亨廷頓·英格爾斯工業 (HII) 2017 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to in the Huntington Ingalls Industries Fourth Quarter 2017 Earnings Conference Call. (Operator Instructions) And as a reminder, this conference may be recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Dwayne Blake, Vice President of Investor Relations. Sir, you may begin.

Thanks, Sabrina. Good morning, and welcome to the Huntington Ingalls Industries Fourth Quarter 2017 Earnings Conference Call. With us today are Mike Petters, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Chris Kastner, Executive Vice President, Business Management and Chief Financial Officer.

As a reminder, statements made in today's call that are not historical facts are considered forward-looking statements and are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of federal securities law. Actual results may differ. Please refer to our SEC filings for a description of some of the factors that may cause actual results to vary materially from anticipated results.

Also in their remarks today, Mike and Chris will refer to certain non-GAAP measures, including certain segment and adjusted financial measures. Reconciliations of these metrics to the comparable GAAP measures are included in the appendix of our earnings presentation that is posted on our website. We plan to address the posted presentation slides during the call to supplement our comments. Please access our website at huntingtoningalls.com and click on the Investor Relations link to view the presentation as well as our earnings release.

With that, I'll turn the call over to our President and CEO, Mike Petters. Mike?

Thanks, Dwayne. Let me start out by saying that we, at Huntington Ingalls, are extending our prayers and thoughts and appreciation to the folks in Florida that are associated with that terrible tragedy yesterday. Our hearts and prayers reach out to them.

So good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us today on this business meeting. Today, we released fourth quarter and full year financial results from our seventh year of operations as a publicly-traded company. I want to take a minute to thank our team of nearly 38,000 employees that produce these results by remaining laser focused on our operational pillars of safety, quality, cost and schedule. But before I discuss the financial results, let me share my thoughts on a couple of topics. Adoption of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, commonly referred to as tax reform, has created an opportunity for us to increase investments in 3 important areas. The first area is our facilities. Recall that in late 2015, we made a commitment to invest $1.5 billion of capital in our shipbuilding business through 2020. These investments are intended to improve affordability, efficiency and competitiveness and to preserve and protect current and future U.S. Navy programs. Tax reform will allow us to increase this commitment by an additional $300 million. These funds are designated for facility improvements that expand operational capacity at Ingalls and for investments in digital tools to improve operational efficiencies at Newport News.

The second area is our employees. We will provide a onetime cash benefit of $500 to each hourly and salaried employee. In addition, we are accelerating discretionary contributions of approximately $200 million into 2018 for our qualified pension plans. Chris will provide more details on our pension outlook during his remarks.

And the third area is our communities. We are increasing our investment through charitable -- through additional charitable contributions to organizations across the country where we live and work. Even with these increased investments, we are maintaining our path to 2020 commitment to return substantially all of our free cash flow to shareholders through annual dividend increases of at least 10% and opportunistic share repurchases.

The other topic I want to discuss is our outlook for shipbuilding. When we developed our path to 2020 strategy 3 years ago, the revenue outlook was stable, based on Congress providing funding to support the Navy's 308 ship plan of record. Since that time, the new National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy have reexamined the prospective composition and lethality of the future force. Additionally, the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act included the Ships Act, which is an important signal that demonstrates the nation's commitment to a larger fleet. We stand ready to increase production to support a larger fleet. And if that prospective work occurs, we could envision a sales growth rate of approximately 3% over the next 5 years. This comes with the usual caveats regarding the adequacy of future budget requests and the need for the Congress to resolve the final 2 years of sequestration and provide timely appropriations.

Our long-term shipbuilding return on sales target remains in the 9% to 10% range. However, in the near term, we may fall slightly below the lower end of that range from time to time as we continue through the transition period on programs at Newport News and begin to transition to new programs at Ingalls.

Our outlook for Technical Solutions revenue and return on sales remains unchanged. Revenue is expected to grow in the low single-digit range and return on sales is expected to expand from low single-digits to the 5% to 7% range by 2020.

Now let me share some highlights from the quarter and full year starting on Slide 3 of the presentation. Sales of $2 billion for the quarter and $7.4 billion for the full year were both higher than 2016. Diluted EPS was $1.41 for the quarter and $10.46 for the full year. Adjusting for the onetime cost to refinance our 7-year notes and for onetime tax expense related to tax reform and additional discretionary pension contributions, EPS was $3.11 for the quarter and $12.14 for the full year. Operating cash was $434 million for the quarter and $814 million for the year.

