Almost $20 trillion in revenue—and a record-breaking $1.87 trillion in profits. Introducing the 2025 Fortune 500, the definitive list of the biggest companies in America.

Fortune 500

Industries included in the sector are computers, internet services, IT services, semiconductors, and software companies.

Fortune Sector Leaders: Technology

The Fortune 500, in its 70th year in 2024, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

The 200 companies on this list are transforming industries from the inside out.

America's Most Innovative Companies

The 26th edition of the list shows how much esteem Big Tech giants command among other business leaders.

World's Most Admired Companies

The 300 companies on this list are transforming industries from the inside out.

The Fortune 500, in its 69th year in 2023, ranks the biggest U.S. companies by revenue.

Just as it dominates our economy, Big Tech now dominates Fortune’s annual ranking of corporate reputation.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 68th running of the list.

After a year in which humanity leaned more heavily than ever on tech giants, see which companies topped Fortune's ranking of corporate reputation.

This year’s Fortune 500 marks the 67th running of the list.

In its second year on the Fortune 500, the governmental services and information technology support company is up 54 places from last year's list. In May, SAIC was awarded a $200 million contract with the Defense Intelligence Agency.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 66th running of the list.

F500-2020-466-Science-Applications-International-Corporation

This information technology company serving government clients makes the Fortune 500 for the first time in its 51 years.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2019 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 65th running of the list.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2018 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 64th running of the list.

Here are the World's Most Admired Companies for 2017 as ranked in their industries. See who made the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 63rd running of the list.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 62nd running of the list.

Business insiders have spoken: Asked which companies they most admire, more than 4,100 executives, directors, and analysts chose these top 50 All-Stars.

This year's Fortune 500 marks the 61st running of the list. Wal-Mart claims the top spot again. See who made the list.

Wal-Mart stayed on top as its sales crept closer to half-a-trillion dollars. Apple moved into the top five. And UnitedHealth Group continued its steady climb. 

Sector

Industry

Current All-Star Rank

Previous All-Star Rank

Industry Rank

Previous Industry Rank

Overall Score

Innovation

People Management

Use of Corporate Assets

Social Responsibility

Quality of Management

Financial Soundness

Long-Term Investment Value

Quality of Products/Services

Global Competitiveness

Key Financials (last Fiscal Year)

Revenues ($M)

Profits ($M)

Assets ($M)

Total Stockholder Equity ($M)

Profit Ratios

Profit as % of Revenues

Profits as % of Assets

Profits as % of Stockholder Equity

Earnings Per Share (last Fiscal Year)

Earnings Per Share ($)

EPS % Change (from prior fiscal year)

EPS % Change (5 year annual rate)

EPS % Change (10 year annual rate)

Total Return

Total Return to Investors (last year)

Total Return to Investors (5 year, annualized)

Total Return to Investors (10 year, annualized)

Strongest Dimension

Years on list

State

SAIC is one of the largest tech contractors for the U.S. government. Its work crosses military and civilian agencies, from digital services to advanced technologies in space or deep in the ocean. Sixty-three percent of its 24,000 employees have some level of security clearance.

Q4 2026

Q3 2026

Q2 2026

Q1 2026

Q4 2025

Q3 2025

Science Applications International (SAIC): Company Profile, Stock Price, News, Rankings

legacy

Science Applications International

science applications international

Good day and thank you for standing by. Welcome to SAIC's Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2026 Earnings Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session.

To ask a question during the session, you'll need to press star one, one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one, one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I'd now like to hand the conference over to Jon Raviv, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning and thank you for joining SAIC's fourth quarter fiscal year 2026 earnings call. My name is Jon Raviv, Vice President of Investor Relations, and joining me today to discuss our business and financial results are Jim Reagan, our Chief Executive Officer, and Prabu Natarajan, our Chief Financial Officer. Today we will discuss our results for the quarter that ended January thirtieth.

Please note that we may make forward-looking statements on today's call that are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from statements made on this call. I refer you to our SEC filings for a discussion of these risks. In addition, we will discuss non-GAAP financial measures and other metrics which we believe provide useful information for investors.

