BWX Technologies, Inc. - Annual Report: 2015 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10–K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015

OR

For the transition period from                      to                     

Commission File Number 001-34658

BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (980) 365-4300

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by nonaffiliates of the registrant on the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter (based on the closing sales price on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2015) was approximately $2.5 billion.

The number of shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding at January 31, 2016 was 104,790,857.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s proxy statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

Table of Contents

BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

INDEX – FORM 10-K

i

Table of Contents

ii

Table of Contents

Statements we make in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, which express a belief, expectation or intention, as well as those that are not historical fact, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are subject to various risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those to which we refer under the headings “Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” in Items 1 and 1A of Part I of this report. In this annual report on Form 10-K, unless the context otherwise indicates, “we,” “us” and “our” mean BWX Technologies, Inc. (“BWXT” or “Company”) and its consolidated subsidiaries.

PART I

General

BWX Technologies, Inc. (“BWXT” or the “Company”) (formerly known as The Babcock & Wilcox Company) is a specialty manufacturer of nuclear components and a service provider with an operating history of more than 100 years. Our core businesses focus on the design, engineering and manufacture of precision naval nuclear components, reactors and nuclear fuel for the U.S. Government. We also provide uranium processing and environmental site restoration services, as well as a variety of products and services to customers in the nuclear power industry. While we provide a wide range of products and services, our business segments are heavily focused on major projects. At any given time, a relatively small number of projects can represent a significant part of our operations.

On June 30, 2015, we completed the spin-off of our former Power Generation business (the “spin-off”) into an independent, publicly traded company named Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. (“BWE”). The separation was effected through a pro rata distribution of 100% of BWE’s common stock to BWXT’s stockholders. The distribution consisted of one share of BWE common stock for every two shares of BWXT common stock to holders of our common stock on June 18, 2015. Cash was paid in lieu of any fractional shares of BWE common stock. BWXT did not retain any ownership interest in BWE following the spin-off. Concurrent with the spin-off, we changed our name to BWX Technologies, Inc. Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the trading symbol BWXT.

Prior to June 30, 2015, we completed an internal restructuring that reorganized the subsidiaries involved in our former Power Generation business and established BWE as the direct or indirect parent company of all those subsidiaries. The results of operations of our former Power Generation business are presented as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of income. We have presented the notes to our consolidated financial statements on the basis of continuing operations, unless otherwise stated.

Business Segments

We operate in three reportable segments: Nuclear Operations, Technical Services and Nuclear Energy. Prior to 2015, our mPower business was a separate reportable segment. In accordance with FASB Topic Segment Reporting, mPower no longer meets the quantitative threshold criteria to be considered a reportable segment and is now included in our “Other” category. This change in reportable segments had no impact on our previously reported results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. We have applied these changes in reportable segments to previously reported historical financial information and related disclosures included in this report.

For financial information regarding each of our segments, financial information regarding geographic areas and additional information regarding the change to our segments, see Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report. For further details regarding each segment’s facilities, see Item 2, “Properties.” In general, we operate in capital-intensive industries and rely on large contracts for a substantial amount of our revenues. We are currently exploring growth strategies across our segments through acquisitions to expand and

1

Table of Contents

complement our existing businesses. We would expect to fund these opportunities by cash on hand, external financing (including debt), equity or some combination thereof.

Nuclear Operations

Through this segment, we engineer, design and manufacture precision naval nuclear components and reactors for the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”)/National Nuclear Security Administration’s (“NNSA”) Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.

Our Nuclear Operations segment specializes in the design and manufacture of close-tolerance and high-quality equipment for nuclear applications. In addition, we are a leading manufacturer of critical nuclear components, fuels and assemblies for government and limited other uses. We have supplied nuclear components for DOE programs since the 1950s, and we are the largest domestic supplier of research reactor fuel elements for colleges, universities and national laboratories. We also convert or downblend high-enriched uranium into low-enriched fuel for use in commercial reactors to generate electricity. In addition, we have over 100 years of experience in supplying components for defense applications.

We work closely with the DOE-supported nuclear non-proliferation program. Currently, this program is assisting in the development of a high-density, low-enriched uranium fuel required for high-enriched uranium test reactor conversions. We have also been a leader in the receipt, storage, characterization, dissolution, recovery and purification of a variety of uranium-bearing materials. All phases of uranium downblending and uranium recovery are performed at our Lynchburg, Virginia and Erwin, Tennessee sites.

The demand for nuclear components by the U.S. Government determines a substantial portion of this segment’s backlog. We expect that orders for nuclear components will continue to be a significant part of backlog for the foreseeable future.

Technical Services

Through this segment, we provide various services to the U.S. Government, including uranium processing, environmental site restoration services and management and operating services for various U.S. Government-owned facilities. These services are provided primarily to the DOE including the NNSA, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Science, and the Office of Environmental Management; the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”).

This segment’s principal operations include:

Our Technical Services segment’s overall activity primarily depends on authorized spending levels of the DOE including the NNSA, the Office of Nuclear Energy, the Office of Science, and the Office of Environmental Management; the Department of Defense and NASA. We manage and operate complex, high-consequence nuclear and national security operations for the DOE and the NNSA, primarily through our joint ventures, as further discussed under the caption “Joint Ventures” below.

2

Table of Contents

Nuclear Energy

Through this segment, we design, license, manufacture and deliver commercial nuclear steam generators, pressure vessels, reactor components, heat exchangers and other auxiliary equipment, including containers for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. This segment is also a significant supplier to nuclear power utilities undergoing major refurbishment projects and has supplied over 300 pressurized water reactor steam generators worldwide, as well as other critical plant components. In addition, this segment offers a full spectrum of services for steam generators and balance of plant equipment, as well as nondestructive examination and tooling/repair solutions for other plant systems and components. This segment also offers engineering and licensing services for new nuclear plant designs. Our in-depth knowledge comes from over 50 years of experience in the design, manufacturing, commissioning and service of nuclear power generation equipment.

This segment specializes in performing full scope, prototype design work coupled with manufacturing integration. The design, engineering and other capabilities of this segment include:

Our Nuclear Energy segment’s overall activity primarily depends on the demand and competitiveness of nuclear energy. A significant portion of our Nuclear Energy segment’s operations depend on the timing of maintenance outages, primarily in the Canadian market, and the cyclical nature of capital expenditures and major refurbishments for nuclear utility customers, which could cause variability in our financial results.

Special Charges for Restructuring Activities

We launched the Global Competitiveness Initiative (“GCI”) in the third quarter of 2012 to enhance competitiveness, better position BWXT for growth and improve profitability. We identified a wide range of cost reduction activities, including operational and functional efficiency improvements, organizational design changes and manufacturing optimization. We continued to focus on structural changes in our Nuclear Energy segment’s operating model to drive significant margin improvement and we expect these initiatives, in conjunction with our GCI initiatives, to allow us to achieve a 10% operating margin in our Nuclear Energy segment by the end of 2016. These programs were substantially complete as of June 30, 2015. In order to achieve these savings, we incurred total restructuring charges (cash and non-cash) of $0.7 million, $9.9 million and $21.3 million in the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

In addition, during the second quarter of 2014, we announced our plans to restructure our mPower small modular reactor program to reduce spending and focus on technology development and subsequently slowed the pace of development. In the year ended December 31, 2015, we incurred $15.9 million of costs associated with the restructuring of our mPower program. In the year ended December 31, 2014, we incurred $10.6 million and $0.4 million of costs associated with the restructuring of our mPower program and our Technical Services segment, respectively.

Dispositions

In the first quarter of 2014, we announced that we would exit our Nuclear Energy segment’s Nuclear Projects business as it had lower margins and higher financial risks. Run-off operations for remaining projects

3

Table of Contents

were completed during the second quarter of 2014. Income (loss) before provision for income taxes for the Nuclear Projects business was $(4.5) million and $(2.7) million in the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Contracts

We execute our contracts through a variety of methods, including fixed-price incentive fee, cost-plus, target price cost incentive, cost-reimbursable, fixed-price or some combination of these methods. We generally recognize our contract revenues and related costs on a percentage-of-completion basis. Accordingly, we review contract price and cost estimates regularly as the work progresses and reflect adjustments in profit proportionate to the percentage of completion in the period when we revise those estimates. To the extent that these adjustments result in a reduction or an elimination of previously reported profits with respect to a project, we would recognize a charge against current earnings, which could be material.

We have contracts that extend beyond one year. Most of our long-term contracts have provisions for progress payments. We attempt to cover anticipated increases in labor, material and service costs of our long-term contracts either through an estimate of such changes, which is reflected in the original price, or through risk-sharing mechanisms, such as escalation or price adjustments for items such as labor and commodity prices.

In the event of a contract deferral or cancellation, we generally would be entitled to recover costs incurred, settlement expenses and profit on work completed prior to deferral or termination. Significant or numerous cancellations could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

For further specification see “Risk Factors Related to Our Business – We are subject to risks associated with contractual pricing in our industries, including the risk that, if our actual costs exceed the costs we estimate on our fixed-price contracts, our profitability will decline, and we may suffer losses” as outlined in Item 1A of this report.

Nuclear Operations

The majority of the revenue generated by this segment is from long-term contracts with the DOE/NNSA’s Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. Unless otherwise specified in a contract, allowable and allocable costs are billed to contracts with the U.S. Government in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) and the related United States Government Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”). Examples of costs that may be incurred by us and not billable to the U.S. Government in accordance with the requirements of the FAR and CAS regulations include, but are not limited to, unallowable employee compensation and benefit costs, lobbying costs, interest, certain legal costs and charitable donations.

Most of our contracts in this segment are fixed-price incentive fee contracts which provide for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred plus a fee and generally require that we use our best efforts to accomplish the scope of the work within some specified time and stated dollar limitation. Fees can be fixed in terms of dollar value or percentage of costs. Award and incentive fees are determined and earned based on customer evaluation of our performance against negotiated criteria, primarily related to cost, and are intended to provide motivation for excellence in contract performance. Incentive fees that are based on cost provide for an initially negotiated fee to be adjusted later, typically using a formula to measure performance against the associated criteria, based on the relationship of total allowable costs to total target costs. Award and incentive fees that can reasonably be estimated and are deemed reasonably assured are recorded over the performance period of the contract.

Certain of our U.S. Government contracts span one or more base years and multiple option years. The U.S. Government generally has the right not to exercise option periods and may not exercise an option period for various reasons including, but not limited to, annual funding determinations. In addition, contracts between the

4

Table of Contents

U.S. Government and its prime contractors usually contain standard provisions for termination at the convenience of the U.S. Government or the prime contractor. As a U.S. Government contractor, we are subject to federal regulations under which our right to receive future awards of new federal contracts would be unilaterally suspended or barred if we were convicted of a crime or indicted based on allegations of a violation of specific federal statutes. In addition, some of our contracts with the U.S. Government require us to provide advance notice in connection with any contemplated sale or shut down of the relevant facility. In each of those situations, the U.S. Government has an exclusive right to negotiate a mutually acceptable purchase of the facility.

Technical Services

This segment’s principal operations include the management and operation of nuclear weapons production facilities, environmental management sites and the management of spent nuclear fuel and transuranic waste for the DOE. These activities are primarily accomplished through our participation in joint ventures with other contractors as further discussed under the caption “Joint Ventures” below.

The contracts for the management and operation of U.S. Government facilities are awarded through a complex and protracted procurement process. These contracts are generally structured as five-year contracts with five-year renewal options, which are exercisable by the customer, or include provisions whereby the contract durations can be extended as a result of the achievement of certain performance metrics. These are cost-reimbursement contracts with a U.S. Government credit line with some corporate-funded working capital required. However, many new contracts currently in the bidding process and recently awarded have a different structure. While such contracts remain cost-reimbursement contracts, the contractor may be required to supply working capital and be reimbursed by the U.S. Government through regular invoicing. These contracts include a fee that is primarily based on performance, which is evaluated annually.

Nuclear Energy

Contracts in this segment are usually awarded through a competitive bid process. Factors that customers may consider include price, plant or equipment availability, technical capabilities of equipment and personnel, efficiency, safety record and reputation. The majority of these contracts are fixed-price contracts in which the specified scope of work is agreed to for a pre-determined price that is generally not subject to adjustment regardless of costs incurred by the contractor unless changes in scope are authorized by the customer. Fixed-price contracts entail more risk to us because they require us to predetermine both the quantities of work to be performed and the costs associated with executing the work.

Our arrangements with customers may require us to provide letters of credit, bid and performance bonds or guarantees to secure bids or performance under contracts, which may involve significant amounts for contract security.

Backlog

Backlog represents the dollar amount of revenue we expect to recognize in the future from contracts awarded and in progress. Not all of our expected revenue from a contract award is recorded in backlog for a variety of reasons, including that some projects are awarded and completed within the same fiscal quarter.

