Dave Dragics - Senior Vice President, Investor Relations Dan Allen - President and Chief Executive Officer Tom Mutryn - Chief Financial Officer John Mengucci - Chief Operating Officer and President, U.S. Operations Greg Bradford - Chief Executive Officer, CACI Limited, U.K.

Bill Loomis - Stifel Nicolaus Edward Caso - Wells Fargo Cai von Rumohr - Cowen & Company Brian Gesuale - Raymond James Joe Nadol - JPMorgan Mark Jordan - Noble Financial Brian Kinstlinger - Sidoti & Company Tim Quillin - Stephens Incorporated George Price - BB&T Capital Markets Amit Singh - Jefferies Tobey Sommer - SunTrust Steven Cole - Royal Bank of Canada

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the CACI International Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2013 Conference Call. Today’s call is being recorded. At this time, all lines are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will announce the opportunity for questions and answers and instructions will be given at that time. (Operator Instructions) At this time, I would like to turn the conference call over to Dave Dragics, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations for CACI International. Please go ahead.

Thanks, Latoya, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am Dave Dragics, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations of CACI International, and we are very pleased that you are able to participate with us today. And as is our practice, we are providing presentation slides, so let’s move to slide number two. Now, about our written and oral disclosures and commentary, there will be statements in this call that do not address historical fact and as such constitute forward-looking statements under current law. These statements reflect our views as of today and are subject to important factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from anticipated results. Now, factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those we anticipate are listed at the bottom of last evening’s earnings release and are described in the company’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings. And our Safe Harbor statement is included on this exhibit and should be incorporated as part of any transcript of this call. I would also like to point out that our presentation today will include discussion of non-GAAP financial measures and these non-GAAP measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for performance measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. So, to open up our discussion this morning, here is Dan Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer of CACI International. Dan?

Great, thanks Dave and good morning to everyone on the call. Let’s go to slide three. Joining me on the call this morning are Tom Mutryn, our Chief Financial Officer; John Mengucci, our Chief Operating Officer and President of U.S. Operations; and Greg Bradford, Chief Executive Officer of CACI Limited in the U.K. Today, I will provide an overview of our second quarter results. I also want to discuss our views of the government spending environment and our approach to dealing with the uncertainties in this difficult market. Tom will review our financial results and John will provide an operational overview. Slide four please. Yesterday, CACI announced our performance for the second quarter of our fiscal year ‘13. Our second quarter results demonstrated continued progress in executing our market-driven strategy. During the quarter, we delivered solid net income, securing a record level of second quarter funding, maintained a strong backlog position, and expanded our pipeline of new business opportunities. Next slide, our most recent fiscal year ‘13 guidance issued in October anticipated that government would be operating under a continuing resolution for our entire fiscal year. However, in the back half of our second quarter, which is the federal government’s first quarter, we began to see our customers becoming more cautious with contract awards and spending driven by the uncertainties around sequestration. And as we look into second half of our fiscal year, the uncertainties of the CR environment and potential for sequestration remain and we expect our customers to remain cautious with fewer contract awards and reduced spending. Given these conditions, we are revising our guidance for the remainder of this fiscal year. It remains uncertain how the deficit situation will be resolved and if sequestration is implemented. In recent weeks, the Deputy Secretary of Defense and each of the service chiefs have provided sequestration guidance and their organizations are taking action to prepare for significant reductions in FY ‘13’s funding. They have stated their priorities and which functions will be impacted giving us some insight into which areas will be affected in the near-term. More importantly, we are maintaining a close dialog with each of our government program managers to assess the specific if any impact on each of our programs. Our revised guidance captures our current assessment of the sequestration impacts on our expected fiscal year ’13 performance. Let’s go to slide six, please. We maintained confidence in our strategy to focus on the government’s high priority missions. We continue to invest in our organization’s ability to win new business in an ever increasing competitive environment and ensure we deliver quality program performance. We are acquiring the right talent and developing our skills to ensure we can delver the unique capability of our client’s missions. We are investing in our infrastructure and improving our process to increase our operational efficiency. And as always we will remain committed to our operational excellence program with the focus on quality program execution and maintaining the highest level of customer satisfaction. Operational efficiency is key to our success. During our second quarter, we took steps to further align our operations with our customers and improve our delivery platform for our healthcare and business systems markets. Our new business systems solutions group and our federal civilian solutions group will bring a higher level of corporate awareness and support for these growth areas. Our drive for operational efficiency is delivering continuous improvement, while we limit disruptive effects to ongoing operations. We are maintaining our approach to balance capital deployment through our strategic M&A program, a core competency of CACI. We completed two acquisitions in this quarter. The acquisition of Emergint Technologies and IDL Solutions brings important new client relationships and expands our capabilities that will accelerate growth in our healthcare market. We continue to build our pipeline of acquisition opportunities. Fully assessing the qualities of each company and ensuring we meet return hurdles, while we look for opportunities to create long-term shareholder value. We remain confident in our strategy to focus on the government’s high priority missions. Our ability to execute with the agility and discipline enables us to identify competitive positions in our large addressable markets even in this difficult environment and to deliver value to all of our stakeholders. With that let me turn the call over to Tom for some more insight into our financial results. Tom?

