – 2.5% of revenue for R&D. Looking forward to 2012, we have established innovation teams in each of our major business areas to broaden our efforts to strategically leverage our technologies and ideas into new program opportunities with our customers.

Intellectual Property

Through FLD, we own four patents and have one pending patent applications. As we develop intellectual property, we make a determination, with the support of outside patent counsel, of the best manner in which to protect it whether through patent or copyright, or as trade secret. In conjunction with several of our products, we have developed intellectual property that we are protecting as trade secrets. We have made this determination based on the costs and risks involved, as well as on the pace at which changes are being made to the products.

As we build our solutions and products, we also make use of third-party intellectual property for which we purchase licenses, as necessary. We integrate technology, including hardware and software, based on designs and architectures that we develop with our customers.

Regulatory Matters

We must comply with laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration, and performance of U.S. Government contracts. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, or FAR, which mandates uniform policies and procedures for U.S. Government acquisitions and purchased services, governs the majority of our contracts. Individual agencies also have acquisition regulations that provide implementing language for the FAR or that supplement the FAR.

Other federal regulations require certification and disclosure of cost or pricing data in connection with contract negotiations for certain types of contracts, define allowable and unallowable costs, govern reimbursement rights under cost-based contracts, and restrict the use, dissemination and exportation of products and information classified for national security purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Additionally, federal government contracts, by their terms, generally can be terminated at any time by the federal government, without cause, for the convenience of the federal government. If a federal government contract is so terminated, we would be entitled to receive compensation for the services provided and costs incurred through the time of termination, plus settlement expenses and a negotiated amount of profit. Federal government contractors who fail to comply with applicable U.S. Government procurement-related statutes and regulations may be subject to potential contract termination, suspension and debarment from contracting with the U.S. Government, or other remedies. See “Risk Factors” for a description of the various risks we may face regarding laws and regulations relating to U.S. Government Contracts.

Corporate Information

We are a holding company and conduct our operations through The KEYW Corporation and its subsidiaries. We were incorporated in Maryland in December 2009. The KEYW Corporation was incorporated in Maryland in May 2008 and became our wholly-owned subsidiary in December 2009 as part of a corporate restructuring. We acquired our predecessor, Integrated Computer Concepts, Incorporated or ICCI, in September 2008.

The address of our principal executive office is 1334 Ashton Road, Suite A, Hanover, Maryland 21076 and our general telephone number is (443) 270-5300. Our web site address is www.keywcorp.com. We make available free of charge on or through our Internet website, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The information on, or accessed through, our web site is not part of this or any other report we file with or furnish to the SEC.

You should carefully consider the following risks and all other information contained in this annual report, including our financial statements and the related notes, before investing in our common stock. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently believe are not material, also may become important factors that affect us. If any of the following risks materialize, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially harmed. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose some or all of your investment.

Risks Relating to Our Business

We currently rely on sales to the U.S. Government for substantially all of our revenue. If our relationships with U.S. Government agencies were harmed, our business, future revenue and growth prospects would be adversely affected.

We derive substantially all of our revenue from our U.S. Government customers. In 2011, 2010 and 2009, we generated 97%, 95% and 100%, respectively, of our total revenue from contracts with the U.S. Government, either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor. We expect that U.S. Government contracts will continue to be the primary source of our revenue for the foreseeable future. Our reputation and relationship with the U.S. Government, and in particular with the agencies of the U.S. Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense, are key factors in maintaining and growing our revenue. For example, in 2011, on a GAAP basis, approximately 51% of our revenue was derived from contracts with the NSA, approximately 18% of our revenue was derived from contracts with DoD, approximately 28% of revenue was derived from other major intelligence agencies and other intelligence, defense, homeland security and law enforcement organizations, and 3% was derived from commercial customers. Our business, prospects, financial condition and/or operating results would be materially harmed if:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A decline in U.S. Government spending and mission priorities may adversely affect our future revenue and limit our growth prospects.

Continued U.S. Government expenditures on intelligence, defense and other programs for which we provide support are critically important for our business. While spending authorizations for intelligence and defense-related programs by the government has increased in recent years due to greater homeland security and foreign military commitments and to a general outsourcing trend, these spending levels may not be sustainable and could significantly decline. Future levels of expenditures, authorizations, and appropriations for programs we support may decrease or shift to programs in areas where we do not currently provide services, or contract opportunities may be in-sourced to be performed by U.S. Government employees. Changes in spending authorizations, appropriations, and budgetary priorities could also occur due to a shift in the number, and intensity, of potential and ongoing conflicts, including the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rapid growth of the federal budget deficit, increasing political pressure to reduce overall levels of government spending, shifts in spending priorities from intelligence and defense-related programs as a result of competing demands for federal funds, or other factors. Our business prospects, financial condition or operating results could be materially harmed among other causes by the following:

These or other factors could cause U.S. Government agencies and departments to reduce their purchases under contracts, exercise their right to terminate contracts, or not exercise options to renew contracts, any of which could cause us to lose revenue. A significant decline in overall U.S. Government spending, or a shift in expenditures away from agencies or programs that we support, could cause a material decline in our revenue.

We depend on U.S. Government contract awards that are only partially funded and which depend upon annual budget appropriations. A delay in the completion of the U.S. Government’s budget process could delay procurement of the services and solutions we provide and have an adverse effect on our future revenue.

Budget decisions made by the U.S. Government are outside of our control and have significant consequences for our business. Funding for U.S. Government contract awards is subject to Congressional appropriations. Although multi-year awards may be planned or authorized in connection with major procurements, Congress generally appropriates funds on a fiscal year basis even though a program may be expected to continue for several years. Consequently, awards often initially receive only partial funding, and additional funds are committed only as Congress makes further appropriations. The termination of funding for any of our U.S. Government prime contracts or subcontracts could result in a loss of anticipated future revenue attributable to that program and a reduction in our cash flows and could have an adverse impact on our operating results.

In years when the U.S. Government does not complete its budget process before the end of its fiscal year on September 30, government operations are typically funded pursuant to a “continuing resolution” that authorizes agencies of the U.S. Government to continue to operate, but does not authorize new spending initiatives. When the U.S. Government operates under a continuing resolution, delays can occur in the procurement of the services and solutions that we provide. When supplemental budgets are required to operate the U.S. Government and passage of legislation needed to approve any supplemental budget is delayed, the overall funding environment for our business could be adversely affected.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The U.S. Government may modify, curtail or terminate our contracts at any time prior to their completion and, if we do not replace them, we may be unable to sustain our revenue growth and may suffer a decline in revenue.

Many of the U.S. Government programs in which we participate as a contractor or subcontractor may extend for several years. These programs are normally funded on an incremental basis. Under our contracts, the U.S. Government generally has the right not to exercise options to extend or expand our contracts and may modify, curtail or terminate the contracts and subcontracts at its convenience.

If the U.S. Government terminates a contract for convenience, we may recover only our incurred or committed costs, settlement expenses and profit on work completed prior to the termination. We cannot recover anticipated future profits on terminated work. If the U.S. Government terminates a contract for default, we may not recover each of those types of costs, and instead may be liable for excess costs incurred by the U.S. Government in procuring undelivered items and services from another source.

Any decision by the U.S. Government not to exercise contract options or to modify, curtail or terminate our major programs or contracts would adversely affect our revenue and revenue growth.

We may not realize as revenue the full amounts reflected in our backlog, which could adversely affect our future revenue and growth prospects.

As of December 31, 2011, our total backlog was $452 million, which included $376 million in unfunded backlog. The U.S. Government’s ability not to exercise contract options or to modify, curtail or terminate our major programs or contracts makes the calculation of backlog subject to numerous uncertainties. Due to the uncertain nature of our contracts with the U.S. Government, we may never realize revenue from some of the engagements that are included in our backlog. Our unfunded backlog, in particular, contains amounts that we may never realize as revenue because the maximum contract value specified under a U.S. Government contract or task order awarded to us is not necessarily indicative of the revenue that we will realize under that contract. If we fail to realize as revenue amounts included in our backlog, our future revenue and growth prospects may be adversely affected. For additional information on our backlog, see “Business — U.S. Federal Government Contracts — Backlog.”

If we fail to comply with complex procurement laws and regulations, we could lose business and be liable for various penalties or sanctions.

We must comply with laws and regulations relating to the formation, administration and performance of federal government contracts. These laws and regulations affect how we conduct business with our federal government customers. In complying with these laws and regulations, we may incur significant costs, and the U.S. Government may impose additional fines and penalties, including contractual damages, in the event of our non-compliance. Among the more significant laws and regulations affecting our business are the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our contracting agency customers periodically review our performance under and compliance with the terms of our federal government contracts. If we fail to comply with these laws and regulations or if a government review or investigation uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties or administrative sanctions, including:

Additionally, the False Claims Act provides for potentially substantial civil penalties where, for example, a contractor presents a false or fraudulent claim to the government for payment or approval. Actions under the False Claims Act may be brought by the government or by other persons on behalf of the government (who may then share a portion of any recovery).

Because substantially all of our revenue is dependent on our selection, performance and payment under our U.S. Government contracts, the loss of one or more large contracts or any suspension or debarment from doing business with U.S. Government agencies would result in a loss of anticipated future revenue from U.S. Government contracts and a reduction in cash flows and would have a material adverse effect on our operating results.

U.S. Government contracts contain other provisions that may be unfavorable to contractors.

Beyond the right to terminate a contract for convenience or decline to exercise an option to renew, U.S. Government contracts contain provisions and are subject to laws and regulations that give the U.S. Government rights and remedies not typically found in commercial contracts. These provisions, laws and regulations permit the U.S. Government to do the following:

If the U.S. Government exercises its rights under any of these provisions, our ability to operate or our competitive advantage could be hindered, and our revenue and net income could decline.

Further, U.S. Government contracts and certain laws and regulations contain provisions that may restrict our ability to provide our products and services to third parties. These restrictions may prevent us from leveraging our products, services, intellectual property, know-how or other revenue-generating aspects of our business or our acquisitions to the fullest extent in the commercial sector.

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

The U.S. Government may revise its procurement practices or adopt new contracting rules and regulations, such as cost accounting standards. It could also adopt new contracting methods relating to General Services Administration (GSA) contracts, or other government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs), or adopt new standards for contract awards intended to achieve certain social or other policy objectives. In addition, the U.S. Government may face restrictions from new legislation or regulations, as well as pressure from government employees and their unions, on the nature and amount of services the U.S. Government may obtain from private contractors. These changes could impair our ability to obtain new contracts or to continue to retain contracts under which we currently perform when and if those contracts are put up for renewed

TABLE OF CONTENTS

competitive bidding. Any new contracting methods could be costly or administratively difficult for us to implement, and, as a result, could harm our operating results.

Audits by U.S. Government agencies could result in unfavorable audit results that could subject us to a variety of penalties and sanctions, and could harm our reputation and relationships with our customers.

U.S. Government agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and others, routinely audit and review contractors’ performance on contracts, cost structure, pricing practices and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. They also review the adequacy of, and a contractor’s compliance with, its internal control systems and policies, including the contractor’s accounting, billing, cost, purchasing, property, estimating, compensation, management information system and other systems. Any costs found to be improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be reimbursed, while such costs already reimbursed must be refunded. Adverse findings in a DCAA audit could materially affect our competitive position and result in a substantial adjustment to our revenue and net income.

If a U.S. Government audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of net income, suspension of payments, fines and suspension or debarment from doing business with U.S. Government agencies. In addition, we could suffer serious harm to our reputation and competitive position if allegations of impropriety were made against us, whether true or not. If our reputation or relationship with U.S. Government agencies were impaired, or if the U.S. Government otherwise ceased doing business with us or significantly decreased the amount of business it does with us, our revenue and net income would decline.

A significant portion of our revenue and net income is derived from a few key contracts. The loss of any one or more of these contracts could cause a material decline in our operating results.

For the year ended December 31, 2011, our 10 largest contracts accounted for a total of $50.5 million, or 26.5% of our total revenue. Although we have been successful in continuing work on most of our large contracts in the past, there is no assurance that we will be able to do so in the future. The revenue stream from one or more of these contracts could end for a number of reasons, including the completion of the customer’s requirements, the completion or early termination of our current contract, the consolidation of our work into another contract where we are not a contractor under that contract, or the loss of a competitive bid for the follow-on work related to our current contract. If any of these events were to occur, we could experience an unexpected, significant reduction in revenue and net income.

We derive significant revenue from contracts awarded through a competitive bidding process involving substantial costs and risks. Due to this competitive pressure, we may be unable to sustain our revenue growth and profitability.

We expect a significant portion of the business that we will seek in the foreseeable future will be awarded through competitive bidding. The competitive bidding process involves substantial costs and a number of risks, including the significant cost and managerial time to prepare bids and proposals for contracts that may not be awarded to us and our failure to accurately estimate the resources and costs that will be required to fulfill any contract we win. In addition, following a contract award, we may encounter significant expense, delay or contract modifications as a result of our competitors protesting or challenging contracts awarded to us in competitive bidding. In addition, multi-award contracts require that we make sustained post-award efforts to obtain task orders under the contract. We may not be able to obtain task orders or recognize revenue under these multi-award contracts. Our failure to compete effectively in this procurement environment would adversely affect our revenue and/or profitability.

Our overseas operations involve considerable risks and hazards. An accident or incident involving our employees or third parties could harm our reputation, affect our ability to compete for business, and if not adequately insured or indemnified, could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We are exposed to liabilities that arise from some of the services we provide. Such liabilities may relate to an accident or incident involving our employees or third parties, particularly where we are deployed on-site at active military installations in locations experiencing political or civil unrest, or they may relate to an accident

TABLE OF CONTENTS

or incident involving aircraft or other equipment we have serviced or used in the course of our business. Any of these types of accidents or incidents could involve significant potential claims of injured employees and other third parties and claims relating to loss or of damage to government or third-party property.

We maintain insurance policies that mitigate risk and potential liabilities related to our operations. Our insurance coverage may not be adequate to cover those claims or liabilities, and we may be forced to bear substantial costs from an accident or incident. Substantial claims in excess of our related insurance coverage could adversely affect our operating performance and may result in additional expenses and possible loss of revenue.

Furthermore, any accident or incident for which we are liable, even if fully insured, may result in negative publicity which could adversely affect our reputation among our customers, including our government customers, and the public, which could result in the loss of existing and future contracts or make it more difficult to compete effectively for future contracts. This could adversely affect our operating performance and may result in additional expenses and possible loss of revenue.

We face intense competition from many competitors that, among other things, have greater resources than we do.

We operate in highly competitive markets and generally encounter intense competition to win contracts and task orders. We compete with many other firms, ranging from small, specialized firms to mid-tier technology firms and large, diversified firms, many of which have substantially greater financial, management and marketing resources than we do. Significant competitors include divisions of large defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corporation, The Boeing Company and Northrop Grumman Corporation. We also face competition from a number of large, well-established government contractors such as SAIC, Inc., CACI International Inc. and others. Our competitors may be able to provide our customers with different or greater capabilities or benefits than we can in areas such as technical qualifications, past contract performance, geographic presence, price and the availability of qualified professional personnel. Our failure to compete effectively because of any of these or other factors could cause our revenue and operating profits to decline. In addition, our competitors also have established or may establish relationships among themselves or with third parties to increase their ability to address our customers’ needs. Accordingly, it is possible that new competitors or alliances among competitors may emerge that would compete with us more effectively than they do currently.

Our earnings and profitability may vary based on the mix of our contracts and may be adversely affected by our failure to accurately estimate and manage costs, time and resources.

We generate revenue under various types of contracts, which include time and materials (T&M), fixed-price-level-of-effort, firm-fixed-price (FFP), and cost reimbursement contracts. For the year ended December 31, 2011, we derived revenue from such contracts on an actual basis, and on a pro forma basis, as if all companies acquired in 2011 had been acquired as of January 1, 2011, as follows:

		Year ended December 31, 2011
		Actual								Pro Forma (unaudited)
Contract Type		(in millions)				(percentage)				(in millions)				(percentage)
Time & Materials		$	106.1				55.7	%		$	112.6				52.3	%
Fixed-Price-Level-of-Effort		$	25.2				13.2	%		$	25.3				11.8	%
Firm-Fixed-Price		$	44.5				23.3	%		$	61.8				28.7	%
Cost Reimbursement		$	14.8				7.8	%		$	15.5				7.2	%

Our earnings and profitability may vary materially depending on changes in the proportionate amount of revenue derived from each type of contract, the nature of services or products provided, as well as the achievement of performance objectives and the stage of performance at which the right to receive fees, particularly under incentive and award fee contracts, is finally determined. Cost reimbursement and T&M contracts generally have lower profitability than FFP contracts. Our operating results in any period may be affected, positively or negatively, by variable purchasing patterns by our customers of our more profitable border, port and mobile security products.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

To varying degrees, there is a risk that we could underestimate the costs and resources necessary to fulfill each of our contract types. While FFP contracts allow us to benefit from cost savings, these contracts also increase our exposure to the risk of cost overruns. When making proposals on these types of contracts, we rely heavily on our estimates of costs and timing for completing the associated projects, as well as on assumptions regarding technical issues. In each case, our failure to accurately estimate costs or the resources and technology needed to perform our contracts or to effectively manage and control our costs during the performance of our work could result, and in some instances has resulted, in reduced profits or in losses. More generally, any increased or unexpected costs or unanticipated delays in connection with the performance of our contracts, including costs and delays caused by contractual disputes or other factors outside of our control, could make our contracts less profitable or unprofitable.