2017 was another strong year operationally as we delivered or redelivered 6 ships to the U.S. Navy. Most notably, [an elite] ship of the Ford-class, aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, and we received $8.1 billion in new contract awards during the year, resulting in backlog of $21 billion at the end of the year, of which $13 billion is funded.

Now I will provide a few points of interest on our business segments. Ingalls had another busy quarter as they laid the keel for LPD 28 Fort Lauderdale and DDG 123 Lenah H. Sutcliffe Higbee, christened DDG 119 Delbert D. Black, delivered DDG 114 Ralph Johnson, and launched and christened NSC-8 Midgett. In addition, the team extended the collective bargaining agreement with its labor unions for an additional 4 years.

At Newport News, CVN 79 Kennedy is approximately 68% structurally complete and 40% complete overall. We continue to be pleased with the quality of the work and the incorporation of lessons learned from the lead ship of the class, the USS Gerald R. Ford.

On the submarine program, SSN 789 Indiana remains on track to be delivered to the Navy in the first half of 2018, while activity continues to ramp-up on Block IV boats. In addition, integrated product and process development work is underway for the Columbia-class program.

Turning to Technical Solutions. The team secured a key win as a part of the LLC that was selected to perform the Los Alamos National Laboratory Legacy Cleanup Contract. That contract is valued at $1.4 billion over a period of 10 years and provides another opportunity to partner with the Department of Energy on a very important long-term project.

In closing, I am extremely pleased with our 2017 results and remain confident in our ability to execute our path to 2020 strategy. We are poised to benefit from modest growth in shipbuilding in the near term and our Technical Solutions business is creating the building blocks for a bright future.

Our credit profile has significantly improved over the past 7 years, and we are well positioned to continue delivering long-term sustainable value for our shareholders, our customers and our employees.

So that concludes my remarks. And I will now turn the call over to Chris Kastner for some remarks on the financials. Chris?

Thanks, Mike, and good morning. Today, I'll review our fourth quarter and full year consolidated results as well as provide you with some information on the outlook for 2018. Before I get into the results, let me review a couple of onetime items that are included in our financials.

We adjusted net earnings $14 million for the onetime expenses related to the early extinguishment of debt in the fourth quarter of 2017. Additionally, we adjusted net earnings, $63 million, for the impact of tax reform, $56 million for the write-down of our net deferred tax assets and $7 million associated with an expected $214 million acceleration of discretionary pension contributions into 2018. Please refer to the earnings presentation on our website or the earnings release for more information on these adjustments as well as the segment results.

Turning to our consolidated fourth quarter results on Slide 4 of the presentation. Revenues in the quarter of $2 billion increased 3.9% over fourth quarter 2016, primarily due to a full quarter of Camber sales, $70 million, versus 1 month of Camber sales of $23 million in 2016; and higher volumes in Navy nuclear support services and Aircraft Carriers at Newport News, partially offset by lower volumes on the NSC and DDG programs at Ingalls.

Operating income for the quarter of $227 million increased $41 million or 15.3% from fourth quarter 2016 and operating margin of 11.4% decreased 257 basis points. These decreases were primarily driven by $50 million of favorable onetime items at Newport News in 2016 and lower risk retirement at Ingalls, partially offset by improved performance at Technical Solutions and a favorable FAS/CAS Adjustment.

Moving on to the consolidated results for the full year on Slide 5. Revenues were $7.4 billion for the year, an increase of 5.3% from 2016. This increase was primarily driven by a full year of Camber sales of $309 million in 2017, compared to 1 month of sales in 2016. Higher volumes in Aircraft Carriers and Navy nuclear support services at Newport News and higher volumes in amphibious assault ships at Ingalls. Operating income for the year was $865 million and operating margin was 11.6%.

Additionally, interest expense was $94 million for the year, an increase of $20 million from the prior year due to the bond refinancing in December. Our effective income tax rate was 65.8% for the quarter and 38% for the full year. This compares to 21.5% and 26.9%, respectively, for fourth quarter and full year 2016. These increases were primarily due to the revaluation of our net deferred tax assets as a result of tax reform.

Turning to cash flow on Slide 6 of the presentation. Cash from operations was $434 million in the quarter and free cash flow was $301 million. For the full year, cash from operations was $814 million and free cash flow was $453 million compared to 2016 cash from operations of $822 million and free cash flow of $537 million. The decrease in free cash flow was primarily due to lower net pension benefit and increased capital expenditures in 2017.

