hii-20191231

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 ☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," "smaller reporting company," and "emerging growth company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. ("HII", the "Company", "we", "us", or "our") is America’s largest military shipbuilding company and a provider of professional services to partners in government and industry. For more than a century, our Ingalls Shipbuilding segment ("Ingalls") in Mississippi and Newport News Shipbuilding segment ("Newport News") in Virginia have built more ships in more ship classes than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder. Our Technical Solutions segment, established in the fourth quarter of 2016, provides a range of services to the governmental, energy, and oil and gas markets.

We conduct most of our business with the U.S. Government, primarily the Department of Defense ("DoD"). As prime contractor, principal subcontractor, team member, or partner, we participate in many high-priority U.S. defense programs. Ingalls includes our non-nuclear ship design, construction, repair, and maintenance businesses. Newport News includes all of our nuclear ship design, construction, overhaul, refueling, and repair and maintenance businesses. We also provide a wide range of professional services, including fleet support, mission driven innovative solutions ("MDIS"), nuclear and environmental, and oil and gas services, through our Technical Solutions segment. Headquartered in Newport News, Virginia, we employ approximately 42,000 people both domestically and internationally.

Through our Ingalls segment, we design and construct non-nuclear ships for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, including amphibious assault ships, expeditionary warfare ships, surface combatants, and national security cutters ("NSC"). We are the sole builder of amphibious assault ships and one of two builders of surface combatants for the U.S. Navy. We are the sole builder of large multi-mission NSCs for the U.S. Coast Guard. Our Ingalls segment is located in Pascagoula, Mississippi on 800 acres along the Pascagoula River. This shipyard offers a collection of manufacturing capabilities that includes a 660-ton gantry crane and a Land Based Test Facility.

We construct amphibious assault ships and expeditionary warfare ships for the U.S. Navy, which include the U.S. Navy large deck amphibious assault ships ("LHA") and amphibious transport dock ships ("LPD"), respectively. The LHA is a key component of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps requirement for 11 Expeditionary Strike Groups/Amphibious Readiness Groups, and design, construction, and modernization of LHAs are core to our Ingalls operations. In 2007, we were awarded the construction contract for USS America (LHA 6), the first in a class of enhanced amphibious assault ships designed from the keel up to be an aviation optimized Marine assault platform. We are currently constructing Tripoli (LHA 7), scheduled for delivery in 2020, and Bougainville (LHA 8).

The LPD program is a long-running production program of expeditionary warfare ships in which we have generated efficiencies through ship-over-ship learning. We delivered USS Portland (LPD 27) in 2017 and USS John P. Murtha (LPD 26) in 2016, and we are currently constructing Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) and Richard M. McCool Jr. (LPD 29), with Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28) scheduled for delivery in 2021. In 2019, we were awarded a contract for the detail design and construction of Harrisburg (LPD 30).

We are a design agent for, and one of only two companies that constructs, the Arleigh Burke class (DDG 51) guided missile destroyers, a class of surface combatant. We have delivered 31 Arleigh Burke class (DDG 51) destroyers to the U.S. Navy, including Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) in 2019 and Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) in 2017. In 2013, we were awarded a multi-year contract totaling $3.3 billion for construction of five Arleigh Burke class (DDG 51) destroyers, of which one has been delivered. We are currently constructing the remaining four ships: Delbert D. Black (DDG 119), Frank E. Petersen Jr. (DDG 121), Lenah H. Sutcliffe Higbee (DDG 123), and Jack H. Lucas (DDG 125), with Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) scheduled for delivery in 2020. In September 2018, we were awarded a multi-year contract totaling $5.1 billion for construction of six additional Arleigh Burke class (DDG 51) destroyers.

The U.S. Coast Guard's recapitalization program is designed to replace aging and operationally expensive ships and aircraft used to conduct missions in excess of 50 miles from the shoreline. The flagship of this program is the Legend class NSC, a multi-mission platform we designed and continue to build. We delivered USCGC Kimball (NSC 7) and USCGC Midgett (NSC 8) to the U.S. Coast Guard in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Stone (NSC 9) is currently under construction and scheduled for delivery in 2020. In 2018, we were awarded long-lead-time material and construction contracts for Calhoun (NSC 10) and NSC 11 (unnamed), which are currently under construction.

The core business of our Newport News segment is designing and constructing nuclear-powered ships, such as aircraft carriers and submarines, and the refueling and overhaul and the inactivation of such ships. Our Newport News shipyard is located on approximately 550 acres near the mouth of the James River, which adjoins the Chesapeake Bay. The shipyard has two miles of waterfront property and heavy industrial facilities, which include seven graving docks, a floating dry dock, two outfitting berths, five outfitting piers, module outfitting facilities, and various other workshops. Our Newport News shipyard also has a 2,170-foot dry dock serviced by a 1,050-ton gantry crane capable of supporting two aircraft carriers at one time.

Engineering, design, and construction of U.S. Navy nuclear aircraft carriers ("CVN") are core to Newport News operations. Aircraft carriers are the largest ships in the U.S. Navy's fleet, with a displacement of over 90,000 tons. Newport News has designed and built more than 30 aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy since 1933, including all ten Nimitz class (CVN 68) aircraft carriers currently in active service, as well as the first ship of the next generation Gerald R. Ford class (CVN 78) aircraft carriers.

We delivered the U.S. Navy's newest carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), in 2017. Beginning in 2009, we received contract awards totaling $7.6 billion for construction preparation, detail design, and construction of the second Gerald R. Ford class (CVN 78) aircraft carrier, John F. Kennedy (CVN 79). In addition, we have received awards valued at $15.2 billion for detail design and construction of the Gerald R. Ford class (CVN 78) aircraft carriers Enterprise (CVN 80) and Doris Miller (CVN 81).

We continue to be the exclusive prime contractor for nuclear aircraft carrier refueling and complex overhaul ("RCOH"). Each RCOH takes nearly four years to complete, with the work accounting for approximately 35% of all maintenance and modernization during an aircraft carrier's 50 year service life. RCOH services include propulsion work (refueling of reactors; propulsion plant modernization; and propulsion plant repairs), restoration of service life (dry docking, tank, and void maintenance; hull, shafting, propellers, and rudders; launch and recovery system; piping repairs; and component refurbishment), and modernization (electrical systems; aviation support systems; warfare; interoperability; and environmental compliance). We provide ongoing maintenance services for the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier fleet through both RCOH and fleet support across the globe.

In 2017, we completed the RCOH for USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) and redelivered the ship to the U.S. Navy. We are currently performing the RCOH of USS George Washington (CVN 73). We believe our position as the exclusive designer and builder of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, our RCOH performance on the first six Nimitz class (CVN 68) carriers, our highly trained workforce, the capital-intensive nature of RCOH work, and high barriers to entry due to its nuclear component strongly position us for RCOH contract awards on the remaining Nimitz class (CVN 68) carriers, as well as future work on Gerald R. Ford class (CVN 78) aircraft carriers.

We received a contract in 2013 to inactivate the decommissioned Enterprise (CVN 65), the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which was built by us and commissioned in 1961. The decommissioned Enterprise (CVN 65) inactivation was completed in the second quarter of 2018. Aircraft carriers have a lifespan of approximately 50 years, and we believe the ten Nimitz class (CVN 68) carriers we delivered that are currently in active service, as well as Gerald R. Ford class (CVN 78) aircraft carriers we will deliver in the future, present significant opportunities for inactivation contracts as they reach the end of their lifespans. We believe we are well positioned as the U.S. Navy's shipyard of choice for these contract awards.

We are one of only two companies in the United States capable of designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy. Newport News has delivered 62 submarines to the U.S. Navy since 1960, comprised of 48 fast attack and 14 ballistic missile submarines. Of the 52 nuclear-powered fast attack submarines currently in active service, 26 were delivered by Newport News. Our nuclear submarine program, located at our Newport News shipyard, includes construction, engineering, design, research, and integrated planning.

We have a teaming agreement with Electric Boat Corporation ("Electric Boat"), a division of General Dynamics Corporation ("General Dynamics"), to build Virginia class (SSN 774) fast attack nuclear submarines cooperatively. Under the present arrangement, we build the stern, habitability and machinery spaces, torpedo room, sail, and bow, while Electric Boat builds the engine room, control room, and pressure hull structure. Work on the reactor plant and the final assembly, test, outfit, and delivery of the submarines alternate between Electric Boat and us.

The four submarines of the first block and six submarines of the second block of Virginia class (SSN 774) submarines have been delivered. In 2008, the team was awarded a construction contract for the third block of eight Virginia class (SSN 774) submarines. The multi-year contract increased construction from one submarine per year to two submarines per year. The first submarine under this contract was delivered in 2014 and the last submarine of the third block was delivered in 2019. In 2014, the team was awarded a construction contract for the fourth block of ten Virginia class (SSN 774) submarines. The first submarine of the Block IV contract is scheduled for delivery in 2020, and the last is scheduled for delivery in 2024. In 2019, the team was awarded a construction contract for the fifth block of nine Virginia class (SSN 774) submarines, continuing the two submarines per year production rate that began on the third block. The first submarine of the Block V contract is scheduled for delivery in 2025 and the last is schedule for delivery in 2029.

Newport News is participating in designing the Columbia class (SSBN 826) submarine as a replacement for the current aging Ohio class nuclear ballistic missile submarines ("SSBN"), which were first introduced into service in 1981. The Ohio class SSBN includes 14 nuclear ballistic missile submarines and four nuclear cruise missile submarines ("SSGN"). The Columbia class (SSBN 826) program currently anticipates 12 new ballistic missile submarines. We perform design work as a subcontractor to Electric Boat, and we have entered into a teaming agreement with Electric Boat to build modules for the entire Columbia class (SSBN 826) submarine program that leverages our Virginia class (SSN 774) experience. We have been awarded contracts from Electric Boat to begin integrated product and process development and provide long-lead-time material and advance construction for the Columbia class (SSBN 826) program. Construction of the first Columbia class (SSBN 826) submarine is expected to begin in 2021.

Newport News provides additional services to and in support of the U.S. Navy, ranging from services supporting the Navy's carrier and submarine fleets to maintenance services at U.S. Navy training facilities. Fleet services include design, construction, maintenance, and disposal activities for in service U.S. Navy nuclear ships worldwide through mobile and in-house capabilities. We also provide maintenance services on nuclear reactor prototypes, such as those at the Kenneth A. Kesselring Site, a research and development facility in New York that supports the U.S. Navy.

Our Technical Solutions segment was established in 2016 to enhance strategic and operational alignment among our services businesses. The Technical Solutions segment includes businesses that are focused on life-cycle sustainment services to the U.S. Navy fleet and other maritime customers; high-end information technology (“IT”) and mission-based solutions for DoD, intelligence, and federal civilian customers; nuclear management and operations and environmental management services for the Department of Energy ("DoE"), DoD, state and local governments, and private sector companies; and full-service engineering, procurement, construction management (“EPCM”), and engineering and field services solutions for the oil and gas industry.

Our fleet support services provide comprehensive life-cycle sustainment services to the U.S. Navy fleet and other DoD and commercial maritime customers. Our technical and waterfront ship services include maintenance, modernization, and repair on all ship classes; naval architecture, marine engineering, and design; integrated logistics support; technical documentation development; warehousing, asset management, and material readiness; operational and maintenance training development and delivery; software design and development; IT infrastructure support and data delivery and management; and cyber security and information assurance. In addition to our broad range of life-cycle sustainment services, we provide undersea vehicle and specialized craft development and prototyping services.

Our MDIS services include high-end IT and mission-based solutions to DoD, intelligence, and federal civilian customers, such as the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the U.S. Postal Service. The services and solutions we provide are accessible through a broad portfolio of contract vehicles and include agile software engineering, development, and integration; Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance ("C4ISR") engineering and software integration; mobile application development and network engineering; modeling, simulation, and training; force protection and emergency management training and exercises; unmanned systems development, integration, operations, and maintenance; and mission-oriented intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance analytics.

Our nuclear and environmental services focus on nuclear management and operations. We provide site management, nuclear and industrial facilities operations and maintenance, decontamination and decommissioning, and radiological and hazardous waste management services to DoE, DoD, state and local governments, and private sector companies. As part of our nuclear and environmental services, we participate in joint ventures, including Newport News Nuclear BWXT Los Alamos, LLC ("N3B"), Mission Support and Test Services, LLC ("MSTS"), and Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC ("SRNS"). We have a 51% ownership interest in N3B, which, in 2017, was awarded the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Contract at the DoE/National Nuclear Security Administration’s Los Alamos National Laboratory located northwest of Santa Fe, New Mexico. We have a 23% ownership interest in MSTS, which, in 2017, was awarded a contract for site management and operations at the Nevada National Security Site located northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. We have a 34% ownership interest in SRNS, which provides site management and operations at the DoE's Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina.

Our oil and gas services provide engineering, procurement, and construction management services to the oil and gas industry for major pipeline, production, and treatment facilities. These services include full life-cycle services for domestic and international projects, from concept identification through detail design, execution and construction, and decommissioning. We also offer related field services, including survey, inspection, commissioning and start-up, operations and maintenance, and optimization and debottlenecking.

HII was incorporated in Delaware on August 4, 2010, and became an independent, publicly owned company in 2011, when we were spun-off from Northrop Grumman. Our principal executive offices are located at 4101 Washington Avenue, Newport News, Virginia 23607. Our telephone number is (757) 380-2000, and our home page on the Internet is www.huntingtoningalls.com. References to our website in this report are provided as a convenience and do not constitute, and should not be viewed as, incorporation by reference of the information contained on, or available through, the website. Accordingly, such information should not be considered part of this report.

Our revenues are primarily derived from the U.S. Government. In 2019, 2018, and 2017, approximately 87%, 88%, and 87%, respectively, of our revenues were generated from the U.S. Navy, and approximately 4%, 5%, and 6%, respectively, were generated from the U.S. Coast Guard. In 2019, 2018, and 2017, we generated approximately 3%, 3%, and 3%, respectively, of our revenues from commercial customers and 6%, 4%, and 4%, respectively, from other government agencies.

We develop and incorporate into our vessels new technologies, manufacturing processes, and systems-integration processes. In addition to owning a large portfolio of intellectual property, we license intellectual property rights to and from others. The U.S. Government receives non-exclusive licenses to our intellectual property developed in the performance of U.S. Government contracts and unlimited license rights in technical data developed under our U.S. Government contracts when such data is developed entirely at government expense. The U.S. Government may use or authorize others to use the intellectual property we license to the government. While our intellectual property rights are important to our operations, we do not believe that any existing patent, license, or other intellectual property right is of such importance that its loss or termination would have a material impact on our business.