Backlog is not a measure defined by generally accepted accounting principles. It is possible that our methodology for determining backlog may not be comparable to methods used by other companies. We are subject to the budgetary and appropriations cycle of the U.S. Government as it relates to our Nuclear Operations and Technical Services segments. Backlog may not be indicative of future operating results, and projects in our backlog may be cancelled, modified or otherwise altered by customers.

We generally include expected revenue from contracts in our backlog when we receive written confirmation from our customers authorizing the performance of work and committing the customer to payment for work

5

Table of Contents

performed. Accordingly, we exclude from backlog orders or arrangements that have been awarded but that we have not been authorized to begin performance.

Our backlog at December 31, 2015 and 2014 was as follows:

We do not include the value of our unconsolidated joint venture contracts in backlog. These unconsolidated joint ventures are primarily included in our Technical Services segment. See Note 3 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report for financial information on our equity method investments.

Of the December 31, 2015 backlog, we expect to recognize revenues as follows:

As of December 31, 2015, Nuclear Operations backlog with the U.S. Government was $2,310.6 million, of which $232.1 million had not yet been funded.

As of December 31, 2015, Technical Services backlog with the U.S. Government was $3.6 million, all of which was fully funded.

As of December 31, 2015, Nuclear Energy had no backlog with the U.S. Government.

Major new awards from the U.S. Government are typically received following congressional approval of the budget for the government’s next fiscal year, which starts October 1, and may not be awarded to us before the end of the calendar year. Due to the fact that most contracts awarded by the U.S. Government are subject to these annual funding approvals, the total values of the underlying programs are significantly larger. Awards anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2015 have been delayed until 2016 due to ongoing contract negotiations with the U.S. Government.

Competition

The competitive environments in which each segment operates are described below.

Nuclear Operations. We have specialized technical capabilities that have allowed us to be a valued supplier of nuclear components and fuel for the U.S. Government’s naval nuclear fleet since the 1950s. Because of the technical and regulatory standards required to meet U.S. Government contracting requirements for nuclear components and the barriers to entry present in this type of environment, competition in this segment is limited. The primary bases of limited competition for this segment are price, high capital investment, technical capabilities, high regulatory licensing costs and quality of products and services.

6

Table of Contents

Technical Services. Through this segment, we are engaged in the management and operation of U.S. Government facilities and the delivery of environmental remediation services (decontamination and decommissioning) associated with U.S. Government-owned nuclear facilities. Many of our government contracts are bid as a joint venture with one or more companies, in which we have a majority or a minority position. The performance of the prime or lead contractor can impact our reputation and our future competitive position with respect to that particular project and customer. Our primary competitors in the delivery of goods and services to the U.S. Government and the operation of U.S. Government facilities include Bechtel National, Inc., AECOM, CH2M, Fluor Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., Northrop Grumman Corporation and Honeywell International, Inc. The primary bases of competition for this segment are experience, past performance, availability of key personnel and technical capabilities.

Nuclear Energy. Our Nuclear Energy segment supplies commercial nuclear steam generators and components. BWXT has supplied the nuclear industry with more than 1,300 large, heavy components worldwide. This segment is the only commercial heavy nuclear component manufacturer in North America. Our Nuclear Energy segment fabricates pressure vessels, reactors, steam generators, heat exchangers and other auxiliary equipment. This segment also provides specialized engineering and maintenance services, including services for plant outages. Through this segment, we compete with a number of companies specializing in nuclear capabilities including AREVA Inc., Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The primary bases of competition for this segment are price, technical capabilities, quality, timeliness of performance, breadth of products and services and willingness to accept project risks.

Joint Ventures

We share in the ownership of a variety of entities with third parties, primarily through corporations, limited liability companies and partnerships, which we refer to as “joint ventures.” Through several joint venture arrangements, our Technical Services segment manages and operates nuclear facilities and associated plant infrastructure, manufactures components and assembles/dismantles nuclear devices, constructs large capital facilities, provides safeguards and security for inventory and assets, supports and conducts research and development for advanced energy technology and manages environmental programs for the DOE and the NNSA. We generally account for our investments in joint ventures under the equity method of accounting. Certain of our Technical Services segment unconsolidated joint ventures are described below.

7

Table of Contents

8

Table of Contents

Foreign Operations

We have Canadian operations in our Nuclear Energy segment which serve the North American and global electric utility, industrial power and global nuclear utility markets. The functional currency of these operations is not the U.S. dollar, and, as a result, we are subject to exchange rate fluctuations that impact our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Revenue and operating income derived from Canadian operations, as well as the approximate percentages of our total segment revenues and total segment operating income, respectively, for each of the last three years were as follows (dollars in thousands):

For additional information on the geographic distribution of our revenues, see Note 16 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report.

Customers

We provide our products and services to a diverse customer base, including the U.S. Government, utilities and other power producers. Our largest customer during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 was the U.S. Government; U.S. Government contracts represented approximately 88%, 88% and 80% of our total consolidated revenues, respectively. No individual non-U.S. Government customer accounted for more than 5% of our consolidated revenues in the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 or 2013.

The U.S. Government is the primary customer of our Nuclear Operations and Technical Services segments. Revenues from U.S. Government contracts comprised 99% of revenues for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, in our Nuclear Operations segment. Revenues from U.S. Government contracts comprised 99%, 87% and 77% of revenues for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively, in our Technical Services segment.

Raw Materials and Suppliers

Our operations use raw materials, such as carbon and alloy steels in various forms and components and accessories for assembly, which are available from numerous sources. We generally purchase these raw materials and components as needed for individual contracts. Our Nuclear Energy segment does not depend on a single source of supply for any significant raw materials. Our Nuclear Operations segment relies on several single-source suppliers for materials used in its products. We believe these suppliers are reliable, and we and the U.S. Government expend significant effort to monitor and maintain the supplier base for our Nuclear Operations segment.

Although shortages of some raw materials have existed occasionally, no serious shortage exists at the present time.

Employees

At December 31, 2015, we employed approximately 5,300 persons worldwide. Approximately 1,000 of our employees were members of labor unions at December 31, 2015. Many of our operations are subject to union contracts, which we customarily renew periodically. We consider our relationships with our employees to be satisfactory.

9

Table of Contents

Patents and Licenses

We currently hold a large number of U.S. and foreign patents and have patent applications pending. We acquire patents and technology licenses and grant licenses to others when we consider it advantageous for us to do so. Although in the aggregate our patents and licenses are important to us, we do not regard any single patent or license or group of related patents or licenses as critical or essential to our business as a whole. In general, we depend on our technological capabilities and the application of know-how, rather than patents and licenses, in the conduct of our various businesses.

Research and Development Activities

Our research and development activities are related to the development and improvement of new and existing products and equipment, as well as conceptual and engineering evaluation for translation into practical applications. We charge the costs of research and development unrelated to specific contracts as incurred. Excluding customer-sponsored research and development, substantially all of these costs are related to our mPower program for the development of our BWXT mPower™ reactor and the associated power plant. Contractual arrangements for customer-sponsored research and development can vary on a case-by-case basis and include contracts, cooperative agreements and grants.

Research and development activities totaled $38.2 million, $124.3 million and $179.2 million in the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. These activities include amounts paid for by our customers of $27.7 million, $41.7 million and $42.6 million, in the years ended December 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Funds provided under a Cooperative Agreement with the DOE under its Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support Program (the “Funding Program”) totaled $27.8 million and $78.4 million in the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Amounts provided under the Funding Program in the year ended December 31, 2013, include $21.5 million of pre-award cost reimbursement, $9.7 million of which related to research and development costs incurred in the year ended December 31, 2012. We intend to continue working with the DOE to further the program. At this time, the latest extension to the Cooperative Agreement has expired and the DOE funding has been suspended. If a mutually agreeable plan is not identified, future amounts may not be made available to us under the Funding Program.

During the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, we recognized $5.8 million and $15.8 million, respectively, of non-cash in-kind research and development costs (included above) related to services contributed by our minority partner to Generation mPower LLC (“GmP”), our majority-owned subsidiary formed in 2011 to oversee the program to develop the small modular nuclear power plant based on BWXT mPower™ technology.

Hazard Risks and Insurance

Our operations present risks of injury to or death of people, loss of or damage to property and damage to the environment. We have created loss control systems to assist us in the identification and treatment of the hazard risks presented by our operations, and we endeavor to make sure these systems are effective.

As loss control measures will not always be successful, we seek to establish various means of funding losses and liability related to incidents or occurrences. We primarily seek to do this through contractual protections, including waivers of consequential damages, indemnities, caps on liability, liquidated damage provisions and access to the insurance of other parties. We also procure insurance, operate our own captive insurance company and/or establish funded or unfunded reserves. However, none of these methods will eliminate all risks.

Depending on competitive conditions, the nature of the work, industry custom and other factors, we may not be successful in obtaining adequate contractual protection from our customers and other parties against losses and liabilities arising out of or related to the performance of our work. The scope of the protection may be limited, may be subject to conditions and may not be supported by adequate insurance or other means of financing. In addition, we sometimes have difficulty enforcing our contractual rights with others following a material loss.

10

Table of Contents

Similarly, insurance for certain potential losses or liabilities may not be available or may only be available at a cost or on terms we consider not to be economical. Insurers frequently react to market losses by ceasing to write or severely limiting coverage for certain exposures. Risks that we have frequently found difficult to cost-effectively insure against include, but are not limited to, property losses from wind, flood and earthquake events, nuclear hazards and war, pollution liability, liabilities related to occupational health exposures (including asbestos), liability related to our executives participating in the management of certain outside entities, professional liability/errors and omissions coverage, the failure, misuse or unavailability of our information technology systems, the failure of security measures designed to protect our information technology systems from security breaches and liability related to risk of loss of our work in progress. In cases where we place insurance, we are subject to the credit worthiness of the relevant insurer(s), the available limits of the coverage, our retention under the relevant policy, exclusions in the policy and gaps in coverage.

Our operations in designing, engineering, manufacturing, constructing and servicing nuclear power equipment and components for our commercial nuclear utility customers subject us to various risks, including, without limitation, damage to our customers’ property and third-party claims for personal injury, environmental liability, death and property damage. To protect against liability for damage to a customer’s property, we endeavor to obtain waivers of liability and subrogation from the customer and its insurer and are usually named as an additional insured under the utility customer’s nuclear property policy. We also attempt to cap our overall liability in our contracts. To protect against liability from claims brought by third parties, we seek to be insured under the utility customer’s nuclear liability policies and have the benefit of the indemnity and limitation of any applicable liability provision of the Price-Anderson Act. The Price-Anderson Act limits the public liability of U.S. manufacturers and operators of licensed nuclear facilities and other parties who may be liable in respect of, and indemnifies them against, all claims in excess of a certain amount. This amount is determined by the sum of commercially available liability insurance plus certain retrospective premium assessments payable by operators of commercial nuclear reactors. For those sites where we provide environmental remediation services, we seek the same protection from our customers as we do for our other nuclear activities. The Price-Anderson Act, as amended, includes a sunset provision and requires renewal each time that it expires. Contracts that were entered into during a period of time that Price-Anderson was in full force and effect continue to receive the benefit of the Price-Anderson Act’s nuclear indemnity. The Price-Anderson Act is set to expire on December 31, 2025. We also provide nuclear fabrication and other services to the nuclear power industry in Canada. Canada’s Nuclear Liability Act generally conforms to international conventions and is conceptually similar to the Price-Anderson Act in the United States. Accordingly, indemnification protections and the possibility of exclusions under Canada’s Nuclear Liability Act are similar to those under the Price-Anderson Act in the United States.

We supply commercial nuclear equipment and services to certain customers in countries other than the United States and Canada that are party to international treaties and in countries that are not signatory to international treaties but have their own nuclear liability laws that in general, have regulations in place whereby nuclear operators are solely liable for nuclear damage claims, which would exclude nuclear suppliers from any such exposure. BWXT does retain some level of risk in the event of future changes to the legal landscape in these countries regarding international third-party nuclear liability.

In 2008, the United States ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (“CSC”) with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The CSC is an international treaty developed to create a global legal framework for allocating responsibility and assuring prompt and equitable compensation in the unlikely event of certain nuclear incidents. The ratification by the United States authorizes the Secretary of Energy to issue regulations establishing a retrospective risk pooling program whereby, in the event that the United States must make a contribution to the CSC international fund, United States nuclear suppliers, including BWXT, would pay the full cost of this contribution by the United States.

Although we do not own or operate any nuclear reactors, we have some coverage under commercially available nuclear liability and property insurance for our facilities that are currently licensed to possess special nuclear materials. Substantially all of our Nuclear Operations segment contracts involving nuclear materials are

11

Table of Contents

covered by and subject to the nuclear indemnity provisions of either the Price-Anderson Act or Public Law 85-804, which, among other things, authorizes the DOE to indemnify certain contractors when such acts would facilitate national defense. However, to the extent the value of the nuclear materials in our care, custody or control exceeds the commercially available limits of our insurance, we potentially have underinsured risk of loss for such nuclear material.