Fourth quarter capital expenditures were $133 million and for the year, $361 million or 4.9% of sales. This compares to $285 million or 4% of sales in 2016. Cash contributions to our pension and postretirement benefit plans were $335 million in the year, of which $294 million were discretionary contributions to our qualified pension plan. Additionally, we repurchased approximately 174,000 shares in the quarter at a cost of $41 million, bringing the total number of shares repurchased in 2017 to approximately 1.4 million at a cost of $288 million. We also paid dividends of $0.72 per share or $33 million in the quarter, bringing total dividends paid for the year to $115 million.

Now let me provide you with some items for 2018 as shown on Slide 7. We expect the noncurrent state income tax benefit to be in the $8 million to $12 million and our effective income tax rate to be approximately 21%. We expect interest expense of approximately $63 million for the year, and we expect capital expenditures as a percent of sales to be between 5% and 6%.

As Mike mentioned in his comments, tax reform allows us to increase our capital expenditure commitment due 2020 by an additional $300 million.

Turning to Slide 8, I'd like to provide you with some perspective on FAS/CAS and pension contributions for 2018 and 2019. These assumptions are based on the pension discount rates and asset returns as identified on Slide 8. As you're aware, pension is sensitive to changes in these and other assumptions, but because of tax reform, I thought it would be helpful to provide you with an understanding of our current baseline. We expect favorable net FAS/CAS Adjustment of $369 million in 2018 and $356 million in 2019. As a reminder, starting in 2018, we have adopted the new retirement benefits standard ASU 2017-07, which moves all components of the FAS pension and postretirement benefit expense, except for service cost from operating to nonoperating income with no impact to net income. And as Mike mentioned, we plan to accelerate a portion of the 2019 discretionary pension contributions of $214 million into fiscal year 2018. This makes our planned cash contributions to our pension and postretirement benefit plans, $549 million in 2018 and $92 million in 2019, of which $508 million and $49 million, respectively, are discretionary contributions to our qualified plans.

That concludes my remarks. I'll turn the call back over to Dwayne for Q&A.

Thanks, Chris. (Operator Instructions) Sabrina, I'll turn it over to you to manage Q&A.

(Operator Instructions) And the first question will come from the line Doug Harned with Bernstein.

I was interested in -- Mike, in your comments about the budget and you're saying that you could look at potentially a 3% top line growth rate going forward. When you think about that, is that how you look at it based on the '18 and '19 budget proposals? Or is that tied more to the Navy goal of a 355-ship Navy? Because I don't see those as necessarily exactly tracking together. So I guess, what do you base the 3% outlook on?

Yes. I think -- Doug, thanks for the question, it's a little bit of both. I had to actually go practice how to say the word growth a few times before this call. We haven't had a chance to talk about growth in shipbuilding for a long time. And yet here we are, we have a budget and a 30-year plan and a National Security Strategy that are all aligned. And if you look at the way this came out, they came out kind of in series, the way they were supposed to come out, and they came out on time. What's encouraged -- there's a lot of things that are encouraging to me. You know I've -- you know, Doug, I've been saying for a long time that I've been worried about how the Columbia-class was going to be paid for without affecting the budget. If you look at the budget and you look at the 30-year plan, it looks like resources are going to be allocated to not create that effect, not create impact, they're going to -- we're going to pay for it. That's really encouraging to me. It's also encouraging to me that the 30-year plan and the budget and all the documents basically talk about working with the industry to find the most efficient ways to do these things. I think calling that out is a great recognition of the opportunity we have to go and do things more efficiently and maybe even get some things done faster.

At the end of the day though, we only do one budget at a time. And as we look at the timing of the programs that we're involved with, over the next couple of years, most of those programs we're going to be trying to go to contract on in some fashion. And so the start-up of those programs and the timing of those programs and how that plays out, all of that kind of comes together and says it looks like about a 3% target over the next 5 years. And we'll adjust that accordingly as we get more facts and get deeper into it, but that's kind of the way we're thinking about it right now. And we're cautiously optimistic that we're ready to go here. So...

Well, when you talked about CapEx and the new depreciation rules making that more attractive and you're making more investments now. Is that -- are those investments separate from what you might think about if you started to see this become more concrete? In other words, are you going to be doing some investing a little bit ahead of a potential growth in programs? Or is it something that you'll have to wait a little while to see if the contract get formalized?