Yeah, thank you Dan and good morning everyone. We are pleased with our performance for our second quarter with solid direct labor earnings and cash flow. Slide seven please. As outlined in our earnings press release and as discussed on prior calls, three material one-time items positively impacted last year’s results. To provide better insight into our fiscal year ’13 performance in more meaningful comparisons, we are comparing this year’s results to adjusted fiscal year ’12 results. Next slide number eight please. During the quarter revenue decreased 4.3% from last year driven by an expected decrease in other direct costs of 11.7% due to lower sub-contractor provided material and equipment in our C4ISR and Intelligence markets related to the draw down in Afghanistan. Direct labor, the primary driver of earnings increased 5.1% with organic direct labor up 1.4%. Our indirect costs and selling expense were up a modest 2.2% as we continued to focus on ensuring our organization is efficient. Having the efficient cost structure allows us to have competitive rates while allowing for the investments that support growth that Dan spoke about. Net earnings increased 7.4% from last year’s adjusted level and earnings per share were decreased by 24.5%, driven by a 3.7 million decrease in diluted shares due to share repurchases. We also report earnings per share adjusted for certain non-cash items stock-based compensation, non-cash interest, and depreciation and amortization. For the second quarter our adjusted earnings per share were $2.22, 31% higher than our GAAP earnings per share of $1.69. Slide nine please. We generated solid second quarter operating cash of $23.8 million, $91.5 million year-to-date and are on-track for another strong year of operating cash flow. On a trailing 12 months basis, free cash flow was $252 million or $9.79 per diluted share. This translates to a free cash flow yield of 17.8% at a $55 share price. Our net debt at the end of the quarter was $665 million and our net debt to trailing 12-month adjusted EBITDA leverage ratio was at 2.0 times a comfortable level. Slide 10 please. Due to the changing customer behavior that Dan discussed, we have revised our guidance with the new revenue range of $3.7 billion to $3.9 billion in the net income range of $157 million to $163 million. Our secured funding, backlog positioning, and pipeline of opportunities support the revised guidance range. We expect to see modest year-over-year increases in both direct labor and other direct cost in our second half and we anticipate our effective tax rate will be approximately 38% based on non-taxable gains in our deferred compensation plan in certain tax credits. With that, let me turn the call over to John. John?

Thanks Tom. Let’s turn to slide 11. I am pleased to say that our second quarter results were driven by executing successfully our market-driven strategy in a difficult market environment. We achieved $512 million of awards in the second quarter, which were spread among all 10 of our markets. Specifically, we generated a $168 million of awards in our high growth markets of business systems, cyberspace, healthcare and integrated security solutions, and $344 million of awards in our high volume markets. As a broad measure of awards on a trailing 12-month basis, our awards were just under $4 billion within the range of previous periods. As Dan mentioned, the behavior of our clients is changing as the level of uncertainty continues. Specifically, this quarter, we experienced brief extensions on some of our contracts, which had an impact on our year-over-year comparison of awards. In addition, we have experienced a slowdown in the pace of IDIQ task order releases and some delays in awards. Looking forward to the second half of fiscal year ‘13, we believe we will continue to see similar client behaviors. I am pleased to say that we have experienced no program cancellations. Slide 12 please. During the quarter, we were awarded prime positions on new IDIQ contract vehicles expanding our inventory to more than 160. IDIQ contract vehicles support our growth plans across our 10 markets and provide CACI the flexibility to deliver on our customers’ mission-critical requirements. As for funding orders, we closed the quarter at $625 million slightly above the same quarter of fiscal year ‘12. We attribute this growth to our clients’ desire to ensure funding for the critical missions we performed on their behalf prior to any form of a sequestered environment. These awards in funding orders contribute to our over $2.1 billion of funded backlog and total backlog of $7.6 billion. The composition of our funded backlog in Q2 did not change materially from Q1, so do we anticipate a change in the second half of this fiscal year since we expect to see growth in both direct labor and ODCs. In past earnings calls, we have discussed the pricing pressures that exist in our market. We continue to succeed on our LPTA competitions, our successes based on our investments aimed to reducing program costs while maintaining our level of projected profits. Now, let’s please turn to slide 13. Our leading indicators of direct labor growth, secured revenue, and secured funding support our confidence in CACI’s continued growth. Our direct labor grew 5.1% this past quarter increasing our headcount by more than 200 and represents another step forward in our strategy to reduce ODC revenue and replace it with higher margin direct labor. Both secured revenue and secured funding have improved from last quarter’s measures as well. Last quarter, our measure of secured revenue was 85% coming from contracts we hold, 11% from new business, and 4% from recompetes. In line with our revised guidance, 97% of our forecasted FY ‘13 revenue is in the form of contracts we currently hold, 1% from new business and 2% from recompetes. In addition, 87% of the funding required to deliver our FY ‘13 plan has already been secured. While market conditions remain challenging, we believe that our agility within the markets we serve, our diverse portfolio of mission-critical business, our positive leading indicators, and our commitment to operational excellence positioned us for our future of continued growth. I’ll now turn the call back over to Dan.