We have a limited operating history, which may not provide an adequate basis for projection of our future prospects and results of operations.

Our limited operating history and method of initial growth may not provide a meaningful basis on which to evaluate our business. Since our founding in 2008, we have undertaken multiple acquisitions that have provided the basis of our business and revenue. Although our revenues have grown significantly since our formation, we have only recently become profitable and we may not be able to maintain our profitability and may incur net losses in the future. The lack of long term historical financial results as an operating entity may make it difficult to project our revenues and profitability. Further, we are subject to the risks inherent in the ownership and operation of a company with a limited operating history, such as setbacks and delays in integration of acquired companies, fluctuations in expenses, and competition from competitors that have a more extensive operating history and track record. Any failure to address these risks could seriously harm our business and prospects. We will continue to encounter risks and challenges frequently experienced by companies at a similar stage of development, including:

Acquisitions have formed a significant part of our growth strategy in the past and we expect to continue this strategy in the future. If we are unable to identify suitable acquisition candidates, integrate the businesses we acquire or realize the intended benefits, this aspect of our growth strategy may not succeed. Acquisitions involve numerous risks, including risks related to integration and undisclosed or underestimated liabilities.

Historically, part of our growth strategy has relied on acquisitions. We expect to derive a portion of our growth by acquiring businesses and integrating those businesses into our existing operations. We intend to seek acquisition opportunities both to expand into new markets and to enhance our position in our existing markets. However, our ability to do so will depend on a number of steps, including our ability to:

If we fail to achieve any of these steps, our growth strategy may not be successful.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In addition, acquisitions involve numerous risks, including difficulties in the assimilation of the operations accounting systems, technologies, services and products of the acquired company, the potential loss of key employees of the acquired company and the diversion of our management’s attention from other business concerns. This is the case particularly in the fiscal quarters immediately following the completion of an acquisition to the extent the operations of the acquired business are integrated into the acquiring businesses’ operations during this period. We cannot be sure that we will accurately anticipate all of the changing demands that any future acquisition may impose on our management, our operational and management information systems, and our financial systems.

We may underestimate or fail to discover liabilities relating to a future acquisition during the due diligence investigation and we, as the successor owner, might be responsible for any such liabilities. Although we seek to minimize the impact of underestimated or potential undiscovered liabilities by structuring acquisitions to minimize liabilities and obtaining indemnities and warranties from the selling party, these methods may not fully protect us from the impact of undiscovered liabilities. Indemnities or warranties are often limited in scope, amount or duration, and may not fully cover the liabilities for which they were intended. The liabilities that are not covered by the limited indemnities or warranties could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. In addition, acquisitions can raise potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) issues that can impact the nature and timing of the acquisition or the acquiring entity’s ability to compete for future contracts where the acquired entity may have been involved.

We have a substantial investment in recorded goodwill as a result of our acquisitions, and changes in future business conditions could cause these investments to become impaired, requiring substantial write-downs that could reduce our net income or increase our net loss.

As of December 31, 2011, goodwill accounted for $164.5 million, or 61% of our recorded total assets on an actual basis. We review our goodwill for impairment annually and when events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value may not be recoverable. We evaluate our goodwill at the segment level. The annual impairment test is based on several factors requiring judgment. Principally, a decrease in expected cash flows or changes in market conditions may indicate potential impairment of recorded goodwill. If goodwill became impaired, we could record a significant charge to earnings in our financial statements during the period in which impairment of our goodwill is determined, which could significantly reduce or eliminate our net income.

We may require additional capital to finance our growth. If the terms on which the additional capital is available are unsatisfactory, if the additional capital is not available at all or we are not able to fully access our existing credit facility, we may not be able to pursue our growth strategy.

Our growth strategy may require additional capital investment to complete acquisitions, integrate any completed acquisitions into our existing operations, and to expand into new markets.

To the extent that we do not generate sufficient cash internally to provide the capital we require to fund our growth strategy and future operations, we will require additional debt or equity financing. We cannot be sure that this additional financing will be available or, if available, will be on terms acceptable to us. Further, high volatility in the equity markets may make it difficult for us to access the equity markets for additional capital at attractive prices, if at all. If we are unable to obtain sufficient additional capital in the future, it will limit our ability to implement our business strategy. Continued issues resulting from the current global financial crisis and economic downturn involving liquidity and capital adequacy affecting lenders could affect our ability to fully access our existing credit facilities. In addition, even if future debt financing is available, it may result in (1) increased interest expense, (2) increased term loan payments, (3) increased leverage, and (4) decreased income available to fund further acquisitions and expansion. It may also limit our ability to withstand competitive pressures and make us more vulnerable to economic downturns. If future equity financing is available, it may dilute the equity interests of our existing stockholders.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Achieving our plans for growth will place significant demands on our management, as well as on our administrative, operational, and financial resources. For us to successfully manage our growth, we must continue to improve our operational, financial and management information systems and expand, motivate and manage our workforce. If we are unable to successfully manage our growth without compromising the quality of our services and products, our business, prospects, financial condition or operating results could be adversely affected.

We are dependent on the continued services and performance of our senior management, the loss of any of whom could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

We believe that our future performance depends on the continued services and continuing contributions of our senior management to execute our business plan, and to identify and pursue new opportunities successfully. In addition, the relationships and reputation that many members of our senior management team have established and maintain with federal government personnel contribute to our ability to maintain strong customer relationships. Therefore, the loss of services of senior management could significantly delay or prevent the achievement of our development and strategic objectives.

Our failure to attract, train and retain skilled employees with (or who can obtain) appropriate security clearances would adversely affect our ability to execute our strategy.

Our business involves the development of tailored solutions for our customers, a process that relies heavily upon the expertise and services of our employees. Our continued success depends on our ability to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of highly qualified individuals who have advanced engineering and information technology skills, specialized knowledge of customer missions and appropriate security clearances, and who work well with our government customers. Due to our growth and increased competition for experienced personnel, particularly in highly specialized areas, it has become more difficult for us to meet our needs for these employees in a timely manner and this may affect our growth in the current fiscal year and in future years. Although we intend to continue to devote significant resources to recruit, train and retain qualified employees, we may not be able to attract and retain these employees. Any failure to do so could impair our ability to perform our contractual obligations efficiently and timely meet our customers’ needs and win new business, which could adversely affect our future results. Our overall employee attrition rate in 2011, on an actual basis, was 18.7%.

In addition, the relationships and reputation that many members of our senior management team have established and maintain with government personnel contribute to our ability to maintain good customer relationships and to identify new business opportunities. The loss of key personnel may impair our ability to obtain new U.S. Government awards or adequately perform under our current U.S. Government contracts. We also rely on the skills and expertise of our senior technical development personnel, the loss of any of whom could prevent us from completing current development projects and restrict new development projects. We currently do not maintain “key person” insurance on any of our executives or key employees.

Our business depends upon obtaining and maintaining required security clearances.

Many of our federal government contracts require our employees to maintain various levels of security clearances, and we are required to maintain certain facility security clearances complying with Department of Defense and Intelligence Community requirements. Obtaining and maintaining security clearances for employees involves lengthy processes, and it is difficult to identify, recruit and retain employees who already hold security clearances. If our employees are unable to obtain or retain security clearances or if our employees who hold security clearances terminate employment with us and we are unable to find replacements with equivalent security clearances, we may be unable to perform our obligations to customers whose work requires cleared employees, or such customers could terminate their contracts or decide not to renew them upon their expiration. In addition, we expect that many of the contracts on which we will bid will require us to demonstrate our ability to obtain facility security clearances and perform work with employees who hold specified types of security clearances. To the extent we are not able to obtain or retain facility security clearances or engage employees with the required security clearances for a particular contract, we may not be able to bid on or win new contracts, or effectively re-bid on expiring contracts.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Employee misconduct, including security breaches, could cause us to lose customers or our ability to contract with the U.S. Government.

Misconduct, fraud or other improper activities by our employees could have a significant adverse impact on our business and reputation, particularly because we are a U.S. Government contractor. Such misconduct could include the failure to comply with U.S. Government procurement regulations, regulations regarding the protection of classified information, legislation regarding the pricing of labor and other costs in U.S. Government contracts, and any other applicable laws or regulations. Employee or former employee misconduct involving data security lapses or breaches of confidentiality resulting in the compromise of our or our customer’s sensitive or classified information could result in remediation costs, in regulatory sanctions against us and in serious harm to our reputation. The precautions we take to prevent and detect these activities may not be effective, and we could face unknown risks or losses. Our failure to comply with applicable laws or regulations or misconduct by any of our employees could subject us to fines and penalties, loss of security clearances and suspension or debarment from contracting with the U.S. Government, any of which would adversely affect our business and reputation.

Our quarterly operating results are likely to vary significantly and be unpredictable, which could cause the trading price of our stock to decline.

Our operating results have historically varied from period to period, and we expect that they will continue to do so as a result of a number of factors, many of which are outside of our control, including:

Any one of the factors above or the cumulative effect of some of the factors referred to above may result in significant fluctuations in our quarterly operating results. This variability and unpredictability could result in our failing to meet our revenue or operating results expectations or those of securities analysts or investors for any period. If we fail to meet or exceed such expectations for these or any other reasons, the market price of our shares could fall substantially.

Our credit facility contains financial and operating covenants that limit our operations and could lead to adverse consequences if we fail to comply.

Our credit facility contains financial and operating covenants that, among other things, require us to maintain or satisfy specified financial ratios (including debt to adjusted “EBITDA”, or “earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, amortization, stock compensation and acquisition costs” ratios and fixed charge coverage ratios as further described under the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Liquidity and Capital Resources — Credit Facility”), limit our ability to incur indebtedness, pay dividends or engage in certain significant business transactions, and require us to comply with a number of other affirmative and negative operating covenants. Failure to meet these financial and operating covenants could result from, among other things, changes in our results of operations, our incurrence of debt or changes in general economic conditions. These covenants may restrict our ability to engage in transactions that we believe would otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders, which could harm our business and operations. In addition, our credit facility contains several other material covenants, including a lien against our assets (including receivables), limitations on additional debt, pre-approval of any acquisitions, a prohibition of dividends, and restrictions on the sale, lease, or disposal of any substantial part of our assets, other than in the normal course of business.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We have only a limited ability to protect and enforce our intellectual property rights, which we consider important to our success. Failure to adequately protect or enforce our intellectual property rights could adversely affect our competitive position and cause us to incur significant expense.

We believe that our success depends, in part, upon our ability to protect our proprietary information and other intellectual property. We rely principally on trade secrets to protect much of our intellectual property where we do not believe that patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect and to enforce against third parties. Although we believe that we have adopted reasonable practices to ensure that our employees are subject to appropriate confidentiality obligations and to ensure that we obtain appropriate ownership rights in intellectual property developed by our employees (or by the employees of companies that we have acquired), our practices in this regard may be insufficient, which could result in the misappropriation or disclosure of our confidential information or disputes regarding (or the loss of rights to) certain of our intellectual property. In addition, we may be unable to detect unauthorized use of our intellectual property or otherwise take appropriate steps to enforce our rights. Failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position. The protections that we receive for our trade secrets and other intellectual property rights may not be sufficient to prevent our competitors from copying, infringing, or misappropriating our products and services. Similarly, there is no guarantee that when we do apply for intellectual property protection the applications will result in registrations sufficient to protect our rights. In addition, we cannot be certain that others will not independently develop, design around or otherwise acquire equivalent or superior technology or intellectual property rights.

From time to time, we may seek to enforce our intellectual property rights against third parties. The fact that we have intellectual property rights may not guarantee success in our attempts to enforce these rights against third parties. If we are unable to prevent third parties from infringing or misappropriating our trade secrets or other intellectual property rights, our competitive position could be adversely affected. Our ability and potential success in enforcing our rights is also subject to general litigation risks, as well as uncertainty as to the enforceability of our intellectual property rights. When we seek to enforce our rights, we may be subject to claims that our intellectual property rights are invalid, otherwise unenforceable, or are licensed to the party against whom we are asserting the claim. In addition, our assertions of intellectual property rights may result in the other party seeking to assert various claims against us, including its own alleged intellectual property rights, claims of unfair competition, or others. In the course of conducting our business, we may also inadvertently infringe the intellectual property rights of others, resulting in claims against us or our customers. Our contracts generally indemnify our customers for third-party claims for intellectual property infringement by the services and products we provide. The expense of defending these claims may adversely affect our financial results.

Our acquisitions frequently include the hiring of employees from the acquired entity. These employees may be subject to confidentiality provisions that are not related to the acquisition and may have been exposed to third party confidential information and intellectual property that we do not have the rights to use. During the course of their employment in our business, there is always a risk that employees may inadvertently breach confidentiality obligations or inadvertently infringe third party intellectual property rights based on their prior employment, which could adversely affect our business.

In addition, we conduct research and development under projects with the U.S. Government. In general, our rights to technologies we develop under those projects are subject to the U.S. Government’s non-exclusive, non-royalty bearing, world-wide license to use those technologies. Under certain circumstances, the U.S. Government could also claim rights in our intellectual property that could make it difficult to prevent disclosure to, licensing to, or use by third parties, which could adversely affect our competitive position and business.

We may become involved in intellectual property disputes, which could subject us to significant liability, divert the time and attention of our management and prevent us from selling our products.

We, or our customers, may be a party to litigation in the future to protect our intellectual property or be required to respond to allegations that we infringe on others’ intellectual property. If any parties assert that our products infringe upon their proprietary rights, we would be forced to defend ourselves, and possibly our customers, against the alleged infringement, or to negotiate and possibly enter into settlement agreements that

TABLE OF CONTENTS

could adversely affect our intellectual property rights or the operation of our business. If we are unsuccessful in any intellectual property litigation or enter into any dispute-related settlement, we could be subject to significant liability and loss of our proprietary rights. Intellectual property litigation, regardless of its success, would likely be time consuming and expensive to resolve and would divert management’s time and attention. In addition, we could be forced to do one or more of the following:

If we are forced to take any of these actions, our business could be harmed.

We rely on the availability of third-party licenses.

Certain of our products include software or other intellectual property licensed from third parties. It may be necessary in the future to renew licenses relating to various aspects of these products or to seek new licenses for existing or new products. There can be no assurance that the necessary licenses would be available on equivalent terms to those currently available, on other terms acceptable to us, or at all. The inability to obtain certain licenses or other rights or to obtain such licenses or rights on favorable terms, or the need to engage in litigation regarding these matters, could result in delays in product releases until equivalent technology can be identified, licensed or developed, if at all, and integrated into our products and may have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, and financial condition. Moreover, the inclusion in our products of software or other intellectual property licensed from third parties on a nonexclusive basis could limit our ability to differentiate our products from those of our competitors.

Many of our contracts contain performance obligations that require innovative design capabilities, are technologically complex, require state-of-the-art manufacturing expertise or are dependent upon factors not wholly within our control. Failure to meet these obligations could adversely affect our profitability and future prospects.

We design, develop and manufacture technologically advanced and innovative products and services applied by our customers in a variety of environments. Problems and delays in development or delivery as a result of issues with respect to design, technology, licensing and patent rights, labor, learning curve assumptions or materials and components could prevent us from achieving contractual requirements.

In addition, our products cannot be tested and proven in all situations and are otherwise subject to unforeseen problems. Examples of unforeseen problems that could negatively affect revenue and profitability include premature failure of products that cannot be accessed for repair or replacement, problems with quality, country of origin, delivery of subcontractor components or services and unplanned degradation of product performance. Among the factors that may affect revenue and profits could be unforeseen costs and expenses not covered by insurance or indemnification from the customer, diversion of management focus in responding to unforeseen problems, loss of follow-on work, and, in the case of certain contracts, repayment to the government customer of contract cost and fee payments we previously received.

Business disruptions could reduce our expected revenue, increase our expenses, and damage our reputation.

We rely to a large extent upon sophisticated technology systems and infrastructure. We take reasonable steps to protect them, including the implementation and use of certain security precautions. However they are potentially vulnerable to breakdown, malicious intrusion, natural disaster, and random attack. A disruption to our systems or infrastructure could damage our reputation and cause us to lose customers and revenue. This could require us to expend significant efforts and resources or incur significant expense to eliminate these problems and address related security concerns.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Risks Relating to Our Common Stock

The price of our common stock may be subject to wide fluctuations.

Prior to our IPO in October 2010, there was not a public market for our common stock. The market price of our common stock is subject to significant fluctuations. Among the factors that could affect our common stock price are the risks described in this “Risk Factors” section and other factors, including:

As a result of the existence of one or more of these factors, the price of our common stock may be subject to wide fluctuations.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If we do not maintain adequate research coverage or if one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our stock or publishes inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of our company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which could cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

Provisions in our organizational documents and in Maryland law may inhibit potential acquisition bids that our stockholders may consider favorable, and the market price of our common stock may be lower as a result.

