Good day, everyone, welcome to the Mercury Systems third quarter fiscal 2023 conference call. Today's call is being recorded. At this time, for opening remarks and introductions, I'd like to turn the call over to the company's Senior Vice President and Interim Chief Financial Officer, Michelle McCarthy. Please go ahead, Miss McCarthy.
Good afternoon, and thank you for joining us. With me today is our President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Aslett. If you have not received a copy of the earnings press release we issued earlier this afternoon, you can find it on our website at mrcy.com. The slide presentation that Mark and I will be referring to is posted on the investor relations section of the website under Events and Presentations. Turning to slide two in the presentation, I'd like to remind you that today's presentation includes forward-looking statements, including information regarding Mercury's outlook, future plans, objectives, business prospects, and anticipated financial performance. These forward-looking statements are subject to future risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results or performance to differ materially.
All forward-looking statements should be considered in conjunction with the cautionary statements on slide two in the earnings press release and the risk factors included in Mercury's SEC filings. I'd also like to mention that in addition to reporting financial results in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for GAAP, during our call, we will also discuss several non-GAAP financial measures, specifically adjusted income, adjusted earnings per share, adjusted EBITDA, free cash flow, organic revenue, and acquired revenue. A reconciliation of these non-GAAP metrics is included as an appendix to today's slide presentation and in the earnings press release. I will now turn the call over to Mercury's President and CEO, Mark Aslett. Please turn to slide three.
Thanks, Michelle. Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for joining us. I will begin with a business update. Michelle will discuss the financials and guidance, and then we'll open it up for your questions. First, a quick note about the review of strategic alternatives we announced last quarter. The review is continuing, and we don't intend to disclose any new developments on the call today. As Michelle and I will discuss, we're running the business in the ordinary course as this process unfolds and continue to execute on our strategic plan. With that, let's turn to the Q3 . Revenue was above the high end, and adjusted EBITDA came in at the midpoint of guidance for Q3. Bookings were in line with our expectations, and our book-to-bill was 0.93. This follows 1.18 in the first half and 1.1 over the last 12 months.
Q3 backlog grew 10% year-over-year. Our largest bookings programs in the quarter were V-22, F-16, Aegis, AH-64, and a classified CPY program. We're positioned for strong bookings growth sequentially in Q4 as planned, given the timing of awards. Q3 total revenue increased 4% year-over-year as did organic revenue. Our largest revenue programs were LTAMDS, Aegis, F-16, F-35, and a classified CPY program. GAAP net income and GAAP earnings per share for the Q3 exceeded our guidance due to a higher-than-expected tax benefit. Adjusted EPS and adjusted EBITDA declined year-over-year as expected. Free cash flow was positive, excluding the R&D tax impact. Looking forward to our results at the year level, we expect to deliver record bookings for fiscal 2023 and a positive book-to-bill.
Revenue is now expected to be flat to slightly up year-over-year, $30 million below the midpoint of prior fiscal 2023 guidance due to award and supply chain delays. Organic revenue is expected to be approximately flat year-over-year versus a 5% decline in fiscal 2022. On the bottom line, we're lowering the range for GAAP net income and adjusted EBITDA by $34 million and $44 million at the midpoint. Free cash flow is expected to be around breakeven in Q4 and negative for fiscal 2023. We expect lower cash outflows year-over-year, excluding the R&D tax. Turn to slide four. We're in our fourth fiscal year dealing with the derivative effects of the pandemic on the business. We've seen impacts in prior years on bookings and organic revenue. This year, we've seen the bottom line impact primarily driven by lower margins.
We're experiencing temporary margin degradation for two reasons. The first is a significant shift toward development programs in our business mix, and the second is the pandemic-related impacts on product and program execution, especially as related to certain development programs. Over the last several years, we've won a significant amount of new business, both organically and through acquisitions. These wins decreased the ratio of production to development stage programs from approximately 80 to 20 to approximately 60 to 40 in fiscal 2023, corresponding with a doubling in customer-funded R&D revenues. Our typical period of performance on programs pre-pandemic was an average approximately 18 months, far shorter than many of our customers, given where we sit in the value chain. Over the course of the pandemic, this period increased to an average of approximately 30 months, driven in part by delays in development programs.
In the initial phase, development programs typically carry gross margins in the low to mid-30s on average. In comparison, more mature production programs' gross margins are above 40% on average. This elevated ratio of development stage programs has pressured margins over the past couple of years, and more significantly in fiscal 2023, these programs will drive Mercury's future growth as they transition into production. We expect to see a meaningful margin expansion also as they transition and our mix returns to pre-pandemic levels. The second contributor to margin degradation, as I mentioned, is the pandemic-related impacts on execution. Supply chain delays and inefficiencies, long semiconductor lead times, tight labor markets and inflation have resulted in cost growth impacting both direct costs and R&D. In terms of R&D, Mercury is a leveraged commercial investment model focused on developing sophisticated new technologies and products.