Great, thanks John and Tom, thank you for your remarks. Let’s go to slide 14. Before we go to Q&A, I would like to thank the CACI team for another solid quarter of performance. CACI’s dedicated employees work hard to anticipate our client’s needs and deliver solid program performance. We are unwavering in our dedication to our customers and committed to delivering the solutions and services they need for mission success. I am proud to be part of member of this team and appreciate all their contributions. For fiscal year ‘13, our revised guidance indicates we will perform at a level very similar to our fiscal year ‘12 with modest increases in revenue and earnings. Looking forward to our fiscal year ‘14, we remain confident in our strategy and our ability to execute. We are anticipating continued uncertainties in the government spending environment, but our goal is to annually increase earnings and provide long-term value for our shareholders. With that, let’s open up the call for questions.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) The first question is from Bill Loomis of Stifel Nicolaus. Your line is open. Bill Loomis - Stifel Nicolaus: Hi, thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Bill. Bill Loomis - Stifel Nicolaus: Just what happens, for example, I know obviously you are highly confident in the guidance, but let’s just say we have a sequestration in kind of a worst case scenario, you see a 5% to 10% drop in direct labor customer, you would have to cut spending in the remaining few months of the fiscal year. Just I am trying to understand, how CACI could react to that if that happened? And in other words, how quickly could you get your cost structure in line with when environment like that, how would that impact cash flow and would you have a bench if that happen?

Yes. So, Bill, let me start and then I will turn it over to John, but as we look at sequestration and how it actually would be implemented in the latter half of this year, our fiscal year. It does come it could be put in effect at the very end of our fiscal year. And as we look at the schedules and timelines that we needed to be put in place with contract changes that we see the risk of the business, it’s already in our plan to be very minimal. I gave you some insight of that a second ago and the risk to new business being small. So, we feel as we looked at our forecast, we built it from the bottoms up that risk is small. Going forward, we would assess that as we plan for fiscal year ‘14. John, do you have anything you want to add there?

Yeah, we also don’t take a look Bill at what were our current run rates and how were our clients funding us also. If we look at our current run rates when we set our revised guidance, we did take into account, any run-rate changes although they were very, very minimal and pretty much in line with what we expected when we put our initial FY ‘13 guidance out. Since that point, we have seen some level of program scopes. We also have programs that have added. And I guess I would tell you that they have netted pretty much negligibly. As we move forward, we continue to stay in close contact and we are also watching funding. When we look forward to the volume, we are also making sure that all of that volume comes with funding. We are very pleased that about 87% of our FY ‘13 revenue is currently funded. So, Tom, do you want to talk about any some of the cost structure?

Yeah, I think Bill you also asked what would we do in terms of our cost structure and cash flows and the like. And as an organization you are committed to ensure that we have a cost structure and infrastructure, which is consistent with the size of the organization. And you have the organizations increase we had additional resources to support a larger organization. And if it ever would contract, we would make sure that the structure that we have in place is appropriate into the size of the organization. So, that’s kind of one thing that we would clearly do. And lastly in terms of cash flow characteristics, I don’t see your large impact on cash flow characteristics, there maybe some short-term fluctuations before we can align our kind of resources of the organization, but throughout this whole process, the government continues to pay invoices on-time the government payment offices are not impacted and we just make sure that we would need to manage our expenses appropriately.

Bill, I would just like to kind of wrap it up from our management processes and how we run the company, we are not waiting for sequestration to be put in place or to be implemented. We’re focusing on our programs and assessing them on a program by program basis as an ongoing activity, we are assessing our indirect costs and looking at scenarios from extreme conditions of what could the outcomes look like.; And we will be prepared as this unfolds in a – I don’t believe it will be just a switch and everything is put in place, but we are preparing for that to gradually become a reality, and we will be prepared for it. Bill Loomis - Stifel Nicolaus: Thanks.

Thank you. The next question is from Edward Caso of Wells Fargo.

Good morning Ed. Edward Caso - Wells Fargo: Hey, good morning, congratulations on managing so far here. Lot of chatter on the defense side although military heads coming out with sort of drastic contingency plans including moving forward with some of them, having heard much on the civil side of the equation and I saw that that’s been a good growth area for you of late, I was wondering if can talk a little bit about your civilian clients and where they are in their process of sequestration preparation?

Yeah, Ed the civilian part of our business is growing and particularly in some of these areas where I believe are high priority and particularly with the administration and their focus on healthcare, that’s an area where we are seeing a lot of attention. What we haven’t seen are the types of forward level senior level guidance that have been provided. So, we are quite as certain to their direction as we are with what we are getting from the department of defense at the agency level, individual agencies are looking for areas particularly in some of their IT infrastructure support spend that they are looking at which is – we are really not exposed to that part of the business. And I imagine as March 1st gets closer which is a month away now we will hear more, but we are not hearing lot there today. Edward Caso - Wells Fargo: Just a quick follow up, on the DoD side, was the common carry and actions by your clients happen gradually or as this sort of picked up steam here in the month of January as far as the pace of funding?

