Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies Financial Condition and Liquidity As described in Note 7 – 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. We believe that available cash and borrowings under the amended Facility will be sufficient to generate adequate amounts of cash to meet our needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures through the foreseeable future. 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 $17.3 million and $15.0 million as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, 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 reported, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. (“Costa Brava”), a holder of Public Preferred Stock, instituted litigation against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers 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. In the litigation, Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company and its officers and directors engaged in tactics to avoid paying dividends on the Public Preferred Stock, that the Company made improper bonus payments or awards to officers and directors, that certain former and present officers and directors breached legal duties or the standard of care that they owed the Company, that the Company improperly paid consulting fees to and engaged in loan transactions with Mr. Porter, that the Company failed to improve on the Company’s purported insolvency, that the Company failed to redeem the Public Preferred Stock as required by the Company’s charter, and shareholder oppression against Mr. Porter. On December 22, 2005, the Company’s Board of Directors established a special litigation committee (“Special Litigation Committee”), composed of certain independent directors, to review and evaluate the matters raised in the litigation. On July 20, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee, in its final report, concluded that the available evidence did not support Plaintiffs’ derivative claims and that it was not in the best interests of the Company to pursue such claims in the litigation. On August 24, 2007, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ derivative claims based upon the report and to dismiss all remaining claims for failure to state a claim. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Court dismissed all derivative claims based upon the recommendation of the Special Litigation Committee on January 7, 2008. On February 12, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint that included both new counts and previously dismissed counts. The Company moved to dismiss or strike the Third Amended Complaint and, on April 15, 2008, the Circuit Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice all counts in the Third Amended Complaint that were not previously disposed of by motion or stipulation. On December 2, 2008, the Company filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of its counterclaim against Plaintiffs (for their interference with the Company’s relationship with Wells Fargo) without prejudice. The Circuit Court granted that motion, over Plaintiffs’ opposition, on January 23, 2009. Following Plaintiffs’ appeal of the dismissal of their derivative claims and shareholder oppression claim, on September 7, 2012, the Court of Special Appeals ruled that the Circuit Court applied an incorrect standard of review to evaluate the conclusions of the Special Litigation Committee. The Court of Special Appeals held that the Circuit Court’s dismissal of a shareholder oppression claim (asserted against Mr. Porter) raised an issue of first impression under Maryland law and required further briefing in the Circuit Court. The Court of Special Appeals vacated the decision of the Circuit Court that had been appealed and remanded the case for further consideration and proceedings. On October 24, 2012, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which was denied on January 22, 2013. On remand, the Circuit Court held a status and scheduling conference on July 26, 2013, as a result of which the Court issued a memorandum to counsel setting a briefing schedule to address the motion filed by the Company and other defendants to dismiss or otherwise dispose of the derivative claims as a result of the findings of the Special Litigation Committee in its final report of July 20, 2007. On November 1, 2013, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the derivative claims under the standard of review dictated by the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion on December 23, 2013, and Defendants filed their Reply on January 23, 2014. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for April 24, 2014. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a request for an entry of an order for default as to Mr. Porter, which was denied by the Circuit Court on November 8, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, Costa Brava owns 12.7% and Wynnefield owns 12.6% of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock. 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 reported, since August 2, 2007, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel, principals of Costa Brava Partnership III L.P. (“Costa Brava”) and Class D Directors of the Company (“Class D Directors”), have been involved in litigation against the Company in the Circuit Court for the City of Baltimore, Maryland (the “Court”). The Class D Directors initially alleged that certain documents and records had not been promptly provided to them and were necessary to fulfill their duties as directors of the Company. Subsequently, the Class D Directors further alleged that the Company had failed to follow certain provisions concerning the noticing of Board committee meetings and the recording of Board meeting minutes and, additionally, that Mr. Wood’s service as both CEO and Chairman of the Board was improper and impermissible under the Company’s Bylaws. By way of preliminary injunctions entered on August 28, 2007 and September 24, 2007, the Court ordered that the Class D Directors are entitled to documents in response to reasonable requests for information pertinent and necessary to perform their duties as members of the Board but, in light of the Costa Brava shareholder litigation, the Company is entitled to designated certain documents as “confidential” or “highly confidential” and to withhold certain documents from the Class D Directors based upon the work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. Pursuant to the preliminary injunctions, the Class D Directors are also entitled to receive written responses to requests for Board of Directors or Board committee minutes within seven days of any such requests and copies of such minutes within fifteen days of any such requests, as well as written responses to all other requests for information and/or documents related to their duties as directors within seven days of such requests, and all Board of Directors appropriate information and/or documents within thirty days of any such requests. On April 23, 2008, the Company filed a counterclaim against the Class D Directors for money damages and preliminary and injunctive relief based upon the Class D Directors’ interference with, and improper influence of, the Company’s independent auditors regarding, among other things, a specific accounting treatment. On June 27, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Class D Directors from contacting the Company’s auditors until the completion of the Company’s Form 10-K for the preceding year. This preliminary injunction expired by its own terms and an appeal from that ordered was held to be moot by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. On April 12, 2010, the Class D Directors filed a motion for the advancement of legal fees and expenses incurred in defense of the Company’s counterclaim. On November 3, 2011, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion, as well as the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and request for attorneys’ fees. On May 21, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the same. Trial on both the Class D Directors’ claims and the Company’s counterclaims commenced on July 5, 2013, and continued on several days in July 2013. The evidentiary portion of the trial concluded on August 1, 2013, and post-trial briefing concluded on September 16, 2013. The court decision on this matter is still pending. At this stage of the litigation it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Class D Directors’ success in any of their assertions and claims, or whether such success would entitle them to monetary relief. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, the Company and its officers and directors strenuously deny the Class D Directors’ claims, and will vigorously defend the matter, and continue to oppose the relief sought. 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 consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Subsequent Events On March 27, 2014, we amended the Facility to extend the maturity date to November 13, 2015. In addition, Wells Fargo issued a waiver of certain existing defaults under the Facility including failure to maintain required EBITDA covenants. The March 2014 amendment also amends the terms of the Facility with respect to repayment on the term loan component. Since 2010, the principal of the term loan component has been repaid in quarterly installments of $93,750. The amended Facility requires quarterly installment payments of $250,000 beginning July 1, 2014, with a final installment of the unpaid principal amount payable on November 13, 2015, the maturity date of the amended Facility. In consideration for the closing of this amendment, we paid Wells Fargo a fee of $75,000, plus expenses related to the closing.

Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies

Financial Condition and Liquidity

As described in Note 7 – 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.

We believe that available cash and borrowings under the amended Facility will be sufficient to generate adequate amounts of cash to meet our needs for operating expenses, debt service requirements, and projected capital expenditures through the foreseeable future. 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 $17.3 million and $15.0 million as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, 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 reported, on October 17, 2005, Costa Brava Partnership III, L.P. (“Costa Brava”), a holder of Public Preferred Stock, instituted litigation against the Company and certain past and present directors and officers 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.

In the litigation, Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company and its officers and directors engaged in tactics to avoid paying dividends on the Public Preferred Stock, that the Company made improper bonus payments or awards to officers and directors, that certain former and present officers and directors breached legal duties or the standard of care that they owed the Company, that the Company improperly paid consulting fees to and engaged in loan transactions with Mr. Porter, that the Company failed to improve on the Company’s purported insolvency, that the Company failed to redeem the Public Preferred Stock as required by the Company’s charter, and shareholder oppression against Mr. Porter.

On December 22, 2005, the Company’s Board of Directors established a special litigation committee (“Special Litigation Committee”), composed of certain independent directors, to review and evaluate the matters raised in the litigation. On July 20, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee, in its final report, concluded that the available evidence did not support Plaintiffs’ derivative claims and that it was not in the best interests of the Company to pursue such claims in the litigation. On August 24, 2007, the Company moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ derivative claims based upon the report and to dismiss all remaining claims for failure to state a claim. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Court dismissed all derivative claims based upon the recommendation of the Special Litigation Committee on January 7, 2008.

On February 12, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint that included both new counts and previously dismissed counts. The Company moved to dismiss or strike the Third Amended Complaint and, on April 15, 2008, the Circuit Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice all counts in the Third Amended Complaint that were not previously disposed of by motion or stipulation. On December 2, 2008, the Company filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of its counterclaim against Plaintiffs (for their interference with the Company’s relationship with Wells Fargo) without prejudice. The Circuit Court granted that motion, over Plaintiffs’ opposition, on January 23, 2009.

Following Plaintiffs’ appeal of the dismissal of their derivative claims and shareholder oppression claim, on September 7, 2012, the Court of Special Appeals ruled that the Circuit Court applied an incorrect standard of review to evaluate the conclusions of the Special Litigation Committee. The Court of Special Appeals held that the Circuit Court’s dismissal of a shareholder oppression claim (asserted against Mr. Porter) raised an issue of first impression under Maryland law and required further briefing in the Circuit Court. The Court of Special Appeals vacated the decision of the Circuit Court that had been appealed and remanded the case for further consideration and proceedings.