These non-GAAP measures should be considered in addition to, and not a substitute for, financial measures in accordance with GAAP. A more fulsome explanation of these measures can also be found in our SEC filings. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to our CEO, Jim Regan.

Thank you, Jon, and thanks to everyone for joining our call. I'm happy to be here as CEO, and I'm grateful to our board, to our team, and to all of our stakeholders for the faith that they've put in me to continue the critical work of sharpening our focus, strengthening our execution, and driving better results. After a thorough search for a permanent CEO by a leading national executive search firm, the board concluded that, among other things, maintaining continuity in leadership along with deep industry knowledge was essential to SAIC's long-term success.

After careful consideration, they selected me for the role, and honestly, when I stepped in as interim CEO in October, I didn't expect to enjoy the role as much as I have. One of the most rewarding aspects has been working alongside an outstanding team, supporting critical customer missions and creating value for our stakeholders.

This includes my partnership with our CFO, Prabu Natarajan, whose leadership has been invaluable. While accepting the permanent role was not my original intention, I'm humbled and honored to have this opportunity. Since joining the board in 2023, my appreciation for SAIC's past achievements, current strengths, and future potential grew even deeper. With a career focused on operational excellence and value creation across this industry, I'm excited to continue building on our strong foundation to deliver meaningful results to all of our stakeholders.

Fiscal year 2027 is a year of commitment. We are committed to our strategy to align and focus the portfolio. We are committed to improving our internal processes and external results. As always, we are committed to serving our customers' most important missions, including elevated operational tempo around the globe.

The tragic reality of war underscores the importance of mission expertise and customer intimacy that companies like SAIC have cultivated over many years. It also demands that our industry continue to invest and innovate to deliver capabilities and capacity. This is what we've done for decades, and this is what we will continue to do. SAIC's legacy of innovation and commitment to high-value customer priorities are valuable assets. At times, we may have struggled to convert these assets into consistent performance, but we're making discrete changes across the company to improve our results.

I want to focus briefly on business development, where we recently hired a seasoned chief growth officer to the leadership team to prioritize BD and drive higher win rates for recompetes and new business.

This involves being selective as we approach cost plus less differentiated work, and it means leaning into the pursuit of opportunities where we have a greater right to win and higher rates of customer retention. This is addition by subtraction. Being selective in some areas frees up resources to pursue others. This means that we're gonna be more focused with our bidding in fiscal year 2027, and we're now aiming for $25 to 28 billion of submissions where we expect to support our dual goals of growing the top line and improving margin.

The team is also performing well on our existing book of business, removing indirect costs and achieving higher growth in higher margin programs. This supports double-digit margins going forward. As I said last quarter, we're committed to building on this progress in three ways.

First, sharpening our focus on execution to increase capacity for investment in the business. Second, more efficiently deploying our financial resources to drive growth. Third, prioritizing yield and bid quality across our business development function, which taken together enables us to inject speed and innovation into our core capabilities to drive better growth and continued margin expansion.

Turning to results, as we discussed in our pre-announcement last month, fourth quarter revenue was below our initial expectations, largely due to procurement delays and customer disruptions as the environment continues to be uneven. However, I'm encouraged by our margin performance despite this top-line choppiness with fiscal year 2026 margin of 9.7%. We see improvement ahead as we guide to 10% adjusted EBITDA margin at the midpoint for fiscal year 2027, the first time the company is guiding to double-digit margin on a full year basis.

Cash flow continues to be exceptional, thanks to efforts across the organization. Despite revenue finishing about 5% below our initial guidance from last year, our free cash flow exceeded our guidance by 10%. This demonstrates strong execution as well as the resilience of our business model. We expect another year of organic contraction in fiscal year 2027, largely due to recent recompete losses in the large enterprise IT market.

While we're encouraged to hear senior leaders emphasize fixed-price, outcome-oriented contracting, we have yet to see these laudable goals translate into reality evenly across our customers as some continue to use acquisition approaches where it's hard to differentiate. Instead, we are focused on opportunities where clients establish clear outcomes that enable SAIC to deliver innovation and measurable value throughout the life of the program.