Ed, I would say it was a building process and as we looked at our Q1 performance and the level of awards and funding and even into October, we saw behavior that was consistent with the CR environment that we have experienced in the past. Following the election and the changes of the election, there began to be more uncertainty about the future of sequestration. Prior to that most people were saying it’s never going to happen, right. There was confidence that they would negotiate a physical cliff settlement that sequestration as it was put in the law wouldn’t become reality. And as we got closer to the end of the calendar year, our clients got more and more cautious as we described. So, it was really in the November-December timeframe where we began to really see them take action. And as we’ve now stepped into January or wrapping up January, now we have gone beyond its not going to happen, we are not going to plan for it to they are providing guidance for their organizations to take action. So, it was a gradual build up to where we are today. Edward Caso - Wells Fargo: Great, thank you.

Thanks Ed.

Thank you. And the next question is from Cai von Rumohr of Cowen & Company. Your line is open. Cai von Rumohr - Cowen & Company: Yes, thank you very much. So, most of your sales shortfall this quarter was in the ODCs and you mentioned the draw down coming down, how much of your revenues do you still get that every time you say it’s not a big factor, and here we just lost 3% of total revenues from the OCO, so about how big is it and how much more exposure might there be in an adverse case?

Cai, you said ODCs are a significant part of our kind of revenue and our direct costs but there are just proportionally small part of our profit. We as a convenience to our customer, as an accommodation to our customer, embarked upon a variety of pass-through activity over the last three or four years that contributes to some of our large increases in kind of revenue which we spoke about. We always knew it was a contemporary non-sustainable portion of our revenue. It makes sense to do at the time, provided some positive cash flows and modest earnings increases. That work is largely abating at this point in time. Looking forward into third and fourth quarter, we expect modest ODC growth anywhere between 1% and 3%. So, we have gotten over the cliff or the change in behavior that we saw at the end of last year in the second quarter driven by the drawdown in Afghanistan. So, the work is going away 12-month rather to anniversary the impact on our financial statements and we expect to stay relatively flat level of ODCs for the remainder of our fiscal year. Cai von Rumohr - Cowen & Company: And actually the question was how much of the revenues, because obviously I know you are always going to have a certain level of ODCs, but how much of it approximately is related to the OCO to Iraq and Afghanistan and related to the drawdown?

Yeah Cai, we have in our FY ‘13 plan about $290 million worth of pass-through. In the first half of fiscal year ‘13 about $65 million of our ODCs was pass-through in nature, and those also now run their course. And as Tom mentioned, as we look at the ODCs going forward, those are not so much pass-through ODCs, those are value-added ODCs that will be part of the solutions as we move towards more of a solutions type business. Cai von Rumohr - Cowen & Company: Terrific. Good answer. And how much usually you give some metrics on the bids awaiting decision and the bids due to be submitted in the next six months were where those numbers?

Yeah Cai, this is John. We have opened those numbers. We’ve got about $11.2 billion that we expect to submit during the third and fourth quarter. And we have got about $7.2 billion that are under evaluation today.

Thank you. And the next question is from Brian Gesuale of Raymond James. Your line is open. Brian Gesuale - Raymond James: Yeah, good morning guys.

Good morning, Brian. Brian Gesuale - Raymond James: I wonder if you could help me out here, last quarter you gave metrics on existing contracts, recompetes in new contracts. And it was $85.4 million in ‘11, did I hear you right that, that’s now $87.2 million in ‘09, is that the way to think about it?

Brian, this is John. Actually what we have with our revised guidance is 97% of our work of our FY ‘13 revenue is in contracts that we hope 1% is new business and 2% is recompetes. So, we have been able to bring the 4% of recompete down to 2% and that’s about $70 million to $80 million Brian. Brian Gesuale - Raymond James: Okay.

And we do business side it’s roughly $30 million to $40 million so relatively negligible as we run the second half of fiscal year ‘13. Brian Gesuale - Raymond James: Okay, great. And maybe just Dan one question for you, you have been inside bigger companies in CACI and some of those companies is the budgets have turned negative, have looked at divestitures. CACI has always been very acquisitive. Is divestiture something that you are looking at in things that you are evaluating and how should we think about that?

Yeah, I would say is we have talked in about our 10 market strategies and in those 10 market strategies, we see growth opportunities. Those are areas where we are focusing our energy and primarily are almost exclusively on acquiring acquisitions. We have made some small divestitures, not material in nature, but we don’t see an aspect of our portfolio at the moment that we feel is a need of consideration for divestitures. So, we are focusing on how do we add to the company as we see opportunities in the market as well as companies that are out there or capabilities.

Thank you. The next question is from Joe Nadol of JPMorgan. Your line is open. Joe Nadol - JPMorgan: Thanks. Just a couple. First, just the 87% that’s secured, I just want to make sure I understand is that basically is the remainder of that basically fiscal fourth quarter revenues that would need another CR to get to 100 or a full year budget obviously?

Joe, this is John. So, we’ve got 97% of our revenue is already booked. Joe Nadol - JPMorgan: No, I understand I’m talking about the funded?

