Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies Financial Condition and Liquidity As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a Credit Agreement with EnCap, a Purchase Agreement with RCA and a Financing Agreement with Action Capital. The willingness of RCA to purchase our accounts receivable under the Purchase Agreement and of Action Capital to make advances under the Financing Agreement, and our ability to obtain additional financing, may be limited due to various factors, including the eligibility of our receivables, the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by EnCap, RCA, Action Capital, or other potential sources of financing. If we are unable to maintain the Purchase Agreement and the Financing Agreement, we would need to obtain additional credit to fund our future operations. If credit is available in that event, lenders may impose more restrictive terms and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to maintain, extend, renew or replace the Purchase Agreement and the Financing Agreement with a comparable arrangement or arrangements that provide similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results. 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 our credit arrangements. 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 cash resources 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 cash resources 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 unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on our cash resources, our financing arrangements, and therefore ultimately our liquidity. 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. Additionally, management may seek to put in place a credit facility with a commercial bank, although no assurance can be given that such a facility could be put in place under terms acceptable to the Company. 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. Our working capital was $4.0 million and $(4.1) million as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that our financing arrangements with EnCap, RCA and Action Capital, collectively, and funds generated from operations are sufficient to maintain the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs for the next 12 months. 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, 2017, 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 Class A common stock. As of September 30, 2018, Costa Brava and Wynnefield, directly and through affiliated funds, own 12.7% and 17.4%, resepectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. There have been no material developments in this litigation during the three month period ended September 30, 2018, and the matter remains pending. At this stage 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, 2017, the Company has been engaged in litigation in the Circuit Court since August 2, 2007 with Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel ("Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants") in which the Plaintiffs sought access to various books and records of the Company and injunctive and other relief related thereto, and in which the Company filed a Counterclaim against the Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants for various alleged wrongs. Mr. Siegel is a Class D Director of the Company and Mr. Hamot was a Class D Director of the Company until his resignation on March 9, 2018. On or about July 6, 2018, the attorneys representing Mr. Hamot filed a Notice of Substitution of Party in the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals, providing notice that Mr. Steven Tannanbaum was appointed and qualified as the Special Personal Representative of the Estate of Mr. Seth Hamot to represent the estate in the litigation. The briefing on Telos' appeal was completed and oral argument on Telos' appeal was held before the Court of Special Appeals on October 3, 2018. The appeal remains pending. On September 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed in the Circuit Court a Motion for Entry of Money Judgment of Advancement Fees and Expenses, or, in the Alternative, for Order that Telos Corporation Show Cause Why Telos Corporation Should Not be Held in Contempt for Failing to Comply with this Court's June 27, 2018 Order Directing Telos Corporation to Pay Advancement Fees and Expenses. Telos filed its Opposition to the Motion on October 9, 2018. The matter remains pending. At this stage of the litigation, in light of the pendency of the appeal and Plaintiffs'/Counterdefendants' dismissal of their cross-appeal, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Company's success in relation to any of the assertions in the foregoing litigation. 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.

Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies

Financial Condition and Liquidity

As described in Note 5 – Current Liabilities and Debt Obligations, we maintain a Credit Agreement with EnCap, a Purchase Agreement with RCA and a Financing Agreement with Action Capital. The willingness of RCA to purchase our accounts receivable under the Purchase Agreement and of Action Capital to make advances under the Financing Agreement, and our ability to obtain additional financing, may be limited due to various factors, including the eligibility of our receivables, the status of our business, global credit market conditions, and perceptions of our business or industry by EnCap, RCA, Action Capital, or other potential sources of financing. If we are unable to maintain the Purchase Agreement and the Financing Agreement, we would need to obtain additional credit to fund our future operations. If credit is available in that event, lenders may impose more restrictive terms and higher interest rates that may reduce our borrowing capacity, increase our costs, or reduce our operating flexibility. The failure to maintain, extend, renew or replace the Purchase Agreement and the Financing Agreement with a comparable arrangement or arrangements that provide similar amounts of liquidity for the Company would have a material negative impact on our overall liquidity, financial and operating results.

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 our credit arrangements. 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 cash resources 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 cash resources 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 unless the slowdown was material in amount and over an extended period of time. Any of these examples would have an impact on our cash resources, our financing arrangements, and therefore ultimately our liquidity.

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. Additionally, management may seek to put in place a credit facility with a commercial bank, although no assurance can be given that such a facility could be put in place under terms acceptable to the Company. 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.

Our working capital was $4.0 million and $(4.1) million as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively. Although no assurances can be given, we expect that our financing arrangements with EnCap, RCA and Action Capital, collectively, and funds generated from operations are sufficient to maintain the liquidity we require to meet our operating, investing and financing needs for the next 12 months.

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, 2017, 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 Class A common stock. As of September 30, 2018, Costa Brava and Wynnefield, directly and through affiliated funds, own 12.7% and 17.4%, resepectively, of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. There have been no material developments in this litigation during the three month period ended September 30, 2018, and the matter remains pending.

At this stage 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, 2017, the Company has been engaged in litigation in the Circuit Court since August 2, 2007 with Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel ("Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants") in which the Plaintiffs sought access to various books and records of the Company and injunctive and other relief related thereto, and in which the Company filed a Counterclaim against the Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants for various alleged wrongs. Mr. Siegel is a Class D Director of the Company and Mr. Hamot was a Class D Director of the Company until his resignation on March 9, 2018.

On or about July 6, 2018, the attorneys representing Mr. Hamot filed a Notice of Substitution of Party in the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals, providing notice that Mr. Steven Tannanbaum was appointed and qualified as the Special Personal Representative of the Estate of Mr. Seth Hamot to represent the estate in the litigation.

The briefing on Telos' appeal was completed and oral argument on Telos' appeal was held before the Court of Special Appeals on October 3, 2018. The appeal remains pending.

On September 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed in the Circuit Court a Motion for Entry of Money Judgment of Advancement Fees and Expenses, or, in the Alternative, for Order that Telos Corporation Show Cause Why Telos Corporation Should Not be Held in Contempt for Failing to Comply with this Court's June 27, 2018 Order Directing Telos Corporation to Pay Advancement Fees and Expenses. Telos filed its Opposition to the Motion on October 9, 2018. The matter remains pending.

At this stage of the litigation, in light of the pendency of the appeal and Plaintiffs'/Counterdefendants' dismissal of their cross-appeal, it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Company's success in relation to any of the assertions in the foregoing litigation.

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.