Across our civilian enterprise IT portfolio, these principles have driven stronger performance and elevated win rates. Our successful work with Treasury, Commerce, Transportation, and the State of Texas demonstrates our cost-effective strategy for modernizing and supporting vital networks. By continually evaluating new technologies and delivering enhancements, we sustain long-term partnerships, like the State Department's Vanguard program, which we've supported for 15 years.

Looking ahead, we're collaborating with clients to pilot and implement AI-powered agents to stabilize and secure critical networks. The speed of these innovations is essential for helping our customers address the evolving threat landscape and meet affordability objectives. While this large enterprise IT market has weighed on our results, it's a shrinking piece of the pie from 17% of company revenues in fiscal year 2025 to an expected 10% in fiscal year 2027. We have good visibility into most of this remaining portfolio.

It includes the T-Cloud Takeaway, which has four years of performance remaining, and it includes the Vanguard program, which is performing exceptionally well. These are both fixed-price or T&M enterprise IT contracts, the kind of work where we can differentiate and have the greater right to win. In the meantime, we continue to be excited about what made SAIC great to begin with, delivering innovative science, technology, and engineering solutions in support of the security of the United States and its allies.

For instance, our GMASS program sustains and upgrades radars critical to homeland defense. Our DHS work delivers integrated hardware and software solutions to help secure the border. Our JRE data link router provides real-time battlespace awareness. Our recent COBRA and TENCAP HOPE awards support multi-domain warfighting by enabling rapid technology insertion, integration, and innovation. Our munitions programs enhance combat capability and capacity.

These are all customer priorities for securing the present and winning the future. We're also investing in areas with the highest and clearest demand signals, whether it is expanding production capacity on key programs or investment for greater innovation and differentiation. We are currently engaging with customers at the highest levels to increase our throughput across multiple efforts.

Our continued focus on executing against the $100 million in cost reduction targets is expected to provide us with operational and financial flexibility to continue to invest in areas with the greatest return potential while continuing to improve our margins. Our recently announced enterprise transformation initiative is the first time the company's done a bottoms-up review of its processes and procedures since the split in 2013.

We have some of our best people committed to this project, which should result in a more efficient SAIC with increased investment capacity to support innovation, growth, and margins. We're also encouraged that we will be making this journey in a supportive budget environment marked by large appropriations already in place with expectations for further budget growth ahead.

I can speak for our board in saying that we see significant opportunity to drive value for our shareholders, create greater opportunities for our employees, and most importantly, continue the mission of supporting our customers and our country. With that, I'll turn the call over to Prabu.

Thank you, Jim, and good morning to those joining our call. My comments today will focus on a review of our fourth quarter and full year results, our outlook for fiscal year 2027, and the meaningful opportunities we see to create value for shareholders. Turning to slide four, our fourth quarter results were consistent with the update we provided on 11 February 2026.

We reported fourth quarter revenue of $1.75 billion, representing an organic contraction of approximately 6%, due primarily to a $60 million year-over-year reduction of low margin revenue from the Cloud One program we no-bid, and a $45 million headwind related to a non-recurring software license sale in the prior year fourth quarter. Full year revenue of $7.26 billion declined approximately 3% organically, primarily due to our decision to no bid low margin Cloud One revenue, which was an approximately $200 million headwind for the year.

We reported adjusted EBITDA of $181 million in the quarter, resulting in a margin of 10.3%, which reflects strong program execution and recently enacted cost efficiency efforts. This performance contributed to full year margin of 9.7%, which is roughly 20-basis points ahead of the guidance we provided last quarter. We continue to see meaningful opportunities to improve margins in the near future, while also investing to drive innovation and growth.

Adjusted diluted earnings per share was $2.62 in the quarter and $10.75 for the year, and benefited from stronger margins and a favorable tax rate, which offset lower revenues. Free cash flow was $336 million in the quarter and resulted in full year free cash flow of $577 million, a robust result as we remain focused on maintaining our peer best cash conversion and deploying the capital to maximize long-term value for all stakeholders. Turning to slide six, I want to put the fiscal year 2026 results in context.

It was a year of multiple disruptions, including internal leadership changes, budget headwinds, and significant customer workforce impacts. While we saw top line pressure, we are proud of the team's resilience and hard work to achieve robust margins and cash flow. Our reported EBITDA at year-end was 2% below our initial guidance last year, and free cash flow was better than our initial guidance. We see similar dynamics compared to the initial fiscal year 2026 targets we shared about three years ago.