Actually, Doug, I think we started investing a few years ago. And we talked about the need for a generational-type investment in the capacity and capability of our shipyards to support the -- to support our view of what the Navy needed to be. What this is doing is sort of, this is validating our decision to get out and invest early. And so we think we're pretty well poised and positioned right now to answer the call and move ahead.

And our next question will come from the line of Jon Raviv with Citi.

Mike, can you just qualify the 3% growth number? Is that supposed to be a CAGR over 5 years? And if so, should we think about that being either back-loaded or front-loaded? Or how do you think that kind of thing rolls out given what -- not only what you're seeing in the budget now, but the budgets that have been passed and (inaudible) signature already?

This is Chris. It's a 5-year CAGR, rather not comment on front-loaded or back-loaded. But the way we're looking at the budget, the way we're looking at our plans, it looks as if we could get that sort of growth rate.

Understood. And then, Mike, I was wondering if you just give us some historical context for the last time you made facility improvements or generational investments. What did you do? Who paid for it? How long did it take? And what did you -- what do you feel like you got on the other end for it? Was it more profitability, more efficiency? Kind of curious in your perspective there.

That's a really, really interesting question that we could probably spend all day talking about. I mean, the history of the business has been that we've made investments -- typically made investments when we can look down the sight line of a program with some confidence that the program's going to be there, then we'll make big investments. And then either the program will pan out or it won't. At Newport News, for instance, there were some pretty significant investments made by Tenneco back in the '80s in support of Newport News participating in the Seawolf program. When the Cold War ended and that program got truncated, that's -- that -- Newport News did not have any participation in the construction of those programs. And those facilities had to be redeployed. My observation of that was that the value of those facilities, they became valuable to other programs. And so our ability actually to specifically quantify the capital investment to a particular program, my personal observation is we need to be better than that. We build facilities that are -- in the end are going to outlast programs and they're going to be flexibly used for other programs along the way. And so that's what led us to the decision that we were going to make these generational investments a few years ago because we knew that, first of all, our investment would help actually create a future where the Navy would have some confidence that they can move ahead with the program. Secondly, that these facilities would outlast any program that was on the record at that point in time. And so I don't want to say that this was the first time we made generational investments, but it was a major departure from the way that, at least in my experience in history, the way that we had always invested in the past. And so we've been confidently going down that path. Like I said, this -- the last series of events with the National Security Strategy and the budget and the 30-year plan at this point seem to validate that perspective. And we're pretty excited about where we are.

And the next question will come from the line of Pete Skibitski with Drexel Hamilton.

Mike, can you go into any more detail on your thoughts on the 5-year shipbuilding plan? Just because when I look through it, I saw good things, I saw less good things for you guys in terms of more DDG 51s. But it seems like there's still that gap on the LHA, I think. I didn't see any more NSCs. So how are you thinking about the puts and takes there and the ability for Congress to shape it? Just shed more thoughts on that.

Well, I mean, if I were to write the 30-year plan, it would probably look a little bit different than the one that the Navy wrote. But that's okay, that's part of the process. And there's certainly some things that we could go in and say, we would prefer to see this in this place or that in that place. But quite frankly, what I -- the first thing that I looked at was the resourcing of the 30-year plan. And the call out for the expansion of resources across the plan to go and build, I mean, the phrase, "to create the Navy the nation needs," strikes me as the right way to go about doing a 30-year plan as opposed to trying to maybe in the past we might have done the nation -- "the Navy the nation can afford." And we got to get into how all that's going to work out. But where we have some opportunity to engage with the Navy and to engage with the Congress on more efficient ways to proceed, we'll do that. But all in all, I'm pretty pleased with where it sits right now.

Okay, okay. So as it stands, the LHA gap isn't -- doesn't present a big margin challenge or workforce challenge for Ingalls kind of by itself. There's ways to mitigate that. Because it looked like they did add more LPDs.

No, I wouldn't say that. I mean, if it actually executed the way that it is in the plan, the -- that would -- that's something that we would be engaging on to say that there's a better way and more efficient way and more productive way to build in those -- build that product and build those product lines. So I'm not ready to say that we completely 100% endorse the way that it's laid out. But we'll be engaging with the Navy on those things that we think could be improved. And you've highlighted one, the LHA is one of those areas that we will be talking about.

The next question will come from the line Carter Copeland with Melius.

I wondered if you might just give us a little bit of color about the incremental $300 million CapEx, how that splits between facilities improvements versus the capacity expansion efforts you mentioned?