These highly differentiated capabilities are used across multiple DoD programs. The cost growth we're experiencing is associated with certain new technology developments that are nearing completion and new product introductions which are taking longer than planned. The higher costs are related to both labor as well as materials, driven by labor and supply chain inefficiencies, manufacturing constraints, and inflation. Approximately a dozen or so of our 300-plus active programs have been affected, all but two of the affected programs are more than 90% complete in terms of the total expected costs incurred. The good news is that once we complete the development and new product introduction activities, multiple programs will quickly benefit due to our product program leverage model. We expect these programs to complete over the next two, three quarters transition to production-based contracts thereafter.
This transition should lead to stronger fiscal 2024 results, not only improve gross margins and adjusted EBITDA as cost pressures diminish, but also lower working capital as we quickly relieve unbilled receivables through shipment, invoicing and cash collections. As I said previously, our challenges are not related to end market demand, which remains strong. They're largely timing and cost-related, they're short-term, and they're not unique to Mercury. We're focused on controlling what we can in this environment, given the technologies that we developed and the programs that we've won. Structurally, our business model and financial outlook are sound, and we're very optimistic about the future. We expect margins to naturally return to pre-pandemic levels as we overcome current execution challenges and as the supply chain conditions continue to normalize.
Further margin expansion will follow as the late-stage development programs transition to production, and as we return to a more normal 80/20 business mix over time. Turning to slide five, we now have Allen Couture on board as Head of Execution Excellence, Mitch Stevison now leading our Mission Systems business, and Roger Wells continuing to lead Microelectronics. Under their leadership, we're driving continuous improvements in new product development, supply chain, operations, and program execution. New leadership was instrumental in clarifying the magnitude and timing of our late-stage development challenges. We're making progress on the engineering development challenges and manufacturing yields began to improve by the end of the Q3 . We expect this progress to continue in Q4 and fiscal 2024, allowing for final program execution. In addition, we're through the first phase of our business systems integration in Torrance, California, the former POC.
This was delayed largely due to COVID-related travel restrictions and is on track to be completed in the Q4 . Completing these integration activities will increase our visibility across the business, especially with respect to program execution and related labor and material costs, as well as working capital. The platform systems business we built through a series of acquisitions over time, of which Torrance is the largest part, has some amazing capabilities. In addition to the work that we've done around our secure processing and trusted microelectronics, we expect it to deliver long-term growth in the business. Although we made progress on the income statement in Q3, we still have more work to improve our balance sheet and cash flow. We expect that our IMPACT program, together with improved execution, will lead to increased margins, a reduction in inventory and unbilled receivables, resulting in improved cash flow.
Turning to slide six on the industry operating environment, which continues to improve incrementally. Employee hiring at Mercury continued to outpace attrition in Q3. The supply chain is beginning to flow more smoothly. We saw fewer supplier decommits this quarter, with some suppliers delivering ahead of plan. Semiconductors are still affecting program timing and efficiency, although to a lesser extent. Semiconductor processor lead times peaked in Q1 of fiscal 2023 at 52 to 99 weeks and now range from 13 to 78 weeks. Prior to the pandemic, they averaged 10 to 12. Current lead times on average are getting shorter, constraints in certain areas are still affecting new product development and program execution. We don't expect a significant improvement in lead times until the second half of fiscal 2024. Semiconductor inflationary pressures remain a challenge also.
In the Q3 , for example, we made approximately $10 million of end-of-life related semiconductor purchases, where the prices increased nearly 9x. Our IMPACT program, launched in early fiscal 2022, has continued to evolve and deliver positive results. We've streamlined our organizational structure and significantly strengthened our leadership team. We've pushed margin expansion and working capital efficiency initiatives deeper into the business. In this inflationary environment, we're passing on higher costs wherever we can, and we've raised prices across the board on the commercial Microelectronics side of the business. We're improving R&D investment effectiveness and consolidating our manufacturing facility footprint. Our digital transformation efforts in engineering operations in the back office should also help improve our cost structure over time. Turning to slide seven. We believe the defense spending outlook remains positive.
The defense appropriations bill approved last year, as well as the president's budget request, targets substantial spending growth related to national security issues, as well as continued support for Ukraine. An extended budget continuing resolution appears to be the base case scenario for government fiscal 2024, including the potential for a full-year CR. Given the geopolitical environment, there appears to be strong bipartisan support for increased defense spending. Domestic and international defense spending is expected to grow in both the short and longer term, and we believe that Mercury is well-positioned to benefit from secular industry trends. We're seeing continued growth in demand for compute capability on board military platforms and an ongoing push for platform electronicification. We also stand to benefit from supply chain delayering and reshoring, as well as increased outsourcing by our customers at the subsystem level.