Our Technical Services segment participates in the management and operation of various U.S. Government facilities. This participation is customarily accomplished through the participation in joint ventures with other contractors for any given facility. These activities involve, among other things, handling nuclear devices and their components. Insurable liabilities arising from these sites are rarely protected by our or our partners’ corporate insurance programs. Instead, we rely on government contractual agreements, insurance purchased specifically for a site. The U.S. Government has historically fulfilled its contractual agreement to reimburse its contractors for covered claims, and we expect it to continue this process during our participation in the administration of these facilities. However, in most of these situations in which the U.S. Government is contractually obligated to pay, the payment obligation is subject to the availability of authorized government funds. The reimbursement obligation of the U.S. Government is also conditional, and provisions of the relevant contract or applicable law may preclude reimbursement.

Our wholly owned captive insurance subsidiary provides workers’ compensation, employer’s liability, commercial general liability and automotive liability insurance to support our operations. We may also have business reasons in the future to have our insurance subsidiary accept other risks that we cannot or do not wish to transfer to outside insurance companies. These risks may be considerable in any given year or cumulatively. Our insurance subsidiary has not provided significant amounts of insurance to unrelated parties. Claims, as a result of our operations, could adversely impact the ability of our insurance subsidiary to respond to all claims presented.

Additionally, upon the February 22, 2006 effectiveness of the settlement relating to the Chapter 11 proceedings involving several of our subsidiaries, most of our subsidiaries contributed substantial insurance rights to the asbestos personal injury trust, including rights to (1) certain pre-1979 primary and excess insurance coverages and (2) certain of our 1979-1986 excess insurance coverage. These insurance rights provided coverage for, among other things, asbestos and other personal injury claims, subject to the terms and conditions of the policies. The contribution of these insurance rights was made in exchange for the agreement on the part of the representatives of the asbestos claimants, including the representative of future claimants, to the entry of a permanent injunction, pursuant to Section 524(g) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, to channel to the asbestos trust all asbestos-related general liability claims against our subsidiaries and former subsidiaries arising out of, resulting from or attributable to their operations, and the implementation of related releases and indemnification provisions protecting those subsidiaries and their affiliates from future liability for such claims. Although we are not aware of any significant, unresolved claims against our subsidiaries and former subsidiaries that are not subject to the channeling injunction and that relate to the periods during which such excess insurance coverage related, with the contribution of these insurance rights to the asbestos personal injury trust, it is possible that we could have underinsured or uninsured exposure for non-derivative asbestos claims or other personal injury or other claims that would have been insured under these coverages had the insurance rights not been contributed to the asbestos personal injury trust. In conjunction with the spin-off of our former Power Generation business, claims and liabilities associated with these asbestos personal injury, property damage and indirect property damage claims have been expressly assumed by BWE pursuant to the master separation agreement between us and BWE.

Governmental Regulations and Environmental Matters

General

Many aspects of our operations and properties are affected by political developments and are subject to both domestic and foreign governmental regulations, including those relating to:

12

Table of Contents

We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to our operations. The kinds of permits, licenses and certificates required in our operations depend upon a number of factors.

We cannot determine the extent to which new legislation, new regulations or changes in existing laws or regulations may affect our future operations.

Environmental

Our operations and properties are subject to a wide variety of increasingly complex and stringent foreign, federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations, including those governing discharges into the air and water, the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, the remediation of soil and groundwater contaminated by hazardous substances and the health and safety of employees. Sanctions for noncompliance may include revocation of permits, corrective action orders, administrative or civil penalties and criminal prosecution. Some environmental laws provide for strict, joint and several liability for remediation of spills and other releases of hazardous substances, as well as damage to natural resources. In addition, companies may be subject to claims alleging personal injury or property damage as a result of alleged exposure to hazardous substances. Such laws and regulations may also expose us to liability for the conduct of or conditions caused by others or for our acts that were in compliance with all applicable laws at the time such acts were performed.

These laws and regulations include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and similar laws that provide for responses to, and liability for, releases of hazardous substances into the environment. These laws and regulations also include similar foreign, state or local counterparts to these federal laws, which regulate air emissions, water discharges, hazardous substances and waste and require public disclosure related to the use of various hazardous substances. Our operations are also governed by laws and regulations relating to workplace safety and worker health, including the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act and regulations promulgated thereunder.

We are currently in the process of investigating and remediating some of our current and former operating sites. Although we have recorded reserves in connection with certain of these matters, due to the uncertainties associated with environmental remediation, there can be no assurance that the actual costs resulting from these remediation matters will not exceed the recorded reserves.

Our compliance with U.S. federal, state and local environmental control and protection regulations resulted in pretax charges of approximately $14.1 million, $13.2 million and $12.5 million in the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. In addition, compliance with existing environmental regulations necessitated capital expenditures of $0.7 million, $0.3 million and $1.1 million in the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. We expect to spend another $6.5 million on such capital expenditures over the next five years. We cannot predict all of the environmental requirements or circumstances that will exist in the future, but we anticipate that environmental control and protection standards will become increasingly stringent and costly. Based on our experience to date, we do not currently anticipate any material adverse effect on our business or consolidated financial condition as a result of future compliance with existing environmental laws and regulations. However, future events, such as changes in existing laws and regulations or

13

Table of Contents

their interpretation, more vigorous enforcement policies of regulatory agencies or stricter or different interpretations of existing laws and regulations, may require additional expenditures by us, which may be material. Accordingly, we can provide no assurance that we will not incur significant environmental compliance costs in the future.

We have been identified as a potentially responsible party at various cleanup sites under CERCLA. CERCLA and other environmental laws can impose liability for the entire cost of cleanup on any of the potentially responsible parties, regardless of fault or the lawfulness of the original conduct. Generally, however, where there are multiple responsible parties, a final allocation of costs is made based on the amount and type of wastes disposed of by each party and the number of financially viable parties, although this may not be the case with respect to any particular site. We have not been determined to be a major contributor of wastes to any of these sites. On the basis of our relative contribution of waste to each site, we expect our share of the ultimate liability for the various sites will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any given year.

Environmental remediation projects have been and continue to be undertaken at certain of our current and former plant sites. In 2002, Congress directed the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Army Corps”) to clean up radioactive waste at the Shallow Land Disposal Area located in Parks Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania (the “SLDA”), consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and the Army Corps for Coordination on Cleanup and Decommissioning of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program Sites with NRC-Licensed Facilities, dated July 5, 2001 (the “MOU”). From 1961 to 1970, the SLDA was operated by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (“NUMEC”) pursuant to Atomic Energy Commission (“AEC”) License SNM-145. The AEC was the predecessor to the NRC. The SLDA was used for the disposal of waste from NUMEC’s nuclear fuels fabrication facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania. Both radioactive and non-radioactive waste was disposed in a series of trenches at the SLDA. NUMEC, a former subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”) was acquired by BWXT in November 1971. After the Army Corps’ contractor commenced cleanup operations, the Army Corps ceased excavation activities because the contractor deviated from accepted field procedures, and the excavated material was found to be complex and beyond the Army Corps’ characterization and management procedures. The MOU was modified in late 2014 to add the DOE and the NNSA as parties to deal with “special nuclear materials.” In December 2014, the Army Corps issued a Proposed Record of Decision Amendment, which reflects a revised cost estimate of $350 million, in addition to the $62 million expended through September 2014, to implement the selected remedy. The Army Corps expects to award a new remediation contract in 2016, and cleanup operations are expected to re-commence in 2016. The federal legislation directing the Army Corps to clean up the SLDA also directs the Army Corps to seek to recover response costs from appropriate responsible parties in accordance with CERCLA. In connection with BWXT’s acquisition of NUMEC from ARCO in November 1971, ARCO assumed and agreed to indemnify and hold harmless BWXT with respect to claims and liabilities arising as a result of transactions or operations of NUMEC prior to the acquisition date. Although this ARCO indemnity would cover claims by the Army Corps to seek recovery from BWXT, no assurance can be given that such indemnity will be available or sufficient in the event liability claims are asserted for SLDA cleanup costs against BWXT.

We perform significant amounts of work for the U.S. Government under both prime contracts and subcontracts and operate certain facilities that are licensed to possess and process special nuclear materials. As a result of these activities, we are subject to continuing reviews by governmental agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) and the NRC.

The NRC’s decommissioning regulations require our Nuclear Operations segment to provide financial assurance that it will be able to pay the expected cost of decommissioning each of its licensed facilities at the end of its service life. We provided financial assurance aggregating $52.3 million and $44.2 million during the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 with existing letters of credit for the ultimate decommissioning of these licensed facilities. These two facilities have provisions in their government contracts pursuant to which substantially all of our decommissioning costs and financial assurance obligations are covered by the DOE,

14

Table of Contents

including the costs to complete the decommissioning projects underway at the Erwin, Tennessee facility. These letters of credit are to cover decommissioning required pursuant to work not subject to this DOE obligation.

At December 31, 2015 and 2014, we had total environmental accruals, including provisions for the facilities discussed above, of $63.4 million and $59.9 million, respectively. Of our total environmental accruals at December 31, 2015 and 2014, $3.2 million and $3.6 million, respectively, were included in current liabilities. Inherent in the estimates of those accruals and recoveries are our expectations regarding the levels of contamination, decommissioning costs and recoverability from other parties, which may vary significantly as decommissioning activities progress. Accordingly, changes in estimates could result in material adjustments to our operating results, and the ultimate loss may differ materially from the amounts we have provided for in our consolidated financial statements.

Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

We are including the following discussion to inform our existing and potential security holders generally of some of the risks and uncertainties that can affect our company and to take advantage of the “safe harbor” protection for forward-looking statements that applicable federal securities law affords.

From time to time, our management or persons acting on our behalf make forward-looking statements to inform existing and potential security holders about our company. Statements and assumptions regarding expectations and projections of specific projects, our future backlog, revenues, income and capital spending, acquisitions or divestitures, return of capital activities or margin improvement initiatives are examples of forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are generally accompanied by words such as “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “seek,” “goal,” “could,” “intend,” “may,” “should” or other words that convey the uncertainty of future events or outcomes. In addition, sometimes we will specifically describe a statement as being a forward-looking statement and refer to this cautionary statement.

In addition, various statements in this annual report on Form 10-K, including those that express a belief, expectation or intention, as well as those that are not statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements. Those forward-looking statements appear in Item 1 – “Business” and Item 3 – “Legal Proceedings” in Part I of this report and in Item 7 – “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and in the notes to our consolidated financial statements in Item 8 of Part II of this report and elsewhere in this report.

We have based our forward-looking statements on our current expectations, estimates and projections about our industries and our company. We caution that these statements are not guarantees of future performance and you should not rely unduly on them, as they involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that we cannot predict. In addition, we have based many of these forward-looking statements on assumptions about future events that may prove to be inaccurate. While our management considers these statements and assumptions to be reasonable, they are inherently subject to numerous factors, including potentially the risk factors described in the section labeled “Item 1A Risk Factors” of this report, most of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control. Accordingly, our actual results may differ materially from the future performance that we have expressed or forecast in our forward-looking statements.

We have discussed many of these factors in more detail elsewhere in this report. These factors are not necessarily all the factors that could affect us. Unpredictable or unanticipated factors we have not discussed in this report could also have material adverse effects on actual results of matters that are the subject of our forward-looking statements. We do not intend to update our description of important factors each time a potential important factor arises, except as required by applicable securities laws and regulations. We advise our security holders that they should (1) be aware that factors not referred to above could affect the accuracy of our forward-looking statements and (2) use caution and common sense when considering our forward-looking statements.

15

Table of Contents

Available Information

Our website address is www.bwxt.com. We make available through the Investor Relations section of this website under “SEC Filings,” free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, our proxy statement, statements of beneficial ownership of securities on Forms 3, 4 and 5 and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file those materials with, or furnish those materials to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). You may read and copy any materials we file with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. You may obtain information regarding the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. In addition, the SEC maintains a website at www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. We have also posted on our website our: Corporate Governance Principles; Code of Business Conduct; Code of Ethics for our Chief Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers; Board of Directors Conflicts of Interest Policies and Procedures; Management, Board Members and Independent Director Contact Information; By-laws; and charters for the Audit & Finance, Governance and Compensation Committees of our Board.

Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

Risk Factors Related to Our Business

We rely on U.S. Government contracts for a substantial percentage of our revenue, and some of those contracts are subject to continued appropriations by Congress and may be terminated or delayed if future funding is not made available. In addition, the U.S. Government may not renew or may seek to modify or terminate our existing contracts.

