Caci International

None of the serious warning signs we check for were found. 1 thing worth knowing.

We look for five warning signs: doubt it can keep going, weak checks on its own accounts, a notice that its past accounts can't be relied on, a change of auditor, and one customer bringing in a big share of sales. We don't check lawsuits, investigations or debt yet.

We checked the auditor's report, internal controls, restatement notices, auditor changes and big customers in the 10-K filed 6 Aug 2026, and no later 8-Ks.

• One big customer

  Worth knowing

  One customer brings in a big share of sales: 95.6% last year. Losing that customer would hurt.

  “The federal government is our primary customer, with revenues from federal government contracts, either as a prime contractor or a subcontractor, accounting for 95.6% and 95.7% of our total revenues in fiscal 2026 and 2025, respectively.”

  From the 10-K filed 6 August 2026, Item 1A. Risk Factors. Read it in the filing

Cheap for a reason is the question the numbers cannot answer.

Whether the price already reflects the risks is what the deep dive is for.

• Our integration of artificial intelligence and related technologies subjects us to operational and regulatory risks, and our failure to effectively manage these risks could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

  Could happen

  In addition, competitive dynamics in the AI marketplace are evolving quickly. Rapid advancements by existing competitors, new entrants, or commercial technology firms may outpace our internal development efforts or reduce the value of certain offerings. We may also face challenges recruiting and retaining personnel with specialized skills needed to develop, test, secure, and maintain AI‑enabled systems. If we are unable to adapt to changes in AI technologies, comply with emerging regulatory requirements, or meet customer expectations for responsible and secure AI, our ability to deliver solutions, win new business, or achieve expected financial and operational results could be adversely affected.

  Read moreShow less

• Disruptions in our supply chain, including shortages of materials, components, or qualified suppliers, could impair our ability to perform on contracts and increase our costs, which could adversely affect our operating results.

  Could happen

  We work with a network of suppliers and subcontractors to provide materials, hardware, software, and other critical components necessary to perform on our contracts, and disruptions, including shortages of specialized parts, supplier capacity constraints, transportation delays, labor shortages, or the financial instability of key vendors, could impair our ability to meet customer requirements. Geopolitical developments, export control restrictions, sanctions, cybersecurity incidents affecting suppliers, changes in trade policy, and evolving federal requirements related to supply chain security may further restrict the availability of qualified suppliers or increase our costs. In addition, certain programs require cleared suppliers or domestically sourced materials, and disruptions affecting these vendors may delay performance or require costly requalification of alternatives. If we are unable to obtain necessary materials or services on a timely and cost effective basis, we may experience performance delays, incur additional costs, or be unable to meet contractual obligations, any of which could materially and adversely affect our revenues, operating results, and customer relationships.

  Read moreShow less

• Our integration of artificial intelligence and related technologies subjects us to operational and regulatory risks, and our failure to effectively manage these risks could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

  Could happen

  Adjustments to our technological approach, security protocols, and compliance frameworks are often required as AI capabilities rapidly evolve, new vulnerabilities or algorithmic biases are discovered, and government regulations, such as executive orders and agency specific directives, are established, even though the core objectives of the performance obligation may not have changed. Flaws in underlying algorithms, vulnerabilities to data poisoning, unpredictable system outputs, or a failure to adapt to evolving federal procurement standards could necessitate costly remediation efforts, result in a loss of competitive advantage, or damage our professional reputation. Such outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

  Read moreShow less

• We use estimates in recognizing revenues, and changes in those estimates may adversely affect our financial results.

  Could happen

  A significant portion of our revenue is recognized over time using a cost-input measure of progress, which requires us to make accurate estimates of total costs at completion and the fees to be earned on our contracts. Because of the technical complexity of the solutions and services we provide, as well as the extended duration of certain contracts, this estimation process is highly complex and requires significant management judgment. As contract performance progresses, we routinely adjust our initial estimates based on experience gained and newly available information, even when the scope of work under the performance obligation has not changed. If our underlying assumptions or estimates prove to be inaccurate, or if circumstances change, we may be required to make material adjustments to our revenue and profit margins. Such adjustments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

  Read moreShow less

• The federal government may change its procurement or other practices in a manner adverse to us.

  Could happen

  Specifically, certain federal agencies are increasingly using alternative or rapid acquisition pathways for emerging technologies, including flexible contracting approaches such as “other transaction authority” agreements. These acquisition methods differ from traditional FAR based processes and may involve requirements, such as participation by non‑traditional contractors or cost‑sharing obligations, that could limit our ability to qualify or compete effectively. If we are unable to adapt to these evolving procurement approaches or meet the associated eligibility, technical, or administrative requirements, we may be unable to pursue certain strategic opportunities in high‑growth areas. As a result, our ability to capture new awards, expand into developing mission areas, or achieve expected levels of performance and growth could be adversely affected.

  Read moreShow less