Our charter and bylaws contain provisions that may have an anti-takeover effect and inhibit a change in our board of directors and management. These provisions include the following:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In addition, Maryland law provides protection for Maryland corporations against unsolicited takeovers by limiting, among other things, the duties of the directors in unsolicited takeover situations. The duties of directors of Maryland corporations do not require them to:

Maryland law also contains a statutory presumption that an act of a director of a Maryland corporation satisfies the applicable standards of conduct for directors under Maryland law.

Any one or more of these provisions, singularly or together, may have an anti-takeover effect that discourages potential acquisition bids that our stockholders may consider favorable.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires us to document and test our internal control over financial reporting for 2011 and beyond and will require an independent registered public accounting firm to report on the effectiveness of these controls. Any delays or difficulty in satisfying these requirements could adversely affect our future results of operations and our stock price.

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires us to document and test the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in accordance with an established internal control framework and to report on our conclusions as to the effectiveness of our internal controls. It also requires an independent registered public accounting firm to test our internal control over financial reporting and report on the effectiveness of such controls for the year ending December 31, 2011 and subsequent years. In addition, we are required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which we refer to as the Exchange Act, to maintain disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting.

We may, in the future, discover areas of our internal controls that need improvement, particularly with respect to businesses that we may acquire. If so, we cannot be certain that any remedial measures we take will ensure that we have adequate internal controls over our financial processes and reporting in the future. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation could harm our operating results or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. If we are unable to conclude that we have effective internal control over financial reporting, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide us with an unqualified report regarding the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011 and in future periods, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. This could result in a decrease in the value of our common stock. Failure to comply with Section 404 could potentially subject us to sanctions or investigations by the SEC, the NASDAQ Global Market or other regulatory authorities.

Operational risks such as material weaknesses and other deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting could result in errors, potentially requiring restatements of our historical financial data, leading investors to lose confidence in our reported results.

There are a number of factors that may impede our efforts to establish and maintain effective internal controls and a sound accounting infrastructure, including our recent history of acquisitions (including acquisitions of companies audited by auditors other than our own), our own change of auditors, our rapid pace of growth, and general uncertainty regarding the operating effectiveness and sustainability of controls. Controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, provide only reasonable assurance that material errors in our financial statements will be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Any failure to establish and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting increases the risk of material error and/or delay in

TABLE OF CONTENTS

our financial reporting. Depending on the nature of a failure and any required remediation, ineffective controls could have a material adverse effect on our business and potentially result in restatements of our historical financial results. Financial restatements or other issues arising from ineffective controls could also cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which would have an adverse effect on the trading price of our securities. Delays in meeting our financial reporting obligations could affect our ability to maintain the listing of our securities. Although we seek to reduce these risks though active efforts relating to properly documented processes, adequate systems, risk culture, compliance with regulations, corporate governance and other factors supporting internal controls, such procedures may not be effective in limiting each of the operational risks.

None.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We lease locations listed in the table below. We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current business needs; however we will continue to seek additional space as needed in accordance with our growth or to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of operations.

Location		Square Feet				Lease Expiration Date
700 Brooker Creek Blvd. Suite 1400 Oldsmar, Florida 34677			12,800				09/30/2013
1334 Ashton Road Hanover, Maryland 21076*			38,128				05/31/2016
7663 Old Telegraph Road Severn, Maryland 21144			34,429				04/30/2017
241 East Fourth Street, Suite 105 Frederick, Maryland, 21701			2,892				07/31/2012
9881/9891 Broken Land Parkway Suite 120 Columbia, Maryland 21046			2,447				12/11/2013
685 Mosser Road McHenry, Maryland 21541			669				09/01/2012
250 Clarke Street North Andover, Massachusetts			9,600				03/31/2013
Hangar #1, Lawrence Airport North Andover, Massachusetts			N/A				07/31/2012
2900 Fairview Park Drive Suite 300 Falls Church, Virginia 22042			18,051				12/15/2018
300 North Washington Street Suite 101 and 103 Falls Church, Virginia 22046			3,452				04/30/2012
15036 Conference Center Dr. Suite 401 Chantilly, Virginia 20151			2,378				03/31/2014

We are not a party to any material legal proceedings as of March 15, 2012.

None.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART II

Market Information

On October 1, 2010, the Company’s common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “KEYW”. The following table sets forth the range of high and low intra-day sales prices of KEYW’s common stock for the periods indicated.

		High				Low
Year Ended December 31, 2011:
First Quarter		$	15.54			$	11.48
Second Quarter		$	13.12			$	10.59
Third Quarter		$	12.39			$	6.72
Fourth Quarter		$	9.36			$	6.66
Year Ended December 31, 2010:
Fourth Quarter		$	16.00			$	10.25

On February 24, 2012, the last reported sale price for our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Market was $7.33 per share.

Holders

As of February 24, 2012, there were approximately 189 registered holders of record of our common stock. The number of holders of record does not reflect the number of beneficial holders whose shares are held by depositories, brokers or nominees.

Dividends

We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation and expansion of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future. In addition, our credit facility limits our ability to pay dividends over most circumstances.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2011 with respect to compensation plans under which equity securities of the Company are authorized for issuance.

Plan Category		Number of Securities to be Issued upon Exercise of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights (a)				Weighted Average Exercise Price of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights (b)				Number of Securities Remaining Available for Future Issuance (Excluding Column (a)) (c)(1)
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders			2,043,673			$	9.42				1,341,479
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders)			—				—				—
TOTAL			2,043,673								1,341,479

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Performance Graph

The following graph illustrates a comparison of the total cumulative stockholder return on our common stock (traded under the symbol “KEYW”) from October 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011, to two indices: the Russell 2000 Index and the NASDAQ Composite Index. In addition, the graph illustrates the performance of a peer group consisting of GeoEye, Inc. (GEOY), ICF International, Inc. (ICFI), Mercury Computer Systems, Inc. (MRCY) and Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (KTOS). These peers, while not direct competitors, were selected because they are more comparable in such factors as annual revenue, market capitalization and number of employees, than the competitors we listed earlier, which are substantially larger. We believe that the stock performance of the selected peer group is a more relevant comparison for investors. The graph assumes an initial investment of $100 on October 1, 2010 in The KEYW Holding Corporation common stock, each of the two indices and the peer group, each assuming dividend reinvestment. The comparisons in the graph are required by the Securities and Exchange Commission and are not intended to forecast or be indicative of possible future performance of our common stock.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

In December 2011, the Company repurchased 425,902 shares of common stock for $3,083,530, or $7.24 per share including commission, in open market or block purchases under the Safe Harbor provisions of SEC Rule 10b-18. These shares were retired upon repurchase. This was the only repurchase activity the Company has undertaken since inception.

Period		Total number of shares (or units) purchased				Average price paid per share (or unit)				Total number of shares purchased as part of publicly announced plans or programs*				Maximum number of shares that may yet be purchased under the plans or programs
December 1 – 31, 2011			425,902			$	7.24				425,902				1,574,098
Total			425,902			$	7.24				425,902				1,574,098

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following tables contain selected historical financial data for us for the year ended December 31, 2011, 2010, 2009 and the period from July 31, 2008 (Inception) to December 31, 2008, and for ICCI, or our Predecessor, for the period from January 1, 2008 to September 29, 2008 and for the year ended December 31, 2007.

The selected consolidated financial data presented should be read together with Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the consolidated financial statements and the related notes included in Item 15 of this Annual Report.

		Company																Predecessor
		Year ended Dec. 31, 2011				Year ended Dec. 31, 2010				Year ended Dec. 31, 2009				July 31, (Inception) through Dec. 31, 2008				Period from Jan 1 through Sept. 29, 2008				Year ended Dec. 31, 2007
		(In thousands, except per share data)
Revenue		$	190,587			$	107,988			$	39,037			$	9,045			$	14,563			$	15,410
Gross Profit			56,637				31,544				11,119				4,220				5,212				5,147
Net Operating Income (Loss)			1,828				(2,160	)			(2,309	)			35				1,108				2,300
Net Income (Loss)			535				10,906				(2,113	)			(2,066	)			1,041				2,338
Earnings (Loss) per Share of Common Stock-basic			0.02				0.62				(0.18	)			(0.32	)			n/a				n/a
Earnings (Loss) per Share of Common Stock-diluted			0.02				0.51				(0.18	)			(0.32	)			n/a				n/a
Adjusted EBITDA			20,569				9,208				2,579				748				2,702				2,293

		Company																Predecessor
		As of Dec. 31, 2011				As of Dec. 31, 2010				As of Dec. 31, 2009				As of Dec. 31, 2008				As of Sept. 29, 2008				As of Dec. 31, 2007
		(In thousands)
Cash and Cash Equivalents		$	1,294			$	5,795			$	7,333			$	5,397				n/a			$	842
Working Capital (Deficit)			(16,344	)			26,705				19,365				9,312				n/a				3,250
Total Assets			267,631				205,264				67,130				35,885				n/a				3,735
Long-Term Obligations			17,731				11,994				1,617				7,494				n/a				—
Total Stockholders’ Equity			180,659				175,111				62,339				26,288				n/a				3,273

		EBITDA Reconciliation
		Company																Predecessor
		Year ended Dec. 31, 2011				Year ended Dec. 31, 2010				Year ended Dec. 31, 2009				July 31, (Inception) through Dec. 31, 2008				Period from Jan 1 through Sept. 29, 2008				Year ended Dec. 31, 2007
		(In thousands)
Net Income (Loss)		$	535			$	10,906			$	(2,113	)		$	(2,066	)		$	1,041			$	2,338
Depreciation			2,082				760				310				24				9				11
Intangible Amortization			13,410				6,440				2,055				612				—				—
Stock Compensation Amortization			2,829				1,920				560				56				—				—
Interest Expense (Income)			907				1,661				(118	)			—				(22	)			(56	)
Tax Expense (Benefit)			218				7,814				(979	)			21				—				—
Warrant Expense			—				—				690				2,103				—				—
Initial Public Offering and Acquisition Costs			588				2,080				73				—				—				—
Other Non-Recurring Items			—				(22,550	)			2,100				—				1,674				—
Adjusted EBITDA		$	20,569			$	9,031			$	2,578			$	750			$	2,702			$	2,293

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following tables contain selected historical financial data by quarter for the years ended December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010

		2011																2010
		Three Months Ended March 31				Three Months Ended June 30				Three Months Ended Sept. 30				Three Months Ended Dec. 31				Three Months Ended March 31				Three Months Ended June 30				Three Months Ended Sept. 30				Three Months Ended Dec. 31
		(Unaudited and in thousands, except per share data)
Revenue		$	41,661			$	44,898			$	53,957			$	50,071			$	21,743			$	27,916			$	28,992			$	29,337
Gross Profit			12,241				13,037				15,149				16,210				6,502				8,086				8,432				8,524
Net Operating Income (Loss)			175				239				345				1,069				556				(348	)			(289	)			(2,079	)
Net Income (Loss)			64				49				105				317				433				4,906				4,408				1,159
Per Share of Common Stock-basic			0.00				0.00				0.00				0.01				0.03				0.32				0.28				0.05
Per Share of Common Stock-diluted			0.00				0.00				0.00				0.01				0.02				0.23				0.24				0.04
Adjusted EBITDA		$	3,312			$	3,872			$	5,425			$	7,960			$	2,461			$	2,616			$	2,592			$	1,362

		EBITDA Reconciliation
		2011																2010
		Three Months Ended March 31				Three Months Ended June 30				Three Months Ended Sept. 30				Three Months Ended Dec. 31				Three Months Ended March 31				Three Months Ended June 30				Three Months Ended Sept. 30				Three Months Ended Dec. 31
		(Unaudited and in thousands)
Net Income (Loss)		$	64			$	49			$	105			$	317			$	433			$	4,906			$	4,408			$	1,159
Depreciation			255				272				612				943				132				193				215				220
Intangible Amortization			2,068				2,465				3,573				5,304				855				1,906				1,693				1,986
Stock Compensation Amortization			756				742				671				660				257				299				513				851
Interest Expense (Income)			23				198				322				364				168				504				1,006				(17	)
Tax Expense (Benefit)			90				(16	)			(90	)			234				157				3,646				3,063				948
Initial Public Offering and Acquisition Costs			56				162				232				138				659				612				394				415
Other Non-Recurring Items			—				—				—				—				(200	)			(9,450	)			(8,700	)			(4,200	)
Adjusted EBITDA		$	3,312			$	3,872			$	5,425			$	7,960			$	2,461			$	2,616			$	2,592			$	1,362

Adjusted EBITDA is a financial measure that is not calculated in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or US GAAP. The table above provides a reconciliation of this non-US GAAP financial measure to net income (loss), the most directly comparable financial measure calculated and presented in accordance with US GAAP. Adjusted EBITDA should not be considered as an alternative to net income (loss), operating income (loss) or any other measure of financial performance calculated and presented in accordance with US GAAP. Our adjusted EBITDA may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies because other companies may not calculate adjusted EBITDA or similarly titled measures in the same manner as we do. We prepare adjusted EBITDA to eliminate the impact of items that we do not consider indicative of our core operating performance. We encourage you to evaluate these adjustments and the reasons we consider them appropriate.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

We believe adjusted EBITDA is useful to investors in evaluating our operating performance for the following reasons:

Our board of directors and management use adjusted EBITDA:

Although adjusted EBITDA is frequently used by investors and securities analysts in their evaluations of companies, adjusted EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool, and you should not consider it in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of our results of operations as reported under US GAAP. Some of these limitations are:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) is provided in addition to the accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes to assist readers in understanding our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows. MD&A is organized as follows:

Forward-Looking Statements

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contains forward-looking statements regarding future events and our future results that are subject to the safe harbors created under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). All statements other than statements of historical facts are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts, and projections about the industries in which we operate and the beliefs and assumptions of our management. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “targets,” “goals,” “projects,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “continues,” “endeavors,” “strives,” “may,” variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. In addition, any statements that refer to projections of our future financial performance, our anticipated growth and trends in our businesses, and other characterizations of future events or circumstances are forward-looking statements. Readers are cautioned that these forward-looking statements are only predictions and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that are difficult to predict, including those identified below, as well as under “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors,” and elsewhere in our 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Therefore, actual results may differ materially and adversely from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements for any reason.

Executive Level Overview

We provide mission-critical cybersecurity and cyber superiority solutions to defense, intelligence and national security agencies. Our solutions, services and products support the collection, processing, analysis and use of intelligence data and information in the domain of cyberspace. Cyberspace is the global environment of data and information that encompasses all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum in which intelligence data may exist or transmit. See “Item 1 — Business” for a detailed description of our business.

During 2011, we experienced high growth, both organically and through acquisitions, as we were able to establish the Company as a viable and competitive entity within our target market. We acquired three companies during 2011 and expanded our footprint within the intelligence agency market. At the end of 2011, we have active contracts with 11 of the 16 intelligence agencies. We intend to continue our acquisition strategy as we find the right complementary companies at the right price. Organically on a pro forma basis, we grew 8% from 2010 as we have expanded our services platform and our products have reached the right target markets. This growth was adversely impacted by our Air Force services business that declined

TABLE OF CONTENTS

$12.6 million on a pro forma basis from 2010 – 2011. Absent this decline, organic revenue grew 16%. We intend to continue on a similar organic growth trajectory in 2012 and beyond.

In 2011, KEYW focused significant energy on the integration and synergy capture of our acquired companies, and while there is still some remaining progress to be made in that effort, we intend to focus much of our 2012 strategy on (1) re-accelerating our organic growth rate, (2) winning new business, and (3) investing in internal technology research and development initiatives to position the company for continued growth in the longer term. A key element of this 2012 strategy is leveraging our multi-INT platform capabilities to further our penetration into the geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), and airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (airborne ISR) markets with our unique, agile, approach. Additionally, KEYW will continue to look for opportunities to acquire capabilities that further enhance our overall positioning in the markets we serve.

Critical Accounting Policies

The following are the critical accounting policies that require us to make sensitive estimates and assumptions, or that regard matters where further detail will assist the reader in better understanding our business and the results of our operations. We have additional accounting policies included in our audited financial statements contained in Item 15 of this Form 10-K.

The policies that we have included below include:

Revenue Recognition

We derive the majority of our revenue from time-and-materials, firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, and cost-plus-award-fee contracts. Revenues from cost reimbursable contracts are recorded as reimbursable costs are incurred, including an estimated share of the applicable contractual fees earned. For performance-based fees under cost reimbursable contracts, we recognize the relevant portion of the expected fee to be awarded by the client at the time such fee can be reasonably estimated, based on factors such as prior award experience and communications with the client regarding performance. For cost reimbursable contracts with performance-based fee incentives, we recognize the relevant portion of the fee upon customer approval. For time-and-materials contracts, revenue is recognized based on billable rates times hours delivered plus materials and other reimbursable costs incurred. For fixed-price production contracts, revenue and cost are recognized at a rate per unit as the units are delivered or by other methods to measure services provided. This method of accounting requires estimating the total revenues and total contract costs of the contract. During the performance of contracts, these estimates are periodically reviewed and revisions are made as required. The affect on revenue and contract profit as a result of these revisions is included in the periods in which the revisions are made. This method can result in the deferral of costs or the deferral of profit on these contracts. Because we assume the risk of performing a fixed-price contract at a set price, the failure to accurately estimate ultimate costs or to control costs during performance of the work could result, and in some instances has resulted, in reduced profits or losses on such contracts. Estimated losses on contracts at completion are recognized when identified.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contract revenue recognition inherently involves estimation. Examples of estimates include the contemplated level of effort to accomplish the tasks under the contract, the cost of the effort, and an ongoing assessment of our progress toward completing the contract. From time to time, as part of our management processes, facts develop that require us to revise our estimated total costs or revenue. To the extent that a revised estimate affects contract profit or revenue previously recognized, we record the cumulative effect of the revision in the period in which the facts requiring the revision become known.