Yes, so Carter, this is Chris. $200 million of that is related to facilities and equipment, primarily at Ingalls in increasing capacity. And then, we have $100 million of it related to additional digital tools at Newport News.

Okay. Okay, great. And then, another one, Chris, with respect to the pension prefund, where does that put you now on a funded status when you look out to 2019, 2020 on an ERISA basis? I would assume you're at a pretty good spot here in terms of contributions looking beyond what you laid out for '18 and '19?

Yes. Yes, that's a good question. So year-end, we were at 89 -- excuse me, 89% funded on a FAS basis. We don't give specific numbers for '18 and '19, but you -- when we have a $900 million liability and we're essentially cutting it in half. So I don't want to project what's going to go on -- what's going to happen with FAS/CAS returns and discount rates over the next couple of years.

And the next question comes from the line of Rob Spingarn with Crédit Suisse.

So Mike, on the -- as we change blocks here on Virginia-class and on DDG 51 into Flight III, could you talk a little bit maybe in more detail about the timing on unit revenue increases and changes in margin profile? I think Flight III adds some complexity on the 51. And then of course, just the higher unit numbers on the Virginia-class, and when that should flow through?

Yes. So first of all, I'm not sure that I'm going to talk about any particular program like that. I think what I would tell you is what we've talked about before, that the healthy business has to have the right amount of new work coming in and the right amount of mature work in the business so that in a blended way, you end up being in a 9% to 10% range. Certainly, the -- we just got the RFP for the multi-year on the DDGs and we're beginning the work on getting through to the next block, Block V on Virginia-class. And we've talked a lot about how that -- the start-up of those programs. We have pretty good risk registers, and we don't take credit for retiring the risk until we retire it. I think what I would tell you at this point is that if we really are going to expand the Navy the way that these documents suggest and the way that people are talking about, what that's going to do is that's actually going to -- heavier -- it's going to put a heavier weight on the new work than what we have today on mature work. And so that's going to swing our overall -- that's my comment about how as we begin transitioning programs at Newport News, we're going to go through a transition at Ingalls as we expand. And so that's going to put a little bit of pressure on the bottom side of that band.

Well, that's really my question, Mike, is when is that Ingalls transition? Just with all the budget numbers moving around and the ramps and so forth, when is the time frame for that transition? Because I think what you're implying is 11 8 doesn't happen when that happens in terms of margin.

I mean, when that happens, when you see a number like that, it means that they've been very successful retiring risk on very mature programs. If you -- it's not hard to go through and tick off -- starting at the very top, there's going to be a new carrier, hopefully 2, in our contract base in the next couple of years. There's going to be a new block of submarines in our contract base in the next 24 months. There's going to be a new flight of destroyers in our contract base. There's going to be a new flight of -- and transition to LXR in our contract base. We're ramping up right now on LHA 8. And so just about every single one of our programs over the next 24 months, we're going to be going to new contract on. And so my view of that is that this is going to play out over the next couple of years, maybe 2 or 3 years. And if it -- depending on the timing of those contracts, it could extend to the fourth year. But that's -- I mean, that's all -- it's all good because it's an expansion of the business at a time when we're executing really well. And the -- it allows us to set the stage to move those programs to a point where they are mature for us in the out years.

No, that makes...

That's why I am really excited about this, and I'm -- and we don't typically break any of the programs down by program. But in general, the expansion of the Navy is going to create near-term pressure as we take on that risk and long-term opportunity as we harvest those programs.

No, and Mike, you've proven over the last half decade or so that you're going to book conservatively and then hit your numbers. You guys have been executing very, very well. What I'm trying to figure out is as we get this 3% revenue CAGR, can EBIT keep up if the margin profile is going to change?

So Rob, this is Chris. A good bellwether is the launch of CVN 79 in 2020.

Yes.

Okay.

That is a good point, Chris. That's sort of a point where we will be able to assess where we stand relative to most of the programs we have.

The next question will come from the line of George Shapiro with Shapiro Research.

I don't know whether the others are having a problem, but I can -- the quality of the call is not very good, so hopefully I'm not repeating a question. But I had for -- to you, Chris, free cash flow in '18, I assume, was probably going to be less than '17 given the increase in CapEx as well as the pension contribution?

Wow. You've got a -- can you hear me, George?

I can barely talk through all the chop-chop. So...

Let's get this fixed before I answer that question. Can you hear me now?

Okay, much better now.