No material portion of our business is seasonal. The timing of our revenue recognition is based on several factors, including the timing of contract awards, the incurrence of contract costs, contract cost estimation, and unit deliveries. See Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates, and Judgments - Revenue Recognition in Item 7.

Total backlog includes both funded backlog (firm orders for which funding is contractually obligated by the customer) and unfunded backlog (firm orders for which funding is not currently contractually obligated by the customer). Unfunded backlog excludes unexercised contract options and unfunded Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity ("IDIQ") orders. For contracts having no stated contract values, backlog includes only the amounts committed by the customer. Backlog is converted into sales as work is performed or deliveries are made. For backlog by segment, see Backlog in Item 7.

The most significant material we use is steel. Other materials we use in large quantities include paint, aluminum, pipe, electrical cable, and fittings. All of these materials are currently available in adequate supply. In connection with our U.S. Government contracts, we are required to procure certain materials and component parts from supply sources approved by the U.S. Government. For long-term contracts, we generally obtain price quotations for many of our material requirements from multiple suppliers to ensure competitive pricing. While we have not generally been dependent upon any one supply source, we currently have only one supplier for certain component parts as a result of consolidation in the defense industry. We believe that these single source suppliers, as well as our overall supplier base, are adequate to meet our foreseeable needs. We have mitigated some supply risk by negotiating long-term agreements with certain raw material suppliers. In addition, we have mitigated price risk related to raw material purchases through certain contractual arrangements with customers.

We operate in a heavily regulated environment and are routinely audited and reviewed by the U.S. Government and its agencies, including the U.S. Navy's Supervisor of Shipbuilding, the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA"), and the Defense Contract Management Agency ("DCMA"). These agencies evaluate our contract performance, cost structures, and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and standards, as well as the adequacy of our

business systems and processes relative to U.S. Government requirements. Our business systems subject to audit or review include our accounting systems, purchasing systems, government property management systems, estimating systems, earned value management systems, and material management accounting systems. If an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings, which could result in fines, penalties, repayments, or compensatory, treble, or other damages. Certain U.S. Government findings against a contractor can also lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges. In addition, any costs we incur that are determined to be unallowable or improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be recovered or must be refunded if already reimbursed.

The U.S. Government has the ability to decrease or withhold contract payments if it determines significant deficiencies exist in one or more of our business systems. The U.S. Government has, in certain instances, withheld contract payments upon its assessment that deficiencies exist with one or more of our business systems. Although this has not materially impacted the timing of our cash receipts in the past, any such action by the U.S. Government in the future could have a material impact on the timing of our cash receipts.

The U.S. Government generally has the ability to terminate contracts, in whole or in part, with little or no prior notice, for convenience or for default based upon performance. In the event of termination of a contract for convenience, a contractor is normally able to recover costs already incurred on the contract and profit on those costs up to the amount authorized under the contract, but not the remaining profit that would have been earned had the contract been completed. Such a termination could also result in the cancellation of future work on the related program. A termination resulting from our default could expose us to various liabilities, including excess reprocurement costs, and could have a material effect on our ability to compete for future contracts.

Government contractors must comply with significant regulatory requirements, including those related to procurement and cyber security. Our contracts with the U.S. Government may result in Requests for Equitable Adjustments ("REAs"), which represent requests for the U.S. Government to make appropriate adjustments to contract terms, including pricing, delivery schedule, technical requirements, or other affected terms, due to changes in the original contract requirements and resulting delays and disruption in contract performance for which the U.S. Government is responsible. We submit and negotiate REAs in the ordinary course of business, and large REAs are not uncommon at the conclusion of both new construction and RCOH activities. REAs are not considered claims under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, although they may be converted to such claims if we cannot reach agreement with the U.S. Government.

In cases where there are multiple suppliers, contracts for the construction and conversion of U.S. Navy ships and submarines are generally subject to competitive bidding. In evaluating proposed prices, the U.S. Navy sometimes requires bidders to submit information on pricing, estimated costs of completion, and anticipated profit margins to enable the Navy to assess cost realism. The U.S. Navy uses this information and other data to determine an estimated cost for each bidder. U.S. Government regulations determine the contractor costs that are allowable and therefore recoverable from the government, and certain costs are not allowable and therefore are not recoverable. The U.S. Government also regulates the methods by which allowable costs, including overhead, are allocated to government contracts.

Our business, our contracts with various agencies of the U.S. Government, and our subcontracts with other prime contractors are subject to a variety of laws and regulations, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR"), the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement ("DFARS"), the Truth in Negotiations Act, the Procurement Integrity Act, the False Claims Act, U.S. Cost Accounting Standards ("CAS"), the International Traffic in Arms Regulations promulgated under the Arms Export Control Act, the Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. We are also subject to evolving cyber security and data privacy and protection laws and regulations. A noncompliance determination by a government agency may result in reductions in contract values, contract modifications or terminations, penalties, fines, repayments, compensatory, treble, or other damages, or suspension or debarment.

In our primary business of designing, building, overhauling, and repairing military ships, we primarily compete with General Dynamics and, to a lesser extent, smaller shipyards, one or more of which could team with a large defense contractor. Intense competition related to programs, resources, and funding, and long operating cycles are key characteristics of both our business and the shipbuilding defense industry in general. It is common industry practice to share work on major programs among a number of companies. A company competing to be a prime contractor may, upon ultimate award of the contract to another party, become a subcontractor for the prime contracting party. It is not uncommon to compete for a contract award with a peer company and, simultaneously, serve as a supplier to or a customer of such competitor on other contracts. The nature of major defense programs, conducted under binding long-term contracts, allows companies that perform well to benefit from a level of program continuity not common in many industries.

We believe we are well-positioned in our markets. Because we are the only company currently capable of building, refueling, and inactivating the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, we believe we are in a strong competitive position to be awarded each contract to perform such activities. Even so, the government periodically revisits whether refueling of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers should be performed in private or public facilities. If a U.S. Government owned shipyard were to become capable and engaged in the refueling of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, our market position could be significantly and adversely affected.

While we have competed with another large defense contractor to build large deck amphibious ships, we are currently the only builder of large deck amphibious assault ships and expeditionary warfare ships for the U.S. Navy, including LHAs and LPDs. We are also the sole builder of NSCs for the U.S. Coast Guard. We are one of only two companies currently designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy, and we are party to long-term teaming agreements with the other company for the production of both Virginia class (SSN 774) fast attack nuclear submarines and Columbia class (SSBN 826) ballistic missile submarines. We are one of only two companies that builds the U.S. Navy's current fleet of Arleigh Burke class (DDG 51) destroyers and are strongly positioned to be awarded future contracts for these types of ships as well.

Our success in the shipbuilding defense industry depends upon our ability to develop, market, and produce our products and services at costs consistent with the U.S. Navy's budget, as well as our ability to provide the workforce, technologies, facilities, equipment, and financial capacity needed to deliver those products and services with maximum efficiency.

Our manufacturing operations are subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment. We accrue estimated costs to perform environmental remediation when we determine it is probable we will incur expenses in the future, in amounts we can reasonably estimate, to address environmental conditions at currently or formerly owned or leased operating facilities, or at sites where we are named a Potentially Responsible Party ("PRP") by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") or similarly designated by another environmental agency. The inherent difficulties in estimating future environmental remediation costs, resulting from uncertainties regarding the extent of required remediation, determination of legally responsible parties, and the status of laws and regulations and their interpretations, can cause our estimated remediation costs to change.

We assess the potential impact on our financial statements of future environmental remediation costs by estimating, on a site-by-site basis, the range of reasonably possible remediation costs that we could incur, taking into account currently available information at each site, the current state of technology, and our prior experience remediating contaminated sites. We review our estimates periodically and adjust them to reflect changes in facts, technology, and legal circumstances. We record accruals for environmental remediation costs on an undiscounted basis in the accounting period in which it becomes probable we have incurred a liability and the costs can be reasonably estimated. We record related insurance recoveries only when we determine that collection is probable, and we do not include any litigation costs related to environmental matters in our environmental remediation accrual.

multiple parties based upon our expected share of liability, taking into account the financial viability of other jointly liable parties. We may incur remediation costs exceeding our accrued amount if other PRPs do not pay their allocable share of remediation costs, which could have a material effect on our business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

As of December 31, 2019, our probable estimable future costs for environmental remediation were immaterial. In addition, we cannot reasonably estimate remediation costs at certain of our potential environmental remediation sites. Although information gained as remediation progresses may materially affect our accrued liability, we do not anticipate that future remediation expenditures will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

We believe we are in material compliance with environmental laws and regulations, and historical environmental compliance costs have not been material to our business. We could be affected by new environmental laws or regulations, including any laws and regulations enacted in response to concerns over climate change, other aspects of the environment, or natural resources. We have made investments we believe are necessary to comply with environmental laws, but we expect to incur future capital and operating costs to comply with current and future environmental laws and regulations. We do not currently believe such costs will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

With regard to occupational health and safety, the shipbuilding and ship repair industry includes exposure to hazardous materials and processes. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the shipbuilding and ship repair industry (NAICS 336611) ranks among the highest in several injury metrics. We have experienced three fatalities in the past eight years. We strive to keep our Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") compliance programs strong.

The U.S. Navy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and DoE each regulate and control various matters relating to our nuclear operations and nuclear materials. Subject to certain requirements and limitations, our contracts with the U.S. Navy and DoE generally provide for indemnity by the U.S. Government for losses resulting from our nuclear operations. For our commercial nuclear operations, we rely primarily on insurance carried by nuclear facility operators for risk mitigation, and we maintain limited insurance coverage for losses in excess of the coverage of facility operators.

We have approximately 42,000 employees. We are the largest industrial employer in Virginia and the largest private employer in Mississippi. We employ individuals specializing in 19 crafts and trades, with approximately 6,800 engineers and designers and approximately 2,500 employees with advanced degrees. Our workforce contains many third-, fourth-, and fifth-generation employees, and approximately 1,380 employees with more than 40 years of continuous service. Employees in our shipbuilding divisions with more than 40 years of continuous service achieve the honor of “Master Shipbuilder.” As of December 31, 2019, we had 1,057 Master Shipbuilders at Newport News and 303 at Ingalls. We employ more than 7,400 veterans across the enterprise.

Approximately 50% of our employees are covered by a total of nine collective bargaining agreements and two site stabilization agreements. Newport News has four collective bargaining agreements covering represented employees, which expire in November 2020, November 2021, December 2022, and April 2024. The collective bargaining agreement that expires in November 2021 covers approximately 50% of Newport News employees. Newport News craft workers employed at the Kesselring Site near Saratoga Springs, New York are represented under an indefinite DoE site agreement. Ingalls has five collective bargaining agreements covering represented employees, all of which expire in March 2022. Approximately 50 Technical Solutions employees at various locations are represented by unions and perform work under collective bargaining agreements. We believe our relationship with our employees is satisfactory.

Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K, as well as any amendments to those reports, are available free of charge through our website after we file them with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). You can learn more about us by reviewing our SEC filings on the investor relations page on our website at www.huntingtoningalls.com.

Statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other filings with the SEC, as well as other statements we may make from time to time, other than statements of historical fact, constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed in these statements. Factors that may cause such differences include:

There may be other risks and uncertainties that we are unable to predict at this time or that we currently do not expect to have a material adverse effect on our business, and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements. You should not place undue reliance on any forward looking statements that we may make.

An investment in our common stock or debt securities involves risks and uncertainties. We seek to identify, manage, and mitigate risks to our business, but risk and uncertainty cannot be eliminated or necessarily predicted. You should consider the following factors carefully, in addition to the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, before deciding to purchase our securities.

Our business consists primarily of the design, construction, repair, and maintenance of nuclear-powered ships and non-nuclear ships for the U.S. Navy and coastal defense surface ships for the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as the refueling and overhaul and inactivation of nuclear-powered ships for the U.S. Navy. We also provide fleet sustainment services to the U.S. Navy, IT and mission-based solutions for the DoD and intelligence and federal civilian customers, and nuclear management and operations and environmental management services for the DoE and DoD. Substantially all of our revenues in 2019 were derived from products and services sold to the U.S. Government, and we expect this to continue in the foreseeable future. In addition, substantially all of our backlog as of December 31, 2019, was U.S. Government related. Our U.S. Government contracts are subject to various risks, including customer political and budgetary constraints and processes, changes in customer short term and long term strategic plans, the timing of contract awards, significant changes in contract scheduling, intense contract and funding competition, difficulty forecasting costs and schedules for bids on developmental and sophisticated technical work, and contractor suspension or debarment in the event of certain violations of legal or regulatory requirements. Any of these factors could affect our business with the U.S. Government, which would have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

We are directly dependent upon Congressional funding of U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, and other government agency programs. The funding of U.S. Government programs is subject to Congressional budget authorization and appropriation processes. For certain programs, Congress appropriates funds on a fiscal year basis even though a program may be performed over several fiscal years. As a result, a program may be funded initially on a partial basis and receive additional funding only as Congress makes additional appropriations. If we incur costs in excess of existing funding on a contract, we may not recover those costs unless and until additional funds are appropriated. We cannot predict the extent to which total funding or funding for individual programs will be included, increased, or reduced as part of the annual budget process or through continuing resolutions or individual supplemental appropriations.

The impact of Congressional actions to reduce the federal debt and resulting pressures on federal spending could adversely affect the total funding of individual contracts or funding for individual programs and delay purchasing or payment decisions by our customers. Long-term uncertainty exists with respect to overall levels of defense spending across the future years defense plan. It is likely that U.S. Government discretionary spending levels, including defense spending, will continue to be subject to significant pressure. For additional information relating to the U.S. defense budget, see the Business Environment section of Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in Item 7.