In certain circumstances, and based on correspondence with the end customer, management authorizes work to commence or to continue on a contract option, addition or amendment prior to the signing of formal modifications or amendments. We recognize revenue to the extent it is probable that the formal modifications or amendments will be finalized in a timely manner and that it is probable that the revenue recognized will be collected.

All revenue is net of intercompany and intersegment adjustments. All reported revenue belongs to the performing organization.

Cost of Revenues

Cost of revenues consists primarily of compensation expenses for program personnel, the fringe benefits associated with this compensation and other direct expenses incurred to complete programs, including cost of materials and subcontractor efforts.

Inventories

Inventories are valued at the lower of cost (determined on a weighted average basis) or market. Our inventory consists of specialty products that we manufacture on a limited quantity basis for our customers. We manufacture at quantity levels that are projected to be sold in the six month period following production. The Company has not had any products sold below their standard pricing less applicable volume discounts. In 2011, we recorded an inventory reserve for certain products where the market has not developed as we expected.

Long-Lived Assets (Excluding Goodwill)

The Company follows the provisions of FASB ASC Topic 360-10-35, Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets in accounting for long-lived assets such as property and equipment and intangible assets subject to amortization. The guidance requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment whenever events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be fully recoverable. An impairment loss may be indicated if the sum of the long-term undiscounted cash flows is less than the carrying amount of the long-lived asset being evaluated. Impairment losses are measured as the difference between the carrying value of long-lived assets and their fair market value based on discounted cash flows of the related assets. Impairment losses are treated as permanent reductions in the carrying amount of the assets. The Company has not recorded any impairments since inception.

Goodwill

Purchase price in excess of the fair value of tangible and identifiable intangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination are recorded as goodwill. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 350-20, Goodwill, the Company tests for impairment at least annually, using a two-step approach. Impairment of goodwill is tested at the reporting unit level by comparing the reporting unit’s carrying amount, including goodwill, to the fair value of the reporting unit. The Company operated as a single segment at the time of our annual goodwill impairment testing. The Company began reporting in two segments at the end of 2011. A high level review of goodwill at the segment level at the end of the year did not indicate any goodwill impairment in either segment. The fair value of the reporting unit is estimated using a market capitalization approach. If the carrying amount of the unit exceeds its fair value, goodwill is considered impaired and a second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment loss, if any. The Company performed the test during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011 and found no impairment to the carrying value of goodwill. Management has concluded that there have been no events subsequent to the impairment test that would indicate an impairment of goodwill.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Intangibles

Intangible assets consist of the value of customer related intangibles acquired in various acquisitions. Intangible assets are amortized on a straight line basis over their estimated useful lives unless the pattern of usage of the benefits indicates an alternative method is more representative. The useful lives of the intangibles range from one to seven years.

Research and Development

Internally funded research and development expenses are expensed as incurred and are included in cost of operations in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. In accordance with FASB ASC Topic 730 — Research and Development, such costs consist primarily of payroll, material, subcontractor and an allocation of overhead costs related to product development. Research and development costs totaled $2,323,000, $990,000 and $585,000 for years ended December 31, 2011, December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively.

Income Taxes

Income taxes are accounted for under the asset and liability method. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and operating loss and tax credit carry forwards. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enacted date. We will establish a valuation allowance if we determine that it is more likely than not that a deferred tax asset will not be realized.

For a tax position that meets the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, the Company initially and subsequently measures the tax liability or benefit as the largest amount that it judges to have a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with a taxing authority. The liability associated with unrecognized tax benefits is adjusted periodically due to changing circumstances, such as the progress of tax audits, case law developments and new or emerging legislation. Such adjustments are recognized entirely in the period in which they are identified. The effective tax rate includes the net impact of changes in the liability for unrecognized tax obligations or benefits and subsequent adjustments as considered appropriate by management. The Company’s policy is to record interest and penalties as an increase in the liability for uncertain tax obligations or benefits and a corresponding increase to the income tax provision. No such adjustments were recorded as of December 31, 2011, December 31, 2010, or December 31, 2009.

Share-Based Compensation

The Company adopted a new stock option plan in December 2009 in conjunction with the corporate reorganization. The Company had originally adopted a stock option plan in 2008. The Company applies the fair value method that requires all share-based payments to employees and non-employee directors, including grants of employee stock options, be expensed over their requisite service period based on their fair value at the grant date, using a prescribed option-pricing model. We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model to value share-based payments. Compensation expense related to share-based awards is recognized on an accelerated basis. The expense recognized is based on the straight-line amortization of each individually vesting piece of a grant. Our typical grant vests 25% at issuance and 25% per year over the next three years. The 25% that vests immediately is also expensed immediately. The part of the grant that vests equally over three years would expense all of the first year vesting in the first twelve months, the second vesting would be expensed over twenty four months and the third tranche would be expensed over thirty six months. The calculated expense is required to be based upon awards that ultimately vest and we have accordingly, reduced the expense by estimated forfeitures.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The following assumptions were used for option grants during the periods ended December 31, 2011, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009.

Dividend Yield — The Company has never declared or paid dividends on its common stock and has no plans to do so in the foreseeable future.

Risk-Free Interest Rate — Risk-free interest rate is based on U.S. Treasury zero-coupon issues with a remaining term approximating the expected life of the option term assumed at the date of grant.

Expected Volatility — Volatility is a measure of the amount by which a financial variable such as a share price has fluctuated (historical volatility) or is expected to fluctuate (expected volatility) during a period. The expected volatility is based on the historical volatility of existing comparable public companies for a period that approximates the estimated life of the options. The Company continues to use comparable public companies due to insufficient trading history of our own stock.

Expected Term of the Options — This is the period of time that the options granted are expected to remain unexercised. The Company estimates the expected life of the option term based on the expected tenure of employees and historical experience.

Forfeiture Rate — The Company estimates the percentage of options granted that are expected to be forfeited or canceled on an annual basis before stock options become fully vested. The Company uses the forfeiture rate that is a blend of past turnover data and a projection of expected results over the following twelve month period based on projected levels of operations and headcount levels at various classification levels with the Company.

Results of Operations

Our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 were significantly affected by the acquisitions that were completed during those years. In 2009, we acquired three business operations with annual revenue of over $25 million. In 2010, we continued our acquisitions by acquiring four companies with 2009 revenue in excess of $85 million. In 2011, we continued our acquisitions by acquiring three companies and one contract with 2010 revenue in excess of $50 million. The acquisitions are included in our financial results from the date of acquisition forward.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2011, we started operating in two segments — Services and Integrated Solutions. Accordingly, we are reporting our financial results in aggregate and by segment. Note that our historical financial statements segregated Services and Products and those splits are identical with our new segments.

OVERALL RESULTS (In thousands)		Year ended December 31, 2011								Year ended December 31, 2010								Year ended December 31, 2009
Revenue		$	190,587							$	107,988							$	39,037
Gross Margin		$	56,637				30	%		$	31,544				29	%		$	11,119				28	%
Cost of Operations		$	41,399				22	%		$	27,264				25	%		$	11,373				29	%
Intangible Amortization		$	13,410				7	%		$	6,440				6	%		$	2,055				5	%
Non-Operating Income (Expense)		$	1,075				1	%		$	20,880				19	%		$	(783	)			(2	)%

Revenue

Revenue increased by approximately $83 million between 2010 and 2011 as a result of the additions of JKA, FASI and FLD in 2011 which contributed $34 million, the full year impact of Everest, Sycamore, IIT and TAGG, all acquired in 2010, which contributed a net $36 million more revenue in 2011 than in 2010, our large production contract which contributed $6 million and the overall growth of the Services business, which contributed $12 million in 2011 offset in part by a decrease in our Integrated Solutions of $5 million. Our Services revenue grew due to increased headcount as we continued to expand our positions within certain contracts and new contract wins. Revenue did not grow as significantly as we expected, as we focused on integrating the acquisitions during the first half of the year and did not hire as many staff as we intended. We have refocused on hiring during the fourth quarter of 2011 and the hiring levels have started to return to our expected levels. We continue to have a large backlog of unstaffed positions as we enter 2012.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Integrated Solutions revenue declined due to a combination of several large orders in 2010 that were not replaced in 2011 and the government budget environment in 2011, that created uncertainty with many of our customers regarding available funding. Accordingly, they purchased materially less product during 2011. The current budget environment has not changed significantly in 2012 from 2011 and we are not anticipating material change in our products revenue within the Integrated Solutions segment.

Revenue increased by approximately $69 million between 2009 and 2010 as a result of the acquisitions of TAGG, IIT, Sycamore and Everest which contributed approximately $32 million of revenue in 2010, the full year operations of ESD, LEDS and Recon which contributed approximately $21 million, and the overall growth of our existing business of approximately $16 million. The expansion of our core business was split between a $6 million increase in our Integrated Solutions and a $10 million increase in our Services business. Integrated solutions grew primarily from better name recognition as we became a more established company as well as expanded our product offerings. Services revenue grew due to increased hiring that allowed us to increase our billable staffed positions.

We anticipate that revenue will continue to grow in 2012 both organically and through acquisitions. As we expect to complete an unknown number of acquisitions, we are unable to predict our 2012 revenue. We do expect our revenue to grow at least 15% from 2011 levels without acquisitions.

Gross Margin

Gross margin increased both as a percentage of revenue and in total dollars from 2010 to 2011. The revenue percentage increase was primarily driven by the acquisition of FLD, offset in part by lower margins within the Integrated Solutions segment from the large production contract. Services margins increased slightly in 2011. Gross margin dollars increased as a result of the margin increases previously described, plus increased revenue both from acquisitions and internal growth. We expect gross margins to continue to expand at the consolidated level in 2012 as FLD will be included for the full year.

Gross margin increased slightly from 2009 to 2010 primarily due to the increased contribution of the Integrated Solutions gross margin in 2010 which improved from 29.4% in 2009 to 42% in 2010 partially offset by a reduction in Services gross margin from 28.3% to 27.5% with the addition of TAGG in 2010. The Integrated Solutions margin improved due to the product mix and the maturing of certain products in 2010 where we were able to achieve economies of scale not available in 2009. The Services margin decreased slightly as TAGG gross margins historically have run at 20% whereas the rest of the Company has historically run at approximately 28%. TAGG utilizes a significant amount of subcontract labor which results in lower gross margins.

Cost of Operations

Cost of operations has decreased as a percentage of sales every year since 2009. There are several drivers for this decrease including revenue growth, company structure, and economies of scale. The growth in revenue both organically and through acquisition has significantly exceeded the growth in overhead and general and administrative costs. We anticipate that trend to continue. The second main factor is the design of our corporate structure. The Company, since its inception, has been built for scalability and to operate at a much larger revenue base than it is currently operating. The organizational infrastructure, executives, and managerial staff were put in place very early in the formation of the Company to create an environment that would facilitate growth. Accordingly, the costs of that infrastructure weighed more heavily as a percentage of sales in 2009 and 2010. As we continue to grow, we expect that these costs as a percentage of revenue will continue to decrease. Additionally, as we continue to grow, we expect that our corporate staff will become more fully utilized and incremental increases in revenue will not necessarily equate to increases in support staff. As we continue to make acquisitions, we anticipate capitalizing on certain inefficiencies, both internally and within our acquisitions, that existed due to the size of the companies.

Another significant component of our operating expense is stock compensation. Every employee in the Company has stock options and some have restricted stock grants. We have seen a significant increase in the costs associated with these equity grants with costs of $560,000, $1,920,000 and $2,829,000 for the twelve months ended December 31, 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively. The Company utilizes an accelerated method of recognizing expense, acceptable under GAAP, which expenses equity grants more quickly than the

TABLE OF CONTENTS

traditional straight-line expensing. The majority of the equity compensation expense in 2010 and 2011 has been due to acquisitions. We believe that it is important that all employees have an equity stake in our Company and expect to continue issuing equity to new employees. While the increase in equity compensation in 2011 as compared with the preceding two periods was significant, we expect that overall equity compensation expense should decrease as a percentage of revenue without any new acquisitions.

Intangible Amortization

Acquisitions have been a key part of the Company growth story since inception. As of December 31, 2011, we have completed 13 acquisitions and have recorded intangible assets associated with each of these acquisitions. Our intangible amortization expense has increased from $2.1 million in 2009 to $6.4 million in 2010 to $13.4 million in 2011 as a result of our acquisitions during this time. The $3.8 million of intangibles associated with the FLD acquisition in August 2011 represents the largest single component of our intangible amortization expense in 2011 and barring any new large acquisitions, will be the largest component of intangible amortization expense in 2012. We expect intangible amortization to increase to $19.4 million in 2012, without any further acquisitions.

Non-Operating Income (Expense)

The 2011 non-operating expense primarily consisted of interest expense related to the 2011 acquisitions of $907,000.

The 2010 non-operating income was comprised of three main components: (1) a gain recognized from the reduction of the TAGG earn-out, (2) a gain from the clawback of purchase price from the LEDS acquisition, and (3) offsetting interest expense related to the debt incurred from the TAGG and IIT acquisitions.

We originally recorded the estimated equity earn-out expected to be paid to the TAGG owners at the time of acquisition based on TAGG’s forecast and operating results at that time. The earn-out is based on actual revenue and gross margin for the two years ended December 31, 2011. During the year, we updated and revised our forecast of TAGG’s expected performance and adjusted our anticipated earn-out accordingly. By December 31, 2010, we determined that it was unlikely that TAGG would meet the minimum performance threshold for achieving any earn-out. As a result, we recognized $21.95 million in income from the write-down of the earn-out in 2010.

The LEDS purchase agreement contained a clawback provision that allowed us to recover certain monies paid for the acquisition of LEDS if certain identified employees did not stay with the Company for a specified amount of time. Under that agreement, the Company recognized $600,000 of income from LEDS employee departures in 2010.

During 2010, the Company incurred interest expense related to the purchases of TAGG and IIT. This interest was composed of the interest on the term debt and credit line with Bank of America and the subordinated debt with TAGG and certain shareholders of the Company. The aggregate amount of interest expense recognized from these instruments was $1.66 million.

SERVICES SEGMENT RESULTS (In thousands)		Year ended December 31, 2011								Year ended December 31, 2010								Year ended December 31, 2009
Revenue		$	159,748							$	95,665							$	32,743
Gross Margin		$	44,405				28	%		$	26,353				28	%		$	9,268				28	%
Intangible Amortization		$	9,581				6	%		$	6,440				7	%		$	2,055				6	%

Revenue

Services revenue increased by approximately $64 million in 2011 from 2010 from a combination of 2011 acquisitions that added $18 million of revenue, 2010 acquisitions that added a net $36 million of revenue, and organic growth that added approximately $10 million of revenue. Revenue from 2010 acquisitions reflects in part the decrease in our Air Force related work in 2011. Our organic growth has primarily been with our Maryland customer with whom we have increased our prime contract work and expanded our positions on certain subcontracts. We continue to see significant demand for our services, and a key to our continued organic growth is finding and hiring necessary cleared personnel.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Services growth from 2009 to 2010 of $63 million was driven by 2010 acquisitions of $32 million, 2009 acquisitions of $21 million and organic growth of $10 million. The overall corporate growth in 2010 made hiring easier as compared with 2009, and enabled us to fill open positions more easily.

Gross Margin

Services gross margins increased in dollars but remained consistent as a percentage of sales from 2009 to 2011. The increase in dollars is due to the increased revenue as previously discussed. We expect a similar trend to continue in 2012.

Intangible Amortization

All of our acquisitions, with the exception of FLD, have been in the Services segment. The growth in intangible expense reflects those acquisitions and we expect to continue to make acquisitions in the future. Our 2012 intangible amortization will be approximately $10.2 million, assuming no new acquisitions. Using that same assumption, intangible amortization would drop to the $6 million range in 2013.

INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS SEGMENT RESULTS (In thousands)		Year ended December 31, 2011								Year ended December 31, 2010								Year ended December 31, 2009
Revenue		$	30,839							$	12,323							$	6,294
Gross Margin		$	12,232				40	%		$	5,191				42	%		$	1,851				29	%
Intangible Amortization		$	3,829				12	%		$	—				—			$	—				—

Revenue

Integrated Solutions revenue increased by approximately $18.5 million between 2010 and 2011 primarily as a result of the addition of FLD, accounting for $15 million in additional revenue, a large production contract, which contributed $6 million in additional revenue, offset in part by a decline in our products revenue of $5 million. The large production contract was the first large order for our surface mount technology lab. We have not received any similar orders as we look towards 2012, but we do have a sustaining amount of smaller orders within the segment. Product revenue declined due to a combination of several large orders in 2010 that were not replaced in 2011 and the government budget environment in 2011 that created uncertainty with many of our customers regarding their available funding. Accordingly, they bought considerably less product during 2011. The current budget environment has not changed significantly in 2012 from 2011 and we are not anticipating material change in our products revenue. We expect revenue to continue to grow in 2012 as we will have the full year impact of FLD. The extent of the growth will be determined by any large product orders and new plane contracts in 2012. During 2011, we reserved $471,000 for certain inventory items where the market did not develop as expected.