I’m Sorry, so, 87% of it is funded. We watch funding on a program-by-program basis. As we look through the second quarter, we had one of our strongest second quarters in recent history. As it pertains to funding, we don’t see the need for anything to fundamentally change, so that we would generate funding that supports at least the 97% of our revenue today, so the remainder 30% Joe is just timing. Joe Nadol - JPMorgan: Okay. I mean I guess I don’t understand precisely what have to happen. I imagine it’s because of the CR hasn’t – isn’t a full year CR yet. But maybe we can follow-up on that outline. The second piece here is just if you guys could characterize the revenue that came out of your plan. How much of that is direct labor versus ODC, is it similar to your company mix overall or was there an imbalance one way or the other. And then maybe more interesting layer importantly is it any type of customer in particular or is it just a blend in other words was it more intel customers or less intel more of one service or another? Thanks.

Yeah Joe, when we took the expected revenue it was right in line with our current mix of direct labor and other direct costs. To give you a little bit of our final point when we read the Service Chief letters, the three markets that we believe would be most impacted by us to be our enterprise IT market, our logistics and material support and our C4ISR market. So, when we read all of the Service Chief letters that was predominantly where the revenue came out and it was almost all new business awards. So, in those three areas Joe, we are very dependent on having cash orders released in a timely manner to support it both third and fourth quarter revenue and as we saw the clients in those three areas slowdown to release cash orders. That’s what drove us to pull that revenue out. So and it’s not anyone of those areas materially, but as a whole the majority of our new business that we took out were in those three markets. And Joe, let me try to follow-up on one other item we view. On the funding side we’ve been talking about this over the last couple of quarters, a lot of our clients have moved more towards incremental funding, so whereas if we had a one year award we would secure the majority that of that funding upfront, we now our clients doing it more often, but in smaller amounts. So, now those programs are fully obligated they are fully contracted with us. It’s just the way that they have been funding in some of our areas has been different than they have in the past. Joe Nadol - JPMorgan: Okay. Alright, thank you guys. That’s very helpful.

Thanks Joe.

Thank you. The next question is from Mark Jordan of Noble Financial. Your line is open. Mark Jordan - Noble Financial: Thank you. The question relative to the potential implementation of sequestration, under sequestration is there the potential for the customer can callback funding or do you expect the funded aspect of a program to be fully available. And then this is a cut that it would occur on the next funding cycle?

Yeah, Mark, our expectations or understanding of sequestration as they implement this there can be actions they can take to cancel contracts to adjust funding that’s on contract, but that process will need to be taken in an orderly way and it will have to be done through contract changes and that’s we will take a detailed interaction with the customer and the clients. Our view is that will take some time and so as we look at and orderly transition that process, we think we’ve included that in our forecast which is included in our guidance for the year and so we believe we’ve got that factored in those risk areas. Mark Jordan - Noble Financial: With the slowdown that you’ve seen in award cycles over the last few months, do you believe that some of your customers are they back though implementing sequestration related to cuts by just reducing contracting activity, so that if sequestration comes into play, there will be less retroactive reduction that we will have to implement?

We haven’t seen the type of action that would support that, that said they have got procurement in RFP or they started down the acquisition process and they are canceling it. What we have seen is they have taken steps and they delayed the RFP release date or they delayed an award for a task order or a single-award contract into a period later in the calendar year. And we believe that delay is all tied to the uncertainty of not only more importantly the amount of funding they will have to support the activity that they are looking to do. We don’t see the priority or the need for that going away which is to what level will they be funded. Mark Jordan - Noble Financial: Okay, thank you.

Thank you. The next question is from Brian Kinstlinger of Sidoti & Company. Your line is open. Brian Kinstlinger - Sidoti & Company: Great. One follow-up and then a different question, the first one was I think someone asked about your in-theater exposure and I was confused how much direct labor do you have in-theater in your fiscal ‘13 plan and how much ODC just related to in-theater whether it’s in the United States related or even in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else?

Yeah, Brian, this is John. We have always had about $250 million of total revenue in Southwest Asia. About $160 million of that based in the Afghanistan and of the $160 million, it was always about 60% of that was pass-through ODC and the remainder was direct labor. Brian Kinstlinger - Sidoti & Company: Thanks. That’s very clear. The other question I had was how much business was new wins this quarter and then how much in your current guidance is contributed from the acquisitions you just completed the two?

Yeah. In terms of new business in the awards, approximately 50% of the awards were new business the remaining 50% were either modifications or kind of recompetes. In terms of acquisitions, for the full year, the Delta, Emergint, and IDL acquisition contributes to approximately $90 million kind of worth of revenue. In the back half, the two recent acquisitions Emergint and IDL contributed around $35 million. Brian Kinstlinger - Sidoti & Company: Great. Thank you so much.

Sure.

Thank you. The next question is from Tim Quillin of Stephens Incorporated. Your line is open. Tim Quillin - Stephens Incorporated: Good morning.

Good morning.