As Jim said, these results demonstrate the resilience of our business model and the enduring nature of our mission work, although we know we have work to do to improve growth. Turning to slide seven, we are reaffirming the guidance for fiscal year 2027 we provided on 11 February 2026.

As we indicated at that time, we expect total revenue in a range of $7 to 7.2 billion, representing organic contraction of 2% to 4%. The year-over-year decline is driven mainly by recompete losses, which we have previously discussed. Collectively, we expect these programs to represent a headwind of approximately $400 million in fiscal year 2027. We expect to partially offset this headwind with the continued ramp-up of new business wins from fiscal year 2025 and fiscal year 2026.

Our guidance for adjusted EBITDA in a range of $705 to 715 million reflects margins between 9.9% to 10.1%, representing a year-over-year increase at the midpoint of approximately 30-basis points. We are executing our cost efficiency efforts, which we believe can drive upside to our margin outlook.

We've also begun a multi-year enterprise transformation journey to unlock significant value and eliminate burdensome and outdated business processes to create a more agile organization focused on innovation, speed, and growth. We will provide an update on our second quarter call relative to progress on this initiative. Our adjusted diluted earnings per share guidance of $9.50 to 9.70 is unchanged from our previous fiscal year 2027 guidance last quarter, with the lower top line offset by a decline in our share count.

We are maintaining our guidance for free cash flow of at least $600 million, which will translate into over $14 of free cash flow per share. As we have previously highlighted, our fiscal year 2027 guidance reflects approximately $70 million in non-recurring cash tax benefits from recent legislation.

Even without this benefit, in fiscal year 2028, we expect to generate at least $530 million in free cash flow or approximately $13 of free cash flow per share. As Jim indicated, we recognize the significant value creation potential that exists based on our ability to deliver more sustained revenue growth in the future. As a result, I want to discuss some of the key risks and opportunities moving forward.

As I mentioned, our guide for an organic revenue decline assumes that our recompete losses are only partially offset by the continued ramp on previously won work. There are several large wins ramping at a slower rate than we expected, likely due to budget uncertainty and the lingering effects of a more resource-constrained customer procurement function.

Total revenue from these programs was $350 million in fiscal year 2026, and we are assuming $500 million in fiscal year 2027 based on reasonable assumptions. This compares to a potential run rate in excess of $800 million based on contract value and period of performance. While there is potential downside should some of this ramp not materialize, we believe that on balance, the upside scenario is more likely over the next 12 to 18 months based on customer demand and supportive budgets. This could be a meaningful tailwind.

In addition, our strong pipeline and alignment with customer priorities, which we expect to be well-funded in a trillion-dollar-plus defense budget, are strong indicators of future growth. As we previously said, outside of our cost plus enterprise IT work, our win rates on both recompetes and new business are in line with or higher than industry standards.

Turning to slide eight, our pipeline and submission goals are more focused on these higher return efforts, reflecting initial results of our renewed BD discipline. While submission levels are lower than our previous target, we view them as sufficient to achieve our goals, and we expect trailing book to bill to improve over the course of the year as we play more offense than defense this year on our captures.

We recognize that an increasingly favorable budget backdrop is only relevant if we can improve enterprise-wide performance, focus on the markets where we have the strongest right to win, and deliver for our customers. The leadership that Jim has provided in these areas and his emphasis on focus and accountability across the company has had tangible results over the past several months. I'm confident that our efforts will continue to translate into significant value creation for our shareholders in the coming years. With that, I'll turn the call over for Q&A.

As a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question at this time, please press star one, one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one, one again. In the interest of time, we ask that you limit yourself to one question and one follow-up. Our first question comes from John Godyn with Citi.

Hi, this is Jeremy Jason on John Godyn's team. I just want to kind of hit things off by saying, Jim, congrats on the new role. I just wanted to ask, now that you've moved from the interim role to the permanent one, what is the single most significant sort of portfolio pivot you believe is required to align the company with the next roughly 10 years of government budget priorities?

And more importantly, like, what's the message you want to say to the investor base who are trying to bridge that gap between, you know, your experience and the specific issues like Recompete that have hampered growth in, you know, recent years?