The revenue growth for 2009 to 2010 of $6 million was primarily driven by several large customer orders in 2010, greater acceptance of our products as the Company gained recognition from its start-up in late 2008, and a larger offering of products in 2010. In 2009, we were still in ramp-up mode with regard to full product offerings.

Gross Margin

Gross margin increased in dollars but decreased slightly as a percentage of revenue in 2011 from 2010. The decrease in gross margin percentage is primarily due to the initial delivery of the large production contract and a reserve taken against certain inventory items as the market did not develop as expected. Our first deliveries of any type of product result generally in lower margin than subsequent runs due to economies of scale and experienced gained in the production process. The addition of FLD has offset some of the lower margins described above. Total gross margin dollars increased due to the increased revenue partially offset by the lower margin percentage. We expect gross margin percentage to increase in 2012 but any increase is dependent on normal operations of our air component and the absence of new large product runs.

Intangible Amortization

The acquisition of FLD represents the only intangibles associated with Integrated Solutions as the remainder of the business has been internally developed. The FLD intangibles are being amortized over 29 months and will be completely amortized, barring any additional acquisitions, at the end of 2013.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Liquidity and Capital Resources

At December 31, 2011, we had approximately $1.3 million in cash and cash equivalents. We experienced several significant cash events during 2011, including four acquisitions, restructuring our debt agreements, and stock repurchases.

Cash from Operations

Operations provided approximately $10.3 million in cash during 2011. This amount primarily consisted of net income plus non-cash adjustments for depreciation, amortization and stock compensation partially offset by increased working capital needs. Working capital consumed about $4.5 million for increased receivables and the pay down of the outstanding accounts payable related to a large production contract from December 31, 2010. As we continue to grow, our working capital needs will increase accordingly, particularly with respect to accounts receivable. The timing of payments will also have an impact on the liability balances similar to 2011 when we moved the employee bonus payments to December from January. Our need for additional working capital will be determined by our method and volume of growth. Growing through self-performed labor will require more working capital than growing using subcontractors, but we expect self-performed labor should be a more profitable alternative than using subcontractors. The main difference for cash flow is that employees are generally paid within two weeks of incurring costs, whereas subcontractors are generally paid within 30 days of receiving an invoice.

We had a number of non-cash adjustments to our net income in 2011 including intangible amortization, stock compensation expense and an increase in depreciation from the FLD acquisition. Intangible amortization was approximately $13.4 million in 2011 and is expected to increase in 2012 due to the full year impact of our 2011 acquisitions, less any reduction in earlier year acquisition amortization. We expect the intangible amortization, without any additional acquisitions, to be approximately $19 million in 2012. We believe that all employees should have an ownership stake in the Company. Accordingly, we grant all new employees, whether new hires or employees acquired via acquisition, options in the company. Our significant growth, both organically and through acquisition, has increased our stock compensation expense to $2.8 million in 2011. We use an accelerated method of expensing stock options such that most of the expense is recorded during the first year of the options. The combination of these transactions and other significantly less material non-cash adjustments to net income brought our net income after non-cash adjustments to $18.9 million for 2011.

We carry an inventory balance that is normally approximately $6 million. The inventory balance may increase or decrease significantly in any period based on sales, orders and breadth of product lines. We do not carry significant quantities of specific products, rather we build products based on specific orders and at production runs that enable us to gain economies of scale. Our inventory carrying balance is reflective or our incurred cost and not expected sales prices or revenue to be derived from sales. It is our intention to continue this inventory management practice in 2012.

Investing and Financing

During 2011, we spent approximately $58.6 million in cash plus equity consideration to complete four acquisitions. This cash was ultimately supplied by our revolving credit facility that was renewed in February 2011. We expect our property and equipment purchases to increase in 2012 as we expand our aircraft operations and need additional aircraft. We have an open stock repurchase plan for up to 1.6 million shares at December 31, 2011. Cash will be needed to fund any purchases under this plan.

Credit Facility

At the end of 2011, we had a $65 million credit facility with a trio of banks led by Bank of America that allowed us to choose interest rates anywhere from daily up to a six month lock. The balance at December 31, 2011 was $49.5 million. On February 28, 2011, we replaced our then-existing credit facility with a new $50 million credit facility that includes an accordion feature allowing for an additional $25 million in borrowing. In conjunction with the FLD acquisition in August 2011, we increased the credit facility $65 million and reloaded the accordion for $25 million. The credit facility is a 3 year agreement and is structured as a multi-bank facility with Bank of America as lead bank. The borrowing availability under this facility is based on KEYW’s ‘Total Leverage Ratio’ which is a relationship between ‘Funded Indebtedness’ to

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EBITDA. When drawing funds on this facility we have the option of choosing between a ‘Euro Rate Loan’ which is based on the British Bankers Association LIBOR or a ‘Base Rate Loan’ which is based on the higher of (a) the Federal Funds Rate plus ½ of 1.0%, (b) the Prime Rate, or (c) The Eurodollar Rate plus 1.0%. If we selected the ‘Euro Rate Loan’ the actual ‘applicable rate’ would be 200 to 300 basis points above the stated rate depending on where we fall on our most recent quarterly calculation of our ‘Total Leverage Ratio’. If we selected the ‘Base Rate Loan’ the actual ‘applicable rate’ would be 100 to 200 basis points above the stated rate depending on where we fall on our most recent quarterly calculation of our ‘Total Leverage Ratio’. We are able to lock in our selected interest rates for periods of up to six months. The available balance at December 31, 2011 under this credit facility was $15.5 million plus the accordion.

Outlook

At December 31, 2011, our current ratio is negative due to the debt we have incurred from the 2011 acquisitions. All of our debt is on our revolving credit facility that matures in February 2014. We believe our cash from operations will be sufficient to service the debt and to meet our financial obligations.

We expect that our 2012 cash flow from operations will be positive. As discussed above, the manner in which we staff our contracts will impact the degree of working capital investment required to fuel our growth. Included in our net income are several significant non-cash transactions that would be an add-back to net income when calculating our cash flow from operations including stock compensation expense, amortization of intangibles and depreciation of fixed assets. We expect that the dollar value of those expenses to continue to be in the $21 – $23 million dollar range without any additional acquisitions during 2012. Our overall expectation is that adjusted EBITDA will be approximately 11 – 12% of our 2012 revenue. See discussion of Adjusted EBITDA in Item 6 of this Form 10-K.

We have increased the size of our available financing under the new debt facility in anticipation of acquiring new companies that are a strategic fit and enhance our corporate platform. It is our goal to include an equity component in our acquisitions (20% is our normal target equity component of total purchase price) and the amount of equity we include in any 2012 acquisitions will impact our available cash and credit. The pace and size of any acquisitions will determine how much, if any, of our available credit facility we utilize during the year.

We intend to invest in several potential growth areas in 2012 that may require us to expend more research and development dollars than we have historically. While we have factored those expenses into our adjusted EBITDA expectations above, these expenses may not be incurred evenly throughout the year.

After we went public in 2010, employees and investors began to exercise their options and warrants. Some of these exercises were done cashlessly but other exercises were done by paying cash for their shares. We are unable to forecast what the employee and investor activity will be in 2012 with regard to these instruments. The total potential value of these instruments, if all exercised for cash, would be approximately $32 million.

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

The following summarizes our contractual obligations at December 31, 2011:

		Total				Less than one year				1 – 3 years				3 – 5 years				More than 5 years
		(In thousands)
Facilities/Office space		$	10,719			$	2,037			$	3,828			$	3,333			$	1,521
Office equipment			88				64				24				—				—
Total Operating Leases		$	10,807			$	2,101			$	3,852			$	3,333			$	1,521
Debt			49,500				49,500				—				—				—
Total Contractual Obligations		$	60,307			$	51,601			$	3,852			$	3,333			$	1,521

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not have any off balance sheet arrangements.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Our financial position is exposed to several risks including interest rate risk and credit risk. We do not use any derivative financial instruments to manage currency exchange rate risk, interest rate risk, equity market or commodity price risk.

Currency Exchange Rates

We conduct our business exclusively in U.S. dollars. In the rare instance where we purchase goods internationally, our invoices or accounts payable vouchers are denominated in U.S. dollars. All of our revenue is transacted in U.S. dollars as well as substantially all of our operating expenditures and capital purchases. Because of the services we sell, we are not subjected to fluctuations when the U.S. dollar either strengthens or weakens relative to other currencies because, for the most part, the U.S. Government cannot go overseas to purchase similar services.

Interest Rates

We do not maintain an investment portfolio that would expose us to interest rate risk associated with fixed income securities. Nor do we participate in any fixed-rate debt instruments that would require us to hedge interest rate risks with offsetting interest rate swaps. The interest rates on our debt are affected by changes in market interest rates. All outstanding balances under our Term Loan, and any amounts that may be borrowed under our Revolving Facility, are subject to interest rate fluctuations.

Debt

At the end of 2011, we had a $65 million credit facility with a trio of banks led by Bank of America that allowed us to choose interest rates anywhere from daily up to a six month lock. The balance at December 31, 2011 was $49.5 million. On February 28, 2011, KEYW replaced the then-existing credit facility with a new $50 million credit facility that includes an accordion feature allowing for an additional $25 million in borrowing. In conjunction with the FLD acquisition in August 2011, the Company increased the credit facility to $65 million and reloaded the accordion for $25 million. The credit facility is a 3 year agreement and is structured as a multi-bank facility with Bank of America as lead bank. The borrowing availability under this facility is based on KEYW’s ‘Total Leverage Ratio’ which is a relationship between ‘Funded Indebtedness’ to EBITDA. When drawing funds on this facility we have the option of choosing between a ‘Euro Rate Loan’ which is based on the British Bankers Association LIBOR or a ‘Base Rate Loan’ which is based on the higher of (a) the Federal Funds Rate plus ½ of 1.0%, (b) the Prime Rate, or (c) The Eurodollar Rate plus 1.0%. If we selected the ‘Euro Rate Loan’ the actual ‘applicable rate’ would be 200 to 300 basis points above the stated rate depending on where we fall on our most recent quarterly calculation of our ‘Total Leverage Ratio’. If we selected the ‘Base Rate Loan’ the actual ‘applicable rate’ would be 100 to 200 basis points above the stated rate depending on where we fall on our most recent quarterly calculation of our ‘Total Leverage Ratio’. We are able to lock in our selected interest rates for periods of up to six months.

Equity Price Risk

We do not currently own nor have we ever owned any marketable equity investments to include marketable equity securities and equity derivative instruments such as warrants and options. Therefore, since we do not currently own investments that are subject to market price volatility our equity price risk is very low.

See Item 15(a)(1) in Part IV of this Form 10-K.

None.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Based on management’s evaluation (with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO)), as of the end of the period covered by this report, our CEO and CFO have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”)), are effective to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by us in reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in SEC rules and forms, and is accumulated and communicated to management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Management’s Annual Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of our financial reporting and the preparation of consolidated financial statements for external purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Management assessed our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, the end of our fiscal year. Management based its assessment on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Management’s assessment included evaluation of elements such as the design and operating effectiveness of key financial reporting controls, process documentation, accounting policies, and our overall control environment.

Based on our assessment, management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of the end of the fiscal year. We reviewed the results of management’s assessment with the audit committee of our board of directors.

Attestation Report of the Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011 has been audited by Grant Thornton LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm, who also audited our consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as stated in their report which appears with our accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

There were no changes to our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15-d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the fourth quarter of 2011 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Inherent Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls

Our management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that our disclosure controls or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent or detect all error and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system’s objectives will be met. The design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Further, because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. The design of any system of controls is based in part on certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of controls to future periods are subject to risks. Over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or deterioration in the degree of compliance with policies or procedures.

None.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART III

Directors and Executive Officers

Our executive officers and directors, and their respective ages and positions, are set forth below.

Name		Age				Position
Leonard E. Moodispaw			69				President; Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
Kimberly J. DeChello			50				Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary
John E. Krobath			44				Chief Financial Officer
Mark A. Willard			52				Chief Impact Officer
Edwin M. Jaehne			59				Chief Strategy Officer
William I. Campbell			67				Director
Pierre A. Chao			45				Director
John G. Hannon			74				Director
Kenneth A. Minihan			68				Director
Arthur L. Money			72				Director
Caroline S. Pisano			45				Director

Set forth below is biographical information for our directors and executive officers.

Len Moodispaw has served as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), President & Chairman of the board of directors of KEYW since it began operations on August 4, 2008 and is the founder of KEYW. Prior to the founding of KEYW, Mr. Moodispaw was President and Chief Executive Officer for Essex Corporation, from 2000 until January 2007, and Chairman of the board of directors of Essex from 2005 to January 2007. Essex provided advanced signal, image, information processing, information assurance and cybersecurity solutions, primarily for U.S. Government intelligence and defense customers, as well as for commercial customers. In 2007, Essex was acquired by Northrop Grumman, where Mr. Moodispaw served as a Vice President, responsible for managing Essex as a subsidiary within Northrop Grumman Mission Systems from January 2007 to July 2008.

Mr. Moodispaw also served as Chief Operating Officer of Essex Corporation from 1998 to 2000. Prior to that time, he was President of ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., a subsidiary of ManTech International Corporation. Prior to his time with ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., Mr. Moodispaw served in several positions of the former Essex subsidiary, System Engineering and Development Corporation, including president, chief administrative officer and general counsel.

From 1965 to 1978, Mr. Moodispaw was a senior manager in the National Security Agency (NSA) and later engaged in the private practice of law. Mr. Moodispaw is the founder of the Security Affairs Support Association (now known as INSA) that brings government and industry together to solve problems of mutual interest. He also serves as the chairman of the proxy board of the VT US, a subsidiary of Babcock, a public U.K. company. He also serves on proxy boards for KLAS, LTD and Segovia Inc.

Mr. Moodispaw earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the American University in Washington, D.C., a Master of Science degree in Business Administration from George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and a Juris Doctorate degree in Law from the University of Baltimore, Maryland.

Mr. Moodispaw’s history with our company and leadership role since its founding has provided him with unique qualifications to serve as the Chairman of our board of directors. He previously served as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the board of directors of Essex, a former public company in our industry. His prior managerial experience at other companies in our industry and work with and for government agencies such as the NSA augments his range of knowledge and gives him experience on which he can draw in leading our company.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Kim DeChello has served as the Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary of KEYW since its founding in 2008. Ms. DeChello is responsible for corporate administration, human resources, recruiting, stock administration and assists with mergers and acquisitions and ethics and compliance. She is responsible for developing company policies that comply with regulations and that reflect management philosophy and culture. She participates with the CEO and other executives in formulating current and long-range plans, objectives and policies. As Corporate Secretary she has a wide range of responsibilities including administration of critical corporate matters. Prior to this, she was the Chief Administrative Officer at Essex Corporation, which she joined in May 1987. At Essex she served in various administrative and management capacities. She was elected Vice President in December 2003, appointed Corporate Secretary in January 1998 and Chief Administrative Officer in November 1997. She served in these positions at Essex through July 2008. Ms. DeChello received a Master of Science degree in Human Resources Management in 2000 from the University of Maryland. Ms. DeChello also holds an Associate of Arts degree in Accounting and a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice/Criminology from the University of Maryland. She enjoys dancing and bird watching.

John Krobath has served as the Chief Financial Officer of KEYW since joining in May 2009. Mr. Krobath is responsible for all accounting and finance activities of a government contracting company, DCAA cost structures and compliance, treasury management, and budgeting. Prior to joining KEYW, he was the Chief Financial Officer and/or Controller for Horne International from September 2005 to May 2009. Horne International is a publicly traded government contracting company consisting of four diverse international operating companies and one holding company. From 1993 to 2004, Mr. Krobath held financial positions of increasing responsibility, including positions as Finance Manager, Controller, Manager of Business Operations, and Director of Financial Operations, at several companies. He supported several defense contractors during that time including ITT Industries and Kratos Defense and Security Solutions. Mr. Krobath holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration in Accounting from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA and a Master of Science degree in Business Administration in Finance from George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. He enjoys sports and the outdoors. He believes that preparation is the key to opportunity.