Our addressable market has increased substantially, largely driven by our strategic move into platform systems and the potential to deliver innovative processing solutions at chip scale. Our model, sitting at the intersection of high tech and defense, positions us well. As we announced in March, Christine Fox has joined us as Chief Growth Officer to help capture these opportunities. Christine has an impressive track record of driving growth, developing new markets, and building successful partnerships in defense and commercial technology businesses. We're very pleased to welcome Christine to the Mercury team. With that, I'd like to turn the call over to Michelle. Michelle?
Thank you, Mark, good afternoon again, everyone. I'll start with our fiscal 2023 guidance and Q4 guidance. Please turn to slide eight, which details the Q3 results. Mercury's revenue and net income exceeded the high end of our guidance, while adjusted EBITDA came in at the midpoint. Total bookings for Q3 were $245 million, yielding a book-to-bill of 0.93, as expected. Bookings linearity was still weighted heavily in the third month of the quarter, but improved versus the first half. Our total backlog was up 10% and 12 month backlog was up 9% compared to Q3 last year. We're entering the Q4 with forward coverage of over 80% and solid visibility to the remaining bookings required to achieve our forecasted Q4 revenues.
Q3 revenue was approximately $263 million, up $10 million or 4% on a total and organic basis as compared to $253 million in Q3 2022. Avalex and Atlanta Micro are now included in organic revenue, having completed their fourth full fiscal quarter since being acquired. Gross margins for the Q3 decreased to 34.3% from 39.4% in Q3 last year. The decline was partially offset by savings in operating expenses, primarily within R&D, as a higher proportion of engineers continued to incur direct labor on development programs. As Mark mentioned, over the last several quarters, we've consistently cited two key drivers of lower gross margins. First, a higher concentration of development program revenues in our mix. Second, the derivative effects of the pandemic resulting in program execution delays.
There is a close correlation between these two drivers that warrants a finer point. In fiscal 2019 through fiscal 2021, we achieved a significant level of design wins, both organically and through acquisition, especially as related to the Physical Optics Corporation acquisition. These design wins were predominantly within secure processing and mission avionics, two of our key strategic growth areas, and translated into development contracts in our backlog. The onset of COVID in fiscal 2020 and the transition to remote work added latency to our development efforts. Shortly thereafter, supply chain delays began to limit availability of critical components, followed by the Great Resignation, which created labor constraints across a number of our program-executing functions. We began to see some margin reductions in fiscal 2021 and fiscal 2022, partially offset by lower R&D expenses as more engineers charged labor directly to these development programs.
This resulted in increased levels of CRAD, as discussed in many of our prior earnings calls and public filings. The higher engineering labor content, coupled with the low unit volume on most development programs, contributes to average gross margins in the low to mid-thirties on these programs. This compares to average gross margins of above 40% across our production programs. As Mark mentioned, our proportion of development program revenues has nearly doubled from approximately 20% in fiscal 2021 to approximately 40% in fiscal 2023. While the mix shift alone created initial pressure on gross margins, the derivative effects of the pandemic created concurrent execution delays and inefficiencies. The delays resulted in many of our largest development programs entering final testing and qualification in fiscal 2023. We have encountered technical challenges, as is typical for this stage, across a dozen or so of our development programs.
The resulting cost growth has a compounding impact on growth margins, given that many of our active development programs are predicated on firm-fixed-price contracts. Remediating these challenges has required incremental labor and material, both of which have experienced inflation over the last several years. More specifically, the cost growth incurred in the testing and qualification stage of these development programs results in higher scrap charges as well as more senior engineering labor charges when the units did not yield as expected. In accordance with GAAP, we continuously reassess our estimates to complete on these programs based on changes in facts and circumstances. Changes in estimates are applied retrospectively, and when adjustments in estimated contract costs are identified, such revisions require a cumulative catch-up of prior program margin performance. This resulted in an outsized impact in the quarter in which the changes in estimate were identified across these development programs.
As Mark mentioned, nearly all of the dozen or so development programs that have contributed to the fiscal 2023 cost growth are nearing completion in the next two to three quarters. Completing these programs will not only rebalance our revenue and margin profile as we shift back to a production-weighted contract mix, but will also reduce susceptibility to cost growth across our program portfolio. As a frame of reference, historically, we experienced minimal changes in our cost to complete estimates. Through Q3, outside of these dozen development programs, we continue to experience the same trend of minimal changes in these estimates across the nearly 300 other active programs we manage.
As we complete these development programs over the next two to three quarters, we will apply the lessons learned to the follow-on production contracts as well as development programs in our backlog to support more stable cost to complete estimates going forward. As such, we expect to see improved gross margins, not only from the mix shift to production-based contracts, but also due to the recovery from cost growth specific to these programs. In addition, where possible, we are seeking cost-plus-fixed-fee structures on new development programs, partially mitigating the impact of cost growth on future program execution. From a working capital perspective, these dozen or so programs have been a significant primary and secondary source of growth in unbilled receivables. We expect their completion in the next two to three quarters to allow for the billing and cash collection of nearly $30 million.