Demand for our products and services can also be affected by shifts in customer priorities resulting from changes in military strategy and planning. In response to the need for cheaper alternatives and the proliferation of "smart weapons," future strategy reassessments by the DoD may result in decreased demand for our shipbuilding programs, including our aircraft carrier programs. For the year ended December 31, 2019, our aircraft carrier programs accounted for approximately 32% of our consolidated revenue. We cannot predict the impact of changes to customer priorities on existing, follow-on, replacement, or future programs. A shift of priorities to programs in which we do not participate and related reductions in funding for or the termination of programs in which we do participate could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

U.S. Government's convenience, a contractor is normally able to recover costs already incurred on the contract and profit on those costs up to the amount authorized under the contract, but not the profit that would have been earned had the contract been completed. Such a termination could also result in the cancellation of future work on the related program. A termination resulting from our default can expose us to various liabilities, including excess re-procurement costs, and could negatively affect our ability to compete for future contracts. Any contract termination could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Our operating income is adversely affected when we incur certain contract costs or certain increases in contract costs that cannot be billed to customers. Cost growth can occur if expenses to complete a contract increase due to technical challenges, manufacturing difficulties, delays, workforce-related issues, or inaccurate estimates used for the initial calculation of contract costs. Reasons may include labor unavailability or reduced productivity, the nature and complexity of the work performed, the timeliness and availability of materials, major subcontractor performance or product quality issues, performance delays, availability and timing of funding from the customer, and natural disasters. The process of estimating contract costs requires significant judgment and expertise. A significant increase in contract costs from our original cost estimates on one or more contracts could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Our ability to recover costs and realize profits on contracts with our U.S. Government customers depends upon the type of contract under which we are performing. Our U.S. Government business is currently performed under firm fixed-price, fixed-price incentive, cost-type, and time and material contracts. Under firm fixed price contracts, we agree to perform the specified work for a pre-determined price. To the extent our actual costs vary from the estimates upon which the price was negotiated, we will generate more or less profit or could incur a loss. Some firm fixed-price contracts have a performance-based component under which we may earn incentive payments or incur financial penalties based upon our performance. Fixed-price incentive contracts provide for reimbursement of the contractor’s allowable costs incurred in performance of the contract, subject to a cost-share limit that impacts the profit on the contract. Cost-type contracts provide for the payment of allowable costs incurred during performance of the contract plus a fee up to a ceiling based on the amount that has been funded. Under time and material contracts, we are paid for direct labor hours incurred at specified hourly rates plus material costs. See the Contract section under Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations in Item 7 for descriptions of the types of contracts that comprise our business.

Approximately 4% of our revenues in 2019 were generated under firm fixed-price contracts, approximately 50% were generated under fixed price incentive contracts, approximately 42% were generated under cost-type contracts, and approximately 4% were generated under time and material contracts. Our failure to perform to customer expectations and contract requirements may result in reduced fees or losses and affect our financial performance. Under each type of contract, if we are unable to control costs, our operating results could be adversely affected, particularly if we are unable to justify an increase in contract value to our customers. Cost overruns or the failure to perform on existing programs also may adversely affect our ability to retain existing programs and win future contract awards. To the extent our mix of contract types changes in the future, our ability to recover our costs and realize profits on our contracts could be negatively affected.

When agreeing to contract terms, we make assumptions and projections about future conditions and events, many of which extend over long periods. Our assumptions and projections are based upon our assessments of the productivity and availability of labor, the complexity of the work to be performed, the cost and availability of materials, the impact of delayed performance, the timing of product deliveries, and other matters. We may experience significant variances from our assumptions and projections, contract performance schedule delays, and variances in the timing of our product deliveries. If our actual experience differs significantly from our assumptions or projections or we incur unanticipated contract costs, the profitability of the related contracts may be adversely affected.

We rely on third parties to provide raw materials, major components and sub-systems, hardware elements, and sub-assemblies for our products and to perform certain services we provide to our customers, and to do so in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Disruptions and performance problems caused by our suppliers and subcontractors, or misalignments between our contractual obligations to our customers and our agreements with our subcontractors and suppliers, could have an adverse effect on our ability to meet our commitments to customers. Our ability to satisfy our obligations on a timely basis could be adversely affected if one or more of our suppliers or subcontractors are unable to provide agreed-upon products or materials or perform agreed-upon services in a timely, compliant and cost-effective manner or they otherwise fail to satisfy contractual requirements. The inability of our suppliers or subcontractors to meet expectations could also result in the need for us to transition to alternate parties, which could result in significant incremental cost and delay, or the need for us to provide other supplemental support to our existing suppliers and subcontractors.

Our costs to manufacture our products can increase over the terms of our contracts, including as a result of increases in material costs. Although we may be protected from increases in material costs through contract cost escalation provisions, the difference in basis between our actual material costs and industry indices may expose us to cost recovery risk. In addition, significant delays in deliveries of key raw materials, which may occur as a result of availability or pricing, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In some cases, only one supplier may exist for certain components and parts required to manufacture our products. The inability of a sole source supplier to provide a necessary component or part on a timely, compliant, and cost-effective basis could increase our contract cost and affect our ability to perform our contract.

Our procurement practices are intended to provide quality materials and services to support our programs and to reduce the likelihood of our procurement of unauthorized, non-compliant, or deficient materials and services. We rely on our subcontractors and suppliers to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and the expectations set forth in the HII Supplier Code of Conduct in connection with the materials and services we procure. In some circumstances, we rely on representations and certifications from our subcontractors and suppliers regarding their compliance. We also conduct technical assessments, inspections, and audits, as necessary, with subcontractors and suppliers. Notwithstanding the actions we take to mitigate the risk of receiving materials and services that fail to meet specifications or requirements, subcontractors and suppliers sometimes provide us with unauthorized, non-compliant, or deficient materials and services.

Our inability to procure, or a significant delay in acquiring, necessary raw materials, components, or parts, the failure of our subcontractors or suppliers to comply with applicable laws and regulations, inaccurate certifications from our subcontractors and suppliers regarding their compliance, or noncompliant materials, components, or parts from our subcontractors and suppliers could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Our industry has experienced, and we expect will continue to experience, significant changes to business practices resulting from greater focus on affordability, efficiencies, business systems, recovery of costs, and a reprioritization of defense funds to key areas for future defense spending. These initiatives and changes to procurement practices may change the way U.S. Government contracts are solicited, negotiated, and managed, which may affect whether and how we pursue opportunities to provide our products and services to the U.S. Government, including the terms and conditions under which we do so, which may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Changes in procurement practices favoring incentive-based fee arrangements, different award fee criteria, non-traditional contract provisions, and government contract negotiation offers that mandate what our costs should be may affect our profitability and predictability of our profit rates. The U.S. Government is also pursuing alternatives to shift additional responsibility and performance risks to the contractor.

In addition to DOD's business practice initiatives, the DCMA and DCAA have implemented cost recovery/cost savings initiatives to prioritize cost recovery/savings. As a result of certain of these initiatives, we have experienced and may continue to experience a higher number of audits and/or lengthened periods of time required to close open audits. Moreover, the thresholds for certain allowable costs, including compensation costs, have been significantly reduced, and the allowability of other types of costs are being challenged, debated, and, in certain cases, modified. Significant changes to the thresholds for allowable costs or the allowability of certain costs could adversely affect our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Shipbuilding is a long cycle business, and our success depends on quality, cost, and schedule performance on our contracts. In turn, our performance depends upon our ability to develop and maintain the workforce, technologies, facilities, equipment, and financial capacity to deliver our products and services at an affordable life cycle cost. If we fail to maintain our competitive position in these areas, we could lose future contracts to our competitors, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Our operating results are heavily dependent upon our ability to attract and retain at competitive costs a sufficient number of engineers and other employees with the necessary skills and security clearances. At the same time, future revenues and costs impact our ability to maintain a qualified workforce. Development and maintenance of the necessary nuclear related skills and the challenges of hiring and training a qualified workforce can be a limitation on our business. If qualified personnel become scarce, we could experience higher labor, recruiting, or training costs to attract and retain qualified employees, or, if we fail to attract and retain qualified personnel, we could experience difficulties performing our contracts and competing for new contract awards.

U.S. defense spending levels are uncertain and difficult to predict. A longer term reduction in shipbuilding activity by the U.S. Navy, evidenced by the reduction in fleet size from 566 ships in 1989 to 293 ships as of December 31, 2019, has resulted in workforce reductions but little infrastructure consolidation. The general result has been fewer contracts awarded to the same fixed number of shipyards. Five major private United States shipyards, two of which we own, plus many other smaller private shipyards compete for contracts to construct, overhaul, repair, and convert naval vessels. Additionally, our products, such as aircraft carriers, submarines, amphibious assault ships, surface combatants, and other ships, compete for funding with each other, as well as with other defense products and services. We expect competition for future shipbuilding programs to be intense.

We compete with another large defense contractor for contracts to build surface combatants, submarines, and large deck amphibious ships. We may compete in the future with the same and other defense contractors to build new and different classes of ships, as well as ships for which we are currently the sole source, including expeditionary warfare and amphibious assault ships. Moreover, reductions in U.S. defense spending that reduce the demand for the types of ships we build and services we provide increase our risk exposure to market competition. If we are unable to continue to compete successfully against our current or future competitors, we may experience lower revenues and market share, which could negatively impact our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Although we are the only company currently capable of refueling nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, two existing U.S. Government-owned shipyards may be able to refuel nuclear-powered aircraft carriers if substantial investments in facilities, personnel, and training were made. U.S. Government-owned shipyards currently engage in the refueling, overhaul, and inactivation of Los Angeles class (SSN 688) submarines and are capable of repairing and overhauling non-nuclear ships. If a U.S. Government-owned shipyard became capable and engaged in the refueling of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows could be adversely affected.

We also compete in the shipbuilding engineering, planning, and design market with companies that provide engineering support services. Such competition increases the risk we may not be the successful bidder on future U.S. Navy engineering proposals, including aircraft carrier research and development, submarine design, and surface combatant and amphibious assault ship program contracts.

Our competitive environment is also affected by bid protests from unsuccessful bidders on new program awards. As the competitive environment intensifies, the number of bid protests may increase. Bid protests can result in an award decision being overturned, requiring a re-bid of the contract. Even when a bid protest does not result in a re-bid, resolution of the matter typically extends the time until contract performance can begin, which can reduce our earnings in the period in which the contract would otherwise be performed.

As a U.S. Government contractor, we must comply with significant regulatory requirements, including those relating to procurement, cyber security, and nuclear operations. Government contracting requirements increase our contract performance and compliance costs and risks and change on a routine basis. In addition, our nuclear operations are subject to an enhanced regulatory environment, which results in further performance and compliance requirements and higher costs. New laws, regulations, or procurement requirements, or changes to existing ones (including, for example, regulations related to recovery of compensation costs, cyber security, counterfeit parts, specialty metals, and conflict minerals), can increase our performance and compliance costs and risks and reduce our profitability.

We are audited and reviewed on a regular basis by the U.S. Government and its various agencies, including the U.S. Navy's Supervisor of Shipbuilding, the DCAA, and the DCMA. These agencies evaluate our contract performance, cost structures, and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and standards, as well as the adequacy of our business systems and processes relative to U.S. Government requirements. If an audit uncovers improper or illegal activities, we may be subject to administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings, which could result in fines, penalties, repayments, or compensatory, treble, or other damages. Certain U.S. Government findings against a contractor can also lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges. Allegations of impropriety can also cause significant reputational damage.

The U.S. Government also has the ability to decrease or withhold contract payments if it determines significant deficiencies exist in one or more of our business systems. The U.S. Government has, in certain instances, withheld contract payments upon its assessment that deficiencies exist with one or more of our business systems, which can have a material impact on the timing of our cash receipts.

The U.S. Government has, from time to time, recommended that certain of our contract prices be reduced, or that certain costs allocated to our contracts be disallowed, which sometimes involve substantial dollar amounts. In response to U.S. Government audits, investigations, and inquiries, we have also in the past made adjustments to our contract prices and costs allocated to our government contracts. Such audits, investigations, and inquiries may result in future reductions of our contract prices. Costs we incur that are determined to be unallowable or improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be recovered or must be refunded if previously reimbursed.

We must comply with a variety of federal laws and regulations, including the FAR, DFARS, the Truth in Negotiations Act, the False Claims Act, the Procurement Integrity Act, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations promulgated under the Arms Export Control Act, the Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and CAS. If a determination is made that we engaged in illegal activities or we are not presently responsible, as defined under the FAR, we may be subject to reductions in contract values, contract modifications or terminations, penalties, fines, repayments, compensatory, treble, or other damages, or suspension or debarment, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. In addition, cyber security and data privacy and protection laws and regulations are evolving and present increasing compliance challenges, which increase our costs and may affect our competitiveness, cause reputational harm, and expose us to substantial fines or other penalties.

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

We design, develop, and manufacture products and provide services utilized by our customers in a variety of environments. Problems and delays with product development, technology implementation, or delivery of subcontractor components or services as a result of issues with design, technology, licensing and intellectual property rights, labor, learning curve assumptions, or materials and parts could prevent us from satisfying contractual requirements.

First-in-class ships, also known as lead ships, usually include new technologies supplied by the U.S. Navy, other contractors, or us. Problems developing or implementing these new technologies or design changes in the construction process can lead to delays in the design schedule for construction. The risks associated with new technologies or mid-construction design changes can both increase the cost of a ship and delay delivery. Untimely receipt of customer information can also cause inefficiencies in the construction process, increase costs, and put the delivery schedule at risk, which can adversely affect our profitability and future prospects.

Our products cannot always be tested and proven and are otherwise subject to unforeseen problems, including premature failure of products that cannot be accessed for repair or replacement, substandard quality or workmanship, and unplanned degradation of product performance. These failures could result in loss of life or property and could negatively affect our results of operations by causing unanticipated expenses not covered by insurance or indemnification from the customer, diversion of management attention to respond to unforeseen problems, loss of follow-on work, and, in the case of certain contracts, reimbursement to the customer of contract costs and fee payments previously received.

We periodically experience quality issues with respect to products and services that we sell to our U.S. Government customers. These issues can and have required significant resources to determine the source of the deficiencies and implement corrective actions. We may discover quality issues in the future related to our products and services that require analysis and corrective action. Such issues and our responses and corrective actions could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Contract accounting requires judgments relative to assessing risks, estimating contract revenues and costs, and making assumptions regarding schedule and technical issues. The size and nature of many of our contracts make the estimation of total revenues and costs at completion complicated and subject to many variables. For new shipbuilding programs, we estimate, negotiate, and contract for construction of ships that are not completely designed, which subjects our risk assessments, revenue and cost estimates, and assumptions regarding schedule and technical issues to the variability of the final ship design and evolving scope of work. Our judgment, estimation, and assumption processes are significant to our contract accounting, and materially different amounts can be generated if different assumptions are used or if actual events differ from our assumptions. Future changes in assumptions, circumstances, or estimates may have a material adverse effect on our future financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. See Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates, and Judgments in Item 7.

We have significant operations located in regions of the United States that have been and may in the future be exposed to damaging storms, such as hurricanes and floods, and environmental disasters, such as oil spills. Natural disasters can disrupt our workforce, electrical and other power distribution networks, computer and internet operations and accessibility, and critical industrial infrastructure needed for normal business operations, which can adversely affect our contract performance and, as a result, our financial results. Environmental disasters, particularly oil spills in waterways and bodies of water we use for transporting and testing our ships, can cause schedule delays under our contracts with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard.