Hey, Tim. Tim Quillin - Stephens Incorporated: Could you just talk about how you are thinking about capital allocation at this point, you have done a couple of big buybacks, your share counts getting relatively low. I am sure that’s somewhat of a consideration on future buybacks, but will you repurchase more shares? Are you considering a dividend? And when do you get more aggressive on acquisitions, because my sense is that, that you could have an interesting point of time this year, where maybe you get some more clarity and there is some properties for sale. There hasn’t been a lot of M&A activity for a while. And maybe you can step the size of acquisitions that you do, but if you can talk about all three of those components that would be great? Thanks.

Sure. Tim, this is Dan. Our approach to looking at capital deployment priority has always been M&A and we continued, I think with the acquisitions that we have announced to this point, focused on opportunities in areas where we see good growth opportunities to create long-term shareholder value. And we bring with – continue to have a pipeline of good opportunities that we are evaluating and the process that we use as a company we have focused very carefully on the quality of the company, including the financial performance and the future financial performance that fit into our culture to ensure that we are integrating well and ultimately can we deliver additional value with the combination of our company and the asset. There are, we suspect with the change in the market driven by these budget uncertainties that there is going to be opportunities for us to continue to complement the portfolio and we are aggressively looking at that. In the area of share repurchases, this is a tool we have used to create long-term shareholder value. The Board continuously looks at it and has taken opportunities when they are right, the timing of that is right to move forward with that. And I can say we would continue to look at that. And ultimately dividend is an area that the board is continuously looking at is it a proper use of cash for us particularly with the opportunities we have in the M&A area to continue to grow the company and there – those decisions they are constantly or regularly looking at and updating. Tim Quillin - Stephens Incorporated: Okay, thank you.

Thank you. The next question is from George Price of BB&T Capital Markets. Your line is open. George Price - BB&T Capital Markets: Thanks very much. A quick question, a lot of my questions have been asked and answered. But I do want to follow-up on a couple of things. First, just to be clear your revised fiscal ’13 guidance at this point includes your best assessment of the impact of sequestration if its enacted as it stands is that correct?

That’s correct. We’ve looked at our current portfolio programs and assessed the risk associated with the secretaries and the Service Chiefs letters. And we have looked – factored our pipeline of new business opportunities with the behavior and those got in that guidance. So, it is our best assessment of for sure something that’s uncertain of what ultimately happened. But we’ve done a detailed bottoms up review and to what’s the best that we can predict on what we know that’s our guidance. George Price - BB&T Capital Markets: Okay. Thank you for clarifying. So, if the sequestration is implemented and there is a minimal impact to fiscal ’13 based on the whole process that contracting process I mean that suggests that after what is an increasingly challenging fiscal ’13 I mean we have the potential for an even tougher year in fiscal ’14 certainly some of the preliminary things that have been thrown about the GFY ’14 budget look kind of tough, at this point I just wanted to get your thoughts on that?

As we look forward the instability or the uncertainty tied to is sequestration going to be implemented. And if it does how do you take $1 trillion out of the government both defense and civil and how does that the government reprioritize what actions are taking. And those are the areas that to me create uncertainty. For our organization we feel we look forward and we look at what are the stated priorities of the government and believe we are positioned in some of those areas that will be enduring even as they reduce funding that means highly likely there will be less funding, but will they go away, we don’t believe so. And that still is a very large market for us and we’ll use the capabilities, the agility of our team to maneuver to continue to perform well as an organization. But to say specifically what that looks like, we need to have some clarity and George I think that’s going to take some time first is do did they do it and when they make that decision and then how it does get implemented, all the things that would help enable that QDR all have been delayed. So, we will need the results of that before we can chart a course going forward. But I still think there is – they are not going to stop governing. George Price - BB&T Capital Markets: Fair enough. I guess what do you anticipate your timeline to be this year in terms of discussing even a preliminary outlook for GFY ’14. Last year you kind of touched on the GFY ’13 preliminary outlook little earlier than you normally do. Do you have any thoughts about how are you going to approach it this year?

Yeah, I would say as we work our way through the next couple of months, we’ll have a better feel for what happens with sequestration. We will see how they were planning to implement it, which will include the remainder of their fiscal year which is the beginning of our fiscal year ’14. And we’ll have some feel for where do they plan to prioritize at least in the near-term. So, when we come out of our Q3 and do our earnings call for Q3 we’ll have a better insight of what that looks like. We’ll give you an update on our guidance based on what we know and what we are experiencing in our contracts. And then we will plan as we normally do in the June timeframe to go through a full guidance call and give you some detailed insight of how we’re approaching this.

Thank you. The next question is from Jason Kupferberg of Jefferies. Your line is open. Amit Singh - Jefferies: Hi, this is Amit Singh for Jason. Just coming back on the contribution from the recent acquisitions you mentioned that you are expecting around $90 million in fiscal ‘13, do you have some sort of a target on the revenue that you plan to generate in this fiscal year from acquisitions in general, M&A and general and along with that if you can talk about your current M&A pipeline and the specific areas that you might be focusing on?

