Skip to content
The Algorithm
vs Leidos×Government
Why Government companies switch

The Algorithm vs. Leidos in Government & Public Sector

Leidos's approach to Government technology follows the same model that has driven their recent performance problems. There is a better model.

The Problem

What Leidos gets wrong in Government

Leidos's approach to Government technology follows the same model that has driven their recent performance problems. Revenue is ~97% US federal government — almost no commercial regulated-industry presence

Government technology operates under specific regulatory and operational constraints that generalist consulting firms consistently underestimate. The Beltway Bandit model is collapsing. Leidos's model does not account for the domain qualification required to navigate this environment.

Compliance in Government is not a consulting deliverable — it is an architectural constraint. Leidos treats compliance as a separate workstream that produces documentation. The systems that result require significant remediation before they can survive an audit in a government environment.

Revenue is ~97% US federal government — almost no commercial regulated-industry presence
DOGE-driven contract review and federal spending cuts represent existential concentration risk
Limited commercial healthcare, financial services, or energy sector capability — federal-only IP
Lockheed IT spinoff heritage (SAIC split) — not an engineering-led organization, primarily a contract vehicle
The Algorithm

What we deploy instead

Our government engineering teams are domain-qualified before they are assigned to an engagement. They understand the regulatory framework — FEDRAMP and STATERAMP — as an engineering constraint, not a compliance checklist.

Every system we deploy for a government client is compliant at the infrastructure layer. The architecture enforces the controls. ALICE validates compliance at every commit. The result is a system that passes audits because it was built to, not because documentation was assembled after the fact.

Compliance

FEDRAMP and STATERAMP built into the architecture from day one — enforced automatically by ALICE at every commit.

Delivery

Fixed-price engagements. Production system in 8-20 weeks. No discovery phase. No change orders.

Team

Domain-qualified engineers with government experience. The senior engineer who scopes the engagement is the senior engineer who delivers it.

IP

Full source code and documentation transferred at close. No licensing. No managed services dependency.

Compliance

The compliance difference

FEDRAMP and STATERAMP compliance is an architectural constraint in government. Leidos treats it as a consulting deliverable. We build it into the infrastructure.

fedramp
stateramp
fisma
nist
fips 140
Typical Engagement

What switching from Leidos looks like

A typical government engagement runs 10-20 weeks to a production system. Team: 8-16 engineers, all domain-qualified. Fixed price. Full IP transfer at close.

Week 1

Architecture review and scope definition. We review existing deliverables and identify gaps.

Weeks 2-4

Scope locked, team assembled, first sprint underway. Working code from week two.

Weeks 8-12

First production milestone — a working integration or system component, not a document.

Close

Full IP transfer. Source code, documentation, operational runbooks. Your team runs the system.

DECISION GUIDE

Failed Vendor Recovery Playbook

Step-by-step framework for recovering from a failed Leidos engagement — from emergency stabilisation through full re-platforming. 4-phase playbook covering stabilise, assess, transition, and normalise.

X

Replacing Leidos in Government? We've done this before.

FEDRAMP-compliant government engineering. Fixed price. Production in 8-20 weeks.

Start the Conversation
Related
Compare
vs Leidos
Compare
All Comparisons
Market
Government & Public Sector
Solution
Failed Vendor Recovery
Solution
Compliance Remediation
Get Started
Contact Us
Engage Us