Damage and disruption resulting from natural and environmental disasters may be significant. Should insurance or other risk transfer mechanisms be unavailable or insufficient to recover material costs associated with natural or environmental disasters or other events, we could experience a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. See Our insurance coverage may be inadequate to cover all of our significant risks or our insurers may deny coverage of material losses we incur, which could adversely affect our profitability and financial position.

Our suppliers and subcontractors are also subject to natural and environmental disasters that could affect their ability to deliver products or services or otherwise perform their contracts. Performance failures by our subcontractors due to natural or environmental disasters may adversely affect our ability to perform our contracts, which could reduce our profitability in the event damages or other costs are not recoverable from the subcontractor, the customer, or insurers. Such events could also result in a termination of the prime contract and have an adverse effect on our ability to compete for future contracts.

We seek to buy insurance to cover our significant risks and potential liabilities, including, among others, property loss from natural disasters, product liability, and business interruption resulting from an insured property loss. In some circumstances, we may be indemnified for losses by the U.S. Government, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Not every risk or liability can be protected by insurance, and, for insurable risks, the limits of coverage we can reasonably purchase may not be sufficient to cover the full amount of actual losses or liabilities incurred, including, for example, in the case of a catastrophic hurricane. In addition, the nature of our business makes it difficult to quantify the disruptive impact and any resulting loss of such events. Limitations on the availability of insurance coverage may result in us incurring substantial costs for uninsured losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Even in cases for which we have insurance coverage, disputes with insurance carriers over coverage may affect the timing of cash flows, and, in the event of litigation with an insurance carrier, an outcome unfavorable to us may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Newport News craft workers employed at the Kesselring Site near Saratoga Springs, New York are represented under an indefinite DoE site agreement. Ingalls has five collective bargaining agreements covering represented employees, all of which expire in March 2022. Approximately 50 Technical Solutions employees at various locations are represented by unions and perform work under collective bargaining agreements.

Collective bargaining agreements generally expire after three to five years and are subject to renegotiation at that time. While we believe we maintain good relationships with our represented workers, it is possible we may experience difficulties renegotiating expiring collective bargaining agreements. We have experienced in the past work stoppages, strikes, and other labor disruptions associated with the collective bargaining of new labor agreements. If we experience such events in the future, we could incur additional expenses or work delays that could adversely affect programs served by employees who are covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Our pension and retiree health care costs are dependent upon significant judgment regarding various estimates and assumptions, particularly with respect to the discount rate and expected long-term rates of return on plan assets, which to a large extent are reflective of the financial markets and economic conditions. Changes to these estimates and assumptions and differences between expected and actual returns on plan assets could significantly impact our retirement related expense, the funded status of the plans, and contributions to our defined benefit pension and other postretirement benefit plans, which could have material adverse effects on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Additionally, pension cost recoveries under CAS for our U.S. Government contracts occur in different periods from those in which pension expense is recognized under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States ("GAAP") or the periods in which we make contributions to our plans, and changes to estimates and assumptions and differences between expected and actual returns could adversely affect the timing of those pension cost recoveries.

Our operations are subject to and affected by a variety of existing federal, state, and local environmental protection laws and regulations. In addition, we could be affected by future laws or regulations, including those imposed in response to concerns over climate change, other aspects of the environment, or natural resources. We expect to incur future capital and operating costs to comply with current and future environmental laws and regulations, and such costs could be substantial, depending on the future proliferation of environmental rules and regulations and the extent to which we discover currently unknown environmental conditions.

Shipbuilding operations require the use of hazardous materials. Our shipyards also generate significant quantities of wastewater, which we treat before discharging pursuant to various permits. To manage these materials, our shipyards have an extensive network of aboveground and underground storage tanks, some of which have leaked and required remediation in the past. In addition, our handling of hazardous materials has sometimes resulted in spills in our shipyards and occasionally in adjacent rivers and waterways in which we operate. Our shipyards maintain extensive waste handling programs that we periodically modify, consistent with changes in applicable laws and regulations. See Environmental, Health and Safety in Item 1.

Various federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations impose restrictions on the discharge of pollutants into the environment and establish standards for the transportation, storage, and disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes. Substantial fines, penalties, and criminal sanctions may be imposed for noncompliance, and certain environmental laws impose joint and several "strict liability" for remediation of spills and releases of oil and hazardous substances. Such laws and regulations impose liability upon a party for environmental cleanup and remediation costs and damage without regard to negligence or fault on the part of such party and could expose us to liability for the conduct of or conditions caused by third parties.

In addition to fines, penalties, and criminal sanctions, environmental laws and regulations may require the installation of costly pollution control equipment or operational changes to limit pollution emissions or discharges and/or to decrease the likelihood of accidental hazardous material releases. We anticipate future costs to comply with federal and state environmental laws and regulations related to the cleanup of pollutants released into the environment. Moreover, if we violate the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act, the facility or facilities involved in the violation could be placed by the EPA on the "Excluded Parties List" maintained by the General Services Administration, which would continue until the EPA concluded the cause of the violation was cured. Facilities on the "Excluded Parties List" are prohibited from working on any U.S. Government contract.

The adoption of new environmental laws and regulations, stricter enforcement of existing laws and regulations, imposition of new cleanup requirements, discovery of previously unknown or more extensive contamination, litigation involving environmental matters, our inability to recover related costs under our government contracts, or the financial insolvency of other responsible parties could cause us to incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The financial markets can experience high levels of volatility and disruption, reducing the availability of credit for certain issuers. We access these markets from time to time to support certain business activities, including funding acquisitions and capital expansion projects and refinancing existing indebtedness. We may also access these markets to acquire credit support for our workers' compensation self-insurance program and letters of credit. A number of factors could cause us to incur higher borrowing costs and experience greater difficulty accessing public and private markets for debt, including disruptions or declines in the global capital markets and/or a decline in our financial performance, outlook, or credit ratings. The occurrence of any or all of these events may adversely affect our ability to fund our operations, meet contractual commitments, make future investments or desirable acquisitions, or respond to competitive challenges.

Tightening capital markets could also adversely affect the ability of our suppliers and subcontractors to obtain financing. Delays in the ability of our suppliers or subcontractors to obtain financing, or the unavailability of financing, could negatively affect their ability to perform their contracts with us and, as a result, our ability to perform our contracts. The inability of our suppliers and subcontractors to obtain financing could also result in the need for us to transition to alternate suppliers and subcontractors, which could result in us incurring significant incremental costs and delays.

Our compliance program includes detailed compliance plans and related compliance controls, policies, procedures, and training designed to prevent and detect misconduct by employees, agents, business partners, and others working on our behalf, including suppliers and subcontractors, that would violate the laws of the jurisdictions in which we operate, including laws governing payments to government officials, the protection of export controlled or classified information, cost accounting and billing, competition, and data privacy. We have been impacted in the past by the misconduct of employees and business partners, and we may not prevent all such misconduct in the future by our employees, agents, business partners, and others working on our behalf, including suppliers and subcontractors. Moreover, the risk of improper conduct may be expected to increase as we expand our operations into foreign jurisdictions. Any improper actions by our employees, agents, business partners, and others working on our behalf, including suppliers and subcontractors, could subject us to administrative, civil, or criminal investigations and monetary and non-monetary penalties, including suspension or debarment, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Any such improper actions could also cause us significant reputational damage.

As a defense contractor, we rely on our information technology infrastructure to process, transmit, and store electronic information, including classified and other sensitive information of the U.S. Government. While we maintain stringent information security policies and protocols and implement security controls and complementary cyber security technologies in compliance with industry requirements, we face substantial cyber security threats to our information technology infrastructure, including threats to our and the U.S. Government's proprietary and classified information. Advanced nation state threat actors, sophisticated cyber crime syndicates, hacktivists, and insiders can pose significant threats to our information technology infrastructure and assets. While we implement countermeasures to address the risks posed by these threats, external and internal threat actors continuously seek to evade our cyber security countermeasures to gain unauthorized and unlawful access to our information technology infrastructure, assets, and data.

Our information technology infrastructure is critical to the efficient operation of our business and essential to our ability to perform day-to-day operations. Breaches of our information technology infrastructure or physical facilities could cause us to incur significant recovery and restoration expenses; degrade performance on existing contracts; and expose us to reputational damage, potential liability, or the loss of current or future contracts, including work on sensitive or classified systems for the U.S. Government, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Our suppliers, subcontractors, and other business partners also face cyber security and other security threats. Although we undertake cooperative efforts with our customers, suppliers, subcontractors, and other business partners to assist them with understanding the threats they face and potential cyber security countermeasures to defend against potential cyber attacks, other security threats, and business disruptions, we rely substantially on the safeguards managed by these entities, which may affect the security of our information. These entities have varying levels of cyber security expertise and safeguards, and their relationships with U.S. Government contractors may increase the likelihood that they are targeted by the same cyber security threats we face.

The design, construction, refueling and overhaul, repair, and inactivation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered submarines, our nuclear facilities used to support such activities, our nuclear operations at DoE sites, and our activities in the commercial nuclear market subject us to various risks, including:

Failure to properly handle nuclear materials could pose a health risk to humans and wildlife and could cause personal injury and property damage, including environmental contamination. If a nuclear accident were to occur, its severity could be significantly affected by the volume of the materials and the speed of remedial actions taken by us and emergency response personnel, as well as other factors beyond our control, such as weather and wind conditions. Actions we might take in response to an accident could result in significant costs.

Our nuclear operations are subject to various safety related requirements imposed by the U.S. Navy, the DoE, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In the event of noncompliance, these agencies may increase regulatory oversight, impose fines, or shut down our operations, depending on their assessment of the severity of the noncompliance. In addition, new or revised security and safety requirements imposed by the U.S. Navy, DoE, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission could necessitate substantial capital and other expenditures.

Subject to certain requirements and limitations, our contracts with the U.S. Navy and DoE generally provide for indemnity by the U.S. Government for costs arising out of or resulting from our nuclear operations. We may not, however, be indemnified for all liabilities we may incur in connection with our nuclear operations. To mitigate risks related to our commercial nuclear operations, we rely primarily on insurance carried by nuclear facility operators and our own limited insurance for losses in excess of the coverage of facility operators. Such insurance, however, may not be sufficient to cover our costs in the event of an accident or business interruption relating to our commercial nuclear operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

As part of our business strategy, we acquire non-controlling and controlling interests in businesses. We make acquisitions and investments following careful analysis and due diligence designed to achieve a desired return or strategic objective. Business acquisitions involve estimates, assumptions, and judgments to determine acquisition prices, which are allocated among acquired assets, including goodwill, based upon fair market values. Notwithstanding our analyses, due diligence processes, and business integration efforts, actual operating results of acquired businesses may vary significantly from expectations. In such events, we may be required to write down our carrying value of the related goodwill and/or purchased intangible assets. In addition, declines in the trading price of our common stock or the market as a whole can result in goodwill and/or purchased intangible asset impairment charges associated with our existing businesses.

As of December 31, 2019, goodwill and purchased intangible assets generated from prior business acquisitions accounted for approximately 20% and 7%, respectively, of our total assets. We evaluate goodwill values for impairment annually, or when evidence of potential impairment exists. We also evaluate the values of purchased intangible assets when evidence of potential impairment exists. The impairment tests are based on several factors requiring judgments. As a general matter, a significant decrease in expected cash flows or changes in market conditions may indicate potential impairment of recorded goodwill or purchased intangible assets.

Adverse equity market conditions that result in a decline in market multiples and the trading price of our common stock, or other events, such as reductions in future contract awards or significant adverse changes in our operating margins or the operating results of acquired businesses that vary significantly from projected results on which purchase prices are based, could result in an impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets. Any such developments that result in us recording additional goodwill or intangible asset impairment charges could have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

We are subject to income taxes in various jurisdictions. Significant judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes. In the ordinary course of business, the ultimate taxability of many of our transactions and calculations is uncertain. In addition, timing differences in the recognition of contract income for financial statement purposes and for income tax purposes can cause uncertainty with respect to the timing of income tax payments, which can have a significant impact on cash flow in a particular period.

Changes in applicable income tax laws and regulations, or their interpretation, could result in higher or lower income tax rates or changes in the taxability of certain transactions or the deductibility of certain expenses, thereby affecting our income tax expense and profitability. In addition, the final results of any tax audits or related litigation could be materially different from our related historical income tax provisions and accruals. Changes in our tax rate as a result of changes in our overall profitability, changes in tax legislation, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, changes in differences between financial statement income and taxable income, the examination of previously filed tax returns by taxing authorities, and continuing assessments of our tax exposures can also impact our tax liabilities and affect our income tax expense, profitability, and cash flow.

We conduct a portion of our operations through joint ventures with business partners. In any joint venture arrangement, differences of opinions among the joint venture participants may result in delayed decisions or failures to reach agreement on major issues. We and our joint venture partners may, in certain instances, fail to reach agreement on significant decisions on a timely basis, or at all. We also cannot control the actions of our joint venture partners, including any non-performance, default, or bankruptcy of our joint venture partners, and we typically share liability or have joint and/or several liability with our joint venture partners for joint venture matters. Any of these factors could potentially have a material adverse effect on our joint venture operations and the profitability of our joint ventures.

In joint ventures in which we hold a minority interest, we have limited control over many decisions relating to joint venture operations and internal controls relating to operations. These joint ventures may not be subject to the same requirements regarding internal controls and internal control reporting that apply to us. As a result, internal control issues may arise that could have a material adverse effect on the joint venture. In addition, to facilitate relationships with our joint venture partners, we may agree to assume risks and contribute resources that are proportionately greater than the returns we expect to receive in the related joint venture. Such agreements may reduce our income and returns on these investments compared to what we would have received if our assumed risks and contributed resources were proportionate to our returns.

As part of our business strategy, we identify and evaluate potential acquisitions and investments. When evaluating such transactions, we make significant judgments regarding the values of business opportunities, technologies, and other assets, the risks and costs of potential liabilities, and the future prospects of business opportunities. Acquisitions and investments also involve other risks and uncertainties, including the difficulty of integrating acquired businesses, challenges achieving strategic objectives and other benefits anticipated from acquisitions or investments, the diversion of management attention and resources from our existing operations and other initiatives, the potential impairment of acquired assets, and the potential loss of key employees of acquired businesses. Our financial results, business, and future prospects could be adversely affected by unanticipated performance issues at acquired businesses, transaction-related charges, unexpected liabilities, amortization of expenses related to purchased intangible assets, and impairment charges on goodwill and purchased intangible assets.