Yeah, Amit, thank you this is Tom. Our philosophy is to deploy cash through acquisitions, it’s provided long-term value for our shareholders in the past and we are continuing to do that. I am hesitant to put out a particular target because our ability to perform acquisitions is largely a function of what we see in the market and what properties are available. And there is some choppiness to our acquisitions, we will induce several in a short amount of time then it will be a low not because we are less interested in acquisitions, but more or so because we are not seeing the appropriate companies that have this right strategic fit or the right economic characteristic. So, at this point in time I am reluctant to guide you to a particular number for acquisitions in the back half and maybe large and maybe small, it’s really a function of what we are seeing in the marketplace.

Amit, can I give you a little bit of thought on areas that might be of interest to us because we have in the last year had broadened our discussion with the street talking about our market strategies. And in those market strategies we have areas, (itineraries) that we had identified growth potential for the organization. In some cases, we have organic capabilities and we are pretty well positioned there augmenting small things on an opportunity basis. But if – there are also some high growth areas, healthcare is one that we have looked at fairly aggressively in the last first half of the year, the acquisitions that we made have built in client relationships and corporate capabilities to where we think we can really take a step forward there. Cyber space, intel are other areas where we believe there are large markets where we have an opportunity to bring the information solutions and services part of our ability that allow our clients to make better decisions, faster decisions as their core capability for our organization bring that to them to help them not only with their mission needs, but help them solve some of these big budget issues they have. So, those will be the areas that I would say are likely, but we are looking across all ten to leverage the power of our M&A program to help us grow. Amit Singh - Jefferies: Alright, thank you and just quickly on the margin side, the operating margins this quarter were year-over-year pretty much in line or slightly lower and you have been talking about the growth in direct labor and you are witnessing that and that helping your margins. So, I am just trying to get a sense of is the growth in direct labor pretty much helping you maintain the margins at current level in this challenging environment or should we expect over time that to constituting the growth remains that to start improving your margins?

It seems to be that for this year the improvement in the direct labor to ODC mix helped our margins. They improved our gross margins and that flowed down to our operating margins as well. At the same time, we are controlling our indirect expenses and that’s helping us to maintain operating margins. I would imagine going forward, we are committed to maintaining profitability and margins are one of the key characteristics and despite a low price environment and a shift to more cost-plus work we should be able to maintain margins approximately at these levels that would be our the – internal goals.

Thank you. The next question is from Tobey Sommer of SunTrust. Your line is open. Tobey Sommer - SunTrust: Thank you, just a follow-up on an earlier question related to the civil side of your business where you are seeing some growth, I’m curious if you’d think that in aggregate the civil side of the business will be kind of relatively perform better than the DoD side of the business? Thanks.

I am not sure I would compare them Tobey and say one is better than the other, right. I would say as you look at the markets that we are looking at and civil would be heavily part of our investigate and litigation support business, our healthcare business, those areas we just see as the demand, the need by our government to expand their capabilities that’s fairly strong and we are seeing that demand in these added services. So, I would expect that to continue. Equally I could go into the defense or the intel community and say there are areas where there is similar demand cyber being one of them and that’s probably the most visible. And so I wouldn’t compare and contrast them, I would just say if we look at across our ten markets there is pockets in there that there is those kind of opportunities.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) The next question is from Steven Cole of Royal Bank of Canada. Your line is open. Steven Cole - Royal Bank of Canada: Hi, maybe just firstly on the sequestration side, you mentioned looking at the Service Chief letters and speaking to the secretaries and an orderly approach in sequester on the defense side. We have been seeing the same sort of news coming out on the civil side, so is there any chance that this federal civilian revenues are more at risk under a sequester scenario because there is less organization and potential planning overall or are your customers in your opinion preparing for this in the same way that the DoD is?

I am not sure they are preparing for it in the same way and it does feel like the DoD and particularly in the services are a little farther along and getting their organizations prepared in moving forward. So, that’s benefited us. In the fed civil side I – it’s uncertain to that level of planning that it hasn’t been made public. So, it’s hard to comment on that. I don’t think it puts us at more risk and I would say that because whatever action they take there is an orderly process that they will need to go through which includes defining their strategy those areas that they are going to prioritize and then make adjustments which will require contract changes and the orderly redeployment of people or exiting people. All that will take some time and I just don’t see it happening, we don’t see it happening overnight. I hope that helps. Steven Cole - Royal Bank of Canada: Okay and then maybe just on the contract mix. You mentioned that more a cost-plus going forward, that’s been slowly up-ticking as a trend the time and materials has been coming down, is that a trend that we should continue to expect going forward. And as the government also looks to maybe shed some risk should – is there a point at which we see this fixed price starting to pick up when time and material is coming down?

Yeah, our government has stated some revisions to their acquisition policies Better Buying 2.0 and the drive that the demand to move away from T&M. And so with those stated policies, we are actually seeing it happen in contract execution. So, I would say I would – we would expect to see that to continue. And in Better Buying 2.0 the cost-plus and fixed price are the tools or contract vehicle tools that they really state will be used. So, I think that trend is going to continue and it’s really driven by high level guidance on how they are attempting to manage their costs going forward. So, it’s consistent.