Even more importantly, we have many other programs that leverage the same underlying technology or product or otherwise require the same specialized engineering resources currently consumed by these development programs. Therefore, as they are completed, manufacturing yields will improve across the shared technology or product, and engineering resources will be redistributed across multiple other programs. We expect this to allow for the billing and cash collection of an additional $60 million of unbilled receivables. In summary, our fiscal year 2023 gross margins have been pressured by both the proportion of development programs in our mix as well as execution challenges across a dozen or so of these programs, nearly all of which will complete in the next two to three quarters. We expect that overcoming these challenges will not only return us to a more normal, higher margin production contract mix, but also improve execution across multiple other programs.
As a result, we expect to see improved gross margins as well as the release of over $90 million in unbilled receivables, resulting in improved cash flows and overall working capital levels. Q3 GAAP net income increased to $5.2 million or $0.09 per share from $4.1 million or $0.07 per share in Q3 last year due to a tax benefit of over $10 million in the quarter. We calculated Q3 income taxes using the discrete method, a more appropriate methodology given our year-to-date and expected Q4 results. Our Q3 operating and pre-tax results were lower year-over-year due to the lower gross margins just discussed, as well as higher interest expense. Adjusted EBITDA in Q3 was $43.5 million, compared with $52.5 million last year, again due to lower gross margins.
Our adjusted EBITDA margins were 16.5% in the quarter. Free cash flow for the Q3 was an outflow of approximately $13 million, including the first payment of $19 million related to the change in R&D tax legislation. Excluding this, free cash flow would have been an inflow of nearly $7 million, better than our expectations of near breakeven entering the quarter. Slide nine presents Mercury's balance sheet for the last five quarters. From a capital structure perspective, our balance sheet remains strong. We ended Q3 with cash and cash equivalents of $64 million. We have $511.5 million of funded debt under our $1.1 billion revolver, which provides us with significant financial flexibility. We observed a 30% reduction in supplier decommits in Q3.
While this is a positive indicator of stabilization in the supply chain, it resulted in material receipts of $20 million more than planned for the quarter. This is reflected in the growth in unbilled receivables as well as inventory for the quarter. To some extent, it is also driving an increase in accounts payable given the timing of certain receipts later in the quarter. Turning to cash flow on slide 10. Although we saw more timely customer payment patterns reducing our build receivables, this was more than offset by growth in our unbilled receivables, primarily as a result of development program execution challenges. In addition, some of the snapback with suppliers I just mentioned resulted in higher Q3 cash outflows. We leveraged our receivables factoring arrangement at levels similar to the prior quarter to help offset these impacts.
Working capital continues to grow as a percentage of sales, largely driven by increased unbilled receivables and inventory. As discussed, we expect continued progress toward development program completion over the next two to three quarters. This should serve as a catalyst for the start of a significant reduction in unbilled receivables and improved cash flows extending through fiscal year 2024. In addition, with the supply chain beginning to normalize and various IMPACT initiatives progressing, we expect to have greater visibility, predictability, and control over inventory. As a result, we continue to believe an appropriate target for working capital as a percentage of sales is 35%, consistent with pre-pandemic levels. I'll now turn to our financial guidance starting with full fiscal year 2023 on slide 11. The demand environment was strong in the first nine months of fiscal 2023 and getting stronger as we begin the Q4 .
To reiterate, we expect record bookings and a positive book-to-bill for the year. Entering the fiscal year, we expected completion of these development programs in the first half with the follow-on higher margin production awards throughout the second half. This supported higher revenues, improved gross margins and strong operating leverage in the second half, and especially in the Q4 . Based on the development program execution challenges and related cost growth experienced to date, we are adopting a more cautious outlook for the remainder of fiscal 2023. Our fiscal 2023 guidance for total company revenue is now $990 million to $1.01 billion. This represents flat to 2% growth year-over-year and approximately flat organic growth compared with a 5% decline in fiscal 2022.
The reduction from our prior revenue guidance reflects award and funding delays, including follow-on production awards associated with our development programs, as well as continued supply chain delays. GAAP results are now expected to be a net loss for fiscal 2023 in the range of $19 million to $11.1 million, with GAAP loss per share of $0.34 to $0.20. We now expect fiscal 2023 adjusted EBITDA in the range of $160 million to $170 million, down 18% at the midpoint from last year. Adjusted EPS is now expected to be in the range of $1.36 to $1.50 per share. We now expect negative free cash flow for the fiscal year, both with and without approximately $30 million of cash outflows related to R&D tax legislation.
I'll now turn to our Q4 guidance on slide 12. For the Q4 , we currently expect revenue in the range of approximately $269 million-$289 million. At the midpoint, this is a decline of about 4% year-over-year. Our revenue forecast for the Q4 is well supported by our existing backlog, with over 80% coverage entering the quarter and strong line of sight to the remaining Q4 bookings. We expect growth margins to increase in Q4 as we complete certain of the late-stage development programs as discussed. We also expect to see improved operating leverage on higher revenue. We expect Q4 GAAP net income to range from $1.2 million-$9.1 million.