On October 24, 2012, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which was denied on January 22, 2013.

On remand, the Circuit Court held a status and scheduling conference on July 26, 2013, as a result of which the Court issued a memorandum to counsel setting a briefing schedule to address the motion filed by the Company and other defendants to dismiss or otherwise dispose of the derivative claims as a result of the findings of the Special Litigation Committee in its final report of July 20, 2007. On November 1, 2013, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the derivative claims under the standard of review dictated by the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals. Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to the Motion on December 23, 2013, and Defendants filed their Reply on January 23, 2014. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is scheduled for April 24, 2014.

On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a request for an entry of an order for default as to Mr. Porter, which was denied by the Circuit Court on November 8, 2013.

As of December 31, 2013, Costa Brava owns 12.7% and Wynnefield owns 12.6% of the outstanding Public Preferred Stock.

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 reported, since August 2, 2007, Messrs. Seth W. Hamot and Andrew R. Siegel, principals of Costa Brava Partnership III L.P. (“Costa Brava”) and Class D Directors of the Company (“Class D Directors”), have been involved in litigation against the Company in the Circuit Court for the City of Baltimore, Maryland (the “Court”). The Class D Directors initially alleged that certain documents and records had not been promptly provided to them and were necessary to fulfill their duties as directors of the Company. Subsequently, the Class D Directors further alleged that the Company had failed to follow certain provisions concerning the noticing of Board committee meetings and the recording of Board meeting minutes and, additionally, that Mr. Wood’s service as both CEO and Chairman of the Board was improper and impermissible under the Company’s Bylaws.

By way of preliminary injunctions entered on August 28, 2007 and September 24, 2007, the Court ordered that the Class D Directors are entitled to documents in response to reasonable requests for information pertinent and necessary to perform their duties as members of the Board but, in light of the Costa Brava shareholder litigation, the Company is entitled to designated certain documents as “confidential” or “highly confidential” and to withhold certain documents from the Class D Directors based upon the work product doctrine or attorney-client privilege. Pursuant to the preliminary injunctions, the Class D Directors are also entitled to receive written responses to requests for Board of Directors or Board committee minutes within seven days of any such requests and copies of such minutes within fifteen days of any such requests, as well as written responses to all other requests for information and/or documents related to their duties as directors within seven days of such requests, and all Board of Directors appropriate information and/or documents within thirty days of any such requests.

On April 23, 2008, the Company filed a counterclaim against the Class D Directors for money damages and preliminary and injunctive relief based upon the Class D Directors’ interference with, and improper influence of, the Company’s independent auditors regarding, among other things, a specific accounting treatment. On June 27, 2008, the Court granted the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Class D Directors from contacting the Company’s auditors until the completion of the Company’s Form 10-K for the preceding year. This preliminary injunction expired by its own terms and an appeal from that ordered was held to be moot by the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

On April 12, 2010, the Class D Directors filed a motion for the advancement of legal fees and expenses incurred in defense of the Company’s counterclaim. On November 3, 2011, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion, as well as the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and request for attorneys’ fees. On May 21, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the same.

Trial on both the Class D Directors’ claims and the Company’s counterclaims commenced on July 5, 2013, and continued on several days in July 2013. The evidentiary portion of the trial concluded on August 1, 2013, and post-trial briefing concluded on September 16, 2013. The court decision on this matter is still pending.

At this stage of the litigation it is impossible to reasonably determine the degree of probability related to the Class D Directors’ success in any of their assertions and claims, or whether such success would entitle them to monetary relief. Although there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, the Company and its officers and directors strenuously deny the Class D Directors’ claims, and will vigorously defend the matter, and continue to oppose the relief sought.

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 consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Subsequent Events

On March 27, 2014, we amended the Facility to extend the maturity date to November 13, 2015. In addition, Wells Fargo issued a waiver of certain existing defaults under the Facility including failure to maintain required EBITDA covenants. The March 2014 amendment also amends the terms of the Facility with respect to repayment on the term loan component. Since 2010, the principal of the term loan component has been repaid in quarterly installments of $93,750. The amended Facility requires quarterly installment payments of $250,000 beginning July 1, 2014, with a final installment of the unpaid principal amount payable on November 13, 2015, the maturity date of the amended Facility. In consideration for the closing of this amendment, we paid Wells Fargo a fee of $75,000, plus expenses related to the closing.