Mark Willard has served as the Chief Impact Officer of KEYW since its founding in August of 2008. In this position, he has played a key role in developing a strong operations team. In his current role he is responsible for ensuring that the goals for revenue and profit are met and assists the CEO in formulating current and long-range plans, objectives and policies. He provides leadership to senior management related to organization, business development and financial management and ensures a clarity of objectives and focus for senior managers and operations personnel. He has over 30 years of multi disciplined management experience related to systems development, operation and life cycle support. Mr. Willard has played a key role in building an engineering capability from the ground up at four companies focused on supporting the Intelligence Community. After eight years of military service he joined ManTech and served as the Vice President of Columbia, MD Operations, responsible for building the company from 30 to over 300 personnel providing engineering services to the National Security Agency. He transitioned to Windermere in 1998. As one of Windermere’s first employees, he helped build a well established engineering development and systems integration company. Windermere was acquired by Essex Corporation in 2005 and Mr. Willard remained at the company and served as the Vice President of the Engineering & Technology Sector. When Essex Corporation was acquired by Northrop Grumman, Mr. Willard continued to build the Engineering & Technology Sector and was responsible for over 400 personnel providing services to the major Intelligence Community agencies, as well as special military. Mr. Willard served at Northrop Grumman in this capacity until his employment with KEYW in 2008. Mr. Willard has a Bachelor of Science degree in Management Sciences and has completed coursework toward a Master of Science degree in Technology Management at the University of Maryland, University College. He proudly raised 3 daughters on lessons learned from Seinfeld episodes, and is looking forward to opening our first warm climate ocean-front office someday.

Ed Jaehne joined KEYW in June 2009 as the Chief Strategy Officer. As Chief Strategy Officer, Mr. Jaehne is focused on innovation and the strategic growth of KEYW, expanding on existing technology and capabilities, and in communicating KEYW’s strategy, capabilities, and value to all stakeholders. He serves as KEYW’s Investor Relations Officer, working closely with the CEO and CFO to ensure effective communications with the investment community. Prior to joining KEYW, Mr. Jaehne served as Vice President and Chief Strategy

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Officer at Essex Corporation, from 2003 to 2009. He is a veteran entrepreneur with over 20 years of international experience as an executive of information technology companies. He is experienced in creating rapid growth companies as well as in the strategic acquisition and merger of companies to form strong solutions focused companies in both the communications and government markets. From 2000 until 2003, he operated a consulting sole proprietorship providing services to clients, including Essex. From 1996 until 2000 he served as either President or Chief Operating Officer of several information technology companies, where he led several successful mergers and acquisitions. He started his first company, Jaehne Associates, LTD (an information security consultancy), in 1983, which he sold in 1988 to ManTech International, Inc. From 1988 until 1996, he served as President of ManTech Strategic Associates, Ltd. In 1975, he earned two Bachelor of Arts degrees in Physics and Russian from the University of Utah. Mr. Jaehne continued at the University of Utah to earn a Master of Arts degree in Physics in 1976. In 1977, he earned a Master of Arts degree in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. He enjoys renovating houses and challenging bulging bureaucracies wherever he finds them.

Bill Campbell has been a director at KEYW since July 16, 2009. Mr. Campbell is currently a Senior Advisor to the Chairman for JPMorgan Chase & Co. where he was most recently Chairman of Chase Card Services, the nation’s second largest credit card organization. From 2005 to 2007 he served as Chairman of Visa International, leading the organization to its IPO in 2008, the largest in U.S. history. With an extensive consumer products and financial services management background, Mr. Campbell also serves as President of Sanoch Management, a consulting and investment firm for financial companies, start-ups, and venture capital firms. Prior to his executive roles at JPMorgan Chase and its predecessors, and the formation of Sanoch Management, Mr. Campbell oversaw Citigroup’s Global Consumer Business, including global branch banking and credit cards. He became Chief Executive Officer of Global Citibank in 1996 and Chief Executive Officer of Citigroup’s Global Consumer Business a year later. Before joining Citicorp in 1995, Mr. Campbell spent 28 years at Philip Morris, including five years as Chief Executive Officer of Philip Morris USA. He began his career in Canada in brand management in 1967 and eventually served as President of the Asian region for Philip Morris, EVP of Marketing and Sales for Philip Morris USA, and EVP of Strategic Planning for Philip Morris Companies. He currently serves as a director to the following privately held companies: BTI Systems, Inc., First Beverage Group, Focus Financial Partners LLC, Intervolve, Inc., LeadDog Marketing Group, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Mu Sigma, Inc. and Syncapse. Mr. Campbell earned a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Alberta in 1965 and a Master’s degree in Business Administration from the University of Western Ontario in 1967.

Mr. Campbell’s business experiences in a diverse group of major public companies, including service as the CEO of Philip Morris USA and in numerous executive positions in the financial services industry, gives our board a perspective on national and global economic developments and valued experience in the operations of large organizations.

Pierre Chao has been a director at KEYW since October 27, 2010. Mr. Chao is a Managing Partner and co-founder of Renaissance Strategic Advisors. From 2003 – 2007, Mr. Chao was the Director of Defense-Industrial Initiatives at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington D.C. based, non-partisan defense and foreign policy think tank. From 1999 to 2003, Mr. Chao was a managing director and senior aerospace/defense analyst at Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), where he was responsible for following the U.S. and global aerospace/defense industry. He remained a CSFB independent senior adviser with the Equity Research group and then Investment Banking from 2003 to 2006. Prior to joining CFSB, Mr. Chao was the senior aerospace/defense analyst at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter from 1995 to 1999 and he was the senior aerospace/defense industry analyst at Smith Barney during 1994. Prior to his career as a Wall Street analyst, Mr. Chao was a director at JSA International, a Boston/Paris-based management-consulting firm that focused on the aerospace/defense industry. Mr. Chao was also a co-founder of JSA Research, an equity research boutique specializing in the aerospace/defense industry. Before signing on with JSA, he worked in the New York and London offices of Prudential-Bache Capital Funding as a mergers and acquisitions banker focusing on aerospace/defense.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Mr. Chao brings over 25 years of management consulting, investment banking and policy expertise in the aerospace/defense industry. Mr. Chao earned dual Bachelor of Science degrees in Political Science and Management Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He is a holder of the right to use the Chartered Financial Analyst designation.

John Hannon has been a director at KEYW since August 22, 2008. Previously he served as a Director of Essex from September 2000 to 2007. From early 2000 to 2002, Mr. Hannon was the managing member of Networking Ventures, L.L.C., a privately held company that invested in technology companies. From 1979 to March 2000, Mr. Hannon served as the Chief Executive Officer of Pulse Engineering, Inc. an information security and signals processing company which was sold in March 2000. Mr. Hannon started his business career in 1963 after serving in the United States Marine Corps. Since that time, he has been involved in numerous entrepreneurial ventures. He is a past Director of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association.

Mr. Hannon’s significant institutional knowledge of our company provides valuable insight to our board. His prior managerial experience and military service brings an enhanced understanding of government contract focused business to board deliberations.

Ken Minihan (Lt. General (Ret) USAF) has been a director at KEYW since August 22, 2008. Lt. General Minihan is a Managing Director of Paladin Capital Group and is focused on the development and implementation of new investment opportunities for Paladin’s Homeland Security Fund. Prior to joining Paladin, Lt. General Minihan was the 14th Director of the National Security Agency (NSA)/Central Security Service. While at the NSA, he was instrumental in the definition and implementation of the National Information Assurance Program. During his military service, Lt. General Minihan developed extensive experience in making new technologies operational and implementing leading edge services and products in a competitive environment where lives were often at risk. During the last twenty years of the Cold War and the transition to the Information Age, he was instrumental in the definition and selection of technology solutions to solve many difficult national security information needs. Throughout that time, Lt. General Minihan helped set the performance standards for information enterprise operations. Lt. General Minihan was the most recent Chairman and President of the Security Affairs Support Association (now known as INSA), which focuses on shared government and industry national intelligence and technology challenges. He also is a member of the Air Force Association, the National Military Intelligence Association and other national organizations. He has substantial experience in capital raising, enterprise operations, business development and business readiness assurance. He devotes considerable attention to and consults on national security affairs. Lt. General Minihan has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Florida State University, a Master of Arts degree from the Naval Postgraduate School, and has completed executive development programs at the University of Illinois and Harvard University. Among his awards and decorations are the National Security Medal, the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Bronze Star, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, and the Legion of Merit. He serves as a Director on the following boards: BAE Systems, Inc., ManTech International Corporation, Lacent Government Solutions, Lexis Nexis Special Services, American Government Solutions and CGI Federal.

Lt. General Minihan’s depth of knowledge from his military service and as a director of the NSA brings valuable expertise to our board. Further, his business experience with Paladin Capital Group brings industry expertise to our board that is compounded by his public sector service.

Art Money has been a director at KEYW since August 22, 2008. Previously, he served as a Director of Essex Corporation from January 2003 to January 2007. He is currently President of ALM Consulting specializing in command, control, and communications, intelligence, signal processing, and information processing. Mr. Money served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communication and Intelligence (C3I) from October 1999 to April 2001. Prior to his Senate confirmation in that role, he was the Senior Civilian Official, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3I from February 1998. Mr. Money also served as the Chief Information Officer for the Department of Defense from 1998 to 2001. From 1996 to 1998, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Research, Development and Acquisition, and as CIO for the Air Force. He has received distinguished public service awards from the U.S. Department of Defense (Bronze Palm), the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Navy. Prior to his government service, Mr. Money

TABLE OF CONTENTS

held senior management positions (including President from 1989 to 1995) with ESL Inc., a subsidiary of TRW, and the TRW Avionics and Surveillance Group. Mr. Money serves on numerous United States Government panels, boards and commissions. He currently serves on the board of Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc., NovoDynamics, Inc., Nexsan Corporation and VirtualAgility. Mr. Money received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from San Jose State University in 1965, a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from University of Santa Clara in 1970 and attended the Harvard Executive Security Program in 1985 and the Program for Senior Executives at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1988.

Mr. Money’s service in the intelligence sector and on the boards of numerous public companies and with sophisticated advisory groups, combined with his prior management experience in the private sector, brings a breadth of knowledge to our board.

Caroline Pisano has been a director at KEYW since August 22, 2008. Previously, she was a Director of Essex Corporation from September 2000 through January 2003 and served as General Counsel and Vice President of Finance of Essex from January 2003 to June 2004. From April 2000 through December 2002, Ms. Pisano was a member of Networking Ventures, L.L.C. From August 1996 to March 2000, Ms. Pisano served as General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer of Pulse Engineering, Inc., an information security and signal processing company which was sold in March 2000. From August 1992 to July 1996, Ms. Pisano served as a senior transactional attorney with the law firm of Wechsler, Selzer, and Gurvitch, Chartered. From June 1988 to August 1990, Ms. Pisano, was a certified public accountant, practiced public accounting and specialized in high tech and biotech companies. Ms. Pisano received her Juris Doctorate degree from the Washington College of Law at the American University in Washington, D.C. Ms. Pisano graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from the University of Maryland. Although Ms. Pisano is an attorney and an accountant she likes to follow Jimmy Buffett’s advice and “say what you mean, mean what you say”. Ms. Pisano has four children and enjoys volunteering at her children’s public schools.

Ms. Pisano’s significant institutional knowledge of our company’s field of work gives our board valuable insight into our operations. Her prior managerial experience brings insightful business knowledge to bear on our board deliberations.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Based solely upon a review of Forms 3 and Forms 4 furnished to the Company pursuant to Rule 16a-3 under the Exchange Act during its most recent fiscal year and Forms 5 with respect to its most recent fiscal year, the Company believes that all such forms required to be filed pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act were timely filed by the respective reporting persons during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, except that Mr. Moodispaw filed a Form 4 relating to one transaction one day late.

Code of Ethics

KEYW has adopted a code of business conduct and ethics applicable to all of our officers including our CEO and CFO, directors, and employees. A copy of that code is available on our corporate website at www.keywcorp.com. The policies and procedures address a wide array of professional conduct, including, but not limited to:

Conduct		Political Contributions, Activities and Public Positions
Public Disclosure		Government Officials and Company Personnel
Legal Compliance		Payments to Employees of Customers or Suppliers
Government Business		Conflict of Interest
Company Records and Accounts		Compliance with Tax and Currency Laws
Insider Trading		Time Recording
Vigilant Reporting		Reporting of Violations
Indoctrination

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Any person may receive a copy of this Code of Ethics at no charge by contacting the Company’s Chief Administrative Officer via mail, email to corporatesecretary@keywcorp.com or by phone at 443-270-5300.

Employees with complaints or concerns may report these through the KEYW OpenBoard which provides an anonymous and confidential method for reporting any issues or concerns. Employees may present concerns anonymously through OpenBoard at 866-265-3857. Confidential reports also may be submitted by mail addressed to the Corporate Secretary for delivery to the board of directors, submitted online at https://www.openboard.info/keyw/index.cfm or by e-mail at keyw@openboard.info.

Changes to Procedures for Security Holder Recommendation of Nominees

During the last fiscal year there were no changes to the procedures by which security holders may recommend nominees to the Company’s board of directors.

Audit Committee

The Company has a separately-designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. Our audit committee is comprised of Caroline Pisano, Art Money, and John Hannon. Ms. Pisano is the chairperson of our audit committee.

Audit Committee Financial Expert

Our board of directors has determined that Ms. Pisano qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under the SEC rules implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In addition, our board of directors has determined that Ms. Pisano is an independent director under the listing standards of The NASDAQ Stock Market and is independent pursuant to Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act.

Board Composition

The biographical information presented above discusses the specific experience, qualifications, attributes and skills contributing to our conclusion that each director should serve as a member of our board. Our goal in selecting board members is to compose leadership that has a broad base of knowledge and experience targeted to our business and industry, which allows our board to engage in forthright discussion about our strategies, risks and plans as a company. Board members who have an investment stake in our company, either individually or as executives of entities that comprise some of our significant stockholders, have interests that are aligned with our company’s desire to grow and prosper. We believe that each board member has demonstrated business acumen and an ability to exercise sound and ethical judgment, as well as a commitment of service to our company and to our board of directors during the period leading up to this filing. Finally, we value their significant experience on other public company boards of directors and board committees, in government agencies, and in private companies, which when aggregated as a full board we feel provides the level of expertise necessary in directing our company.

Board Committees

Our board of directors has established an audit committee, a compensation committee, an ethics committee, and a nominating and corporate governance committee, with each committee having the composition and responsibilities described below effective upon the completion of this offering. The members of each committee are appointed by our board of directors.

Audit Committee

Our audit committee is comprised of Caroline Pisano, Art Money, and John Hannon. Ms. Pisano is the chairperson of our audit committee. Our board of directors has determined that each member of the audit committee meets the financial literacy requirements under the rules and regulations of the NASDAQ and that Ms. Pisano qualifies as an “audit committee financial expert” under the SEC rules implementing Section 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In addition, our board of directors has determined that each member of

TABLE OF CONTENTS

our audit committee is an independent director under the listing standards of The NASDAQ Stock Market and is independent pursuant to Rule 10A-3 of the Exchange Act. As provided for in the committee’s charter, as approved by our board of directors, our audit committee is responsible for, among other things:

Compensation Committee

Our compensation committee is comprised of Art Money, Bill Campbell and John Hannon. Mr. Money is the chairperson of our compensation committee. As provided for in the committee’s charter, as approved by our board of directors, our compensation committee is responsible for, among other things:

Our board of directors has determined that each member of our compensation committee is an “independent director” as defined under the NASDAQ Marketplace Rules.

Ethics Committee

Our ethics committee is composed of Ken Minihan and Len Moodispaw. Mr. Moodispaw is the chairperson of our ethics committee. Our ethics committee is responsible for, among other things:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

Our nominating and corporate governance committee is comprised of Ken Minihan and Pierre Chao. Mr. Minihan is the chairperson of our nominating and corporate governance committee. As provided for in the committee’s charter, as approved by our board of directors, our nominating and corporate governance committee is responsible for, among other things:

Our board of directors has determined that each member of our nominating and corporate governance committee is an “independent director” as defined under the NASDAQ Marketplace Rules.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction

The following discussion provides an overview and analysis of the compensation programs applicable to each person that served as our principal executive officer or principal financial officer during 2011 and our three other most highly compensated executive officers for 2011 (referred to herein as our Named Executive Officers, or NEOs), and certain executive compensation 2011 policies. This section also explains our general compensation philosophy and objectives and how we made compensation decisions for our NEOs for 2011. Our NEOs in 2011 were:

This discussion contains forward looking statements based on our current plans, considerations, expectations and determinations regarding future compensation programs. Actual compensation programs that we adopt may differ materially from currently planned programs as summarized in this discussion.

Compensation Philosophy and Objectives

The overall goal of our compensation programs is to attract, retain, and motivate qualified, talented and diverse leaders who are enthusiastic about our mission and culture by providing competitive compensation and benefits to our executive officers consistent with our focus on controlling costs. We believe that compensation plays a role in, but is not the exclusive means of, achieving these goals. Non-financial attributes, such as a rewarding and innovative work environment, challenging projects, and career growth opportunities also help us to attract and motivate the leaders we seek to employ at KEYW.

We aim to design our compensation programs so that our executive officers are motivated both to achieve strong short-term (annual) performance goals and to contribute to the creation of long-term stockholder value. Accordingly, a significant portion of each executive’s total compensation is tied to the achievement of annual performance goals and to long-term stock appreciation. In addition, we believe that annual incentive compensation for our executive officers should be based primarily on the achievement of objective corporate financial goals, with the flexibility to also reward our executives for exceptional contributions to the achievement of these goals or for the achievement of specific individual goals or other corporate performance goals.

Change of Control and Severance Benefits

We have change-of-control and severance provisions in the employment agreements in place for our NEOs. For a further discussion of the change-of-control and severance provisions applicable to our NEOs see “Employment Agreements” and “Potential Payments upon Termination or a Change of Control” below.