For the year ended December 31, 2015, we relied on U.S. Government contracts for approximately 88% of our total consolidated revenues. Government contracts are subject to various uncertainties, restrictions and regulations, including oversight audits, which could result in withholding or delaying of payments to us, and termination or modification at the U.S. Government’s convenience. In addition, some of our large, multi-year contracts with the U.S. Government are subject to annual funding determinations and the continuing availability of Congressional appropriations. Although multi-year operations may be planned in connection with major procurements, Congress generally appropriates funds on a fiscal-year basis even though a program may continue for several years. Consequently, programs often are only partially funded initially and additional funds are committed only as Congress makes further appropriations. When the U.S. Government does not complete its budget process before the end of its fiscal year on September 30, government operations typically are funded through a continuing resolution that authorizes agencies of the U.S. Government to continue to operate, but does not authorize new spending initiatives. When the U.S. Government operates under a continuing resolution, delays can occur in the procurement of products and services. As a result, we are subject to ongoing uncertainties associated with U.S. Government budget restraints and other factors affecting government funding. The reduction or termination of funding, or changes in the timing of funding, for a U.S. Government program in which we provide products or services would result in a reduction or loss of anticipated future revenues attributable to that program and could have a negative impact on our results of operations.

In addition, our Nuclear Operations and Technical Services segments depend on U.S. Government funding, particularly funding levels at the DOE. Significant changes in the level of funding (for example, the annual budget of the DOE) or specifically mandated levels for individual programs that are important to our business could have an unfavorable impact on us. Any reduction in the level of U.S. Government funding, particularly at the DOE, may result in, among other things, a reduction in the number and scope of projects put out for bid by the U.S. Government or the curtailment of existing U.S. Government programs, either of which may result in a reduction in the number of contract award opportunities available to us, a reduction of activities at DOE sites and an increase in costs, including the costs of obtaining contract awards.

The U.S. Government typically can terminate or modify any of its contracts with us either for its convenience or if we default by failing to perform under the terms of the applicable contract. A termination

16

Table of Contents

arising out of our default could expose us to liability and have an adverse effect on our ability to compete for future contracts and orders. If any of our contracts reflected in backlog are terminated by the U.S. Government, our backlog would be reduced by the expected value of the remaining work under such contracts. In addition, on those contracts for which we are teamed with others and are not the prime contractor, the U.S. Government could terminate a prime contract under which we are a subcontractor, irrespective of the quality of our products and services as a subcontractor. Furthermore, certain of our U.S. Government contracts span one or more base years and multiple option years. The U.S. Government generally has the right not to exercise option periods and may not exercise an option period for various reasons.

We also have several significant contracts with the U.S. Government that are subject to periodic renewal and rebidding through a competitive process. If the U.S. Government fails to renew these contracts or modifies key terms, our results of operations and cash flows would be adversely affected.

As a result of these and other factors, the termination of one or more of our significant government contracts, our suspension from government contract work, the failure of the U.S. Government to renew our existing contracts or the disallowance of the payment of our contract costs could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Federal budget sequestration and other delays or reductions in government spending could adversely impact government spending for the products and services we provide.

In August 2011, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act, which committed the U.S. Government to significantly reducing the federal deficit over ten years. The Budget Control Act established reductions in discretionary spending through 2021. If these spending reductions were not met, it called for substantial automatic spending cuts, or sequestration, split between defense and non-defense programs scheduled to start in March 2013 and continue over a nine-year period.

Federal government spending reductions, including through sequestration, could adversely impact U.S. Government programs for which we provide products or services. Additionally, while we believe many of our programs are well aligned with national defense and other strategic priorities, and we supply high-end equipment for submarines and aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy, the outcome of efforts underway regarding sequestration is uncertain and it is possible that spending cuts may be applied to U.S. Government programs across the board, regardless of how programs align with those priorities. There are many variables in how budget reductions could be implemented that will determine its specific impact; however, reductions in federal government spending and sequestration, as currently provided for under the Budget Control Act, could adversely impact programs in which we provide products or services. In addition, these cuts could adversely affect the viability of the suppliers and subcontractors under our programs. We may also be required to maintain operations of our joint ventures if the government can no longer meet its debt obligations.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 was approved in November 2015. This budget agreement provides sequestration relief and increased both defense and non-defense budgets by approximately $25 billion each in government fiscal year 2016 and $15 billion each in government fiscal year 2017 over the previous budget agreement approved in 2013. While this budget agreement provides some near-term relief, sequestration, reduction in government spending in lieu of sequestration or fiscal issues raised by negotiations over the federal debt ceiling remain a long-term concern.

Demand for our products and services is vulnerable to economic downturns, the competitiveness of alternative energy sources and industry conditions.

Demand for our products and services has been, and we expect that demand will continue to be, subject to significant fluctuations due to a variety of factors beyond our control, including economic and industry conditions. These factors include, but are not limited to inflation, geopolitical issues, the availability and cost of

17

Table of Contents

credit, the demand for and competitiveness of nuclear power with other energy sources, the cyclical nature of the power generation industry, low business and consumer confidence, high unemployment and energy conservation measures and decisions of utilities that utilize nuclear power.

Unfavorable economic conditions may lead customers to delay, curtail or cancel proposed or existing projects, which may decrease the overall demand for our products and services and adversely affect our results of operations.

Our customers may also find it more difficult to raise capital in the future due to limitations on the availability of credit, increases in interest rates and other factors affecting the federal, municipal and corporate credit markets. Additionally, our customers may demand more favorable pricing terms and find it increasingly difficult to timely pay invoices for our products and services, which would impact our future cash flows and liquidity. Inflation or significant changes in interest rates could reduce the demand for our products and services. Any inability to timely collect our invoices may lead to an increase in our accounts receivables and potentially to increased write-offs of uncollectible invoices. If the economy weakens, or customer spending declines, then our backlog, revenues, net income and overall financial condition could deteriorate.

Our backlog is subject to unexpected adjustments and cancellations and may not be a reliable indicator of future revenues or earnings.

There can be no assurance that the revenues projected in our backlog will be realized or, if realized, will result in profits. Because of project cancellations or changes in project scope and schedule, we cannot predict with certainty when or if backlog will be performed. In addition, even where a project proceeds as scheduled, it is possible that contracted parties may default and fail to pay amounts owed to us or poor project performance could increase the cost associated with a project. Delays, suspensions, cancellations, payment defaults, scope changes and poor project execution could materially reduce or eliminate the revenues and profits that we actually realize from projects in backlog.

Reductions in our backlog due to cancellation or modification by a customer or for other reasons may adversely affect, potentially to a material extent, the revenues and earnings we actually receive from contracts included in our backlog. Many of the contracts in our backlog provide for cancellation fees in the event customers cancel projects. These cancellation fees usually provide for reimbursement of our out-of-pocket costs, revenues for work performed prior to cancellation and a varying percentage of the profits we would have realized had the contract been completed. However, we typically have no contractual right upon cancellation to the total revenues reflected in our backlog. Projects may remain in our backlog for extended periods of time. If we experience significant project terminations, suspensions or scope adjustments to contracts reflected in our backlog, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows may be adversely impacted.

18

Table of Contents

We are subject to risks associated with contractual pricing in our industries, including the risk that, if our actual costs exceed the costs we estimate on our fixed-price contracts, our profitability will decline and we may suffer losses.

We are engaged in highly competitive industries and we have priced a number of our projects on a fixed-price basis. Our actual costs could exceed our projections. We attempt to cover the increased costs of anticipated changes in labor, material and service costs of long-term contracts, either through estimates of cost increases, which are reflected in the original contract price, or through price escalation clauses. Despite these attempts, the cost and gross profit we realize on a fixed-price contract could vary materially from the estimated amounts because of supplier, contractor and subcontractor performance, changes in job conditions, variations in labor and equipment productivity and increases in the cost of labor and raw materials, particularly steel, over the term of the contract. These variations and the risks generally inherent in our industries may result in actual revenues or costs being different from those we originally estimated and may result in reduced profitability or losses on projects. Some of these risks include:

Changes in our effective tax rate and tax positions may vary.

We are subject to income taxes primarily in the United States and Canada. A change in tax laws, treaties or regulations, or their interpretation, in any jurisdiction in which we operate could result in a higher tax rate on our earnings, which could have a material impact on our earnings and cash flows from operations. In addition, significant judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes. In the ordinary course of our business, there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain, and we are regularly subject to audit by tax authorities. Although we believe that our tax estimates and tax positions are reasonable, they could be materially affected by many factors including the final outcome of tax audits and related litigation, the introduction of new tax accounting standards, legislation, regulations and related interpretations, the realizability of deferred tax assets and changes in uncertain tax positions. A significant increase in our tax rate could have a material adverse effect on our profitability and liquidity.

Our business could be negatively impacted by security threats, including physical and cybersecurity threats, and other disruptions.

We face various security threats, including cyber threats, threats to the physical security of our facilities and infrastructure (including those that we manage and operate for our customers), and threats from terrorist acts, as well as the potential for business disruptions associated with these threats. Although we utilize a combination of tailored and industry standard security measures and technology to monitor and mitigate these threats, we cannot guarantee that these measures and technology will be sufficient to prevent security threats from materializing.

We have been, and will likely continue to be, subject to cyber-based attacks and other attempts to threaten our information technology systems, including attempts to gain unauthorized access to our proprietary or

19

Table of Contents

classified information and attacks from computer hackers, viruses, malicious code and other security problems. As a U.S. Government contractor, we may be prone to a greater number of those threats than companies in other industries. From time to time, we experience system interruptions and delays; however, prior cyber-based attacks directed at us have not had a material adverse impact on our results of operations. Due to the evolving nature of these security threats, however, the impact of any future incident cannot be predicted.

The costs related to cyber or other security threats or disruptions may not be fully insured or indemnified by other means. Occurrence of any of these events could adversely affect our internal operations, the services we provide to customers, the value of our investment in research and development efforts and other intellectual property, our future financial results, our reputation or our stock price.

In addition, from time to time we may replace and/or upgrade current financial, human resources and other information technology systems. These activities subject us to inherent costs and risks associated with replacing and updating these systems, including potential disruption of our internal control structure, substantial capital expenditures, demands on management time and other risks of delays or difficulties in transitioning to new systems or of integrating new systems into our current systems. Our systems’ implementations and upgrades may not result in productivity improvements at the levels anticipated, or at all. In addition, the implementation of new technology systems may cause disruptions in our business operations. Such disruption and any other information technology system disruptions, and our ability to mitigate those disruptions, if not anticipated and appropriately mitigated, could have a material adverse effect on us.

We rely on intellectual property law and confidentiality agreements to protect our intellectual property. We also rely on intellectual property we license from third parties. Our failure to protect our intellectual property rights, or our inability to obtain or renew licenses to use intellectual property of third parties, could adversely affect our business.

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to protect our proprietary information and other intellectual property. Our intellectual property could be stolen, challenged, invalidated, circumvented or rendered unenforceable. In addition, effective intellectual property protection may be limited or unavailable in some foreign countries where we operate.

Our failure to protect our intellectual property rights may result in the loss of valuable technologies or adversely affect our competitive business position. We rely significantly on proprietary technology, information, processes and know-how that are not subject to patent or copyright protection. We seek to protect this information through trade secret or confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, subcontractors or other parties, as well as through other security measures. These agreements and security measures may be inadequate to deter or prevent misappropriation of our confidential information. In the event of an infringement of our intellectual property rights, a breach of a confidentiality agreement or divulgence of proprietary information, we may not have adequate legal remedies to protect our intellectual property. Litigation to determine the scope of intellectual property rights, even if ultimately successful, could be costly and could divert management’s attention away from other aspects of our business. In addition, our trade secrets may otherwise become known or be independently developed by competitors.

In some instances, we have augmented our technology base by licensing the proprietary intellectual property of third parties. In the future, we may not be able to obtain necessary licenses on commercially reasonable terms, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Our use of the percentage-of-completion method of accounting could result in volatility in our results of operations.

We generally recognize revenues and profits under our long-term contracts on a percentage-of-completion basis. Accordingly, we review contract price and cost estimates regularly as the work progresses and reflect

20

Table of Contents

adjustments proportionate to the percentage of completion in income in the period when we revise those estimates. To the extent these adjustments result in a reduction or an elimination of previously reported profits with respect to a project, we would recognize a charge against current earnings, which could be material. Our current estimates of our contract costs and the profitability of our long-term projects, although reasonably reliable when made, could change as a result of the uncertainties associated with these types of contracts, and if adjustments to overall contract costs are significant, the reductions or reversals of previously recorded revenue and profits could be material in future periods.

We are involved in a number of legal proceedings. We cannot predict the outcome of litigation and other contingencies with certainty.

Our business may be adversely affected by the outcome of legal proceeding, disputes and other contingencies that cannot be predicted with certainty. As required by GAAP, we estimate loss contingencies and establish reserves based on our assessment of contingencies where liability is deemed probable and reasonably estimable in light of the facts and circumstances known to us at a particular point in time. Subsequent developments in legal proceedings may affect our assessment and estimates of the loss contingency recorded as a liability or as a reserve against assets in our financial statements. For a description of current legal proceedings, see Item 3 – Legal Proceedings and “Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies” of our consolidated financial statements.