The size, nature, and complexity of our business make it highly susceptible to claims and litigation. We are subject to various administrative, civil, and criminal litigation, environmental claims, income tax proceedings, compliance proceedings, customer claims, and investigations, which could divert financial and management resources and result in fines, penalties, compensatory, treble or other damages, or nonmonetary sanctions. Government regulations also provide that certain allegations against a contractor may lead to suspension or debarment from government contracts or suspension of export privileges. Suspension or debarment could have a material adverse effect on us because of our reliance on government contracts and authorizations. Litigation, claims, or investigations, if ultimately resolved against us, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Any litigation, claim, or investigation, even if fully indemnified or insured, could negatively impact our reputation among our customers and the public and make it more difficult for us to compete effectively or acquire adequate insurance in the future.

We own patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property related to our business, and we license intellectual property rights to and from third parties. The U.S. Government generally receives non-exclusive licenses to certain intellectual property we develop in the performance of U.S. Government contracts, and the U.S. Government may use or authorize others to use such intellectual property. The U.S. Government is taking increasingly aggressive positions both as to the intellectual property to which they believe government use rights apply and to the acquisition of broad license rights. If the U.S. Government is successful in these efforts, our ability to compete and to obtain access to and use certain supplier intellectual property could be negatively affected.

We also rely upon proprietary technology, information, processes, and know-how that are not protected by patents. We seek to protect this information through trade secret or confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, subcontractors, and other parties, as well as through other measures. These agreements and other measures may not, however, provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets.

Our intellectual property is also subject to challenge, invalidation, misappropriation, or circumvention by third parties. In the event of infringement of our intellectual property rights, breach of a confidentiality agreement, or unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information, we may not have adequate legal remedies to protect our intellectual property. Litigation to determine the scope of our rights, even if successful, could be costly and a diversion of management's attention from other aspects of our business. In addition, trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently developed by competitors. If we are unable adequately to protect our intellectual property rights, our business could be adversely affected.

We have the right to use certain intellectual property licensed to us by third parties. In instances where third parties have licensed to us the right to use their intellectual property, we may be unable in the future to secure the necessary licenses to use such intellectual property on commercially reasonable terms.

The payment of cash dividends and repurchases of our common stock are subject to limitations under applicable law and the discretion of our board of directors, considered in the context of then current conditions, including our earnings, other operating results, and capital requirements. Declines in asset values or increases in liabilities, including liabilities associated with benefit plans and assets and liabilities associated with taxes, can reduce stockholders’ equity. A deficit in stockholders’ equity could limit our ability under Delaware law to pay dividends and repurchase shares in the future. In addition, the timing and amount of share repurchases under board approved share repurchase programs are within the discretion of management and depend upon many factors, including our share price, results of operations, and capital requirements, as well as applicable law.

As of December 31, 2019, we had $1.3 billion of debt under our senior notes and $1.2 billion of additional borrowing capacity under our Credit Agreement (the “Credit Facility”). Our Credit Facility also allows us to solicit lenders to provide incremental financing capacity in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1 billion, and the indentures governing our senior notes do not limit our incurrence of debt. The amount of our existing debt, combined with our ability to incur significant amounts of debt in the future, could have important consequences, including:

The interest rate on variable rate indebtedness under our Credit Facility is based upon the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”). LIBOR is the subject of recent national, international, and other regulatory guidance and proposals for reform. In July 2017, the Chief Executive of the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”), which regulates LIBOR, announced that the FCA will no longer persuade or compel banks to submit rates for the calculation of the LIBOR benchmark after 2021. This announcement indicates that the continuation of LIBOR on the current basis cannot and will not be guaranteed after 2021, and it appears likely that LIBOR will be discontinued or modified by 2021. The consequences of the discontinuance of the LIBOR benchmark cannot be entirely predicted, but could include an increase in the cost of our variable rate indebtedness.

Certain provisions of our Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Restated Bylaws may delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that stockholders may consider favorable. For example, our Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Restated Bylaws currently require advance notice for stockholder proposals and director nominations, and authorize our board of directors to issue one or more series of preferred stock. These provisions may discourage acquisition proposals or delay or prevent a change in control, which could reduce our stock price. Delaware law also imposes restrictions on mergers and other business combinations between any holder of 15% or more of our outstanding common stock and us.

Our nuclear shipbuilding operations are considered vitally important to the U.S. Navy. As a result, our Navy contracts include provisions regarding notice and approval rights for the Navy in the event of a change of control of our nuclear shipbuilding operations and regarding the Navy's obligations to indemnify us for losses relating to our nuclear operations for the Navy. Such provisions require us to provide the U.S. Navy with notice of any potential change of control of our nuclear shipbuilding operations and obtain the Navy's consent for transferring certain related licenses to facilitate the Navy's ability to ensure that a potential buyer would continue to conduct our operations in a satisfactory manner.

Our Pascagoula shipyard is a primary builder of major surface warships for the U.S. Navy and has modernized dozens of other naval ships. It is the only U.S. shipyard in recent years to develop and build six different classes of ships for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard. Our facilities in Pascagoula are located on approximately 800 acres on the banks of the Pascagoula River where it flows into the Mississippi Sound. We lease the west bank of our Pascagoula shipyard from the State of Mississippi pursuant to a 99-year lease, consisting of a 40-year base term plus six optional terms. We anticipate continued use of this facility for the remaining 47 years of the lease and beyond.

Our Newport News facilities are located on approximately 550 acres we own near the mouth of the James River, which adjoins the Chesapeake Bay, the premier deep-water harbor on the east coast of the United States. Our Newport News shipyard is one of the largest in the United States. It is the sole designer, builder, and refueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and one of only two shipyards capable of designing and building nuclear-powered submarines for the U.S. Navy. The shipyard also provides services for naval and commercial vessels.

Our Newport News shipyard includes seven graving docks, a floating dry dock, two outfitting berths, five outfitting piers, and various other shops. It also has a variety of other facilities, including an 18-acre all-weather steel fabrication shop, accessible by both rail and transporter, module outfitting facilities that enable us to assemble a ship's basic structural modules indoors and on land, machine shops totaling 300,000 square feet, and an apprentice school, which provides a four-year accredited apprenticeship program to train shipbuilders.

Technical Solutions - The properties comprising our Technical Solutions operating segment are located throughout the United States. Our properties located in Virginia Beach, Virginia; Mayport and Panama City, Florida; San Diego, California; Bremerton, Washington; and Honolulu, Hawaii, primarily provide fleet support services. Properties located in Huntsville, Alabama; Fairfax, Virginia; Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and Aberdeen and Annapolis Junction, Maryland, primarily provide MDIS services. Properties located in Newport News, Virginia primarily provide nuclear and environmental services. A property located in Houston, Texas provides oil and gas services.

We believe our physical facilities and equipment are generally well maintained, in good operating condition, and satisfactory for our current needs. While our physical facilities and equipment are adequate for our current needs, we have initiated capital expenditure programs at our Ingalls and Newport News segments that will make us more competitive and enable us to meet future obligations under our shipbuilding programs.

U.S. Government Investigations and Claims - Departments and agencies of the U.S. Government have the authority to investigate various transactions and operations of our company, and the results of such investigations may lead to administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings, the ultimate outcome of which could be fines, penalties, repayments, or compensatory, treble, or other damages. U.S. Government regulations provide that certain findings against a contractor may also lead to suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts or the loss of export privileges. Any suspension or debarment may have a material effect on us because of our reliance on government contracts.

Litigation - In March 2019, a new dry dock being transported for delivery to Ingalls by a heavy lift ship struck an Ingalls work barge, which in turn was pushed into Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) causing damage to Delbert D. Black (DDG 119), the work barge, and the new dry dock. At the time of the incident, responsibility for the new dry dock remained with the builder and the transport company. Repair work on Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) is in process at U.S. Navy direction. We are working with the U.S. Navy to ascertain whether third parties will pay for the repairs to Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) or whether the repairs will be paid under the builder's risk insurance included in the Delbert D. Black (DDG 119) contract. Claims were tendered to our insurers, and we have received all outstanding claim proceeds. In April 2019, we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi seeking, among other relief, damages from negligent third parties. Based upon information currently available, we believe we will collect sufficient funds from one or more third parties to compensate for the resulting direct and consequential damages, but failure to collect sufficient funds or the length of time required to collect such funds could result in a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

In 2016, we were made aware that the Company is a defendant in a qui tam False Claims Act lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida related to our purchases of allegedly non-conforming parts from a supplier for use in connection with U.S. Government contracts. In August 2019, the Department of Justice (“DoJ”) declined to intervene in the lawsuit, and the lawsuit was unsealed. Depending upon the outcome of the lawsuit, we could be subject to civil penalties, damages, and/or suspension or debarment from future U.S. Government contracts, which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We have only recently been served with the lawsuit and therefore have not had an opportunity to respond to the substance of the complaint or engage in any discovery related to the issues set forth in the complaint. As a result, we currently are unable to estimate an amount or range of reasonably possible loss or to express an opinion regarding the ultimate outcome.

In September 2019, we became aware that the Company is a defendant in a qui tam False Claims Act lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida related to allegations about our application of a material to the exterior surface of Virginia class (SSN 774) submarines. The DoJ declined to intervene in the lawsuit, and, after the lawsuit was unsealed, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

We and our predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, in which former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos-containing materials while on, or associated with, our premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by us. The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma and other alleged asbestos-related conditions. In some cases, several of our former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to us for our liability and that of our former executive officers. Although we believe the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, we cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can therefore give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation.

We and our predecessor-in-interest have been in litigation with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (the "Republic") since 2002 over a contract for the repair, refurbishment, and modernization at Ingalls of two foreign-built frigates. The case proceeded towards arbitration, then appeared to settle favorably, but the settlement was overturned in court and the matter returned to litigation. In March 2014, we filed an arbitral statement of claim asserting breaches of the contract. In July 2014, the Republic filed a statement of defense in the arbitration denying all our allegations and a counterclaim alleging late redelivery of the frigates, unfinished work, and breach of warranty. In February 2018, the arbitral tribunal awarded us approximately $151 million on our claims and awarded

We are party to various other claims, legal proceedings, and investigations that arise in the ordinary course of business, including U.S. Government investigations that could result in administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings involving us. We are a contractor with the U.S. Government, and such proceedings can therefore include False Claims Act allegations against us. Although we believe that the resolution of these other claims, legal proceedings, and investigations will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, we cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can therefore give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these matters.

^(◦)The S&P Aerospace & Defense Select Index is comprised of Arconic, Inc., The Boeing Company, General Dynamics Corporation, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., L3 Harris Technologies, Inc., Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Raytheon Company, Textron, Inc., TransDigm Group Incorporated, and United Technologies Corporation, among other companies.

In November 2017, our board of directors authorized an increase in our stock repurchase program from $1.2 billion to $2.2 billion. On November 5, 2019, our board of directors authorized an increase in our stock repurchase program from $2.2 billion to $3.2 billion and an extension of the term of the program to October 31, 2024. Repurchases are made from time to time at management's discretion in accordance with applicable federal securities laws. All repurchases of shares of our common stock have been recorded as treasury stock. The following table summarizes information by month relating to purchases made by us or on our behalf during the quarter ended December 31, 2019.


Period	Total Number of Shares Purchased	Average Price Paid per Share		Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Program	Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Program (in millions)
October 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019	129,195	$	208.90	129,195	$	257.0
November 1, 2019 through November 30, 2019	56,439	244.86		56,439	1,243.2
December 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019	68,631	251.97		68,631	1,225.9
Total	254,265	$	228.51	254,265	$	1,225.9


	Year Ended December 31
($ in millions, except per share amounts)	2019		2018		2017		2016		2015
Sales and service revenues⁽¹⁾	$	8,899	$	8,176	$	7,441	$	7,068	$	7,020
Goodwill impairment	29		—		—		—		75
Operating income	736		951		881		876		774
Net earnings	549		836		479		573		404
Total assets	7,031		6,383		6,374		6,352		6,024
Long-term debt ⁽²⁾	1,286		1,283		1,279		1,278		1,273
Total long-term obligations	3,553		3,038		3,225		3,356		3,260
Net cash provided by operating activities	896		914		814		822		861
Free cash flow ⁽³⁾	460		512		453		537		673
Dividends declared per share	$	3.61	$	3.02	$	2.52	$	2.10	$	1.70
Basic earnings per share	$	13.26	$	19.09	$	10.48	$	12.24	$	8.43
Diluted earnings per share	$	13.26	$	19.09	$	10.46	$	12.14	$	8.36

Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. is America’s largest military shipbuilding company and a provider of professional services to partners in government and industry. For more than a century, our Ingalls segment in Mississippi and Newport News segment in Virginia have built more ships in more ship classes than any other U.S. naval shipbuilder. We also provide a range of services to the governmental, energy, and oil and gas markets through our Technical Solutions segment. Headquartered in Newport News, Virginia, HII employs approximately 42,000 people both domestically and internationally.

We conduct most of our business with the U.S. Government, primarily the DoD. As prime contractor, principal subcontractor, team member, or partner, we participate in many high-priority U.S. defense programs. Ingalls includes our non-nuclear ship design, construction, repair, and maintenance businesses. Newport News includes all of our nuclear ship design, construction, overhaul, refueling, and repair and maintenance businesses. Our Technical Solutions segment provides a wide range of professional services, including fleet support, MDIS, nuclear and environmental, and oil and gas services.

The National Defense Authorization Act, as well as appropriations measures that funded the DoD, DoE, and all other federal agencies, was enacted in December 2019 for fiscal year 2020. While these measures largely supported our individual programs, we cannot predict the potential impact should fiscal year 2020 appropriations be reprioritized or reprogrammed for other purposes by the executive branch. Long-term funding for certain programs in which we participate may be reduced, delayed, or canceled. In addition, spending cuts and/or reprioritization of defense investment could adversely affect the viability of our suppliers, subcontractors, and employee base. Our contracts or subcontracts under programs in which we participate may be terminated or adjusted by the U.S. Government or the prime contractor as a result of lack of government funding or reductions or delays in government funding. Significant reductions in the number of ships procured or maintained by the U.S. Navy or significant delays in funding our ship programs would have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The budget environment remains a significant long-term risk. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding how future budget and program decisions will develop and what challenges budget changes will present for the defense industry. We believe continued budget pressures will have serious implications for defense discretionary spending, the defense industrial base, including us, and the customers, employees, suppliers, subcontractors, investors, and communities that rely on companies in the defense industrial base. Although it is difficult to determine specific impacts, we expect that over the longer term, the budget environment may result in fewer contract awards and lower revenues, profits, and cash flows from our U.S. Government contracts. It is likely budget and program decisions made in this environment will have long-term impacts on us and the entire defense industry.