Thank you. And the next question is from George Price of BB&T Capital Markets. Your line is open. George Price - BB&T Capital Markets: Thanks very much for taking some follow-ups. Tom I just had some questions I think more geared to you. You talked a little bit about what some of the expectations in the second half of the year, but given what you are seeing how can you help us maybe a little bit more on how to frame fiscal third quarter and fiscal fourth quarter in terms of how they are going to play out from a revenue perspective and how that might be different than you typically see seasonally?

Yeah, George I will talk about second half in total. During that time period we expect to see continued direct labor growth anywhere from 2% to 5% is the reasonable expectation for direct labor growth and some ODC growth of approximately 3%. As a result of that we should be seeing anywhere between 2% to 4% revenue growth for CACI. So, we expect that to occur. Our fourth quarter is typically higher than our third quarter for two reasons. One is the timing of our award fees are materially higher in the fourth quarter versus our third quarter. So, that creates a seasonal increase sequentially, and probably primary reason for that if you see sequential increase on top of it. George Price - BB&T Capital Markets: Okay. I just wanted to see given the some behavior that you have seen with any of that might have been skewed, but it doesn’t sound like that. Any, I guess, some usual impacts or benefits expected in the second half that you are aware of at this point that would move EPS either on the cost side perhaps or I know you have tax credits in the quarter. I wondered if any of those were related to the retroactive renewal of R&D tax credit for 2012 or we are going to see the catch up for that in the tax rate in the March quarter to the extent that you guys benefit from that, anything you call out around that?

Yeah, it was probably the broad question remaining on unusual or unexpected items in the back half of the year. And at this point in time, there is none that we are aware of. We continue to kind of monitor the business in every so often as you know within the business unexpected things happen, some are positive, some are negative. But at this point in time, there is something that has been identified that would fall into the category. So, we would expect to try to normalize behavior. With regards to tax, we do want to make a clarification. On the tax credits, I spoke about we are largely related to work opportunity tax credits hiring people out of work, hiring veterans. We have a little ability to take advantage of the R&D tax credit given the nature of our business. So, it’s mostly the kind of work opportunity credits on our helping our tax rates as well as strong performance in our deferred compensation plan, the equity component of the deferred compensation plan driven by strong U.S. equity market. That creates non-taxable gains of shares to lower our tax rates. So, if we continue to see a strong equity market that will continue to benefit our tax rate. If the equity markets goes the other way, our tax rate will increase. George Price - BB&T Capital Markets: Great. Thanks for the follow-up.

Okay.

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) The next question is from Brian Kinstlinger of Sidoti & Company. Brian Kinstlinger - Sidoti & Company: Great. Thanks for taking my follow up. I am curious on the proposals outstanding and proposals planned to submit. First of all, on the proposals outstanding we saw a decent price drop if my numbers are right in December quarter. I am wondering what caused that if there was a large program that was not one that was in there. And then the proposals to submit looking at that you mentioned that for the next six months, you got about $11 billion to $12 billion you’ve been planning to submit every quarter over a two-quarter period. But the proposals outstanding aren’t going up. So, I guess I am wondering with that said, are you not being able to hit that target given what’s going on in the procurement environment?

Yeah, Brian this is John. If we looked at the difference in the proposals waiting to be evaluated, I think in the first quarter – yeah, in the last quarter we were at $8.9 billion, Brian and now we are at $7.2 billion. The way we account for those total values, in the proposals to be submitted and the proposals to be awarded, we actually assign an expected value of predicted revenue we are going to get from those multiple award IDIQs. So, that drives those submitted proposal values higher than we may eventually see in the awards. So, if I would breakdown the $8.9 billion to $7.2 billion for you, about $1.5 billion of that $1.7 billion, Delta was multiple award IDIQ awards. And the remainder would be past quarters in RFPs. If I look at the 11.2 that has been very consistent, however, the mix of IDIQs to the past quarters has been moving over the last three to four quarters. So, we actually have seen more in RFP in past quarters 11.2 over the next two quarters than we saw in the first two. So, that gives us an indicator that we do have our pent-up customer demand for past quarters in our RFPs, a little bit different then what may have seen in the first half of fiscal year ‘13. Brian Kinstlinger - Sidoti & Company: Okay. The last one just to understand have you been able to achieve in submitting your targets of roughly that 11.7 or 11.2 wherever it is in plans to submit given this environment or have you been hitting, have you been short of that given what’s going on in the market environment?

Yeah. We were short of that towards the end of the first quarter and we are continuing to fall slightly short of that Brian during the second. We do expect some of those things to be able to pickup, but it’s predominantly driven by the multiple award IDIQ piece. Brian Kinstlinger - Sidoti & Company: Great, thank you so much.

You bet.

Thank you. There are no further questions. I will turn the call back over to Dan for closing remarks.

Great. Thanks Latoya and thank you for your help on the call today. We would like to thank everyone who dialed in or logged on to the webcast for their participation as well. We know that many of you will have follow-up questions and Tom and Dave will be available for calls later today. So, this concludes our call. Thank you and have a good day.

Ladies and gentlemen, you many now disconnect.