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

The Algorithm vs. Leidos in Energy & Utilities

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

The Problem

What Leidos gets wrong in Energy

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

Energy technology operates under specific regulatory and operational constraints that generalist consulting firms consistently underestimate. 1,162 cyberattacks on utilities in 2024 — 70% increase year over year. Leidos's model does not account for the domain qualification required to navigate this environment.

Compliance in Energy 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 energy 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 energy engineering teams are domain-qualified before they are assigned to an engagement. They understand the regulatory framework — NERC CIP and NIST — as an engineering constraint, not a compliance checklist.

Every system we deploy for a energy 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

NERC CIP and NIST 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 energy 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

NERC CIP and NIST compliance is an architectural constraint in energy. Leidos treats it as a consulting deliverable. We build it into the infrastructure.

nerc cip
nist
nis2
ferc
Typical Engagement

What switching from Leidos looks like

A typical energy 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 Energy? We've done this before.

NERC CIP-compliant energy engineering. Fixed price. Production in 8-20 weeks.

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