The United States faces a complex, uncertain, and rapidly changing national security environment. The 2018 National Defense Strategy acknowledges an increasingly complex global security environment, characterized by overt challenges to the free and open international order and the re-emergence of long-term, strategic competition between nations. America also faces an ever more lethal and disruptive battlefield, combined across domains, and conducted at increasing speed and reach. The security environment is also affected by rapid technological advancements and the changing character of war. The drive to develop new capabilities and enhance lethality is

relentless, expanding to address emerging threats from peer-competitors as well as actors with lower barriers of entry, and moving at accelerating speed. New capabilities and lethality enhancements include unmanned and autonomous systems and platforms; hypersonics; directed energy; resilient networks; command, control, communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and targeting ("C5ISR&T") requirements; and fleet design.

We expect that execution of the DoD strategy will require an affordable balance between investments in enhancing the readiness of the current force with investments in new capabilities, force constructs, technologies, and capacity to meet future challenges. The DoD also faces the additional challenges of recapitalizing aging infrastructure, including the Naval Shipyards, and transforming manpower, personnel, training, and education to recruit and retain an empowered force. Other budget priorities could have a significant impact on future spending plans for defense and non-defense discretionary programs. Decreases in the proposed funding levels for our programs could negatively impact our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, including revenues, goodwill, and long-lived assets.

In December 2016, the U.S. Navy released the findings of a year-long Force Structure Assessment, developed to determine the right balance of existing forces, the ships currently under construction, and the future procurement plans needed to address the ever-evolving and increasingly complex threats that the Navy is required to counter. Notably, the Force Structure Assessment did not present a desired force size the U.S. Navy would pursue if resources were not constrained; it reflected a force level that balances warfighting risk to equipment and personnel against available resources and recommends a force size that can reasonably achieve success. Accordingly, the Force Structure Assessment reflects an objective force of 355 ships, comprised of 12 aircraft carriers, 104 large surface combatants, 52 small surface combatants, 38 amphibious warfare ships, 66 attack submarines, 12 ballistic missile submarines, 32 combat logistics ships, 10 expeditionary/high speed transports, 6 expeditionary support bases, and 23 command and support ships. Additionally, the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act included the SHIPS Act, which made it the policy of our nation to achieve a fleet size of 355 ships.

A new Force Structure Assessment, referred to as the Integrated Naval Force Structure Assessment ("INFSA"), is now underway and anticipated to be released in the Spring of 2020, to influence the fiscal year 2022 budget request. The U.S. Navy’s intent is for the INFSA to reflect a shift in future warfighting by emphasizing sea control and sea denial that enables power projection against adversaries with long-range weapons and full-spectrum joint domain capabilities. The INFSA is also anticipated to implement the evolving concept of Distributed Maritime Operations ("DMO"), which will feature multiple sensors and shooters that are widely dispersed across a broad range of manned and unmanned platforms and linked through resilient networks. Additionally, the INFSA will reflect the United States Marine Corps's ("USMC") desire to return to its maritime roots by evolving from a force requirement of 38 large amphibious warships in support of “2.0” Marine Expeditionary Brigades to a force trained and equipped as a naval expeditionary force-in-readiness and prepared to operate inside actively contested maritime spaces in support of fleet operations. In addition to employment of assets such as LHAs, LPDs, and dock landing ships ("LSD"), the USMC’s force will likely feature an expanded assortment of smaller platforms, landing craft, and connectors that are manned, minimally-manned, and unmanned and exploit autonomy and artificial intelligence.

The U.S. Navy’s 2020 five-year shipbuilding plan included 55 new ships, which is the same quantity that was included in the 2019 five-year shipbuilding plan, but reflected an anticipated reduction in the quantity of amphibious warfare ships to offset a corresponding increase in the quantity of attack submarines and small surface combatants. However, the U.S. Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan for 2020 reflects a total of 304 ships, compared to the 2019 plan of 301 ships, with respective increases of one each for attack submarines, small surface combatants, and amphibious warfare ships.

While the force objective of 355 ships reflected in the 2016 Force Structure Assessment still pertains and has been memorialized as national policy by the 2018 SHIPS Act, both the Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office have estimated that additional ships would need to be added to the U.S. Navy’s 30-year plan to achieve the 355 ship objective unless the Navy extends the service lives of existing ships and reactivates recently retired ships.

In December 2018, the U.S. Navy also released its “Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority, Version 2.0” ("Design 2.0"), which expands upon a posture initially put forth in January 2016 under Version 1.0 of Design 2.0. The new plan calls for four specific lines of effort: strengthening naval power at and from the sea; achieving high-velocity outcomes; strengthening the U.S. Navy team of the future; and expanding and strengthening the

Navy’s Network of Partners. Each line of effort calls for specific recommendations that are intended to make the U.S. Navy more agile, more competitive, and tougher. As a means of strengthening naval power, the plan expresses award date goals for several major programs, including the future frigate and large surface combatant. Other initiatives include integrating more artificial intelligence and machine learning into warfare systems, developing and fielding a family of directed energy weapons, as well as employment of 3D printing for replacement parts.

In December 2019, the Chief of Naval Operations released "Fragmentary Order 01/2019: A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority". The order was written to simplify, prioritize, and build upon the foundation of “Design 2.0,” and focus the U.S. Navy’s efforts on "Warfighting, Warfighters, and the Future Navy". The end-state for the “Warfighting” tenet is a U.S. Navy that is ready to win across the full range of military operations in competition, crisis, and contingency by persistently operating forward with agility and flexibility in an all-domain battlespace. The end-state for the “Warfighters” tenet is a world-class naval force through recruitment, education, training, and retention of talented Americans – a force that empowers U.S. Navy families. The end-state for the “Future Navy” tenet envisions a fleet designed to ensure the wholeness of combat capability and lethal forces maximizing the benefits of DMO, Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations, and Littoral Operations in a contested environment. Manned and unmanned technology will be used to expand reach, lethality, and warfighter awareness.

The shipbuilding defense industry, as characterized by its competitors, customers, suppliers, potential entrants, and substitutes, is unique in many ways. It is heavily capital and skilled labor intensive. The U.S. Navy, a large single customer with many needs and requirements, dominates the industry's customer base and is served by an increasingly fragile supplier base that has trended toward exclusive providers. Smaller shipyards, however, have entered the market to build the U.S. Navy's littoral combat ship and have expressed interest in the future frigate program.

The DoD continues to adjust its procurement practices and streamline acquisition organizations and processes in an ongoing effort to reduce costs, gain efficiencies, and enhance program management and control. Additionally, the U.S. Navy must compete with other national priorities, including other defense activities, non-defense discretionary spending, and entitlement programs, for a share of federal budget funding. While the impact to our business resulting from these developments remains uncertain, they could have a material impact on current programs, as well as new business opportunities with the DoD. See Risk Factors in Item 1A.

We generate most of our revenues from long-term U.S. Government contracts for design, production, and support activities. Government contracts typically include the following cost elements: direct material, labor and subcontracting costs, and certain indirect costs, including allowable general and administrative expenses. Unless otherwise specified in a contract, costs billed to contracts with the U.S. Government are treated as allowable and allocable costs under the FAR and CAS regulations. Examples of costs incurred by us that are not allowable under the FAR and CAS regulations include certain legal costs, lobbying costs, charitable donations, interest expense, and advertising costs.

We monitor our policies and procedures with respect to our contracts on a regular basis to ensure consistent application under similar terms and conditions, as well as compliance with all applicable government regulations. In addition, the DCAA routinely audits the costs we incur that are allocated to contracts with the U.S. Government.

•Cost-Type Contracts - Cost-type contracts provide for reimbursement of the contractor's allowable costs plus a fee that represents profit. Cost-type contracts generally require that the contractor use its reasonable efforts to accomplish the scope of the work within some specified time and some stated dollar limitation.

Contract Fees - Negotiated contract fee structures include: fixed fee amounts, cost sharing arrangements to reward or penalize contractors for under or over cost target performance, respectively, positive award fees, and negative penalty arrangements. Profit margins may vary materially depending on the negotiated contract fee arrangements, percentage-of-completion of the contract, 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.

Award Fees - Certain contracts contain award fees based on performance criteria such as cost, schedule, quality, and technical performance. Award fees are determined and earned based on an evaluation by the customer of our performance against such negotiated criteria. We consider award fees to be variable consideration and generally include these fees in the transaction price using a most likely amount approach. Award fees are limited to the extent of funding allotted by the customer and available for performance and those amounts for which a significant reversal of revenue is not probable.

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, which requires management to make estimates, judgments, and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes. Management considers an accounting policy to be critical if it is important to our financial condition and results of operations and requires significant judgment and estimates by management in its application. The development and selection of these critical accounting policies have been determined by our management. We have reviewed our critical accounting policies and estimates with the audit committee of our board of directors. Due to the significant judgment involved in selecting certain of the assumptions used in these policies, it is possible that different parties could choose different assumptions and reach different conclusions. We consider our policies relating to the following matters to be critical accounting policies:

Most of our revenues are derived from long-term contracts for the production of goods and services provided to the U.S. Government, which are generally accounted for by recognizing revenues over time using a cost-to-cost measure of progress. The use of the cost-to-cost method to measure performance progress over time is supported by clauses in the related contracts that allow the customer to unilaterally terminate the contract for convenience, pay us for costs incurred plus a reasonable profit, and take control of any work in process.

When the customer is not a U.S. Government entity, we may recognize revenue over time or at a point in time when control transfers upon delivery, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the related arrangement. When we determine that revenue should be recognized over time, we utilize a measure of progress that best depicts the transfer of control of the relevant goods and services to the customer. Generally, the terms and conditions of the contracts result in a transfer of control over the related goods and services as we satisfy our performance obligations. Accordingly, we recognize revenue over time using the cost-to-cost method to measure performance progress. We may, however, utilize a measure of progress other than cost-to-cost, such as a labor-

When using the cost-to-cost method to measure performance progress, certain contracts may include costs that are not representative of performance progress, such as large upfront purchases of uninstalled materials, unexpected waste, or inefficiencies. In these cases, we adjust our measure of progress to exclude such costs, with the goal of better reflecting the transfer of control over the related goods or services to the customer and recognizing revenue only to the extent of the costs incurred that reflect our performance under the contract.

A performance obligation is a promise to transfer a distinct good or service to the customer and is the unit of account for which revenue is recognized. To determine the proper revenue recognition method, consideration is given to whether two or more contracts should be combined and accounted for as one contract and whether a single contract consists of more than one performance obligation. For contracts with multiple performance obligations, the contract transaction price is allocated to each performance obligation using an estimate of the standalone selling price based upon expected cost plus a margin at contract inception, which is generally the price disclosed in the contract. Contracts are often modified to account for changes in contract specifications and requirements. In the majority of circumstances, modifications do not result in additional performance obligations that are distinct from the existing performance obligations in the contract, and the effects of the modifications are recognized as an adjustment to revenue on a cumulative catch-up basis. Alternatively, in instances in which the performance obligations in the modifications are deemed distinct, contract modifications are accounted for prospectively.

The amount of revenue recognized as we satisfy performance obligations associated with contracts with customers is based upon the determination of transaction price. Transaction price reflects the amount of consideration to which we expect to be entitled for performance under the terms and conditions of the relevant contract and may reflect fixed and variable components, including shareline incentive fees whereby the value of the contract is variable based upon the amount of costs incurred, as well as other incentive fees based upon achievement of contractual schedule commitments or other specified criteria in the contract. Shareline incentive fees are determined based upon the formula under the relevant contract using our estimated cost to complete for each period. We generally utilize a most likely amount approach to estimate variable consideration. In all such instances, the estimated revenues represent those amounts for which we believe a significant reversal of revenue is not probable.

Contract Estimates - In estimating contract costs, we utilize a profit-booking rate based upon performance expectations that takes into consideration a number of assumptions and estimates regarding risks related to technical requirements, feasibility, schedule, and contract costs. Management performs periodic reviews of the contracts to evaluate the underlying risks, which may increase the profit-booking rate as we are able to mitigate and retire such risks. Conversely, if we are not able to retire these risks, cost estimates may increase, resulting in a lower profit-booking rate.

The cost estimation process requires significant judgment based upon the professional knowledge and experience of our engineers, program managers, and financial professionals. Factors considered in estimating the work to be completed and ultimate contract recovery include the availability, productivity, and cost of labor, the nature and complexity of the work to be performed, the effect of change orders, the availability of materials, the effect of any performance delays, the availability and timing of funding from the customer, and the recoverability of any claims included in the estimates to complete.

For the year ended December 31, 2019, favorable cumulative catch-up adjustments were related to contract changes on submarine support services, risk retirement on the Legend class NSC program, surface combatants, and the RCOH of USS George Washington (CVN 73), as well as other individually insignificant adjustments. During the same period, unfavorable cumulative catch-up adjustments included recognition of a forward loss on a fleet support services contract and schedule delays on Tripoli (LHA 7), as well as other individually insignificant adjustments.

For the year ended December 31, 2018, favorable cumulative catch-up adjustments were related to risk retirement on the Virginia class (SSN 774) submarine program, the Legend class NSC program, USS Portland (LPD 27), and Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28), as well as other individually insignificant adjustments. During the same period, unfavorable cumulative catch-up adjustments were related to the Virginia class (SSN 774) submarine program, including lower performance on Delaware (SSN 791) and Montana (SSN 794), and other individually insignificant adjustments.

For the year ended December 31, 2017, favorable cumulative catch-up adjustments were primarily related to risk retirement on the Legend class NSC program, Tripoli (LHA 7), USS Portland (LPD 27), and the delivered USS John Finn (DDG 113), the resolution of outstanding contract changes on the inactivation of the decommissioned Enterprise (CVN 65) and the RCOH of the redelivered USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), and other individually insignificant adjustments. During the same period, none of the unfavorable cumulative catch-up adjustments were individually significant.

Tests for Impairment - We perform impairment tests for goodwill as of November 30 of each year, or when evidence of potential impairment exists. When testing goodwill, we compare the fair value of the reporting unit to its carrying value. If the fair value of the reporting unit is determined to be less than the carrying value, we record a charge to operations.

We estimate the fair value of each reporting unit using a combination of discounted cash flow analysis and market based valuation methodologies. Determining fair value requires the exercise of significant judgment, including judgments about projected revenues, operating expenses, working capital investment, capital expenditures, and cash flows over a multi-year period. The discount rate applied to our forecasts of future cash flows is based on our estimated weighted average cost of capital. In assessing the reasonableness of our determined fair values, we evaluate our results against our market capitalization. Changes in these estimates and assumptions could materially affect the determination of fair value and/or goodwill impairment for each reporting unit.