Maintaining adequate bonding and letter of credit capacity is necessary for us to successfully bid on and win various contracts.

In line with industry practice, we are often required to post standby letters of credit and surety bonds to support contractual obligations to customers as well as other obligations. These letters of credit and bonds generally indemnify customers should we fail to perform our obligations under the applicable contracts. If a letter of credit or bond is required for a particular project and we are unable to obtain it due to insufficient liquidity or other reasons, we will not be able to pursue that project. We utilize bonding facilities, but, as is typically the case, the issuance of bonds under each of those facilities is at the surety’s sole discretion. In addition, we have capacity limits under our credit facility for letters of credit. Moreover, due to events that affect the insurance and bonding and credit markets generally, bonding and letters of credit may be more difficult to obtain in the future or may only be available at significant additional cost. There can be no assurance that letters of credit or bonds will continue to be available to us on reasonable terms. Our inability to obtain adequate letters of credit and bonding and, as a result, to bid on new work could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. As of December 31, 2015, we had $82.2 million in letters of credit and bank guarantees and $19.3 million in surety bonds outstanding.

Our credit facility could restrict our operations.

The terms of our credit agreement impose various restrictions and covenants on us that could have adverse consequences, including:

21

Table of Contents

Our business strategy includes acquisitions to support our growth. Acquisitions of other businesses can create certain risks and uncertainties.

We intend to pursue growth through the acquisition of businesses or assets that we believe will enable us to strengthen our existing businesses and expand into adjacent industries. We may be unable to execute this growth strategy if we cannot identify suitable businesses or assets, reach agreement on potential strategic acquisitions on acceptable terms or for other reasons. Moreover, business acquisitions involve certain risks, including:

Acquisitions may be funded by the issuance of additional equity or debt financing, which may not be available on attractive terms. Our ability to secure such financing will depend in part on prevailing capital market conditions, as well as conditions in our business and operating results. Moreover, to the extent an acquisition transaction financed by non-equity consideration results in goodwill, it will reduce our tangible net worth, which might have an adverse effect on potential credit and bonding capacity.

Additionally, an acquisition may bring us into businesses we have not previously conducted and expose us to additional business risks that are different than those we have historically experienced.

Our business strategy also includes development and commercialization of new technologies to support our growth, which requires significant investment and involves various risks and uncertainties. These new technologies may not achieve desired commercial or financial results.

Our future growth will depend on our ability to continue to innovate by developing and commercializing new product and service offerings. Investments in new technologies involve varying degrees of uncertainties and risk. Commercial success depends on many factors, including the levels of innovation, the development costs and the availability of capital resources to fund those costs, the levels of competition from others developing similar or other competing technologies, our ability to obtain or maintain government permits or certifications, the effectiveness of production, distribution and marketing efforts, and the costs to customers to deploy and provide support for the new technologies. We may not achieve significant revenue from new product and service investments for a number of years, if at all. Additionally, there can be no assurance that the current technologies that our businesses rely upon will remain competitive, or that competing technologies will not disrupt our business. Moreover, new products and services may not be profitable, and, even if they are profitable, our operating margins from new products and services may not be as high as the margins we have experienced historically. Lastly, new technologies may not be patentable and, as a result, we may face increased competition.

22

Table of Contents

Among our opportunities involving new technologies, we are developing the BWXT mPower™ reactor. The costs to develop and commercialize this technology will require a substantial amount of investment over a period of years and commercialization of this technology will require certification from the NRC. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in addressing all of the technological challenges to developing and commercializing this technology or in obtaining the required NRC certification. The potential also exists for other competitors to emerge with competing technologies, in some cases with funding readily available, and we can provide no assurance that those competitors will not develop and commercialize similar or superior technologies sooner than we can or at a significant cost or price advantage.

On April 12, 2013, BWXT mPower, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BWXT, entered into a Cooperative Agreement with the DOE establishing the terms and conditions of a funding award totaling $150 million under the Funding Program. This cost sharing award allowed us to use the DOE funds to cover licensing and engineering development costs associated with the SMR design certification and generic design activities. At December 31, 2014, the DOE had provided $111 million of the $150 million in financial assistance originally awarded to us in the Cooperative Agreement. No additional financial assistance was provided during the year ended December 31, 2015.

In April 2014, we announced our plans to restructure the mPower program to reduce spending and focus on technology development, and since the third quarter of 2014 have invested no more than $15 million on an annual basis while we continue to work with the DOE, Bechtel – our partner in GmP – and other stakeholders and potential investors in continuing efforts to restructure the mPower program in light of deteriorated market conditions. The latest extension to the Cooperative Agreement has expired and the DOE funding has been suspended. We continue to work with the DOE regarding the status of and options relating to the Cooperative Agreement, but the unavailability of future amounts under the Funding Program may cause us to not realize any return on our investment, impact the timing and likelihood of achieving program development milestones and possibly expose us to claims of contractual and other liability from our current partner, customer or others.

Our operations are subject to operating risks, which could expose us to potentially significant professional liability, product liability, warranty and other claims. Our insurance coverage may be inadequate to cover all of our significant risks or our insurers may deny coverage of material losses we incur, which could adversely affect our profitability and overall financial condition.

We operate large manufacturing facilities and perform services in large commercial power plants where accidents or system failures can have significant consequences. Risks inherent in our operations include:

Any accident or failure at a site where we have provided products or services could result in significant professional liability, product liability, warranty and other claims against us, regardless of whether our products or services caused the incident. We have been, and in the future we may be, named as defendants in lawsuits asserting large claims as a result of litigation arising from events such as those listed above.

23

Table of Contents

We endeavor to identify and obtain in established markets insurance agreements to cover significant risks and liabilities. Insurance against some of the risks inherent in our operations is either unavailable or available only at rates or on terms that we consider uneconomical. Also, catastrophic events customarily result in decreased coverage limits, more limited coverage, additional exclusions in coverage, increased premium costs and increased deductibles and self-insured retentions. Risks that we have frequently found difficult to cost-effectively insure against include, but are not limited to, business interruption, property losses from wind, flood and earthquake events, nuclear hazards and war, pollution liability, liabilities related to occupational health exposures (including asbestos), professional liability/errors and omissions coverage, the failure, misuse or unavailability of our information systems, the failure of security measures designed to protect our information systems from security breaches, and liability related to risk of loss of our work in progress and customer-owned materials in our care, custody and control. Depending on competitive conditions and other factors, we endeavor to obtain contractual protection against certain uninsured risks from our customers. When obtained, such contractual indemnification protection may not be as broad as we desire or may not be supported by adequate insurance maintained by the customer. Such insurance or contractual indemnity protection may not be sufficient or effective under all circumstances or against all hazards to which we may be subject. A successful claim for which we are not insured or for which we are underinsured could have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, disputes with insurance carriers over coverage may affect the timing of cash flows and, if litigation with the carrier becomes necessary, an outcome unfavorable to us may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We are also involved in management and operating activities for the U.S. Government. These activities involve, among other things, handling nuclear devices and their components for the U.S. Government. Most insurable liabilities arising from these sites are not protected in our corporate insurance program. Instead, we rely on government contractual agreements, some insurance purchased specifically for the sites and certain specialized self-insurance programs funded by the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government has historically fulfilled its contractual agreement to reimburse for insurable claims, and we expect it to continue this process. However, it should be noted that, in most situations, the U.S. Government is contractually obligated to pay subject to the availability of authorized government funds. The reimbursement obligation of the U.S. Government is also conditional, and provisions of the relevant contract or applicable law may preclude reimbursement.

We have a captive insurance company subsidiary that provides us with various insurance coverages. Claims, as a result of our operations, could adversely impact the ability of our captive insurance company subsidiary to respond to all claims presented.

Additionally, upon the February 22, 2006, effectiveness of the settlement relating to the Chapter 11 proceedings involving several of our former subsidiaries, most of our subsidiaries contributed substantial insurance rights providing coverage for, among other things, asbestos and other personal injury claims, to an asbestos personal injury trust. With the contribution of these insurance rights to the asbestos personal injury trust, we may have underinsured or uninsured exposure for non-derivative asbestos claims or other personal injury or other claims that would have been insured under these coverages had the insurance rights not been contributed to the asbestos personal injury trust. However, in conjunction with the spin-off of our former Power Generation business, claims and liabilities associated with the asbestos personal injury, property damage and indirect property damage claims mentioned above have been expressly assumed by BWE pursuant to the master separation agreement between us and BWE.

Our nuclear operations subject us to various environmental, regulatory, financial and other risks.

Our operations in designing, engineering, manufacturing, supplying, constructing and maintaining nuclear fuel and nuclear power equipment and components subject us to various risks, including:

24

Table of Contents

Our nuclear operations are subject to various safety-related requirements imposed by the U.S. Government, the DOE and the NRC. In the event of non-compliance, these agencies might increase regulatory oversight, impose fines or shut down our operations, depending upon the assessment of the severity of the situation. Revised security and safety requirements promulgated by these agencies could necessitate substantial capital and other expenditures. In addition, we must comply with and are affected by laws and regulations relating to the award, administration and performance of U.S. Government contracts. Government contract laws and regulations affect how we do business with our customers and, in some instances, impose added costs on our business. A violation of specific laws and regulations could result in the imposition of fines and penalties or the termination of our contracts or debarment from bidding on contracts.

Limitations or modifications to indemnification regulations of the United States or foreign countries could adversely affect our business.

The Price-Anderson Act partially indemnifies the nuclear industry against liability arising from nuclear incidents in the United States, while ensuring compensation for the general public. The Price-Anderson Act comprehensively regulates the manufacture, use and storage of radioactive materials, while promoting the nuclear industry by offering broad indemnification to commercial nuclear power plant operators and DOE contractors. Because we provide nuclear fabrication and other services to the DOE relating to its nuclear devices, facilities and other programs and the nuclear power industry in the ongoing maintenance and modifications of its nuclear power plants, including the manufacture of equipment and other components for use in such nuclear power plants, we may be entitled to some of the indemnification protections under the Price-Anderson Act against liability arising from nuclear incidents in the United States. The indemnification authority under the Price-Anderson Act was extended through December 2025 by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We also provide nuclear fabrication and other services to the nuclear power industry in Canada. Canada’s Nuclear Liability Act generally conforms to international conventions and is conceptually similar to the Price-Anderson Act in the United States. Accordingly, indemnification protections and the possibility of exclusions under Canada’s Nuclear Liability Act are similar to those under the Price-Anderson Act in the United States.

The Price-Anderson Act’s indemnification provisions may not apply to all liabilities that we might incur while performing services as a contractor for the DOE and the nuclear power industry. If an incident or evacuation is not covered under the Price-Anderson Act’s indemnification provisions, we could be held liable for damages, regardless of fault, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In connection with the international transportation of toxic, hazardous and radioactive materials, it is possible for a claim to be asserted which may not fall within the indemnification provided by the Price-Anderson Act. If such indemnification authority is not applicable in the future, our business could be adversely affected if the owners and operators of nuclear power plants fail to retain our services in the absence of commercially adequate insurance and indemnification.

Moreover, because we manufacture nuclear components for the U.S. Government’s defense program, we may be entitled to some of the indemnification protections afforded by Public Law 85-804 for certain of our nuclear operations risks. Public Law 85-804 authorizes certain agencies of the U.S. Government, such as the DOE and the U.S. Department of Defense, to indemnify their contractors against unusually hazardous or nuclear risks when such action would facilitate the national defense. However, because the indemnification protections afforded by Public Law 85-804 are granted on a discretionary basis, situations could arise where the U.S. Government elects not to offer such protections. In such situations, our business could be adversely affected by

25

Table of Contents

either our inability to obtain commercially adequate insurance or indemnification or our refusal to pursue such operations in the absence of such protections.

We are subject to government regulations that may adversely affect our future operations.

Many aspects of our operations and properties are affected by political developments and are subject to both domestic and foreign governmental regulations, including those relating to:

In addition, a portion of the demand for our products and services is from electric power generating companies and other customers. The demand for power generation products and services can be influenced by state and federal governmental legislation setting requirements for utilities related to operations, emissions and environmental impacts. The legislative process is unpredictable and includes a platform that continuously seeks to increase the restrictions on power producers.

We cannot determine the extent to which our future operations and earnings may be affected by new legislation, new regulations or changes in existing regulations.

Our business requires us to obtain, and to comply with, national, state and local government permits and approvals.