Yeah. Well, thanks for your kind words, Jason. I think that first of all, the moment that I stepped from being an interim to being the permanent person in charge, it was pretty amazing how my perspective changed from managing the day-to-day and being focused on getting our business development function back in gear, which is still a focus of mine, but adding to that, the need to reassess our strategy, which is a process that we normally undertake during the summertime, and I'm actively engaged in right now.

I think it might be premature for me to announce any strategic pivots other than a couple of notes that are probably worth providing for you. First of all, the first thing that I think that we needed to do, I think of it as a bit of a pivot, is to get focused on those areas where we have the right to win and those areas where customer retention is the reward for innovation and strong performance.

The thing that we've been seeing over the last year has been the things that are more commoditized, where you're not only finding it more difficult to differentiate and keep customers, but it's also more difficult to get paid for the hard work that we do on some of the more vanilla enterprise IT things, are things that we want to continue doing to the extent we've got it, but also to de-emphasize it as kind of a strategic imperative.

That, I think, is the first epiphany that it didn't take very long for me and Prabu to wrap our heads around. I think that the next thing is to start moving into some pretty hard focus on realizing the benefits of the business model we acquired with SilverEdge is one thing.

We think that the things that we've acquired from them on the intellectual property side, as well as some of the capabilities that we have to serve our intelligence customers with AI enablement in classified networks is something that we think is extensible beyond the customers that they brought with them, and we're working to leverage that. We'll probably have more to talk about in terms of any further strategic pivots as we work through the strategy process through the season. Prabu, you got anything to add to that?

Our next question comes from Jon Siegmann with Stifel.

Hey, good morning. This is actually Sebastian Rivera on for Jon Siegmann. Congrats Joe and... [crosstalk]

Jim, as well on the full-time position now. I guess we'd love to kind of hear your thoughts regarding the fiscal year 2027 guidance, roughly $35 million of CapEx here. I get it doesn't suggest too much change relative to last year, and I believe that fiscal year 2026 number was about $4 million lower than the year prior. I guess would've thought the change environment today kind of creates incremental opportunities to invest but would love to kind of get your thoughts there.

Sure. Appreciate the question, Sebastian. You know, with what we have today in hand, we think that the CapEx is adequate to meet the current demand signals that we have on programs that require production capacity, that largely exists in a number of our locations for the programs where we actually make things.

I think that in Prabu's remarks, he mentioned that we have a flexible business model, and we're in active discussions with customers about what they might see as the need to ramp up production on certain programs. If, to the extent that we get the demand signals, which by the way, I've talked to senior leadership at the Department of Defense, they understand very clearly that industry, when they receive demand signals, they can pivot, and we're no exception.

To the extent that we get demand from customers to ramp up productions of certain weapons capabilities, we're prepared to increase the plant capacity, increase space, spend money on tooling to meet those demands. The revenue and the take rate on those is not reflected in the guide today, but to the extent that there's any reason to update it in the future, we'll certainly let you know.

I think that the short answer to your question, Sebastian, is we have a business model, and we're prepared to flex it, and we're prepared to spend more money on additional capacity to the extent that our customer comes to us and asks for it.

Hey, Sebastian, Prabu here. Thank you for the question. I think the only thing that I would add to Jim's response is that, you know, we are investing where we see clear demand signals, and we are engaging with customers at their highest levels on some of these opportunities. I would also think of the $100 million in cost reductions as freeing up capacity for investment that may not show up in CapEx necessarily, but it does provide us some ammunition to be able to invest in some differentiation as we go to market in a handful of areas. Finally, I would also say that, you know, investment takes many forms.

We actively think of the investments that we make to include the time we spend with customers, helping understand needs, shaping solutions to fit the needs, and then actually actively investing in a business development and capture function that allows us to be more differentiated when we offer, I think, real solutions. We are also investing. You know, SilverEdge is a classic example of investing $200 million off our balance sheet to be able to fund, to bring some real new capabilities into the organization.

I think finally, but certainly not the least important of which is we're actively building capabilities, whether that's Mission Labs or our Mission Data Platform, or our classified networks. There are areas that show up beyond a CapEx line that we are investing in.