November 30, 2019 Impairment Test - In connection with our annual goodwill impairment test, we tested goodwill for each of our four reporting units. As a result of our annual goodwill impairment test, we determined that the estimated fair value of each reporting unit exceeded by more than 10% its corresponding carrying value as of November 30, 2019, except for the oil and gas reporting unit in our Technical Solutions segment.

Our determination of fair value as of November 30, 2019, of our oil and gas reporting unit, considered the slower than expected growth in operating margin, a revised long-term outlook for the reporting unit, and less favorable market conditions. The analysis concluded the fair value of this reporting unit was less than its carrying value as of November 30, 2019, and we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $29 million at our oil and gas reporting unit in our Technical Solutions segment in the fourth quarter of 2019.

November 30, 2018 Impairment Test - In connection with our annual goodwill impairment test, we tested goodwill for each of our four reporting units. As a result of our annual goodwill impairment test, we determined that the estimated fair value of each reporting unit exceeded by more than 10% its corresponding carrying value as of November 30, 2018.

November 30, 2017 Impairment Test - In connection with our annual goodwill impairment test, we tested goodwill for each of our four reporting units. As a result of our annual goodwill impairment test, we determined that the estimated fair value of each reporting unit exceeded by more than 10% its corresponding carrying value as of November 30, 2017.

Overview - We are subject to a range of legal proceedings before various courts and administrative agencies and are periodically subject to government examinations, inquiries, and investigations that arise in the ordinary course of business. Estimating liabilities and costs associated with these matters requires judgment and assessment based upon professional knowledge and the experience of management and our internal and external legal counsel. In accordance with our practices relating to accounting for contingencies, we record charges to earnings when we determine, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each matter, including any settlement offers, that it is probable a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The ultimate resolution of any such exposure may vary from earlier estimates as further facts and circumstances become known.

Environmental Accruals - We are subject to the environmental laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which we conduct operations. We record a liability for the costs of expected environmental remediation obligations when we determine that it is probable we will incur such costs and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. When a range of costs is possible and no amount within that range is a better estimate than another, we record the minimum amount of the range.

Factors that could result in changes to the assessment of probability, range of estimated costs, and environmental liability accruals include: modification of planned remedial actions, increase or decrease in the estimated time required to remediate, discovery of more extensive contamination than anticipated, results of efforts to involve other legally responsible parties, financial insolvency of other responsible parties, changes in laws and regulations or contractual obligations affecting remediation requirements, and improvements in remediation technology. Although we cannot predict whether new information gained as remediation projects progress will materially affect the accrued liability, we do not believe that future remediation expenditures will have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Asset Retirement Obligations - We record all known asset retirement obligations for which the liability's fair value can be reasonably estimated, including certain asbestos removal, asset decommissioning, and contractual lease restoration obligations. Recorded amounts as of each of December 31, 2019 and 2018, were immaterial. See Note 2: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in Item 8.

We also have known conditional asset retirement obligations related to assets currently in use, such as certain asbestos remediation and asset decommissioning activities to be performed in the future, that were not reasonably estimable as of December 31, 2019, due to insufficient information about the timing and method of settlement of the obligation. Accordingly, the fair value of these obligations has not been recorded in the consolidated financial statements. Environmental remediation and/or asset decommissioning of facilities currently in use may be required when we cease to utilize these facilities. In addition, there may be conditional environmental asset retirement obligations that we have not yet discovered (for example, asbestos of which we have not become aware through

Litigation Accruals - Litigation accruals are recorded as charges to earnings when management has determined, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each matter, including any settlement offers, that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. The ultimate resolution of any exposure may vary from earlier estimates as further facts and circumstances become known. Based upon the information available, we believe that the resolution of any of these various legal proceedings will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Uncertain Tax Positions - Uncertain tax positions meeting the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, based on the merits of the position, are recognized in the financial statements. We recognize the amount of a tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely to be realized upon ultimate settlement with the related tax authority. If a tax position does not meet the minimum statutory threshold to avoid payment of penalties, we recognize an expense for the amount of the penalty in the period the tax position is claimed or expected to be claimed in our tax return. Penalties and accrued interest related to uncertain tax positions are recognized as a component of income tax expense. See Note 14: Income Taxes in Item 8. Changes in accruals associated with uncertain tax positions are recorded in earnings in the period they are determined.

We recognize, on a plan-by-plan basis, the funded status of our retirement related benefit plans as an asset or liability on our balance sheet, with corresponding adjustments to after-tax accumulated other comprehensive loss and deferred tax assets or liabilities. The funded status represents the difference between the benefit obligation and the fair value of plan assets. See Note 19: Employee Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits in Item 8.

We calculate our retirement related benefit plan costs under both CAS and U.S. GAAP Financial Accounting Standards ("FAS"). The calculations under CAS and FAS require significant judgment. CAS prescribes the determination, allocation, and recovery of retirement related benefit plan costs on U.S. Government contracts through the pricing of products and services. FAS prescribes the methodology used to determine retirement related benefit plan expense or income, as well as the liability, for financial reporting purposes. The CAS requirements for these costs and their calculation methodologies differ from FAS. As a result, while both CAS and FAS use assumptions in their calculation methodologies, each method results in different calculated amounts of retirement related benefit plan costs.

Retirement related benefit plan costs are allocated to our U.S. Government contracts as allowable costs based upon CAS. We recover our CAS costs through the pricing of products and services on U.S. Government contracts, so that the CAS cost is recognized in segment product sales and service revenues and in the costs of those product sales and service revenues. In order to present our consolidated financial statements in accordance with FAS, we record the difference between our FAS expense and CAS cost (“FAS/CAS Adjustment”) as operating income within segment operating income and non-operating retirement benefit (expense).

The minimum funding requirements for our qualified pension plans are determined under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), which is primarily based on the year's expected service cost and amortization of other previously unfunded liabilities. Effective January 1, 2011, we were subject to the funding requirements under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 ("PPA"), which amended ERISA. Under the PPA, we are required to fully fund our pension plans over a rolling seven-year period as determined annually based upon the funded status at the beginning of each year. PPA also introduced a variety of benefit restrictions that apply if a plan falls below certain funded percentages, as defined by the Internal Revenue Code. In funding our plans, we consider various factors, including the minimum funding requirements, maintaining the funded status needed to avoid potential benefit restrictions and other adverse consequences, maintaining minimum CAS funding requirements, and the current and anticipated funding levels of each plan.

We use a current market rate to determine the CAS interest rate. Effective January 1, 2021, we will adopt the Safe Harbor methodology used in determining CAS pension costs. Under the new methodology, the interest rates used to calculate pension liabilities under CAS are consistent with those used in the determination of minimum funding requirements under ERISA.

Pension funding requirements under ERISA are subject to potential pension relief for plan sponsors in the form of higher interest rate assumptions introduced by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and subsequently extended by the Highway and Transportation Funding Act in 2014 and The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Using these minimum funding interest rates for the purposes of determining pension costs under CAS reduces volatility in CAS costs year-over-year and provides more predictable costs for our customers, while better aligning reimbursements of pension costs under our contracts with our required pension plan contributions under ERISA.

This change in CAS methodology is not expected to have a material effect on our minimum pension funding requirements and no effect on benefits received by participants of the pension plans. While CAS costs under the new methodology are generally expected to be comparable over the life of a plan on a net present value basis, the change is expected to decrease CAS costs following adoption in 2021 due to the higher interest rates applicable with funding relief, thus resulting in a lower FAS/CAS Adjustment. Following adoption in 2021 and based on current interest rate conditions, we also expect that pension contributions will decrease in substantially the same amount as CAS costs, with limited impact to cash flows and consolidated segment operating income.

Assumptions - We account for our retirement related benefit plans on the accrual basis under FAS. The measurements of obligations, costs, assets, and liabilities require significant judgment. We annually review our assumptions, which are set at each year end and are generally not changed during the following year unless there is a major plan event, such as an amendment, curtailment, or settlement that would trigger a remeasurement. The key assumptions in these measurements are the interest rate used to discount future benefit payments and the expected long-term rate of return on plan assets.

Discount Rate - The assumed discount rate under FAS is used to determine the retirement related benefit plan obligations and expense, and represents the hypothetical rate at which the plans' benefit obligations could be effectively settled at the measurement date. Consequently, the discount rate can be volatile from year to year. The discount rate assumption is determined for each plan by constructing a hypothetical portfolio of high quality bonds with cash flows that match the estimated outflows for future benefit payments to determine a single equivalent discount rate. Benefit payments are not only contingent on the terms of a plan, but also on the underlying participant demographics, including current age and assumed mortality. We use only bonds that are denominated in U.S. Dollars, are rated Aa or better by nationally recognized statistical rating agencies, have a minimum outstanding issue of $100 million as of the measurement date, and are not callable, convertible, or index-linked.

Expected Long-Term Rate of Return - The expected long-term rate of return on assets is used to calculate net periodic expense, and is based on such factors as historical returns, targeted asset allocations, investment policy, duration, expected future long-term performance of individual asset classes, interest rates, inflation, portfolio volatility, investment management and administrative fees, and risk management strategies. Historical plan asset performance alone has inherent limitations in predicting future returns. While studies are helpful in understanding past and current trends and performance, the assumption is based more on long-term prospective views to avoid short-term market influences. Unless plan assets and benefit obligations are subject to remeasurement during the year, the expected return on pension assets is based on the fair value of plan assets at the beginning of the year. We used a 7.25% expected long-term rate of return assumption to record 2019 pension expense, and we anticipate retaining that assumption throughout 2020.

Mortality - Mortality assumptions are used to determine the retirement related benefit obligations and expense, and represent the likelihood and duration of benefit payments to plan participants based on historical experience and projected longevity. We periodically update our mortality assumptions as circumstances warrant.

Differences arising from actual experience or changes in assumptions might materially affect retirement related benefit plan obligations and the funded status. Actuarial gains and losses arising from differences between assumptions and actual experience or changes in assumptions are deferred in accumulated other comprehensive

loss. This unrecognized amount is amortized as a component of net expense to the extent it exceeds 10% of the greater of the plan's benefit obligation or plan assets. The amortization period for actuarial gains and losses is the estimated average remaining service life of the plan participants. In 2019, the actual return on assets was approximately 22%, which was more than the expected return assumption of 7.25%. For the year ended December 31, 2019, the weighted average discount rates for our pension and other postretirement benefit plans decreased by 95 and 98 basis points, respectively. These differences in asset returns and discount rates resulted in an actuarial gain of $825 million and an actuarial loss of $1,039 million, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2019.


($ in millions)	Increase (Decrease) in 2020 Expense		Increase (Decrease) in December 31, 2019 Obligations
25 basis point decrease in discount rate	$	26	$	298
25 basis point increase in discount rate	(24)		(281)
25 basis point decrease in expected return on assets	17
25 basis point increase in expected return on assets	(17)

CAS Cost - In addition to providing the methodology for calculating retirement related benefit plan costs, CAS also prescribes the method for assigning those costs to specific periods. While the ultimate liability for such costs under FAS and CAS is similar, the pattern of cost recognition is different. The key drivers of CAS pension cost include the funded status and the method used to calculate CAS reimbursement for each of our plans. A plan’s CAS pension cost can only be allocated until the plan is fully funded as defined under the CAS requirements.

Through 2013, CAS required the pension interest rate to be consistent with the expected long-term rate of return on assets assumption, which changed infrequently given its long-term nature. As a result, short-term changes in bond yields or other interest rates generally did not impact CAS costs. Under the U.S. Cost Accounting Standards Board's final CAS Harmonization Rule ("Harmonization"), the liability used to determine CAS cost is developed by comparing the liability under the previous CAS methodology and assumptions to a liability based on a discount rate derived from yields on high quality corporate bonds. Since Harmonization became fully phased in during 2017, the greater of the two liabilities is used for CAS cost calculations. Generally, liabilities based on a discount rate of high quality corporate bonds will be higher than liabilities calculated prior to Harmonization. Prior to the full phasing in of Harmonization, the use of a blend of the pre and post Harmonization liabilities was required.

Other FAS and CAS Pension Considerations - A key driver of the difference between FAS expense and CAS cost (and consequently the FAS/CAS Adjustment) is the pattern of earnings and expense recognition for actuarial gains and losses that arise when our asset and liability experiences differ from our assumptions under each set of requirements. Under FAS, our net actuarial gains and losses exceeding the 10% corridor are amortized over the estimated average remaining service life of the plan participants. Under CAS Harmonization, the amortization period is 10 years for actuarial gains and losses. Both FAS and CAS use a "market-related value" of plan assets approach to calculate the amount of deferred asset gains or losses to be amortized. Under CAS actual asset gains and losses are systematically smoothed over five years, subject to certain limitations. For FAS, we do not use this smoothing method, and instead use fair value in determining our FAS expense. Accordingly, FAS expense generally reflects recent asset gains and losses sooner than CAS.

recognition of the 2018 asset losses under FAS and the impacts of higher discount and interest rates. The favorable change from 2017 to 2018 was primarily driven by more immediate recognition of the 2017 asset gains under FAS and the impacts of lower discount and interest rates and other experience gains and losses and assumptions changes (e.g. mortality). Our projected 2020 FAS/CAS Adjustment is discussed in Consolidated Operating Results - Operating Income.

Retirement Plan Assets - Retirement plan assets are stated at fair value. Investments in equity securities (common and preferred) are valued at the last reported sales price when an active market exists. Investments in fixed-income securities are generally valued based on market transactions for comparable securities and various relationships between securities that are generally recognized by institutional traders. Investments in hedge funds, real estate investment funds, private partnerships, collective trust funds, and commingled funds are generally valued at their Net Asset Values ("NAV") or equivalent, which are based on the current fair value of the fund's underlying assets.

Management reviews independently appraised values, audited financial statements, and additional pricing information to evaluate the NAV or its equivalent. For the limited group of investments for which market quotations are not readily available or for which the above valuation procedures are deemed not to reflect fair value, additional information is obtained from the investment manager and evaluated internally to determine whether any adjustments are required to reflect fair value. See Note 19: Employee Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits, in Item 8.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss - Changes in assumptions and changes to plan assets and benefit obligations due to differences between actuarial assumptions and actual results are reported as actuarial gains and losses and recorded in accumulated other comprehensive loss along with unrecognized prior service costs arising from plan amendments. As disclosed in Note 19: Employee Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits in Item 8, net pre-tax unrecognized actuarial losses as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 were $1,855 million and $1,692 million, respectively. The increase in these actuarial losses in 2019 was primarily driven by a $1,039 million actuarial loss due to the decrease in the discount rates used to determine benefit obligations, $102 million of amortization of previously unrecognized actuarial losses, and actual asset returns, which were $825 million above expected returns.