Our business is required to obtain, and to comply with, national, state and local government permits and approvals. Any of these permits or approvals may be subject to denial, revocation or modification under various circumstances. Failure to obtain or comply with the conditions of permits or approvals may adversely affect our operations by temporarily suspending our activities or curtailing our work and may subject us to penalties and other sanctions. Although existing licenses are routinely renewed by various regulators, renewal could be denied or jeopardized by various factors, including:

In addition, if new environmental legislation or regulations are enacted or implemented, or existing laws or regulations are amended or are interpreted or enforced differently, we may be required to obtain additional operating permits or approvals. Our inability to obtain, and to comply with, the permits and approvals required for our business could have a material adverse effect on us.

26

Table of Contents

Our operations involve the handling, transportation and disposal of radioactive and hazardous materials, and environmental laws and regulations and civil liability for contamination of the environment or related personal injuries may result in increases in our operating costs and capital expenditures and decreases in our earnings and cash flows.

Our operations involve the handling, transportation and disposal of radioactive and hazardous materials, including nuclear devices and their components. Failure to properly handle these materials could pose a health risk to humans or wildlife and could cause personal injury and property damage (including environmental contamination). If an accident were to occur, its severity could be significantly affected by the volume of the materials and the speed of corrective action taken by emergency response personnel, as well as other factors beyond our control, such as weather and wind conditions. Actions taken in response to an accident could result in significant costs.

Governmental requirements relating to the protection of the environment, including solid waste management, air quality, water quality, the decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear manufacturing and processing facilities and cleanup of contaminated sites, have had a substantial impact on our operations. These requirements are complex and subject to frequent change. In some cases, they can impose liability for the entire cost of cleanup on any responsible party without regard to negligence or fault and impose liability on us for the conduct of others or conditions others have caused, or for our acts that complied with all applicable requirements when we performed them. Our compliance with amended, new or more stringent requirements, stricter interpretations of existing requirements or the future discovery of contamination may require us to make material expenditures or subject us to liabilities that we currently do not anticipate. Such expenditures and liabilities may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, some of our operations and the operations of predecessor owners of some of our properties have exposed us to civil claims by third parties for liability resulting from alleged contamination of the environment or personal injuries caused by releases of hazardous substances into the environment. See “Business – Governmental Regulations and Environmental Matters.”

In our contracts, we seek to protect ourselves from liability associated with accidents, but there can be no assurance that such contractual limitations on liability will be effective in all cases or that our or our customers’ insurance will cover all the liabilities we have assumed under those contracts. The costs of defending against a claim arising out of a nuclear incident or precautionary evacuation, and any damages awarded as a result of such a claim, could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We maintain insurance coverage as part of our overall risk management strategy and due to requirements to maintain specific coverage in our financing agreements and in many of our contracts. These policies do not protect us against all liabilities associated with accidents or for unrelated claims. In addition, comparable insurance may not continue to be available to us in the future at acceptable prices, or at all.

Employee, agent or partner misconduct or our overall failure to comply with laws, regulations or government contracts could weaken our ability to win contracts, lead to the suspension of our operations and result in reduced revenues and profits.

Misconduct, fraud, or other improper activities by one or more of our employees, agents or partners as well as our failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, could have a significant negative impact on our business and reputation. Such misconduct could include the failure to comply with government procurement regulations, regulations regarding the protection of classified information, regulations regarding the pricing of labor and other costs in government contracts, regulations on lobbying or similar activities, regulations pertaining to the internal controls over financial reporting and various other applicable laws or regulations. For example, we regularly provide services that may be highly sensitive or that are related to critical national security matters; if a security breach were to occur, our ability to procure future government contracts could be severely limited. The precautions we take to prevent and detect these activities may not be effective, and we could face unknown risks or losses.

27

Table of Contents

We are routinely audited and reviewed by the U.S. Government and its agencies. These agencies review our performance under our contracts, our cost structure and our compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards, as well as the adequacy of, and our compliance with, our internal control systems and policies. Systems that are subject to review include our purchasing systems, billing systems, property management and control systems, cost estimating systems, compensation systems and management information systems. Any costs found to be improperly allocated to a specific contract will not be reimbursed or must be refunded if already reimbursed. If an audit or review uncovers improper or illegal activities, we could be subject to civil and criminal penalties and administrative sanctions, including termination of contracts, forfeiture of profits, suspension of payments, fines, loss of security clearance and suspension or debarment from contracting with the U.S. Government. In addition, we could suffer serious reputational harm if allegations of impropriety were made against us.

We conduct a portion of our operations through joint venture entities, over which we may have limited ability to influence.

We currently have equity interests in several joint ventures and may enter into additional joint venture arrangements in the future. Our influence over some of these entities may be limited. Even in those joint ventures over which we do exercise significant influence, we are often required to consider the interests of our joint venture partners in connection with major decisions concerning the operations of the joint ventures. In any case, differences in views among the joint venture participants may result in delayed decisions or disputes. We also cannot control the actions of our joint venture participants. We sometimes have joint and several liabilities with our joint venture partners under the applicable contracts for joint venture projects and we cannot be certain that our partners will be able to satisfy any potential liability that could arise. These factors could potentially harm the business and operations of a joint venture and, in turn, our business and operations.

Operating through joint ventures in which we are minority holders results in us having limited control over many decisions made with respect to projects and internal controls relating to projects. These joint ventures may not be subject to the same requirements regarding internal controls and internal control over financial reporting that we follow. As a result, internal control problems may arise with respect to the joint ventures that could adversely affect our ability to respond to requests or contractual obligations to customers or to meet the internal control requirements to which we are otherwise subject.

In addition, our arrangements involving joint ventures may restrict us from gaining access to the cash flows or assets of these entities. In some cases, our joint ventures have governmentally imposed restrictions on their abilities to transfer funds to us.

If our co-venturers fail to perform their contractual obligations on a project or if we fail to coordinate effectively with our co-venturers, we could be exposed to legal liability, loss of reputation and reduced profit on the project.

We often perform projects jointly with third parties. For example, we enter into contractual arrangements to bid for and perform jointly on large projects. Success on these joint projects depends in part on whether our co-venturers fulfill their contractual obligations satisfactorily. If any one or more of these third parties fail to perform their contractual obligations satisfactorily, we may be required to make additional investments and provide added services in order to compensate for that failure. If we are unable to adequately address any such performance issues, then our customer may exercise its right to terminate a joint project, exposing us to legal liability, loss of reputation and reduced profit.

Our collaborative arrangements also involve risks that participating parties may disagree on business decisions and strategies. These disagreements could result in delays, additional costs and risks of litigation. Our inability to successfully maintain existing collaborative relationships or enter into new collaborative arrangements could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

28

Table of Contents

We could be adversely affected by violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”) generally prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to non-U.S. officials. Our training program and policies mandate compliance with the FCPA. We operate in some parts of the world that have experienced governmental corruption to some degree, and, in certain circumstances, strict compliance with anti-bribery laws may conflict with local customs and practices. If we are found to be liable for violations of the FCPA (either due to our own acts or our inadvertence, or due to the acts or inadvertence of others, including employees of our joint ventures), we could suffer from civil and criminal penalties or other sanctions.

The loss of the services of one or more of our key personnel, or our failure to attract, assimilate and retain trained personnel in the future, could disrupt our operations and result in loss of revenues.

Our success depends on the continued active participation of our executive officers and key operating personnel. The unexpected loss of the services of any one of these persons could adversely affect our operations.

Our operations require the services of employees having the technical training and experience necessary to obtain the proper operational results. Certain of our operations also require personnel who are eligible to obtain and maintain U.S. government security clearances. As such, our operations depend, to a considerable extent, on the continuing availability of such employees and personnel. Additionally, the process of obtaining the requisite security clearances for some of our personnel can be subject to delays and other factors beyond our control. If we should suffer any material loss of personnel to competitors, retirement or other reasons, or experience difficulties employing additional or replacement personnel with the requisite level of training, experience and qualifications to adequately operate our business, our operations could be adversely affected.

While we believe our wage rates are competitive and our relationships with our employees are satisfactory, a significant increase in the wages paid by other employers could result in a reduction in our workforce, increases in wage rates, or both. At the end of 2015, we froze benefit accruals for salaried employees covered by our major U.S. and Canadian defined benefit qualified pension plans, which could also result in turnover in our workforce.

We may be unable to realize expected benefits from our restructuring and margin improvement actions, and our profitability or our business otherwise might be adversely affected.

Our restructuring and margin improvement activities are intended to generate operating expense savings through direct and indirect overhead expense reductions as well as other savings. We continue to focus on structural changes in our operating model to drive significant margin improvement. These types of cost reduction and restructuring activities are complex. If we do not successfully manage our current restructuring activities, or any other restructuring activities that we may undertake in the future, expected efficiencies and benefits might be delayed or not realized, and our operations and business could be disrupted. Risks associated with these actions and other workforce management issues include delays, additional unexpected costs, implementation cost overruns, changes in restructuring plans that increase or decrease the number of employees affected, adverse effects on employee morale and the failure to meet operational targets due to the loss of employees, any of which may impair our ability to achieve anticipated cost reductions or may otherwise harm our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our competitive position, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

Negotiations with labor unions and possible work stoppages and other labor problems could divert management’s attention and disrupt operations. In addition, new collective bargaining agreements or amendments to agreements could increase our labor costs and operating expenses.

A significant number of our employees are members of labor unions. If we are unable to negotiate acceptable new contracts with our unions from time to time, we could experience strikes or other work stoppages

29

Table of Contents

by the affected employees. If any such strikes or other work stoppages were to occur, we could experience a significant disruption of operations. In addition, negotiations with unions could divert management attention. New union contracts could result in increased operating costs, as a result of higher wages or benefit expenses, for both union and nonunion employees. If nonunion employees were to unionize, we would experience higher ongoing labor costs.

Pension and medical expenses associated with our retirement benefit plans may fluctuate significantly depending on changes in actuarial assumptions, future market performance of plan assets, future trends in health care costs and legislative or other regulatory actions.

A substantial portion of our current and retired employee population is covered by pension and postretirement benefit plans, the costs and funding requirements of which depend on our various assumptions, including estimates of rates of return on benefit-related assets, discount rates for future payment obligations, rates of future cost growth, mortality assumptions and trends for future costs. Service accruals for salaried participants ceased as of December 31, 2015. Variances from these estimates could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, our policy to recognize these variances annually through mark to market accounting could result in volatility in our results of operations, which could be material. As of December 31, 2015, our defined benefit pension and postretirement benefit plans were underfunded by approximately $377.7 million. A substantial portion of our postretirement benefit plan costs are recoverable on our U.S. Government contracts. See Note 7 to the consolidated financial statements included in this annual report for additional information regarding our pension and postretirement benefit plan obligations.

Our internal controls over financial reporting may not be sufficient to achieve all stated goals and objectives.

Our internal controls and procedures were developed through a process in which our management applied its judgment in assessing the costs and benefits of such controls and procedures, which, by their nature, can provide only reasonable assurance regarding the control objectives. The design of any system of internal controls and procedures is based in part upon various assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and we cannot provide assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions, regardless of how remote.

Our Nuclear Operations segment relies on several single-source suppliers, which could, under certain circumstances, adversely affect our revenues and operating results.

Our Nuclear Operations segment relies on several single-source suppliers for materials used in its products. If the supply of a single-sourced material is delayed or ceases, we may not be able to produce the related product in a timely manner or in sufficient quantities, if at all, which could adversely affect our revenues and operating results. In addition, a single-source supplier of a key component could potentially exert significant bargaining power over price, quality, warranty claims, or other terms relating to the single-sourced materials.

We may not be able to compete successfully against current and future competitors.

Some of our competitors or potential competitors have greater financial or other resources than we have and in some cases are government supported. Our operations may be adversely affected if our current competitors or new market entrants introduce new products or services with better features, performance, prices or other characteristics than those of our products and services. Furthermore, we operate in industries where capital investment is critical. We may not be able to obtain as much purchasing and borrowing leverage and access to capital for investment as other public companies, which may impair our ability to compete against competitors or potential competitors.

30

Table of Contents

Our international operations are subject to political, economic and other uncertainties not generally encountered in our domestic operations.

We derive a portion of our revenues from international operations. Operating in international markets requires significant resources and management attention and subjects us to political, economic and regulatory risks that are not generally encountered in our U.S. operations. These include:

Our international operations sometimes face the additional risks of fluctuating currency values, hard currency shortages and controls of foreign currency exchange.

Regulations related to “conflict minerals” may force us to incur additional expenses, may make our supply chain more complex and may result in damage to our reputation with customers.

On August 22, 2012, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the SEC adopted new requirements for companies that use certain minerals and metals, known as conflict minerals, in their products, whether or not these products are manufactured by third parties. Under these requirements, companies that are subject to the rules conduct due diligence and disclose and report whether or not such minerals originate from the Democratic Republic of Congo and adjoining countries. The implementation of these new requirements could adversely affect the sourcing, availability and pricing of minerals used in the manufacture of certain components incorporated in our products. In addition, we will incur additional costs to comply with the disclosure requirements, including costs related to determining the source of any of the relevant minerals and metals used in our products. Since our supply chain is complex, we may not be able to sufficiently verify the origins for these minerals and metals used in our products through the diligence procedures that we implement, which may harm our reputation. In such event, we may also face difficulties in satisfying customers who require that the components of our products either may not originate from the Democratic Republic of Congo and adjoining countries or must be certified as conflict free.