Determination of Executive Compensation

Role of Compensation Committee and Board of Directors.  We established a compensation committee of our board of directors in January 2009 to review and recommend to our board of directors compensation for our executive officers, including our NEOs. Prior to that time, compensation decisions were reviewed and approved by our full board of directors, as part of the formation and start-up of KEYW. Since its formation, the compensation committee has been responsible for:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

For a more detailed description of the role of our compensation committee, see “Board Committees —  Compensation Committee” above.

Role of Management.  Our Chief Executive Officer participates in meetings of our compensation committee upon the request of its members and in meetings of our board of directors as a member of the board and makes recommendations to the compensation committee and board of directors with respect to base salary, the setting of performance targets, the amounts of any short-term and long-term incentive compensation and equity awards for our executive officers. The compensation committee also works with our Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer in evaluating the financial, accounting, tax and retention implications of our various compensation programs. Neither Mr. Moodispaw nor any of our other NEOs participates in deliberations relating to his or her own compensation.

Assessment of Competitive Practices and Role of Compensation Consultant.  We believe that competitive compensation programs are critical in attracting, retaining and motivating the talent KEYW needs to achieve its stated objectives. In the third quarter of 2009, our board of directors engaged Grant Thornton LLP, “Compensation Consultant”, to assist the compensation committee in its assessment of the competitiveness of our executive compensation practices. Pursuant to its engagement, Compensation Consultant completed a benchmarking analysis of total direct compensation for top executives and other key employees and made recommendations to management and the compensation committee regarding executive and key employee compensation. In addition, Compensation Consultant assisted in the design of a new annual incentive plan and a new long-term incentive plan for KEYW executives and employees commencing in 2011. See “— Components of Executive Compensation” below, for further discussion of our annual incentive and long-term incentive plans. Compensation Consultant performed its work under the direction and authority of the board of directors and the compensation committee, with input from management.

In May 2011, our board of directors engaged a Compensation Consultant to complete a series of benchmark activities to understand changes to executive and independent director compensation practices since the last study was conducted in 2009 prior to going public. The Compensation Consultant’s benchmarking analysis was based on two distinct peer groups (direct and indirect peers) which it developed jointly with executive management. We believe Direct Peers should serve as the primary reference point for evaluating the reasonableness of pay levels while practices should be shaped by a broader index including Indirect Peers.

The first peer group developed by the Compensation Consultant and executive management and examined by the compensation committee consisted of companies that are comparable to KEYW with respect to industry and size as measured by revenues. The compensation committee reviewed companies that provide similar services/products to the Intelligence Community, which we refer to as the Direct Peer Group. The Direct Peer Group was as follows:

•   Aerovironment, Inc.		•   Globe Communication Systems, Inc.
•   American Science & Engineering, Inc.		•   Integral Systems, Inc.
•   Cogent, Inc.		•   ICF International
•   Dynamics Research Corporation		•   Mercury Computer Systems
•   Geoeye		•   Sourcefire

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The second peer group developed by the Compensation Consultant and executive management and examined by the compensation committee consisted of indirect competitors as follows:

•   Astronics Corporation		•   Kratos Defense Security Solutions
•   Booz Allen Hamilton		•   Mantech International Corporation
•   CACI International		•   NCI
•   Digitalglobe		•   SRA International
•   Ducommun		•   Symantec Corporation
•   Flir Systems		•   Verint Systems
•   Global Defense Tech & Systems		•   Viasat

The Compensation Consultant also utilized published survey data from the following sources:

The Compensation Consultant used these peer groups and industry surveys to present to the compensation committee data about salary, bonus and equity compensation at the 25^th, 50^th and 75^th percentiles and the relative mix of these components of total compensation for executive and senior personnel positions at these comparable companies and in comparable industry and company groups. We use this compensation data as a reference point when setting compensation levels. Our compensation committee maintains discretion in determining the nature and extent to which this data is applied.

Components of Executive Compensation

The chart below lists and describes the elements currently included in our executive compensation program and summarizes our purpose in providing each such element. As further described below under “— Annual Incentives,” we did not have an annual incentive program in place for our executives for our 2009 fiscal year. We did include annual cash incentives as a component of our executive compensation program for 2010 and 2011.

Compensation Component		Description		Purpose
Base Salary		Base compensation for performing core responsibilities and contributions to the Company.		Provide steady source of income based primarily on scope of responsibility and years of experience.
Annual Incentives		Annual cash incentive opportunities are provided for under the KEYW Annual Incentive Plan and are expressed as a percentage of base salary. Threshold, target, and maximum incentive opportunities are established based on corporate, business unit, and individual goals.		Ensure focus on specific annual goals, provide annual performance-based cash compensation, and motivate achievement of critical short-term performance metrics.
Long-Term Incentives		Equity grants provided under our equity incentive plans to all executives and employees. Equity award types provided for include Stock Options and Restricted Stock    Cash-based incentives also may be provided from time to time under our long-term incentive plan.		Align the interests of executives with stockholders, provide for executive ownership of stock, attract, retain and motivate key talent, and reward long-term growth of the business.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Compensation Component		Description		Purpose
Discretionary Awards		One-time awards of cash or equity.		Intended to recognize exceptional contributions to KEYW’s business by individual executives and employees.
Retirement, Health, & Welfare Benefits		Includes benefits such as:   •    Health, dental and vision insurance   •    Life and disability insurance   •    Long Term Care   •    Paid Time Off & Holidays   •    Company 401(k) contributions   •    Employee Stock Purchase Plan.		These benefits are part of our broad-based total compensation program, available to all full-time employees of the Company.

Base Salary.  Base salary is intended to provide executives with a base level of regular income for performance of their essential duties and responsibilities. In general, base salaries for our NEOs are initially negotiated with the executive at the time executives are hired, and reviewed annually by our compensation committee and board of directors, with input from our Chief Executive Officer (other than with respect to himself). In determining base salaries, we consider the executive’s qualifications and experience, salaries of executives in similar positions at comparable companies as described above under “— Determination of Executive Compensation — Assessment of Competitive Practices and Role of Compensation Consultant,” and internal comparisons of the relative compensation paid to members of our executive team.

As described above, Compensation Consultant conducted a benchmarking analysis of total direct compensation for top executives and other key employees, which contained recommendations as to base salaries of our NEOs. The initial compensation target is the midpoint of the salary range of the benchmarking analysis. For 2011, the compensation committee approved the following increases to the base salary of our executive officers over 2010 base salaries based on a review of Compensation Consultant’s analysis and recommendations and the recommendations of our Chief Executive Officer (as to other executive officers) because overall base salaries are below the median market levels from the benchmark analysis.

Name/Title		2010 Base Salary				2011 Base Salary				Percentage Increase
Len Moodispaw President and Chief Executive Officer		$	350,002			$	415,002				18.57	%
John Krobath Chief Financial Officer		$	225,014			$	250,016				11.11	%
Mark Willard Chief Impact Officer		$	240,011			$	275,018				14.59	%
Kim DeChello Chief Administrative Officer and Secretary		$	200,013			$	225,014				12.50	%
Ed Jaehne Chief Strategy Officer		$	200,013			$	210,018				5.00	%

Annual Incentives.  Prior to January 2010, the Company did not have an annual incentive plan. Effective January 2010, we adopted the KEYW Annual Incentive Plan, which we refer to as the annual incentive plan, or AIP. In general, all of our employees may become eligible to participate in the AIP, with our Chief Executive Officer retaining discretion to determine which employees (other than executive officers) are included in the AIP on a year-to-year basis. Approval of the compensation committee is required with respect to the inclusion of any of our executive officers in the AIP. The AIP is intended to:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Under the AIP, annual incentive opportunities are established each year as a percentage of each eligible employee’s base salary. For our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers, performance goals and incentive opportunities are generally recommended by the compensation committee and determined by the board of directors in the first quarter of the fiscal year to which the award relates. For our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers, annual incentive payments under the AIP are tied to company-wide financial performance targets. In establishing the AIP, the compensation committee and the board of directors felt that company-wide financial performance targets best gauge the performance of KEYW’s senior management team in growing short- and long-term stockholder value. For 2011, the compensation committee determined to set company-wide financial performance targets for our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers based on the achievement of a combination of specified target revenue and specified target EBITDA, measured after giving effect to payments to employees under the AIP, which we refer to as the 2011 financial target. In particular, the compensation committee and the board of directors determined to weight achievement of the 2011 financial target 60% on the achievement of target revenue and 40% on the achievement of target EBITDA.

Annual incentive plan payouts for 2011 for our Chief Executive Officer and other executive officers were based on the extent to which actual revenue and EBITDA performance (weighted as described above) met the 2011 financial target, based on a sliding scale of performance. For our NEOs, actual revenue and EBITDA performance were required to achieve a minimum level of 90% of the 2011 financial target for awards to be paid under the AIP. For employees that are not executive officers, actual revenue and EBITDA performance were required to achieve a minimum level of either 80% or 90% of the 2011 financial target (or in the case of non-executive employees for which other performance targets were established, 80% or 90% of such other performance target), depending on the particular employee’s job title and position. For 2011, the Chief Executive Officer’s incentive opportunity ranged from 37.5% to 112.5% of base salary, with a target of 75% of base salary. For each other executive officer, his or her incentive opportunity ranged from 25% of base salary to 75% of base salary, with a target of 50% of base salary.

The following table sets forth the minimum, target and maximum annual incentive payments potentially payable to our Chief Executive Officer and our other executive officers based on the percentage achievement of the 2011 financial target. The table is based on 2011 annual salaries.

		2011 Base Salary				Payment Level/Percentage Achievement of 2011 Financial Target
Name						Minimum/90%				Target/100%				Maximum/110%
Len Moodispaw		$	415,002			$	155,626			$	311,252			$	466,877
John Krobath		$	250,016			$	62,504			$	125,008			$	187,512
Mark Willard		$	275,018			$	68,755			$	137,509			$	206,264
Kim DeChello		$	225,014			$	56,254			$	112,507			$	168,761
Ed Jaehne		$	210,018			$	52,505			$	105,009			$	157,514

AIP awards are paid in cash. The amount payable pursuant to each award will be determined by the compensation committee based on achievement of the applicable performance targets. Under the AIP, the compensation committee has the discretion to increase or decrease the amount of the payout to an executive officer based on individual performance, provided such payout does not exceed the maximum payout permitted to the executive officer under the AIP. Additionally, the compensation committee may not make a discretionary increase in payment under the AIP to an executive officer subject to the $1,000,000 limit on compensation under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), if the Company is intending to qualify the AIP awards for an exception to the compensation limit for such executive officer under Section 162(m) of the Code.

Our compensation committee determined that the 2011 financial target at the Minimum/90% level was not achieved for KEYW but was achieved for some subsidiaries. Therefore, the compensation committee approved the payment of a bonus to the CEO and other executive offers based on a combination of subsidiary and individual performance. See also, “— Summary Compensation Table” and “— Grants of Plan Based Awards” herein.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Long-Term Incentives.  We believe that our executives should have a continuing stake in our long-term success. We believe that equity compensation is the best means of aligning the interests of our executives and employees to the interests of our stockholders and of incentivizing our executives and employees to contribute to the long-term growth of stockholder value. We encourage our executives to hold a significant equity interest in our Company; however, we do not have specific share retention and ownership requirements for our executives.

In 2009, we awarded stock options and restricted stock awards to our NEOs under The KEYW Corporation 2008 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2008 Plan) and outside the 2008 Plan. These awards were made pursuant to initial equity awards for new hires and in response to the benchmark compensation analysis performed by Compensation Consultant, described above, which indicated that the equity component of our executive officers’ total compensation was under-weighted as compared to the peer companies reviewed in the Compensation Consultant analysis. Under the 2008 Plan, no stock options or restricted stock awards were awarded in 2010. In 2011, we awarded stock options and restricted stock awards to our NEOs under The KEYW Holding Corporation 2009 Stock Incentive Plan (the 2009 Plan). See “— Executive Compensation Tabular Disclosures — Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table” for a detailed description of equity awards made to our NEOs from 2009 to 2011 and “Executive Compensation — Equity Incentive Plans” for a detailed description of the 2008 and 2009 Plans.

Generally awards granted under the 2008 Plan vest ratably on an annual basis over five years. No option or stock awards to NEOs in 2009 departed from the standard five year vesting other than the following: (i) our CFO received 70,000 shares of restricted stock, issued pursuant to the 2008 Plan, which vest ratably on an annual basis over three years; (ii) our CFO was awarded options to purchase 195,000 shares of common stock outside of the 2008 Plan, which vest ratably on an annual basis over three years; and (iii) restricted stock awards to NEOs totaling 32,500 restricted shares, not issued under the 2008 Plan, that cliff vest on December 2, 2012. In addition, in early 2009, the board of directors determined to modify the vesting of awards so as to have these awards vest ratably on an annual basis over three years with an initial 25% vesting immediately. The board of directors determined that such three-year vesting would be applied to future awards.

As part of the board of directors’ and compensation committee’s review of competitive compensation practices conducted in the fourth quarter of 2009, the board of directors and compensation committee adopted a new long-term incentive plan, which we refer to as the long-term incentive plan or LTIP, which sets forth KEYW’s long-term incentive compensation policy for its executive officers and other employees. The LTIP applies with respect to long-term incentive compensation awards beginning in 2010. The LTIP is designed to:

The LTIP sets forth the framework KEYW intends to use for the award of long-term incentive compensation, and contemplates that KEYW may award various types of equity-based awards under its equity plans on an annual basis, including nonqualified stock options, incentive stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units (“RSUs”), performance shares, performance units, and other stock-based awards. The LTIP also contemplates awards linked to the value of our common stock but that are payable in cash. The type and mix of equity-based compensation awards made under the LTIP may vary from year-to-year based on KEYW’s compensation philosophy, employment needs, and business goals. To date, we have only issued stock options and restricted stock under the LTIP.

Under the LTIP, long-term incentive awards are to be awarded annually to eligible employees.

In the near term, we anticipate that equity grants will be comprised mainly of stock options and restricted stock, based on the board of directors’ and compensation committee’s review of competitive compensation practices conducted in 2009 and 2011.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

These analyses included an analysis of the group of peer companies selected by Compensation Consultant (as listed above) based on their relevance to our markets, size, and location and other market data to discern broader compensation trends in the market, as described above under “— Determination of Executive Compensation — Assessment of Competitive Practices and Role of Compensation Consultant.” We expect LTIP awards to be made in January or February of each year based on prior year performance.

Retirement, Health, & Welfare Benefits.  We operate in a competitive market for highly skilled technical and management staff who also hold high-level security clearances. As a result, our benefits programs must be competitive with those of our competitors since employees in our industry typically look at the complete compensation program being offered, including retirement, health and welfare benefits. Our benefits programs are available to all of our full-time employees and include health, dental and vision insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, long-term care, paid time off, company contributions under our 401(k) plan and employee stock purchase plan. We believe that it is important to maintain a competitive benefits program that complements our salary structure and confirms the commitment we have to maintaining a rewarding and enjoyable work environment.

Compensation Actions in Fiscal 2011

Our compensation committee continually reviews our compensation policies and practices. The review of these policies and practices is intended to further support the goals and objectives of our compensation programs as a whole. The following describes the compensation policies and practices that our compensation committee reviewed for 2011.

In the Company’s Proxy Statement filed on July 15, 2011, the board of directors of the Company recommended that shareholders vote (i) to approve the compensation of the Company’s NEOs (“Say-on-Pay”) and (ii) for the option of having a Say-on-Pay vote every three years. As previously reported, the Company’s shareholders approved the Say-on-Pay proposal and approved an annual Say-on-Pay Vote by a majority of the votes cast.

The Company considered the strong support by the shareholders for the Company’s compensation program as affirmation that the current compensation philosophy is on target with market peers and aligned with shareholder interests. There have been no major changes to compensation policies and decision since the results of the Say-on-Pay vote, nor does the Company anticipate any major change to the current compensation philosophy.

In the advisory vote on the frequency of holding the Say-on-Pay vote, 12,779,711 shares voted for one year, 264,465 shares voted for two years, 7,999,102 shares voted for three years, 156,600 shares abstained and there were 2,320,024 broker non-votes. The Company has considered the outcome of this advisory vote. Although a majority of the votes of the Company’s shareholders were cast at the Annual Meeting in favor of holding an annual, non-binding advisory vote on executive compensation, approximately 38% of the votes cast on the non-binding advisory “say on pay frequency” proposal were voted in favor of holding the non-binding advisory “say on pay” vote every three years.

Further, the board considered:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

While the Company believes the views of its shareholders are important, in light of all of the above factors, the board has decided to conduct future shareholder advisory votes on executive compensation every three years until the next required “say on pay frequency” vote. As such, the next “say on pay” advisory vote will be held at the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held in 2014 unless the board of directors determines that a different frequency for such votes is in the best interests of the Company’s shareholders or until the next advisory “say on pay frequency” vote is held.

In January 2011, we issued LTIP grants to our NEOs totaling 19,800 restricted stock shares and non-qualified stock options to purchase 181,000 shares with a strike price of $14.57. The restricted stock cliff vests in 2014 and the options vest 25% on the grant and 25% on each of the first three anniversaries of the grant date.