Net pre-tax unrecognized prior service costs (credits) as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 were $50 million and $46 million, respectively. These net deferred costs (credits) primarily originated from plan amendments, including those resulting from collective bargaining agreements. The change in unrecognized prior service costs (credits) in 2019 resulted from the amortization of previously accumulated prior service costs (credits).

Our operations are subject to federal and state workers' compensation laws. We maintain self-insured workers' compensation plans and participate in federally administered second injury workers' compensation funds. We estimate the liability for such claims and funding requirements on a discounted basis utilizing actuarial methods based on various assumptions, which include our historical loss experience and projected loss development factors. We periodically, and at least annually, update our assumptions based on an actuarial analysis. Related self-insurance accruals include the liability for reported claims and an estimated accrual for claims incurred but not reported. Our workers' compensation liability was discounted at 1.92% and 2.89% as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, based on future payment streams and a risk-free rate. We estimate a 100 basis points increase or decrease in the discount rate would change our workers' compensation liability by $(44) million or $53 million, respectively. The workers' compensation benefit obligation on an undiscounted basis was $802 million and $845 million as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.


	Year Ended December 31										2019 over 2018				2018 over 2017
($ in millions)	2019		2018		2017		Dollars		Percent		Dollars		Percent
Sales and service revenues	$	8,899	$	8,176	$	7,441	$	723	9	%	$	735	10	%
Cost of product sales and service revenues	7,368		6,385		5,813		983		15	%	572		10	%
Income from operating investments, net	22		17		12		5		29	%	5		42	%
Other income and gains	—		14		—		(14)		(100)	%	14		—	%
General and administrative expenses	788		871		759		(83)		(10)	%	112		15	%
Goodwill impairment	29		—		—		29		—	%	—		—	%
Operating income	736		951		881		(215)		(23)	%	70		8	%
Interest expense	(70)		(58)		(94)		(12)		(21)	%	36		38	%
Non-operating retirement benefit (expense)	12		74		(16)		(62)		(84)	%	90		563	%
Other, net	5		4		1		1		25	%	3		300	%
Federal and foreign income taxes	134		135		293		(1)		(1)	%	(158)		(54)	%
Net earnings	$	549	$	836	$	479	$	(287)	(34)	%	$	357	75	%

We manage and assess the performance of our business based on our performance on individual contracts and programs using the financial measures referred to below, with consideration given to the Critical Accounting Policies, Estimates, and Judgments referred to in this section. Our portfolio of long-term contracts is largely flexibly-priced. Therefore, sales tend to fluctuate in concert with costs across our large portfolio of active contracts, with operating income being a critical measure of operating performance. Under FAR rules that govern our business with the U.S. Government, most types of costs are allowable, and we do not focus on individual cost groupings, such as cost of sales or general and administrative expenses, as much as we do on total contract costs, which are a key factor in determining contract operating income. As a result, in evaluating our operating performance, we look primarily at changes in sales and service revenues, as well as operating income, including the effects of significant changes in operating income as a result of changes in contract estimates and the use of the cumulative catch-up method of accounting in accordance with GAAP. This approach is consistent with the long-term life cycle of our contracts, as management assesses the bidding of each contract by focusing on net sales and operating profit and monitors performance in a similar manner through contract completion. Consequently, our discussion of business segment performance focuses on net sales and operating profit, consistent with our approach for managing our business.

Cost of sales for both product sales and service revenues consists of materials, labor, and subcontracting costs, as well as an allocation of indirect costs for overhead. We manage the type and amount of costs at the contract level, which is the basis for estimating our total costs at completion of our contracts. Unusual fluctuations in operating performance driven by changes in a specific cost element across multiple contracts are described in our analysis.

2019 - Product sales in 2019 increased $242 million, or 4%, from 2018. Product sales at our Ingalls segment decreased $71 million in 2019, primarily as a result of lower volumes in the Legend class NSC program, amphibious assault ships, and surface combatants. Newport News product sales increased $346 million in 2019, primarily as a

Service revenues in 2019 increased $481 million, or 22%, from 2018. Service revenues at our Ingalls segment increased $18 million in 2019, as a result of higher volumes in amphibious assault ship services, partially offset by lower volume in surface combatant services. Service revenues at our Newport News segment increased $118 million in 2019, primarily as a result of higher volumes in aircraft carrier and naval nuclear support services, partially offset by lower volume in submarine services. Service revenues at our Technical Solutions segment increased $345 million in 2019, primarily as a result of the addition of Fulcrum and G2, as well as higher volumes in fleet support, oil and gas, and other MDIS services.

2018 - Product sales in 2018 increased $450 million, or 8%, from 2017. Product sales at our Ingalls segment increased $182 million in 2018, primarily as a result of higher volumes in amphibious assault ships, partially offset by lower volumes in the Legend class NSC program. Newport News product sales increased $284 million in 2018, primarily as a result of higher volumes in aircraft carriers, partially offset by lower volumes in submarines. Technical Solutions product sales decreased $16 million in 2018, primarily as a result of lower volumes in nuclear and environmental products.

Service revenues in 2018 increased $285 million, or 15%, from 2017. Service revenues at our Ingalls segment increased $3 million in 2018, as a result of higher volumes in amphibious assault ship services, partially offset by lower volumes in surface combatant services. Service revenues at our Newport News segment increased $269 million in 2018, primarily as a result of higher volumes in naval nuclear support services and submarines services. Service revenues at our Technical Solutions segment increased $13 million in 2018, primarily as a result of higher volumes in oil and gas and MDIS services, partially offset by lower volumes in fleet support and nuclear and environmental services.


	Year Ended December 31													2019 over 2018				2018 over 2017
($ in millions)	2019			2018			2017			Dollars		Percent		Dollars		Percent
Cost of product sales	$	5,158		$	4,627		$	4,277		$	531	11	%	$	350	8	%
% of product sales	82.3		%	76.8		%	76.7		%
Cost of service revenues	2,210			1,758			1,536			452		26	%	222		14	%
% of service revenues	83.9		%	81.7		%	82.2		%
Income from operating investments, net	22			17			12			5		29	%	5		42	%
Other income and gains	—			14			—			(14)		(100)	%	14		—	%
General and administrative expenses	788			871			759			(83)		(10)	%	112		15	%
% of total sales and service revenues	8.9		%	10.7		%	10.2		%
Goodwill impairment	29			—			—			29		—	%	—		—	%
Cost of sales and service revenues	$	8,163		$	7,225		$	6,560		$	938	13	%	$	665	10	%

2019 - Cost of product sales in 2019 increased $531 million, or 11%, compared to 2018. Cost of product sales at our Ingalls segment increased $54 million in 2019, primarily as a result of lower risk retirement in amphibious assault ships, partially offset by the lower volumes described above, as well as one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act. Cost of product sales at our Newport News segment increased $383 million in 2019, primarily as a result of the higher volumes described above, partially offset by one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act. Cost of product sales at our Technical Solutions segment decreased $37 million in 2019, primarily due to the lower volumes described above. Cost of product sales related to the Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment increased $131 million from 2018 to 2019.

Cost of product sales as a percentage of product sales increased from 76.8% in 2018 to 82.3% in 2019, primarily due to an unfavorable change in the Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment, a workers' compensation benefit in 2018, lower risk retirement on the San Antonio class (LPD 17) program and Tripoli (LHA 7), and year-to-year variances in contract mix, partially offset by higher risk retirement on the RCOH of USS George Washington (CVN 73) and one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act.

2018 - Cost of product sales in 2018 increased $350 million, or 8%, compared to 2017. Cost of product sales at our Ingalls segment increased $171 million in 2018, primarily as a result of the volume changes described above, lower risk retirement on Tripoli (LHA 7) and the Legend class NSC program, and one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act. Cost of product sales at our Newport News segment increased $264 million in 2018, primarily as a result of the volume changes described above, lower risk retirement in the Virginia class (SSN 774) submarine program, and one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act. Cost of product sales at our Technical Solutions segment decreased $23 million in 2018, primarily due to the lower volumes described above and an allowance for accounts receivable in 2017 on a nuclear and environmental commercial contract. Cost of product sales related to the Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment decreased $62 million from 2017 to 2018.

due to lower risk retirement on Tripoli (LHA 7), the Virginia class (SSN 774) submarine program, and the Legend class NSC program, as well as one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act, offset by a favorable change in the Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment, an allowance for accounts receivable on a nuclear and environmental commercial contract in 2017, and year-to-year variances in contract mix.

2019 - Cost of service revenues in 2019 increased $452 million, or 26%, compared to 2018. Cost of service revenues at our Ingalls segment increased $2 million in 2019, primarily as a result of the volume changes described above, partially offset by the recognition in 2018 of a loss on a long-term design contract and improved performance on surface combatant services. Cost of service revenues at our Newport News segment increased $67 million in 2019, primarily as a result of the volume changes described above. Cost of service revenues at our Technical Solutions segment increased $348 million in 2019, primarily as a result of the volume changes described above and a loss on a fleet support services contract, partially offset by one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act. Cost of service revenues related to the Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment increased $35 million from 2018 to 2019.

Cost of service revenues as a percentage of service revenues increased from 81.7% in 2018 to 83.9% in 2019, primarily driven by an unfavorable change in the Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment, a loss on a fleet support services contract, and year-to-year variances in contract mix, partially offset by contract changes on submarine support services, one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act, and the recognition in 2018 of a loss on a long-term design contract.

2018 - Cost of service revenues in 2018 increased $222 million, or 14%, compared to 2017. Cost of service revenues at our Ingalls segment decreased $3 million in 2018, primarily as a result of the volume changes described above. Cost of service revenues at our Newport News segment increased $244 million in 2018, primarily as a result of the higher sales volumes described above. Cost of service revenues at our Technical Solutions segment increased $4 million in 2018, primarily due to one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act. Cost of service revenues related to the Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment decreased $23 million from 2017 to 2018.

Cost of service revenues as a percentage of service revenues decreased from 82.2% in 2017 to 81.7% in 2018, primarily driven by the resolution in 2017 of outstanding contract changes on the inactivation of the decommissioned Enterprise (CVN 65) and one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act, partially offset by a favorable change in the Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment and year-to-year variances in contract mix.

In accordance with industry practice and the regulations that govern the cost accounting requirements for government contracts, most general and administrative expenses are considered allowable and allocable costs on government contracts. These costs are allocated to contracts in progress on a systematic basis, and contract performance factors include this cost component as an element of cost.

We internally manage our operations by reference to "segment operating income," which is defined as operating income before the Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment and non-current state income taxes, neither of which affects segment performance. Segment operating income is not a recognized measure under GAAP. When analyzing our operating performance, investors should use segment operating income in addition to, and not as an alternative for, operating income or any other performance measure presented in accordance with GAAP. It is a measure we use to evaluate our core operating performance. We believe segment operating income reflects an additional way of viewing aspects of our operations that, when viewed with our GAAP results, provides a more complete understanding of factors and trends affecting our business. We believe the measure is used by investors and is a useful indicator to measure our performance. Because not all companies use identical calculations, our presentation of segment operating income may not be comparable to similarly titled measures of other companies.


	Year Ended December 31										2019 over 2018				2018 over 2017
($ in millions)	2019		2018		2017		Dollars		Percent		Dollars		Percent
Operating income	$	736	$	951	$	881	$	(215)	(23)	%	$	70	8	%
Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment	(124)		(290)		(205)		166		57	%	(85)		(41)	%
Non-current state income taxes	19		2		12		17		850	%	(10)		(83)	%
Segment operating income	$	631	$	663	$	688	$	(32)	(5)	%	$	(25)	(4)	%

2019 - Segment operating income in 2019 was $631 million, compared to $663 million in 2018. The decrease was primarily due to favorable changes in workers' compensation expense in 2018, a goodwill impairment at our Technical Solutions segment, lower risk retirement on the San Antonio class (LPD 17) program and Tripoli (LHA 7), a loss on a fleet support services contract, and recoveries related to a 2018 settlement agreement at our Ingalls segment, partially offset by contract changes on submarine support services, higher volume at our Newport News segment, higher risk retirement on the RCOH of USS George Washington (CVN 73), and one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act.

2018 - Segment operating income in 2018 was $663 million, compared to $688 million in 2017. The decrease was primarily due to lower performance in the Virginia class (SSN 774) submarine program, lower risk retirement on Tripoli (LHA 7) and the Legend class NSC program, the resolution in 2017 of outstanding contract changes on the inactivation of the decommissioned Enterprise (CVN 65) and the RCOH of USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), as well as one time employee bonus payments in 2018 related to the Tax Act, partially offset by favorable changes in workers' compensation expense, recoveries related to a settlement agreement at our Ingalls segment, and an allowance for accounts receivable in 2017 on a nuclear and environmental commercial contract.

The FAS/CAS Adjustment reflects the difference between expenses for pension and other postretirement benefits determined in accordance with GAAP and the expenses for these items included in segment operating income in accordance with CAS. The Operating FAS/CAS Adjustment excludes the following components of net periodic benefit costs: interest cost, expected return on plan assets, amortization of prior service cost (credit) and actuarial loss (gain), and settlement and curtailment effects.


Delaware						90-0607005
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)						(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)



		Page
	PART I
Item 1.	BUSINESS	1
Item 1A.	RISK FACTORS	10
Item 1B.	UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS	23
Item 2.	PROPERTIES	23
Item 3.	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	24
Item 4.	MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES	25

	PART II
Item 5.	MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES	26
Item 6.	SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA	27
Item 7.	MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS	28
Item 7A.	QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK	55
Item 8.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA	56
	REPORTS OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM	56
	CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE INCOME	59
	CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION	60
	CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS	62
	CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN EQUITY	63
	NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS	64
Item 9.	CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE	105
Item 9A.	CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES	105
Item 9B.	OTHER INFORMATION	106

	PART III
Item 10.	DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	107
Item 11.	EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION	110
Item 12.	SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS	110
Item 13.	CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE	111
Item 14.	PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES	111

	PART IV
Item 15.	EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES	112

SIGNATURES		117


	Year Ended December 31
($ in millions)	2019		2018		2017
Gross favorable adjustments	$	247	$	225	$	309
Gross unfavorable adjustments	(151)		(115)		(105)
Net adjustments	$	96	$	110	$	204


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


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