We expect Q4 adjusted EBITDA to be $49.6 million-$59.6 million, representing adjusted EBITDA margins of approximately 20% of revenue at the midpoint. Looking ahead to fiscal 2024 and beyond, Mercury is well positioned for stronger growth, margin expansion and improved working capital. We expect our current backlog and strong slate of existing programs, coupled with increased defense spending, to drive a return to high single digits to low double-digit revenue growth. On the bottom line, as our mix transitions from the current weighting of development programs to higher margin production contracts, we expect to see a natural uplift in gross margin throughout fiscal 2024. In addition, as the margin headwinds from certain of our existing development contracts subside, we expect to see further improvement in gross margins.
At the same time, continued supply chain normalization will position us to begin rebalancing the timing of material receipts with the availability of labor, allowing us to meet our customer performance obligations in a more efficient manner, resulting in improved working capital levels. We expect continued IMPACT savings to support margin expansion and improved cash flows in fiscal 2024 and over the longer term. With that, I'll now turn the call back over to Mark.
Thanks, Michelle. Turning now to slide 13. Demand is strong and getting stronger as we begin the Q4 of fiscal 2023. For the year, we expect to deliver record bookings and a positive book-to-bill. We're positioned for continued progress and a rebound in fiscal 2024 as we push our development programs across the finish line and transition to production, overall execution improves, and the supply chain conditions continue to normalize. Driven by stronger growth, higher EBITDA margins and substantially improved working capital and cash flow, we believe next fiscal year will begin a longer-term period of improved financial performance for Mercury. As a result, we believe that Mercury can and will continue to grow organically at high single digits to low double digits.
In addition to growth, our five year plan includes margin expansion driven by better execution as the supply chain conditions normalize, the shift in mix from development to production, as well as continued improvements through IMPACT. These tailwinds should lead to stronger profitability as well as greater working and capital efficiency and cash conversion over time. In closing, I'd like to extend my appreciation to the entire Mercury team, which is committed and working extremely hard to deliver improved results. My sincere thanks to all of you. Before we turn it over to Q&A, I ask that you please keep your questions focused on our earnings results. With that, operator, please proceed with the Q&A.
Thank you. If you'd like to ask a question today, press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. We ask today that you limit yourself to one question and re-queue for any follow-up. Thank you. Your first question comes from the line of Peter Arment with Baird. Your line is open.
Hey, thanks. Good afternoon, Mark and Michelle. Hey, Mark. I appreciate the details you kind of explained, development mix growing and kind of the derivative effects of, you know, the pandemic and what you've talked about. What I'm trying to understand is that a lot of those things were kinda known three months ago, that your development mix was growing and you were still dealing with all these lingering effects. I'm just trying to understand like kind of the change from what the implied guidance was of potentially 31% adjusted EBITDA, you know, for the Q4 , three months ago to now 18%-21%. Just help me try to understand or at least bridge kind of the dynamics there. Thanks.
Big picture, I think, as we were coming into the year, you know, we were expecting that, you know, these development programs, you know, would be further along than what we currently are, right? As a result of some of the technical challenges. You know, we've experienced the cost growth associated with that. As a result of the delays, Peter, we've also, you know, seen some follow-on award delays of high margin business. It's really kind of the two, you know, the two things, right? You know, the later than expected completion on the development programs with higher costs, you know, plus a knock-on impact for higher margin production awards that we're expecting in the second half. Those are the two main drivers.
You know, the other one is that, you know, I think we also have seen some supply chain part availability constraints that have affected, you know, certain business in the Q4 as well.
If I could, as a follow-up, Mark, does this?
Yeah.
-change how you approach, just sort of bidding on some of these larger development programs in the future? Just 'cause, it sounds like, these were technically challenging, just what's your approach there? Thanks.
Yeah. So, you know, I mean, if you look at our model, Peter, right, we've got a product program, you know, commercial investment leverage model. You know, prior to the pandemic, right, we've done a really good job, I think, in developing new capabilities and quickly and cost effectively, and then sharing those capabilities over multiple programs. You know, what we're experiencing here is a very small fraction of the overall program portfolio. So as Michelle mentioned, you know, it's about a dozen programs. So it's a 300 active programs that we are currently managing. You know, the products go into multiple programs. So when you've got one issue, you know, it affects multiple things. So it's the opposite of the, of the leverage that we have when things are working well.
You know, that being said, we are, you know, nearing the late stages in terms of the development, test, and qualification. You know, we do believe that once we get through it, you know, you'll start to see, you know, things move much more quickly. Today, most of the types of contracts that we have are actually firm-fixed-price, you know, contracts with only about 10% being cost-plus-fixed-fee. Where possible and where it makes sense on new development programs, you know, we'll clearly, you know, seek to, you know, move towards the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure. It really does need to make sense, you know, depending upon the type of business and the actual business that we're pursuing, largely because of, you know, our investment model. Y ou know, we're far along on them. It's unfortunate that it's happened, but they're critical capabilities tied to really important programs.
