Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Letters of Credit and Third-Party Guarantees

As of March 31, 2020 and 2019, the Company was contingently liable under open standby letters of credit and bank guarantees issued by our banks in favor of third parties that totaled $9.7 million and $9.5 million, respectively. These letters of credit and bank guarantees primarily support insurance and bid and performance obligations. At March 31, 2020 and 2019, approximately $0.9 million and $1.0 million, respectively, of these instruments reduce the available borrowings under the Revolving Credit Facility. The remainder is guaranteed under a separate $15.0 million facility established in fiscal 2015 of which $6.2 million and $6.5 million, respectively, was available to the Company at March 31, 2020 and 2019.

Government Contracting Matters - Provision for Claimed Indirect Costs

For fiscal 2020, 2019, and 2018, approximately 96%, 96%, and 97%, respectively, of the Company’s revenue was generated from contracts where the end user was an agency or department of the U.S. government, including contracts where the Company performed either as a prime contractor or subcontractor, and regardless of the geographic location in which the work was performed. U.S. government contracts and subcontracts are subject to extensive legal and regulatory requirements. From time to time and in the ordinary course of business, agencies of the U.S. government audit our claimed indirect costs and conduct inquiries and investigations of our business practices with respect to government contracts to determine whether the Company’s operations are conducted in accordance with these requirements and the terms of the relevant contracts. U.S. government agencies, including the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), routinely audit our claimed indirect costs, for compliance with the Cost Accounting Standards and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. These agencies also conduct reviews and investigations and make inquiries regarding our accounting and other systems in connection with our performance and business practices with respect to our government contracts and subcontracts. U.S. government audits, inquiries, or investigations of the Company, whether related to the Company’s U.S. government contracts or subcontracts or conducted for other reasons, could result in administrative, civil, or criminal liabilities, including withholding of payments, suspension of payments, repayments, fines, or penalties being imposed upon the Company, or could lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. government contracting. Management believes it has recorded the appropriate provision for claimed indirect costs for any audit, inquiry, or investigation of which it is aware that may be subject to any reductions and/or penalties. As of March 31, 2020 and 2019, the Company had recorded liabilities of approximately $224.6 million and $195.3 million, respectively, for estimated adjustments to claimed indirect costs based on its historical DCAA audit results, including the final resolution of such audits with the Defense Contract Management Agency, for claimed indirect costs incurred subsequent to fiscal 2011, and for contracts not yet closed that are subject to audit and final resolution.

Litigation

Our performance under U.S. government contracts and compliance with the terms of those contracts and applicable laws and regulations are subject to continuous audit, review, and investigation by the U.S. government, which may include such investigative techniques as subpoenas or civil investigative demands. Given the nature of our business, these audits, reviews, and investigations may focus, among other areas, on various aspects of procurement integrity, labor time reporting, sensitive and/or classified information access and control, executive compensation, and post government employment restrictions. We are not always aware of our status in such matters, but we are currently aware of certain pending audits and investigations involving labor time reporting, procurement integrity, and classified information access. In addition, from time to time, we are also involved in legal proceedings and investigations arising in the ordinary course of business, including those relating to employment matters, relationships with clients and contractors, intellectual property disputes, and other business matters. These legal proceedings seek various remedies, including claims for monetary damages in varying amounts, none of which are considered material, or are unspecified as to amount. Although the outcome of any such matter is inherently uncertain and may be materially adverse, based on current information, we do not expect any of the currently ongoing audits, reviews, investigations, or litigation to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. As of March 31, 2020 and 2019, there were no material amounts accrued in the consolidated financial statements related to these proceedings.

Six former officers and stockholders who had departed the company prior to the acquisition of the Company by the Carlyle Group (the "Carlyle Acquisition") have filed a total of nine suits in various jurisdictions, with original filing dates ranging from July 3, 2008 through December 15, 2009, against us and certain of our current and former directors and officers. Three of these suits were amended on July 2, 2010 and then further amended into one consolidated complaint on September 7, 2010. Another two of the original nine suits were consolidated into one complaint on September 24, 2014. Each of the suits arises out of the Carlyle Acquisition and alleges that the former stockholders are entitled to certain payments that they would

have received if they had held their stock at the time of the Carlyle Acquisition. Some of the suits also allege that the acquisition price paid to stockholders was insufficient. The various suits assert claims for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty, civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, violations, violations of the ERISA, and/or securities and common law fraud. Three of these suits have been dismissed with all appeals exhausted. The two suits that were consolidated into one action on September 24, 2014 were settled on April 16, 2015. One of the remaining suits has been dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and such dismissal was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiff in this suit subsequently filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was denied by the United States Supreme Court on January 9, 2017. The other three remaining suits that were previously consolidated on September 7, 2010 have been dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and were on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the ruling of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, except for one plaintiff’s securities fraud claim, which was remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to give the plaintiff, Paul Kocourek, leave to file another amended complaint to attempt to plead a securities fraud claim. On April 6, 2018, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which Mr. Kocourek, individually, as Trustee of the Paul Kocourek Trust and on behalf of the putative class, alleges that the Company and certain former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). On June 2, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. On July 11, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice to appeal the ruling. On October 17, 2019, the plaintiff and the defendants reached an agreement to settle this matter. Pursuant to that agreement, the plaintiff was obligated to dismiss his appeal. On November 12, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing the appeal, which was ordered by the court the same day.

On June 7, 2017, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. was informed that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is conducting a civil and criminal investigation of the Company. In connection with the investigation, the DOJ has requested information from the Company relating to certain elements of the Company’s cost accounting and indirect cost charging practices with the U.S. government. Since learning of the investigation, the Company has engaged a law firm experienced in these matters to represent the Company in connection with this matter and respond to the government's requests. As is commonly the case with this type of matter, the Company has also been in contact with other regulatory agencies and bodies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, which notified the Company that it is conducting an investigation that the Company believes relates to matters that are also the subject of the DOJ's investigation. The Company may receive additional regulatory or governmental inquiries related to the matters that are the subject of the DOJ's investigation. In accordance with the Company's practice, the company is cooperating with all relevant government parties. The total cost associated with these matters will depend on many factors, including the duration of these matters and any related findings. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with these matters.

On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017. On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs and on October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation described above. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend against the lawsuit. Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February 8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with the lawsuit.

On November 13, 2017, a Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware styled Celine Thum v. Rozanski et. al., C.A. No. 17-cv-01638, naming the Company as a nominal defendant and numerous current and former officers and directors as defendants. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and violations of Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, purportedly relating to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation described above. The parties have stipulated to a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of the securities litigation (described above), which the court so ordered on January 24, 2018. At a status conference on October 31, 2019, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a status report by November 29, 2019. On December 12, 2019, the

court ordered that the stay remain in effect. At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with the lawsuit.