Natural disasters or other events beyond our control could adversely impact our business.

Natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, tornados, or other events could adversely impact demand for or supply of our products. In addition, natural disasters could also cause disruption to our facilities, systems or projects, which could interrupt operational processes and performance on our contracts and adversely impact our ability to manufacture our products and provide services and support to our customers. We operate facilities in areas of the world that are exposed to natural disasters, such as, but not limited to, hurricanes, floods and tornados.

War, other armed conflicts or terrorist attacks could have a material adverse effect on our business.

War, terrorist attacks and unrest have caused and may continue to cause instability in the world’s financial and commercial markets and have significantly increased political and economic instability in some of the geographic areas in which we operate. Threats of war or other armed conflict may cause further disruption to financial and commercial markets. In addition, continued unrest could lead to acts of terrorism in the United States or elsewhere, and acts of terrorism could be directed against companies such as ours. Also, acts of terrorism and threats of armed conflicts in or around various areas in which we operate could limit or disrupt our markets and operations, including disruptions from evacuation of personnel, cancellation of contracts or the loss of personnel or assets. Armed conflicts, terrorism and their effects on us or our markets may significantly affect our business and results of operations in the future.

31

Table of Contents

Risks Relating to the Spin-Off of Our Former Power Generation Business

Potential indemnification liabilities relating to the spin-off could materially adversely affect us.

In connection with the spin-off, we entered into agreements with BWE to provide for, among other things, the principal corporate transactions required to effect the planned spin-off, certain conditions to the spin-off and provisions governing the relationship between us and BWE with respect to and resulting from the spin-off. Among other things, these agreements provided for indemnification obligations designed to make us financially responsible for substantially all liabilities that may exist relating to our business activities, whether incurred prior to or after the spin-off. If we are required to indemnify BWE, we may be subject to substantial liabilities.

BWE agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities in connection with the spin-off. However, there can be no assurance that the indemnity will be sufficient to insure us against the full amount of such liabilities, or that BWE will be able to satisfy its indemnification obligations.

In connection with the spin-off, BWE agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities. However, third parties could seek to hold us responsible for any of the liabilities that BWE will agree to retain, and there can be no assurance that the indemnity from BWE will be sufficient to protect us against the full amount of such liabilities, or that BWE will be able to fully satisfy its indemnification obligations. Moreover, even if we ultimately succeed in recovering from BWE any amounts for which we are held liable, we may be temporarily required to bear these losses.

The BWE spin-off could result in substantial tax liability.

Upon completion of the spin-off, we received an opinion of counsel substantially to the effect that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the spin-off will qualify under Section 355 of the Code and certain transactions related to the spin-off will qualify under Sections 355 and/or 368 of the Code. The opinion relied on, among other things, various assumptions and representations as to factual matters made by us and BWE, which, if inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect, could jeopardize the conclusions reached by such counsel in its opinion. The opinion is not binding on the IRS or the courts, and there can be no assurance that the IRS or the courts will not challenge the conclusions stated in the opinion or that any such challenge would not prevail.

We are not aware of any facts or circumstances that would cause the assumptions or representations that were relied on in the opinion to be inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect. If, notwithstanding receipt of the opinion, the spin-off were subsequently determined not to qualify under Section 355 of the Code, each U.S. holder of our common stock who receives shares of BWE common stock in the spin-off would generally be treated as receiving a taxable distribution of property in an amount equal to the fair market value of the shares of BWE common stock received. That distribution would be taxable to each such stockholder as a dividend to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits. For each such stockholder, any amount that exceeded our earnings and profits would be treated first as a non-taxable return of capital to the extent of such stockholder’s tax basis in its shares of our common stock with any remaining amount being taxed as a capital gain. In addition, if certain related preparatory transactions were to fail to qualify for tax-free treatment, they would be treated as taxable sales and/or distributions to the Company.

We entered into a tax sharing agreement with BWE in connection with the spin-off. Pursuant to this agreement, we agreed with BWE on the allocation of spin-off related tax liabilities and the indemnification provisions relating to these liabilities. If we are liable for taxes under the tax sharing agreement, that liability could have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, there can be no assurance that any indemnities from BWE will be sufficient to protect us against any potential tax liabilities.

32

Table of Contents

Risks Relating to our Spin-Off from McDermott International, Inc.

We are subject to continuing contingent liabilities of MII as a result of our spin-off from MII.

With completion of our spin-off from McDermott International, Inc. (“MII”) in 2010 (“the MII spin-off”), there are several significant areas where the liabilities of MII may become our obligations. For example, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and the related rules and regulations, each corporation that was a member of our consolidated tax reporting group during any taxable period or portion of any taxable period ending on or before the effective time of the spin-off is jointly and severally liable for the federal income tax liability of our entire consolidated tax reporting group for that taxable period. We have entered into a tax sharing agreement with a subsidiary of MII that allocates the responsibility for prior period taxes of our consolidated tax reporting group between us and MII and its subsidiaries. However, if the subsidiary of MII were unable to pay, we could be required to pay the entire amount of such taxes. Other provisions of federal law establish similar liability for other matters, including laws governing tax-qualified pension plans as well as other contingent liabilities.

Our spin-off from MII could result in substantial tax liability.

MII obtained a private letter ruling from the IRS substantially to the effect that, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the spin-off qualified under Section 355 of the Code and certain transactions related to the MII spin-off qualified under Sections 355 and/or 368 of the Code. If the factual assumptions or representations made in the private letter ruling request are inaccurate or incomplete in any material respect, then we will not be able to rely on the ruling. Furthermore, the IRS will not rule on whether a distribution such as the MII spin-off satisfies certain requirements necessary to obtain tax-free treatment under Section 355 of the Code. Rather, the private letter ruling is based on representations by MII that those requirements have been satisfied, and any inaccuracy in those representations could invalidate the ruling.

Under the terms of the tax sharing agreement we entered into in connection with the MII spin-off, we are generally responsible for any taxes imposed on us or MII and its subsidiaries in the event that the MII spin-off and/or certain related preparatory transactions were to fail to qualify for tax-free treatment. However, if the MII spin-off and/or certain related preparatory transactions were to fail to qualify for tax-free treatment because of actions or failures to act by MII or its subsidiaries, a subsidiary of MII would be responsible for all such taxes. If we are liable for taxes under the tax sharing agreement, that liability could have a material adverse effect on us. The tax sharing agreement expires in September 2016.

Potential indemnification liabilities to MII pursuant to the master separation agreement could materially adversely affect our company.

The master separation agreement with MII provides for, among other things, the principal corporate transactions required to effect the MII spin-off, certain conditions to the MII spin-off and provisions governing the relationship between our company and MII with respect to and resulting from the MII spin-off. Among other things, the master separation agreement provides for indemnification obligations designed to make our company financially responsible for substantially all liabilities that may exist relating to our business activities, whether incurred prior to or after the MII spin-off, as well as those obligations of MII assumed by us pursuant to the master separation agreement. If we are required to indemnify MII under the circumstances set forth in the master separation agreement, we may be subject to substantial liabilities.

In connection with our separation from MII, MII will indemnify us for certain liabilities. However, there can be no assurance that the indemnity will be sufficient to insure us against the full amount of such liabilities, or that MII’s ability to satisfy its indemnification obligation will not be impaired in the future.

Pursuant to the master separation agreement, MII has agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities. However, third parties could seek to hold us responsible for any of the liabilities that MII has agreed to retain,

33

Table of Contents

and there can be no assurance that the indemnity from MII will be sufficient to protect us against the full amount of such liabilities, or that MII will be able to fully satisfy its indemnification obligations. Moreover, even if we ultimately succeed in recovering from MII any amounts for which we are held liable, we may be temporarily required to bear these losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity.

Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Common Stock

Provisions in our corporate documents and Delaware law could delay or prevent a change in control of our company, even if that change may be considered beneficial by some stockholders.

The existence of some provisions of our certificate of incorporation and bylaws and Delaware law could discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of our company that a stockholder may consider favorable. These include provisions:

In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which may have an anti-takeover effect with respect to transactions not approved in advance by our Board of Directors, including discouraging takeover attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for shares of our common stock.

We believe these provisions protect our stockholders from coercive or otherwise unfair takeover tactics by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our Board of Directors and by providing our Board of Directors with more time to assess any acquisition proposal, and are not intended to make our company immune from takeovers. However, these provisions apply even if the offer may be considered beneficial by some stockholders and could delay or prevent an acquisition that our Board of Directors determines is not in the best interests of our company and our stockholders.

We may issue preferred stock that could dilute the voting power or reduce the value of our common stock.

Our certificate of incorporation authorizes us to issue, without the approval of our stockholders, one or more classes or series of preferred stock having such designation, powers, preferences and relative, participating, optional and other special rights, including preferences over our common stock respecting dividends and distributions, as our Board of Directors generally may determine. The terms of one or more classes or series of

34

Table of Contents

preferred stock could dilute the voting power or reduce the value of our common stock. For example, we could grant holders of preferred stock the right to elect some number of our directors in all events or on the happening of specified events or the right to veto specified transactions. Similarly, the repurchase or redemption rights or liquidation preferences we could assign to holders of preferred stock could affect the residual value of the common stock.

None.

The following table provides the segment name, location and general use of each of our principal properties at December 31, 2015 that we own or lease.

We consider each of our significant properties to be suitable and adequate for its intended use.

For further details regarding our properties, see Item 1, “Business.”

The information set forth under the heading “Investigations and Litigation” in Note 10 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report is incorporated by reference into this Item 3.

35

Table of Contents

Before the spin-off was completed on June 30, 2015, we owned, managed and operated Ebensburg Power Company, an independent power company that produces alternative electrical energy. Through one of our former subsidiaries, Revloc Reclamation Service, Inc., Ebensburg Power Company operates multiple coal refuse sites in Western Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Revloc Sites”). At the Revloc Sites, Ebensburg Power Company utilizes coal refuse from abandoned surface mine lands to produce energy. Beyond converting the coal refuse to energy, Ebensburg Power Company is also taking steps to reclaim the former surface mine lands to make the land and streams more attractive for wildlife and human uses.

The Revloc Sites are subject to regulation by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. Information concerning mine safety violations or other regulatory matters required by Section 1503(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and this Item is included in Exhibit 95 to this annual report on Form 10-K.

36

Table of Contents

PART II

Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol BWXT (previously BWC).

High and low common stock prices by quarter in the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 were as follows:

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015

On June 30, 2015, we completed the spin-off of BWE. Prior to the completion of the spin-off, there were two concurrent markets in which to trade our common stock: a “regular way” market and an “ex-distribution” market. Shares of our common stock that traded in the “regular way” market traded with an entitlement to shares of BWE common stock. Shares that traded in the “ex-distribution” market traded without an entitlement to shares of BWE common stock. On June 30, 2015, the closing price of our common stock traded in the “regular way” market on the NYSE was $32.80. On June 30, 2015, the closing price of our common stock traded in the “ex-distribution” market on the NYSE was $23.45. The share prices prior to the spin-off have not been adjusted to reflect the distribution of the BWE shares.

YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2014

On November 5, 2012, our Board of Directors approved an annual cash dividend, payable quarterly, of $0.32 per share. On November 8, 2013, our Board of Directors approved an increase to the annual cash dividend, payable quarterly, to $0.40 per share. On July 31, 2015, our Board of Directors elected to modify its previously approved annual cash dividend to be $0.24 per share, payable quarterly. Our ability to pay dividends may be limited by certain restrictions in our credit agreement and by applicable law. Our Board of Directors will continue to evaluate our cash dividend policy from time to time.

As of January 31, 2016, there were approximately 2,153 record holders of our common stock.

37

Table of Contents

The following table provides information on our equity compensation plans as of December 31, 2015:

Equity Compensation Plan Information

In November 2012, we announced that a share repurchase program was authorized by our Board of Directors. The following table provides information on our purchases of equity securities during the quarter ended December 31, 2015. Any shares purchased that were not part of a publicly announced plan or program are related to repurchases of common stock pursuant to the provisions of employee benefit plans that permit the repurchase of shares to satisfy statutory tax withholding obligations.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

38

Table of Contents

The following graph provides a comparison of our cumulative total shareholder return over five years to the return of the S&P 500 and the return of our custom peer group. The following graph shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or “filed” with the SEC or be subject to Regulation 14A or 14C (other than as provided in Item 201 of Regulation S-K) or to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that BWXT specifically incorporates it by reference into such filing.