Finally, I would say a foot stomp, the fact that we are investing in some really key talent, and Jim talked about the chief growth officer we brought to the company. We are investing in some real talent inside the organization, refreshing our org structure.

Our investment has taken multiple forms, but we are very comfortable that we are investing in line with the signals that we are getting, and we are frankly not waiting for contracts to start the investment. We are trying to get ahead of where the needs are going to be so that we can be ready for when those things show up in a pipeline somewhere. Thank you for the question.

Thank you. Very helpful. Hey, just a quick...

Our next question comes from Gavin Parsons with UBS.

Jim, I mean, you've been sharpening the BD process for a few months now. I know that's ongoing. How long does that take you to build momentum and actually start converting that to revenue? How much opportunity is there on a shorter-term basis to drive maybe some OCG growth?

Yeah, it's a great question, Gavin. I think that there's kind of two elements to that answer. The first one is to say that, as you know, the sales cycle in this business, you know, converting a proposal into revenue can take a painfully long period of time in some cases, not in all. I think that to the extent that our team is able to move the needle on win rates on work that is already in production in the proposal shop and build some more innovation, perhaps even some more discipline around how the finished product comes out, that can move the needle on win rates within six months.

I think it's probably worth noting that while we were disappointed by the outcome on a couple of these large recompetes during the year, our win rates on new work in the year and the most recent quarters has been in line with our expectation and industry averages. I think that we're really pleased with that and with, you know, less exposure in fiscal year 2027 to the large recompetes like we had some significant exposure last year.

I feel really good about our ability to achieve the kind of book to bill that we need to get us back on a growth trajectory after we've lapped out the impact of these recompete losses that we've recently experienced.

I think that the last comment that I would have, and Prabu might want to amplify on this as well, is that one of the things that I think that we're doing really well already is ensuring that the spend and investment on capture and winning work is focused on the 20 billion or so of opportunities that we have the greatest opportunity to win, to differentiate, to drive margin improvement in the business.

In addition to whatever margin improvement, we're gonna be seeing out of the business initiatives that we've been outlining. This year, we've called it addition by subtraction earlier, and what that really means is that focusing on the things that will drive higher win rates and higher opportunity to retain customers for longer.

Thank you, Jim. Hey, Gavin, appreciate the question. Maybe a couple data points on the guide itself. We are right now assuming about a 2% to 3% OCG in our current baseline guide for fiscal 2027. That is consistent with our 2% to 3% last year, which was the lowest of the five years that I've been here in the company. While we're not expecting things to get better, we don't expect things to get worse either on OCG, and therefore on balance, I would say biased to the upside to the extent that the enacted budget translates into tangible procurement action over the course of the next three quarters or so.

I think as Jim said, you know, I would foot stomp the fact that our win rates on non-enterprise IT work, some of the work we do on the engineering side as well as the mission IT side, our win rates on new have approached 50% or more at various points over the last couple of years. Our win rates really demonstrate, I think, that we have the right to win in these areas.

I think just as importantly, our recompete win rates on non-commoditized enterprise IT is sort of in that 85% to 90% range. Good win rates outside of the commoditized enterprise IT work, and again, while it doesn't help us lose these recompetes, the reality is, I think, there's very little of that left in the portfolio at this point.

As we said in the prepared remarks, you know, about 10% left of revenues from large, I would say, cost plus EIT work. You know, I do think that on balance, we're probably at the other side of this slope here. Given that we have about 5% of recompete headwinds with the $400 million or so that we disclosed, the reality is the absence of this headwind going into next year is going to be a tailwind in and of itself. Again, I think we feel good about where the positioning is.

None of this matters, none of what I say matters unless we execute well, and this is a message internally as well as externally, but we've got to keep every recompete that comes our way, and we have to keep up the win rates on new, and that's where the focus is for the team.

Our next question comes from Sheila Kahyaoglu with Jefferies.

Good morning, guys. Thank you. Congrats, Jim, and to Joe as well. Maybe two questions, if I could start. The first question would be just on the, you know, what do you think on the enterprise IT work? I know you probably did a good job of this at the conference, so thank you probably for that. Like what changed? Was it an SAIC decision? Did the competitive landscape change? Then as we think about the $25 billion pipeline, how do we think about SAIC getting on the offensive?