Okay, I can't hear you very well, but I think your question was about cash flow in 2018. It's a good point relative to the additional capital on the net pension. We finished around $450 million free cash in '17. I'll probably have about $100 million of pressure to that in '18.

And then, Mike, you did mention that the margins could be a little bit lower in the next year or 2. Is that due to Newport News and the pressure from the Kennedy? And if you can also update as to when you think you'd be able to ensure that you're going to be right on your learning curve assumptions as opposed to the Navy?

Yes, George, I think I made that out -- made your question out. And we just talked about that with Rob. But I would just say, Chris makes a good point in that conversation that the launch of Kennedy in 2020 is the place where we will be able to do a true risk assessment on how many -- how much risk did we retire, how much do we still have, did we get what we wanted, all of the classic stuff we do when we hot wash these major events. What I can tell you right now on the Kennedy is that we're seeing significant progress being made in terms of the construction schedule, and we are seeing that the investments we made to take man hours out are generally working. So we're pretty excited about that.

So is that the concern as to your comment that the margins could dip below the 9% to 10% area?

No, no, no. The concern I have about margins is just the macro concerning that -- and it's not a concern, it's just an observation, alright? The observation is that as we expand the volume here, we're going to go to contract in just about every one of our programs of the next couple of years. This is all new work. Every piece of new work that we bring in brings with it a risk register. When we see that risk register, we don't take credit for retiring it until we retire it. So we're going to have, as we expand the business, we're going to have more risk registers to go manage and what that's going to do is that's going to mean more volume of new business relative to volume of mature business, which will swing the pendulum more towards the low end of the range. That's the point of the conversation.

And is that more skewed to Newport versus Ingalls?

It's every program, George, across the business. Newport News has frankly been going through this for the last couple of years as they've been transitioning from Ford to Kennedy, transitioning from Lincoln to George Washington, transitioning from Block III to Block IV. And we're getting ready to start in on Block V. They've been working on this for a couple of years. Their programs have longer horizons. But we see this across the whole business over the next couple of years.

And the next question will come from the line of Gautam Khanna with Cowen and Company.

Gautam here. A couple questions. Chris, maybe for you on your comment on free cash down about $100 million. What does that contemplate for the Avondale recovery in 2018?

That's a really good question. Remember, the Avondale restructuring settlement is related to overhead expense, which is incorporated into our contracts, our billing rates of run through share lines at some point. And then we recover it from our customer. So -- and all the specific number related to that will trickle in this year and you'll see a reduction in the working capital at Ingalls. But at the end of the day, it's incorporated into the information I gave you relative to the headwind I have in '18 versus where we finished in '17 of $100 million.

Okay. So it's embedded in the rates, that's (inaudible).

Yes. Yes, absolutely. It's overhead cost.

Got it. Mike, maybe for you, could you give us some sort of context on Columbia-class revenues over the next 3 years ahead of actual construction starting in 2021? I know you have some design revenue. What are you recognizing? When will you recognize some of the long-lead time items and the like? And what are you expecting in 2018?

Yes, well, this is Chris, Gautam. We're working on that program now. You've got it right relative to the first boat and we'll ramp from here to there kind of incrementally but that's all contained with the information Mike gave you relative to the 3% -- rough 3% CAGR over the next 5 years.

Can you give us a ballpark of what you expect the revenues on that program to be in -- call it 2020, 2021, something like that? Because I know the share line, 22%, you transitioned from design to actual production, just any sort of sizing of it?

We don't usually get into the sizing of each of the programs. So we'll pass on that.

Last question, Technical Solutions. Are you seeing any signs of life in UPI? Is that finally turning into the black? And anything you can comment on business momentum there?

Yes, so that's a good question, I'm glad you asked it. UPI, that team is operating very well. They've got their cost structures squared away. They're adding people up in Canada and they're stable in Houston and they're competing very well for new projects, and they have a very robust pipeline. So really positive on how UPI is performing right now.

And I'm showing no further questions at this time. I would now like to turn the call back over to CEO, Mr. Mike Petters, for further remarks.

Okay. Well, thank you. Thanks for joining us on the call today. I -- as I mentioned earlier, we are executing well across the business in everything that we're doing. We had key wins in our Technical Solutions area and we're poised to build the Navy the nation needs. And we are excited about our future going forward.

We want to thank you all for joining us today, and we appreciate your interest in HII. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This concludes your program. You may all disconnect. Everyone, have a great day.