Okay. Thanks, Mark.
Yeah.
Your next question comes from the line of Seth Seifman with J.P. Morgan. Your line is open.
Okay. Thanks very much. Good morning. I guess, Mark, can you tell us, maybe, I don't know if it's only 12 programs, maybe the top five or six programs that are driving this.
We're not gonna get into the specifics because the capabilities that, you know, where we're in the final stages of development are specialized in nature, and, you know, we don't wanna specifically link them to, you know, known DoD programs. It is a very unique set of capabilities that we're producing. You know, I think they're very important in terms of the programs in which they're going into. Unfortunately, I can't really disclose too much, Seth.
Okay. They're classified programs?
They're not classified, but, you know, linking certain technologies into programs, you know, just given what we're doing is not something that, you know, we would normally disclose.
All right. Okay. Okay. Maybe just the last point on this, then I'll pass along, is in terms of these programs moving towards production, as Mercury kind of finishes its work on the development, you know, presumably you're supplying it to a prime contractor. Is there further technical risk on these programs that's out of your hands as to when the customer is gonna call on you to get going on production once you guys have executed on your part of the development work?
No, I don't believe so, Seth. I think, you know, the, as soon as that we can ship these products, our customers are gonna take them, because they need them, you know, for the work that they're doing. I don't believe that, you know, there's any additional risk or delays associated with that. You know, we've literally just got to get through the, you know, finishing off the development efforts and ramping up the new product introduction yields, you know, which we began to see at the end of Q3. Hopefully, you know, on on, the ones that are most important, you know, we're already seeing the progress.
Okay, great. Thanks very much.
Your next question comes from the line of Ken Herbert with RBC. Your line is open.
Yeah. Hi, good afternoon, Mark and Michelle. Maybe Mark, just to, just to stay on these, as you think about the progress in terms of, you know, retiring the risk on these development and other-.
Yeah.
-development programs, what's your assumption for, again, for the sort of the working capital relief in fiscal 2024? I mean, how much of a tailwind can this be? Is it possible to quantify that prior to official 2024 guidance? I think that the impact on cash would be very important as we think about the next year.
Yeah. Let me.
Hey-
Let me just. It's a good question, Ken. Let me maybe kind of take it down a level in terms of, you know, just the issues and kind of what we're doing. Then I'll throw it over to Michelle, who can talk about just, you know, the impact that the positive impact that we potentially see with respect to unbilled. At a working level, there are two late stage, you know, products that are in development and new product introduction activities associated with them that, as I mentioned, because of our product program leverage model, are affecting multiple programs. On the first one, as I said, it's a, you know, very unique, you know, one of a kind set of capabilities that's used across multiple programs.
You know, in the Q2 and Q3 , we conducted a very extensive root cause analysis. You know, our customer and the U.S. government have actually agreed with our conclusions and the corrective actions that we've implemented. At this point, we're actually monitoring the actions for effectiveness and adjusting as we need to actually improve the product yields and throughput, you know, which is kind of the stage that we're currently at. We're now currently ramping up the production in phases. Just to give you a perspective of the progress that we made in Q3, albeit it's later than what we would have hoped and anticipated, you know, we've gone from 0% yield on this particular product variant to now almost 90%, you know, against the program requirements.
You know, we're actually on track to build 10s of systems in the first half of the Q4 . You know, I think as Michelle McCarthy had said, we're obviously applying lessons learned, you know, to ensure that these things don't happen in the future. I will say, though, it's very, very sophisticated technology that hasn't been done before. That one we're actually, you know, pretty far ahead on. The other one, you know, we've had an extremely strong collaboration, you know, internally, that's enabled us to actually address some of the manufacturing issues and, you know, we actually have returned to full rate production. However, as we did that, we actually experienced another issue at the end of Q3 on one of the variants that, in turn is affecting multiple programs.
On that one, we actually expect to deploy a software fix to resolve the issue in Q4. You can kind of tell just where we're at, that we really are at the, you know, the final stages, development and qual, which will then obviously allow us to ramp production, you know, deliver, you know, the products, you know, and then invoice and collect cash. With that, you know, just as a little bit of a background, why don't I hand it over to Michelle, because, you know, these programs, you know, account for a significant amount of the unbilled receivables that we've got on the balance sheet. Michelle?
Thanks, Mark. Hi, Ken. Yeah, from a working capital perspective, the completion of kind of a dozen or so programs that we referenced will result in a reduction of about $30 million coming out of unbilled as we ship that product. Now, we think some of that release will occur in Q4, but occurring much later than we had originally expected, obviously, coming into the quarter. We're gonna see that cash convert more likely in Q1 of 2024 and Q2 of 2024. Almost more importantly is just when we complete these dozen or so programs because of that either shared technology product or need for those same specialized engineering resources across multiple other programs, those other programs are essentially waiting in line, right? There's another $60 million of unbilled receivables that's waiting for release.
