Commitments and Contingencies and Subsequent Events	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies and Subsequent Events [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies and Subsequent Events	Note 8. Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events Financial Condition and Liquidity As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a revolving Facility with Wells Fargo. Borrowings under the Facility are collateralized by substantially all of our assets including inventory, equipment, and accounts receivable. The amount of available borrowings fluctuates based on the underlying asset-borrowing base, in general 85% of our trade accounts receivable, as adjusted by certain reserves (as further defined in the Facility agreement). The Facility provides us with virtually all of the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs. Therefore, maintaining sufficient availability on the Facility is the most critical factor in our liquidity. While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact our availability under the Facility. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize availability on the Facility without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our availability without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability on the Facility unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on the Facility, and therefore our liquidity. Our ability to renew the Facility, which matures in April 2017, or to enter into a new credit facility to replace or supplement the Facility may be limited due to various factors, including the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by sources of financing. In addition, if credit is available, lenders may seek more restrictive covenants and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to extend, renew or replace the Facility with a comparable credit facility that provides similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results. Additionally, as a result of operations for 2014, and the continued impact of contract delays as well as other government budgetary funding issues, management determined the need to raise additional working capital. Accordingly, in December 2014, we sold 10% of the membership interests in Telos ID to the Telos ID Class B member for $5 million, and, in March 2015, we issued the Porter Notes. Management currently believes that the Company's existing borrowing capacity is sufficient to fund our capital and liquidity needs for the next 12 months. Management may determine that, in order to reduce capital and liquidity requirements, planned spending on capital projects and indirect expense growth may be curtailed, subject to growth in operating results. Should management determine that additional capital is required, management would likely look first to the sources of funding discussed above to meet any requirements, although no assurances can be given that these investors would be able to invest or that the Company and the investors would agree upon terms for such investments. We anticipate the continued need for a credit facility upon terms and conditions substantially similar to the Facility in order to meet our long term needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures. Our working capital was $(0.8) million and $1.1 million as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that we will be in compliance throughout the term of the Facility with respect to the financial and other covenants. Legal Proceedings Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P., et al. v. Telos Corporation, et al. As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. ("Costa Brava"), a holder of our Public Preferred Stock, filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers ("Telos Defendants") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Circuit Court"). A second holder of the Company's Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. ("Wynnefield"), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R.C. Porter, a holder of the Company's common stock. As of March 31, 2016, Costa Brava and Wynnefield own 12.7% and 17.3%, resepectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. No material developments occurred in this litigation during the three months ended March 31, 2016. At this state of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to Plaintiffs' success in relation to any of their assertions in the litigation. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case, the Company and its present and former officers and directors strenuously deny Plaintiffs' allegations and continue to vigorously defend the matter, and oppose all relief sought by Plaintiffs. Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel, principals of Costa Brava and Class D Directors of Telos, filed a lawsuit against the Company on August 2, 2007, and have been engaged in litigation against the Company since that date. No material developments occurred in this litigation during the three months ended March 31, 2016. Other Litigation In addition, the Company is a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, while the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty, the final outcome of such known matters will not, based upon all available information, have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Subsequent Events On May 16, 2016, the Facility was amended to extend the maturity date to April 1, 2017.

Note 8. Commitments, Contingencies and Subsequent Events

Financial Condition and Liquidity

As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a revolving Facility with Wells Fargo. Borrowings under the Facility are collateralized by substantially all of our assets including inventory, equipment, and accounts receivable. The amount of available borrowings fluctuates based on the underlying asset-borrowing base, in general 85% of our trade accounts receivable, as adjusted by certain reserves (as further defined in the Facility agreement). The Facility provides us with virtually all of the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs. Therefore, maintaining sufficient availability on the Facility is the most critical factor in our liquidity. While a variety of factors related to sources and uses of cash, such as timeliness of accounts receivable collections, vendor credit terms, or significant collateral requirements, ultimately impact our liquidity, such factors may or may not have a direct impact on our liquidity, based on how the transactions associated with such circumstances impact our availability under the Facility. For example, a contractual requirement to post collateral for a duration of several months, depending on the materiality of the amount, could have an immediate negative effect on our liquidity, as such a circumstance would utilize availability on the Facility without a near-term cash inflow back to us. Likewise, the release of such collateral could have a corresponding positive effect on our liquidity, as it would represent an addition to our availability without any corresponding near-term cash outflow. Similarly, a slow-down of payments from a customer, group of customers or government payment office would not have an immediate and direct effect on our availability on the Facility unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on the Facility, and therefore our liquidity. Our ability to renew the Facility, which matures in April 2017, or to enter into a new credit facility to replace or supplement the Facility may be limited due to various factors, including the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by sources of financing. In addition, if credit is available, lenders may seek more restrictive covenants and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to extend, renew or replace the Facility with a comparable credit facility that provides similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results.

Additionally, as a result of operations for 2014, and the continued impact of contract delays as well as other government budgetary funding issues, management determined the need to raise additional working capital. Accordingly, in December 2014, we sold 10% of the membership interests in Telos ID to the Telos ID Class B member for $5 million, and, in March 2015, we issued the Porter Notes. Management currently believes that the Company's existing borrowing capacity is sufficient to fund our capital and liquidity needs for the next 12 months. Management may determine that, in order to reduce capital and liquidity requirements, planned spending on capital projects and indirect expense growth may be curtailed, subject to growth in operating results. Should management determine that additional capital is required, management would likely look first to the sources of funding discussed above to meet any requirements, although no assurances can be given that these investors would be able to invest or that the Company and the investors would agree upon terms for such investments.

We anticipate the continued need for a credit facility upon terms and conditions substantially similar to the Facility in order to meet our long term needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures. Our working capital was $(0.8) million and $1.1 million as of March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that we will be in compliance throughout the term of the Facility with respect to the financial and other covenants.

Legal Proceedings

Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P., et al. v. Telos Corporation, et al.

As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. ("Costa Brava"), a holder of our Public Preferred Stock, filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers ("Telos Defendants") in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "Circuit Court"). A second holder of the Company's Public Preferred Stock, Wynnefield Small Cap Value, L.P. ("Wynnefield"), subsequently intervened as a co-Plaintiff (Costa Brava and Wynnefield are hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs"). On February 27, 2007, Plaintiffs added, as an additional defendant, Mr. John R.C. Porter, a holder of the Company's common stock. As of March 31, 2016, Costa Brava and Wynnefield own 12.7% and 17.3%, resepectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. No material developments occurred in this litigation during the three months ended March 31, 2016.

At this state of the litigation, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to Plaintiffs' success in relation to any of their assertions in the litigation. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case, the Company and its present and former officers and directors strenuously deny Plaintiffs' allegations and continue to vigorously defend the matter, and oppose all relief sought by Plaintiffs.

Hamot et al. v. Telos Corporation

As previously disclosed in Note 13 of the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel, principals of Costa Brava and Class D Directors of Telos, filed a lawsuit against the Company on August 2, 2007, and have been engaged in litigation against the Company since that date. No material developments occurred in this litigation during the three months ended March 31, 2016.

Other Litigation

In addition, the Company is a party to litigation arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, while the results of such litigation cannot be predicted with any reasonable degree of certainty, the final outcome of such known matters will not, based upon all available information, have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Subsequent Events

On May 16, 2016, the Facility was amended to extend the maturity date to April 1, 2017.