In 2011, the compensation committee approved the increase of individual employee limits to a maximum of 1,000 shares per quarter effective January 2012 under the company’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”). The ESPP was implemented on January 1, 2010. The ESPP offers a maximum 5,000,000 (five million) shares of Common Stock for purchase by employees over the ten year life of the ESPP. Employees are able to purchase shares through accumulated payroll deductions at 85% of the fair market value of the shares based on the closing sales price of the shares on the purchase date, which shall occur at the end of each fiscal quarter.

Compensation Actions in 2012

On January 27, 2012 AIP awards were paid based on 2011 NEO performance. KEYW did not meet the minimum financial metric targets; however certain subsidiaries deemed key to the compensation committee’s evaluation of performance did meet financial targets. Under its discretion as provided by the plan, the compensation committee determined to award additional cash awards to the NEOs based on individual performance on non-defined targets such as integration of all previous acquisitions.

Payments were as follows:

NEO		Annual Incentive Plan (AIP) Performance Award				AIP Discretionary Award				Total
Len Moodispaw(1)		$	0			$	0			$	0
John Krobath			18,751				31,259				50,000
Mark Willard			20,626				29,374				50,000
Kim DeChello			15,001				34,999				50,000
Ed Jaehne			15,001				9,999				25,000

In February 2012, we issued LTIP grants to our NEOs totaling 40,500 restricted stock shares and non-qualified stock options to purchase 121,500 shares with a strike price of $7.41. The restricted stock cliff vests in February 2015 and the options have performance-based vesting based on attainment of financial performance goals: 50% in February 2013, 25% in February 2014 and 25% in February 2015. If performance is not met prior to first vesting, the option is canceled.

In March 2012, we amended some NEO employment agreements to ensure compliance with Section 409A as well as include an evergreen termination date clause. The changes were made in order to more clearly define payment terms for severance payments per Section 409A as well as extend the current employment agreements that were set to expire in August 2012.

Tax and Accounting Considerations

Section 409A.  With the assistance of outside compensation consultant, in 2011 we completed our review of employment agreements for compliance with Section 409A of the Code, and reviewed our other executive compensation and benefits plans for compliance with Section 409A of the Code.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 162(m).  Section 162(m) of the Code limits our ability to deduct compensation paid in any given year to a “covered employee” (which includes all of the NEOs other than the CFO) in excess of $1.0 million. After the end of the “grandfather” period set forth under Section 162(m), as much as practicable, we will attempt to structure the compensation paid to our NEOs in a manner that enables us to deduct such compensation. Compensation is not subject to this deduction limitation if it qualifies as “performance based compensation” within the meaning of Section 162(m). In the event the proposed compensation for any of our NEOs is expected to exceed the $1.0 million limitation, the compensation committee will, in making decisions about such compensation, balance the benefits of tax deductibility with its responsibility to hire, retain and motivate executive officers with competitive compensation programs. We may approve the payment of compensation that exceeds the deductibility limitation under Section 162(m) in order to meet our compensation objectives or if we determine that doing so is otherwise in the interest of our stockholders.

Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (FASB ASC Topic 718 Compensation — Stock Compensation, formerly SFAS 123(R), “FASB ASC Topic 718”).  FASB ASC Topic 718 requires the expensing of stock-based compensation, which includes equity incentive awards such as stock options and restricted stock. The expense related to stock options and restricted stock granted to certain executives and board members is determined in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 718.

Sections 280G and 4999.  Under Sections 280G and 4999 of the Code, a 20% excise tax may be levied on certain payments made to certain executives as a result of a change-of-control if such payments equal or exceed three times the executive’s “base amount” (as defined under Section 280G). In structuring our executive compensation, we seek to minimize the potential tax consequences that could arise under Sections 280G and 4999 in the event of a change-of-control of KEYW.

Summary Compensation Table

The following table sets forth the aggregate compensation awarded to, earned by, or paid to our Named Executive Officers (NEOs) in the last three fiscal years.

Name and Principal Position		Year				Salary ($)				Bonus ($)				Stock Awards ($)(6)(7)				Option Awards ($)(6)(7)				Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation ($)				All Other Compensation ($)(8)				Total ($)
Len Moodispaw President and Chief Executive   Officer			2011				412,502				—				94,705				353,694				—	(1)			43,480				904,381
			2010				348,080				—				—				—				131,300	(3)(4)			59,304				538,684
			2009				300,040				1,100,000	(5)			41,250				159,828				—				1,032,473	(9)			2,633,591
John Krobath(11) Chief Financial Officer			2011				249,054				—				58,280				119,319				50,000	(2)			227,353	(10)			704,006
			2010				224,053				—				—				26,786				56,300	(3)			44,488				351,627
			2009				120,969				—				412,500	(12)			515,829	(9)			—				19,501				1,068,799
Mark Willard Chief Impact Officer			2011				273,671				—				58,280				127,841				50,000	(2)			59,708				569,500
			2010				238,881				—				—				—				60,000	(3)			65,250				364,131
			2009				210,621				—				27,500				53,276				—				39,442				330,839
Kim DeChello Chief Administrative Officer			2011				215,399				—				48,081				106,534				50,000	(2)			57,679				477,693
			2010				198,769				—				—				—				50,000	(3)			58,511				307,280
			2009				167,669				—				27,500				53,276				—				33,118				281,563
Ed Jaehne(13) Chief Strategy Officer			2011				206,169				—				29,140				63,921				25,000	(2)			48,454				372,684
			2010				199,280				—				—				14,441				50,000	(3)			49,189				312,910
			2009				94,308				—				27,500				76,776				—				5,131				203,715

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table

The following table sets forth the equity incentive plan awards made to the NEOs during fiscal year 2011.

						Estimated Future Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)												Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards												All other stock awards: Number of shares of stock or units (#)(2)				All other options awards: Number of securities underlying options (#)(3)				Exercise price of option awards ($/Sh)				Grant date fair value of stock and option awards ($)(4)
Name		Grant Date				Threshold ($)				Target ($)				Maximum ($)				Threshold ($)				Target ($)				Maximum ($)
Len Moodispaw			1/31/11				155,626				311,252				466,877				—				—				—				6,500				83,000				14.57				448,399
John Krobath			1/31/11				62,504				125,008				187,512				—				—				—				4,000				28,000				14.57				177,599
Mark Willard			1/31/11				68,755				137,509				206,264				—				—				—				4,000				30,000				14.57				186,121
Kim DeChello			1/31/11				56,254				112,507				168,761				—				—				—				3,300				25,000				14.57				154,615
Ed Jaehne			1/31/11				52,505				105,009				157,514				—				—				—				2,000				15,000				14.57				93,061

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End

The following table sets forth the equity awards outstanding as of the end of fiscal year 2011 held by each NEO.

		Option Awards																Stock Awards
Name		Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Exercisable				Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options (#) Unexercisable				Option Exercise Price ($)				Option Expiration Date(1)				Number of Shares of Stock That Have Not Vested (#)				Market Value of Shares of Stock That Have Not Vested ($)(2)
Len Moodispaw			20,750				62,250				14.57				1/30/2021				6,500	(3)			48,100
			37,500				37,500				5.50				10/15/2019				7,500	(4)			55,500
																			30,980	(5)			228,942
John Krobath			7,000				21,000				14.57				1/30/2021				4,000	(3)			29,600
			3,750				3,750				12.65				10/26/2020				5,000	(4)			37,000
			142,500				77,500				5.50				10/15/2019				20,000	(6)			148,000
			8,000				12,000				5.50				7/15/2019
Mark Willard			7,500				22,500				14.57				1/30/2021				4,000	(3)			29,600
			12,500				12,500				5.50				10/15/2019				5,000	(4)			37,000
																			22,000	(5)			162,580
Kim DeChello			6,250				18,750				14.57				1/30/2021				3,300	(3)			24,420
			12,500				12,500				5.50				10/15/2019				5,000	(4)			37,000
																			22,000	(5)			162,580
Ed Jaehne			3,750				11,250				14.57				1/30/2021				2,000	(3)			14,800
			2,500				2,500				10.00				7/27/2020				5,000	(4)			37,000
			12,500				12,500				5.50				10/15/2019				1,500	(5)			11,085
			4,000				6,000				5.50				7/15/2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Option Exercises and Stock Vested at Fiscal Year End

The following table shows the number of shares acquired by each of the NEOs during 2011 through stock option exercises and vesting of restricted stock awards.

		Option Awards								Stock Awards
Name		Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#)				Value Realized on Exercise ($)				Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#)				Value Realized on Vesting ($)(1)
Len Moodispaw			—				—				30,980	(2)			228,942
John Krobath			—				—				20,000				148,000
Mark Willard			—				—				22,000	(2)			162,580
Kim DeChello			—				—				22,000	(2)			162,580
Ed Jaehne			—				—				1,500	(2)			11,085

Employment Agreements

We have entered into employment agreements with all of our NEOs. Each agreement provides for retention of the NEO for an employment term continuing through August 3, 2012, which we refer to as the “guaranteed employment term.” In addition, each agreement provides that if we terminate the employment of the NEO without “cause” or for “disability” prior to the expiration of the guaranteed employment term, the NEO is entitled to receive compensation and benefits otherwise payable to him or her through the later to occur of August 3, 2012 or the last day of actual employment, whichever is greater. Pursuant to the employment agreements, upon the expiration of the guaranteed employment term, an NEO’s employment is converted to “at-will” employment and the NEO is no longer entitled any severance payments under the employment agreement. Payment and benefit levels were not based on independent competitive analysis but represent what we believed to be reasonable protections. Severance and change-in-control protections provided for in the employment agreements were not considered when making decisions on compensation elements as those protections were provided specifically to attract and retain executive management and provide certainty of employment and the opportunity to benefit from long-term appreciation in equity value during KEYW’s initial growth.

The agreements also provide for the payment of certain amounts to the NEO upon a “change of control” that occurs within the guaranteed employment term. Under each employment agreement “change of control” is defined as the occurrence of any of (w) an acquisition after the date of the employment agreement by an individual or legal entity or “group” (as described in Rule 13d-5(b)(1) promulgated under the Exchange Act) of in excess of 50% of the voting securities of KEYW, (x) the dissolution or liquidation of KEYW or a merger, consolidation, or reorganization of KEYW with one or more other entities in which KEYW is not the surviving entity, unless the holders of KEYW’s voting securities immediately prior to such transaction continue to hold at least 51% of such securities following such transaction, (y) the consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of the assets of KEYW in one or a series of related transactions, or (z) the completion by KEYW of an agreement to which KEYW is a party or by which it is bound, providing for any of the events set forth in the above clauses (w), (x) or (y).

Specifically, the agreements provide that upon a change of control, the following occurs:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The right of each NEO under his or her employment agreement to receive payment upon a change of control is commonly referred to as a “single trigger” payment right (i.e., the NEO’s employment does not have to be terminated following the change of control for the executive to receive the cash payment). The board of directors and compensation committee considered the inclusion of a single trigger payment mechanism upon a change of control as part of the full package of benefits contained in each NEO’s employment agreement. The board of directors and compensation committee believe that it is important for KEYW, in attracting and retaining executive management that it provide certainty of employment and the opportunity to benefit from long-term appreciation in equity value during KEYW’s initial growth. There has been considerable consolidation of companies within our industry and attracting high-level management can be difficult in that environment. Accordingly, as described above, the employment agreements provide each NEO with a guaranteed employment term through the earlier of 2012 or a change of control. If KEYW is acquired in a change of control prior to 2012, the board of directors and compensation committee believe it is important in attracting and retaining executive management that they be compensated for the termination of their guaranteed employment term and for potentially foregoing the long-term appreciation in equity value that they might realize if the company were to continue operating independently until 2012. By providing that the executive is paid on a change of control regardless of whether the executive has been terminated or demoted or has otherwise experienced any diminution in compensation or duties, the board of directors believes that it is providing its NEOs with a reasonable and desirable level of financial security in the event that we experience a change-of-control prior to 2012.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Each employment agreement also contains confidentiality and proprietary information protection provisions to the benefit of KEYW and non-competition and non-solicitation covenants applicable to the NEO during his or her term of employment and for a one-year period following termination of the NEO’s employment with KEYW. Further, each employment agreement provides for reimbursement by KEYW of all reasonable, ordinary and necessary business, travel or entertainment expenses incurred by the NEO in the performance of his or her services to KEYW in accordance with KEYW’s policies.

Under each employment agreement “cause” is defined as (a) a good faith finding by KEYW that (i) the NEO has failed to perform his or her reasonably assigned duties and has failed to remedy such failure within 10 days following written notice from KEYW to the NEO notifying him or her of such failure, or (ii) the NEO has engaged in dishonesty, gross negligence or misconduct; (b) the conviction of the NEO of, or the entry of a pleading of guilty or nolo contendere by the NEO to, any crime involving any felony; (c) the NEO has breached fiduciary duties owed to KEYW or has materially breached the terms of his or her employment agreement or any other agreement between the NEO and KEYW; or (d) the failure of the NEO to maintain his or her security clearance if such clearance is necessary to perform the duties assigned to the NEO under his or her employment agreement.

The agreements contain the following specific terms for each 2011 NEO:

Len Moodispaw.  Mr. Moodispaw’s employment agreement provides for his employment as President and Chief Executive Officer during the guaranteed employment period. Under his employment agreement, Mr. Moodispaw is entitled to an initial base salary of $350,002 per year, subject to the approval of the board of directors, who may from time to time alter his base salary. In addition, Mr. Moodispaw is entitled to certain benefits, including vacation, health insurance and other insurance benefits.

John Krobath.  Mr. Krobath’s employment agreement provides for his employment as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer during the guaranteed employment period. Under his employment agreement, Mr. Krobath is entitled to an initial base salary of $225,014 per year, subject to the approval of the board of directors, who may from time to time alter his base salary. In addition, Mr. Krobath is entitled to certain benefits, including vacation, health insurance and other insurance benefits.

Mark Willard.  Mr. Willard’s employment agreement provides for his employment as Executive Vice President during the guaranteed employment period. Under his employment agreement, Mr. Willard is entitled to an initial base salary of $240,011 per year, subject to the approval of the board of directors, who may from time to time alter his base salary. In addition, Mr. Willard is entitled to certain benefits, including vacation, health insurance and other insurance benefits.

Kim DeChello.  Ms. DeChello’s employment agreement provides for her employment as Executive Vice President, Secretary during the guaranteed employment period. Under her employment agreement, Ms. DeChello is entitled to an initial base salary of $200,013 per year, subject to the approval of the board of directors, who may from time to time alter her base salary. In addition, Ms. DeChello is entitled to certain benefits, including vacation, health insurance and other insurance benefits.

Ed Jaehne.  Mr. Jaehne’s employment agreement provides for his employment as Vice President, Chief Strategy Officer during the guaranteed employment period. Under his employment agreement, Mr. Jaehne is entitled to an initial base salary of $200,013 per year, subject to the approval of the board of directors, who may from time to time alter his base salary. In addition, Mr. Jaehne is entitled to certain benefits, including vacation, health insurance and other insurance benefits.

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change of Control

The employment agreements for our NEOs, described above, have certain provisions that provide for payments to them (a) in the event of the termination of their respective employment without cause and (b) upon a change of control. Upon the occurrence of a Change of Control, KEYW or its successor in interest shall pay to the NEO in immediately available funds a cash payment based on the terms of their respective Employment Agreements. In the event the NEO’s employment is terminated solely by the Company without Cause, or due to the NEO’s disability, the Company shall pay to the NEO the compensation and benefits otherwise payable to him through the last day of his actual employment by the Company or through the

TABLE OF CONTENTS

remainder of his Employment Period, whichever is greater. These payments are conditioned on execution of a waiver and release agreement and shall be paid within ten days after the release becomes effective and such revocation rights have lapsed.

In addition, our equity plans provide that, upon a change of control (as defined in our 2008 Plan and 2009 Stock Incentive Plan), our board of directors may elect to cause all outstanding shares of restricted stock and all outstanding stock options awarded under the 2008 Plan and 2009 Stock Incentive Plan to become immediately exercisable for a period of fifteen days prior to the scheduled consummation of the change of control. See “Executive Compensation — Equity Incentive Plans” for a detailed description of the terms of our equity incentive plan.

The following table sets forth the Company’s estimated payment obligations that would arise in the event of (i) the termination of the NEO’s employment without cause or (ii) a change of control of KEYW. The estimated payments assume that the relevant termination or change of control occurred as of December 31, 2011, using the price of our common stock as of December 30, 2011, which was $7.40 per share. The table below reflects original employment agreements.

		TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE												CHANGE-OF-CONTROL
		Severance Pay ($)(1)				Welfare Benefits Continuation ($)(1)				Total ($)				Cash Payment ($)(2)				Accelerated Vesting of Stock Options ($)(3)(4)				Accelerated Vesting of Restricted Stock ($)(3)(4)				Total ($)
Len Moodispaw			299,360				9,084				308,444				2,272,126				71,250				332,542				2,675,918
John Krobath			169,163				8,676				177,839				809,526				170,050				214,600				1,194,176
Mark Willard			192,103				8,750				200,853				892,932				35,625				229,180				1,157,737
Kim DeChello			157,554				3,952				161,506				716,525				23,750				224,000				964,275
Ed Jaehne			139,379				8,680				148,059				683,558				35,150				62,885				781,593