Once we can resolve the technology issues, or the common product issues and redistribute those engineers to these other programs, there's another $60 million that we can convert to cash, which we believe will convert also in fiscal 2024. Really where you're gonna see that working capital impact across these programs is around that unbilled release. When you take that $90 million and you think about what it means from a working capital perspective, it's a 10% reduction when you're looking at kind of trailing 12 month revenue.
Great. Thank you very much.
Your next question comes from the line of Jonathan Ho with William Blair. Your line is open.
Hi, good afternoon. I guess, you know, one thing I wanted to understand a little bit better is that in terms of the program, dependencies and specifically around the yield issues that you've been experiencing, like, how do you think about sort of the, you know, the ability to remediate this? Then, you know, maybe what gives you the confidence that in FY 2024, you know, we'll actually see these issues resolved as opposed to, you know, maybe a continuation. Just wanna get a little bit more clarity around those.
Yeah. Again, as I kind of mentioned in, you know, the last question, you know, Jonathan, we're pretty far along. You know, we're at root cause in, you know, in the one that has probably been the most impactful. You know, the customer agrees. We're actually have already begun to ramp up, you know, production, you know, in phases, and the yields have improved dramatically in the Q3 . We'd wished it had happened earlier than that, you know, because again, the fact that we weren't able to deliver it sooner, you know, has resulted in some of the follow-on awards not occurring in the timeline that we'd previously anticipated.
The second issue with respect to, you know, this product, you know, we'd already begun to ramp, you know, one of the variants in production, you know, which is fine, and we're just waiting for a software fix for the second, which is teed up for the Q4 . I think we're far enough along that we know, you know, what's going on with these programs or these technologies that are shared across multiple programs. You know, the fact that they will be shipping products, you know, literally, you know, in the first month and the second month of the quarter, you know, to the programs that our customers need, the capabilities. I think we've done enough work to understand where we're at.
You know, we've got to root cause ramping up production, and the customers need the capabilities. I think we've got a high degree of confidence. The other thing that, if you step back and you just look at these, you know, 12 programs, that Michelle mentioned, you know, all but two of the programs are actually more than 90% complete in terms of the total expected cost. That we expect, you know, for these programs, you know, to be completed, you know, within the next two to three quarters in total. I think we're actually in a pretty good position. You know, I guess one final point is that, it's the first time that we've experienced this, you know, level of volatility.
I think, you know, we've got to, you know, we went back and kind of looked at the history of our estimates to complete across the very large portfolio of programs, and we've seen very minimal, you know, turbulence, you know, over the course of the last three years. It's a confluence of events, very sophisticated technology, but hopefully we're near the end here.
Thank you.
Your next question comes from the line of Sheila Kahyaoglu with Jefferies. Your line is open.
Hey, it's Scott on for Sheila. Mark, we always thought of Abaco as kind of one of your closest competitors in the space. AMETEK reported this morning, like, they pointed to Abaco seeing pretty strong growth with margin expansion. I guess the natural question from that is just, is there any market share shift happening in the market? I know it's difficult to comment on other businesses, but is there any color you might have into what's driving that delta in performance?
As we said, Scott, right, it really related to this dozen or so, you know, sets of programs where, you know, we're developing highly sophisticated technologies and capabilities that span out over multiple programs. It really ties to two things, just the development, engineering development delays associated with the capabilities and then ramping those new products, you know, into production. We don't think it's related to anything with respect to, you know, erosion of margins, with respect to competition or anything like that. It's literally related to cost growth on the programs, as we are going through this, these specific challenges.
Thank you.
Michelle, I don't know if you want to add to that.
No. I would just highlight the continued strong demand that we have. You can see it through our bookings. Although Q3 was below one, it was as expected, and year to date we're above one as we have been for quite some time, for several of the last few quarters.
Your next question comes from the line of Michael Ciarmoli with Truist Securities. Your line is now open.
Hey, good evening, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Mark, I just gotta go back to Peter's first question. I still don't understand how EBITDA got cut 45% in 90 days. I mean, you're talking about these 12 programs, things you thought in the beginning of the year. I mean, this was just 90 days ago you had given us this implied Q4 . I mean, is there anything else happening? Was that just an aggressive view? And I guess more on the EACs, are they captured in here? Can you tell us what the negative EACs were?
Sure. Look, if you go back to, you know, as I mentioned, right, entering the fiscal year, we had expected the development of these programs in the first half. You know, with follow-on higher margin production awards expected in the second half. You know, it's this, you know, set of circumstances, you know, that basically supported the higher revenues, improved gross margin and strong operating leverage, you know, that we forecast in the second half and especially in the Q4 . The challenges that we've had, obviously, is that it's taking us longer, you know, to get, you know, the development efforts across the goal line. You know, that has not only affected, you know, the estimates and the cost to complete, you know, in Q3, which is a cumulative catch-up.