Yeah. I will start. I think probably might amplify on my enterprise IT answers. I think that what we've seen is increasingly customers. There's a handful of our customers that are buying based on what I might say is kind of a more of a cookie cutter recipe for what they're looking for, where it's heavily embedded with network management, network uptime, help desk support, things that are harder to differentiate than in the things that blend more of a mission focus in with in with the IT side.

Think about maybe more toward mission IT. It's probably supporting networks that support the war fighter, networks that blend multiple areas of information and synthesize it into a pane of glass for people that do mission planning. Those are the things that we think that we can continue to excel at or earn our share on recompetes and of new work.

I think that when we stepped back and took a hard look at different flavors of enterprise IT work, that gave us some greater visibility into the kind of things that we would continue to pursue, continue to win, and the things that we're probably gonna de-emphasize in our pipeline going forward. Probably you have anything to add.

Yeah. Sheila, a couple of things I'd probably want to add. I think the recognition that, you know, being selective on, you know, sort of, I would say, cost plus enterprise IT was sort of a conclusion we came to over the course of the last, you know, several months. I think that if you looked at the track record of where our largest recompete challenges have been, and it doesn't take a bunch of research to get to NASA AEGIS, parts of Cloud One, USCENTCOM, Army RIS.

I think the common thread line running through all of these is that it is very hard to differentiate on predominantly cost plus work, where, you know, it is very hard to separate yourself from the competition. Sometimes the magic is in how one writes a proposal more than what the delivery on the ground looks like. I think it's just a recognition that we've come to. We also had perhaps more of that enterprise IT work in our pipeline five years ago than we do today.

That's been a gradual evolution. Our decision to consciously no-bid $200 million of compute and store as part of Cloud One. Candidly, we contracted 3%. All of that 3% was related to one decision to no-bid that Cloud One contract.

That was a recognition that we communicated externally that, you know, that is not the kind of work we wanna be doing long term as we think about focusing the resources of the company into meaningful areas that will truly, you know, restore, I would say, and reestablish the legacy of this company. I think it's you know, it's an evolution of, you know, what we've come to, in terms of our own portfolio.

Broadly speaking, I'd say if you looked at competitors and where win rates are for enterprise IT versus non-enterprise IT work, you would see some of the same, I'm gonna say, volatility in recompete win rates, within our competitors.

I think the reality was we had more of it than perhaps others, but you should expect to see some of the same volatility. Then finally, on the pipeline question, the only thing I would add to the comment that we're playing more offense than defense is the fact that our pipeline is inflecting to higher levels of non-EIT work, mission work, and engineering work. More of our opportunities on our submits this year and next year are more towards the takeaway side than the recompete side.

Our largest single recompete coming up is our Vanguard Department of State program that we are feeling really good about. We've had it for 15 years. We've done it for 15 years. Candidly, I think that's our sentiment underlying the narrative that you know, we get to play a little bit more offense this year than we've had the luxury of the last couple of years. Thanks, Sheila.

Our next question comes from Gautam Khanna with TD Cowen.

Good morning and congratulations, Jim and John and Joe. Wanted to just ask on within the midpoint of the guidance, maybe if there's any parameter you could tell us on how much you have to quite go get. You know, you told us about on contract growth, but based on the backlog you have today, you know, how do you get to what do you still need to bid in turn, if you will, in the year?

Then if you could just remind us of when the year-over-year headwinds on the $400 million of recompete losses abates. You know, what when's the last quarter that that becomes the headwind, the headwind moves out of the numbers? Thank you.

Hey, Gautam. Prabu here. Thank you for the question. I'll take the guidance one. In terms of the -2% to -4% contraction, as I said earlier, you know, we are assuming nominal amounts of OCG, 2% to 3% of OCG, and not a ton in the way of new business go get. I think, you know, very much focused on what's within our control this year and not a lot of assumptions built in around what we need to win in order to actually get to the guide that we have out there. I think, you know, there's always gonna be a mix of some recompetes and new that is in the mix in the business.

Science Applications International (SAIC) Q4 2026 Earnings Call Transcript

Company Participants