As a result of those delays, you know, it had an impact on follow-on awards, also affected higher margin follow-on awards in the Q4 , which, you know, combined is, you know, accounts for, roughly two-thirds of the overall drop. The other, is related to, you know, supply chain, availability also on other programs. Michelle, and if you wanna talk a little bit about, you know, why the, you know, the impact, was so large in the Q3 and, you know, just from an accounting perspective, how it is that you've actually got to, take into account the changes in estimates, you know, in a, in a particular period.
Sure. Mark, as you said, the drop's really a function of the execution delays on the development program. It's pushing those follow-on production awards outside of the fiscal year and into 2024. The incremental cost that we are expecting, not all of it program-specific at this point, we're planning for unknown unknowns in some cases, right? That is just a one-for-one drop-through, right, to adjusted EBITDA because again it's a cumulative catch-up. You know, as you said, there's supplier commitments have put kind of critical material receipts needed for the quarter outside of the required window. We are in constant communication with suppliers, and although we have seen some level of reduction in decommits, we are constantly getting updates from those suppliers.
In some cases what we found was that those commits were pushing out to a point where we could not complete the product or progress it to a point where we would be able to recognize the revenue.
I mean.
then some.
I guess on January 31st, I mean, you know, this seems like a pretty risky forecast you gave us expecting all this to get across the finish line. I mean, all of this just manifested in the net the last 90 days, though.
Yeah, we've been wrestling with the development and the team was making progress. You know, like any other late-stage development, as you're kind of moving into, you know, into the actual NPI stage, you know, we had challenges with the yield. You know, it's a very sophisticated technology that, you know, we couldn't get the technology, you know, through the NPI process yielding in a way in which we'd previously expected. The engineering development, you know, was actually complete, but we couldn't actually get it through the production processes. You know, we've gone from, you know, I mean, it's hard to actually forecast 0% yield, right? You know, none of the engineering or the production team, you know, was expecting that.
You know, over the course of Q3, you know, we went from 0% yield to actually exiting the quarter at 90% yield on one of the, you know, primary, you know, products and capabilities. You know, we had the issue on the other product variant, you know, which we actually begun to ramp as the quarter progressed, and then hit a soft spot snag. It's literally late-stage development, you know, new product introduction and qual issues that obviously, you know, we guided at the time with the best possible information with respect to what we thought would happen, and things just got pushed to the right. You know, the forecast was accurate coming in, you know.
You know, as we experienced these issues, we needed to step back and, you know, look at the estimates to complete, you know, which is why you see the changes in Q3.
Yeah. Mike, I would also just add one of the examples that Mark just went through. You know, we had execution underway earlier in the year, but because we got to that kind of test and qualification point, we didn't meet performance specs. The nature of the units meant that we had to scrap them in their entirety. There was no salvaging of the units. These are pretty meaningful scrap events, tens of thousands of dollars every time they occur, every unit. There was significant rework needed at that point. We have the most senior engineers on our team working through it. As you can imagine, higher labor costs because of the seniority of those engineers. The material costs that are needed to recover are actually at inflated cost values, right? Because they're more recent material purchases.
It's very dynamic in terms of how the issues are being resolved. And as Mark said, we can make our best estimate in terms of what yield will be. But again, it's very dynamic. It has changed, really throughout Q3, and it's the new facts and circumstances that are now reflected, in our results for the year.
If you go back to the model, Mike, if you go back to the model, right? The product program model, you know, it's got a tremendous amount of leverage associated with it. It's part of the reason that, you know, our customers, you know, really want to work with Mercury, right? We're spending high levels of our own money on internally funded R&D to develop these capabilities that is amortized, you know, or used over multiple programs. You know, the good news in that model when it works, is that we are able to deliver technologies and capabilities far more quickly and far more affordably than if it was on a per program model.
The challenge that you've got is that, you know, in this particular instance, and it's probably the first time that I can recollect in my history, at Mercury that this has actually occurred, is just given the sophistication of the technology where, you know, we've had challenges. Again, some of them are related to just the effects of the pandemic and the challenges that had on execution. We're now getting negative leverage, right? Meaning, you know, a couple of these technologies, or products are actually holding up multiple programs. Now, once we get through the development and the NPI activities, which we're close, you know, the multiple programs, it'll quickly benefit, you know, meaning that, you know, we'll actually, you know, begin to make rapid progress we believe which is, you know, so less cost growth in terms of the income statement.
You know, we'll be able to ship systems at higher margins. Once we start to ship the systems, you know, we'll obviously be able to invoice and collect the cash. Yeah, we've got a significant amount of unbilled receivables tied up right now as Michelle mentioned. You know, we're not done. We made a lot of progress in Q3, just unfortunately with slower progress than what we had previously anticipated.
Thanks for all that color, guys.
Yeah.
This concludes our Q&A portion of today's call. I now will turn the call back over to Mark Aslett for closing remarks.
Well, thanks very much everyone. Appreciate you joining the call today. Thank you.
This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.