We periodically review and update our peer group to ensure it contains companies that are representative of the industries in which we operate. The peer group we used for comparison purposes is comprised of the following companies:

39

Table of Contents

We immediately recognize actuarial gains (losses) for our pension and postretirement benefit plans into earnings primarily in the fourth quarter each year as a component of net periodic benefit cost. The effect of this adjustment for 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012 and 2011 on pre-tax income was $(54.7) million, $(141.5) million, $130.8 million, $(23.7) million and $(109.6) million, respectively.

In the year ended December 31, 2015, we incurred $26.0 million of charges related to the spin-off of our former Power Generation business. We also incurred $16.6 million of charges related to restructuring activities. In addition, we recorded income related to litigation proceeds of $94.8 million in September 2015, including pre- and post-judgment interest totaling $29.1 million.

In the year ended December 31, 2014, we incurred $0.2 million of charges related to the spin-off of our former Power Generation business. We also incurred $20.9 million of charges related to restructuring activities. In addition, we recorded a gain in other income of $14.2 million for the receipt and related fair value adjustment of the Centrus Energy Corp. (“Centrus”) common stock and notes that we received in the bankruptcy settlement in exchange for our investment in USEC Inc. (“USEC”).

40

Table of Contents

In the year ended December 31, 2013, we incurred $21.3 million of charges related to restructuring activities. In addition, we recorded an impairment charge totaling $19.1 million associated with our investment in USEC.

In the year ended December 31, 2012, we entered into an agreement with the customer of a Nuclear Energy project to settle contract claims resulting in recognition of revenues totaling approximately $18.4 million. In addition, we recorded an impairment charge totaling $27.0 million associated with our investment in USEC.

In the year ended December 31, 2011, we recorded additional costs totaling approximately $61.8 million ($50.7 million in our Nuclear Energy segment and $11.1 in our Nuclear Operations segment) to complete certain projects attributable to changes in estimate due to productivity and scheduling issues. In addition, we recognized a gain totaling approximately $10.9 million attributable to a settlement with the sellers of Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (“NFS”), a wholly owned subsidiary in our Nuclear Operations segment, related to adverse operating conditions in existence at the acquisition date.

41

Table of Contents

Statements we make in the following discussion, which express a belief, expectation or intention, as well as those that are not historical fact, are forward-looking statements that are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Our actual results, performance or achievements, or industry results, could differ materially from those we express in the following discussion as a result of a variety of factors, including the risks and uncertainties we have referred to under the headings “Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” in Items 1 and 1A of Part I of this report.

GENERAL

We are a leading supplier of nuclear components and fuel to the U.S. government; provide technical, management and site services to support governments in the operation of complex facilities and environmental remediation activities; and supply precision manufactured components and services for the commercial nuclear power industry. In general, we operate in capital-intensive industries and rely on large contracts for a substantial amount of our revenues. We are currently exploring growth strategies across our segments through acquisitions to expand and complement our existing businesses. We would expect to fund these opportunities with cash on hand, external financing (including debt), equity or some combination thereof.

We operate in three reportable segments: Nuclear Operations, Technical Services and Nuclear Energy. Prior to 2015, our mPower business was considered a separate reportable segment; however, in accordance with FASB Topic Segment Reporting, this business no longer meets the quantitative threshold criteria and is now included in our “Other” category.

The results of operations of BWE are presented as discontinued operations on the consolidated statements of income. We have presented the notes to our consolidated financial statements on the bases of continuing operations, unless otherwise stated.

Spin-off of BWE

On June 30, 2015, we completed the spin-off of BWE to our stockholders through a stock distribution. BWE’s assets and business primarily consisted of those that we previously reported as our Power Generation segment. In connection with the spin-off, our stockholders received 100% of the outstanding common stock of BWE. The distribution of BWE common stock occurred by way of a pro rata stock distribution to our stockholders. Our stockholders received one share of BWE common stock for every two shares of our common stock held by such stockholder on June 18, 2015, and cash in lieu of any fractional shares. Prior to the completion of the spin-off, we made a cash payment to BWE totaling $132 million.

In order to effect the distribution and govern our relationship with BWE after the distribution, we entered into a master separation agreement with BWE. In addition to the master separation agreement, we entered into other agreements with BWE in connection with the distribution, including a tax sharing agreement and transition services agreements.

We incurred a total of approximately $66.5 million in total spin-off related costs through June 30, 2015, which includes approximately $29.8 million for professional services and $23.1 million of retention and severance-related charges. The majority of the remaining costs relate to the separation of our facilities and related infrastructure including our information technology systems. Income from discontinued operations for the year ended December 31, 2015 includes $34.4 million, respectively, of these charges and included in continuing operations are spin-off costs of $26.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. A total of $6.1 million was recognized in the year ended December 31, 2014.

42

Table of Contents

Master Separation Agreement

The master separation agreement between us and BWE contains the key provisions relating to the separation of our former Power Generation business from us and the distribution of shares of BWE common stock. The master separation agreement identifies the assets that were transferred, liabilities that were assumed and contracts that were assigned to BWE by us or by BWE to us in the spin-off and describes how these transfers, assumptions and assignments occurred. Under the master separation agreement we also agreed to indemnify BWE against various claims and liabilities related to the past operation of our business (other than BWE’s business).

At the spin-off, we had outstanding performance guarantees for various projects executed by BWE in the normal course of business. These guarantees totaled $1,542 million and have expiration dates from 2015 to 2035. The master separation agreement requires that BWE use commercially reasonable efforts to terminate (or have it or one of its subsidiaries substituted for us) all existing guarantees by us relating to BWE, including financial, performance and other guarantee obligations. BWE is required to (i) use commercially reasonable efforts to perform all underlying obligations covered by the guarantees, (ii) take all actions to put us in the same position as if BWE, not us, had performed or were performing the guarantee obligations, and (iii) indemnify and hold us harmless for any losses arising from the guarantees. Moreover, to the extent that BWE fails to terminate or substitute any of the existing guarantees by the 24-month anniversary of the spin-off, BWE will be obligated to pay a quarterly carrying fee until the expiration of the guarantee or the termination or substitution of the guarantee, whichever occurs first. We estimated the fair value of these performance guarantees at June 30, 2015 to total $10.2 million and have recorded these amounts in other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet.

As of December 31, 2015, we have been released from certain of these performance guarantees and have reduced the associated liability to $9.3 million accordingly. The remaining guarantees total approximately $1,072 million and have expiration dates ranging from 2016 to 2035. In February 2016, we were notified by BWE that we have been released from substantially all of these performances guarantees.

Tax Sharing Agreement

We and BWE have entered into an agreement providing for the sharing of taxes incurred before and after the distribution, various indemnification rights with respect to tax matters and restrictions to preserve the tax-free status of the distribution. Under the terms of the tax sharing agreement we entered into in connection with the spin-off, we will generally be responsible for 60% of any taxes imposed on us or BWE and its subsidiaries in the event that the spin-off and/or certain related preparatory transactions were to fail to qualify for tax-free treatment. However, if the spin-off and/or certain related preparatory transactions were to fail to qualify for tax-free treatment because of actions or failures to act by BWE, we would not be responsible for the related taxes associated with these actions. Conversely, if the spin-off and/or certain related preparatory transactions were to fail to qualify for tax-free treatment because of actions or failures to act by us, we would be responsible for all related taxes associated with these actions.

Transition Services Agreements

Under the transition services agreements, we and BWE are providing each other certain transition services for a limited time. Such services include, among others, accounting, human resources, information technology, legal, risk management, tax and treasury services. In consideration for such services, we and BWE each pay fees to the other for the services provided, and those fees are generally in amounts intended to allow the party providing the services to recover its direct and indirect costs incurred in providing those services. The transition services agreements contain customary mutual indemnification provisions.

Outlook

Nuclear Operations

We expect the backlog of our Nuclear Operations segment of approximately $2,311 million at December 31, 2015 to produce revenues of approximately $894.3 million in 2016, not including any change orders or new contracts that may be awarded during the year.

43

Table of Contents

The revenues of our Nuclear Operations segment are largely a function of defense spending by the U.S. Government. As a supplier of major nuclear components for certain U.S. Government programs, we are a significant participant in the defense industry and have not been negatively impacted by sequestration or federal budget reductions to date. We believe many of our programs are well aligned with national defense and other strategic priorities as we supply high-end equipment for submarines and aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy. However, it is possible that reductions in federal government spending and sequestration could have an adverse impact on the operating results and cash flows of our Nuclear Operations and Technical Services segments in the future.

Technical Services

A significant portion of this segment’s operations are conducted through joint ventures, which typically earn fees, and we account for them following the equity method of accounting. See Note 3 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report for financial information on our equity method investments. As a result, this segment reports minimal backlog and revenues.

Given our specialized capabilities of full life-cycle management of special materials, facilities and technologies, we believe our Technical Services segment is well-positioned to continue to participate in the continuing cleanup, operation and management of critical government-owned nuclear sites, laboratories and manufacturing complexes maintained by the DOE, NASA and other federal agencies.

Nuclear Energy

We expect the backlog of our Nuclear Energy segment of approximately $335 million at December 31, 2015 to produce revenues of approximately $144.7 million in 2016, not including any change orders or new contracts that may be awarded during the year. The revenues in this segment primarily depend on the demand and competitiveness of nuclear energy. The activity of this segment depends on the timing of maintenance outages primarily in the Canadian market and the cyclical nature of capital expenditures and major refurbishments for nuclear utility customers which could cause variability in our financial results.

In December 2015, we signed a memorandum of understanding to commence the process for steam generator design and manufacturing related to a long-term, incremental life extension program initiated by the world’s largest operating nuclear generating facility in Ontario, Canada. Anticipated future revenue associated with this memo of understanding is not included in our ending backlog as of December 31, 2015.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

Our financial statements and accompanying notes are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. Preparing financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. These estimates and assumptions are affected by management’s application of accounting policies. We believe the following are our most critical accounting policies that we apply in the preparation of our financial statements. These policies require our most difficult, subjective and complex judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates of matters that are inherently uncertain.

Contracts and Revenue Recognition. We determine the appropriate accounting method for each of our long-term contracts before work on the project begins. We generally recognize contract revenues and related costs on a percentage-of-completion method for individual contracts or combinations of contracts based on work performed, man hours or a cost-to-cost method, as applicable to the product or activity involved. We recognize estimated contract revenue and resulting income based on the measurement of the extent of progress completion as a percentage of the total project. Certain costs may be excluded from the cost-to-cost method of measuring progress, such as significant costs for materials and major third-party subcontractors, if it appears that such exclusion would result in a more meaningful measurement of actual contract progress and resulting periodic allocation of income. For all contracts, if a current estimate of total contract cost indicates a loss on a contract,

44

Table of Contents

the projected loss is recognized in full when determined. It is possible that current estimates could materially change for various reasons, including, but not limited to, fluctuations in forecasted labor productivity or steel and other raw material prices. We routinely review estimates related to our contracts, and revisions to profitability are reflected in the quarterly and annual earnings we report. In the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, we recognized net favorable changes in estimate related to long-term contracts accounted for on the percentage-of-completion basis that increased operating income by approximately $18.6 million, $25.0 million and $17.6 million, respectively.

For contracts as to which we are unable to estimate the final profitability except to assure that no loss will ultimately be incurred, we recognize equal amounts of revenue and cost until the final results can be estimated more precisely. For these deferred profit recognition contracts, we recognize revenue and cost equally and only recognize gross margin when probable and reasonably estimable, which we generally determine to be when the contract is approximately 70% complete. We treat long-term construction contracts that contain such a level of risk and uncertainty that estimation of the final outcome is impractical except to assure that no loss will be incurred as deferred profit recognition contracts. We did not enter into any contracts that we have accounted for as deferred profit recognition contracts during 2015, 2014 or 2013.

Our policy is to account for fixed-price contracts under the completed-contract method if we believe that we are unable to reasonably forecast cost to complete at start-up. For example, if we have no experience in performing the type of work on a particular project and are unable to develop reasonably dependable estimates of total costs to complete, we would follow the completed-contract method of accounting for such projects. Generally, our management’s policy is not to enter into fixed-price contracts without an accurate estimate of cost to complete. However, it is possible that in the time between contract execution and the start of work on a project, we could lose confidence in our ability to forecast cost to complete based on intervening events, including, but not limited to, experience on similar projects, civil unrest, strikes and volatility in our expected costs. In such a situation, we would use the completed-contract method of accounting for that project. Under the completed-contract method, income is recognized only when a contract is completed or substantially complete. We did not enter into any contracts that we have accounted for under the completed-contract method during 2015, 2014 or 2013.

Although we continually strive to improve our ability to estimate our contract costs and profitability, adjustments to overall contract costs due to unforeseen events could be significant in future periods. We recognize claims for extra work or for changes in scope of work in contract revenues, to the extent of costs incurred, when we believe collection is probable and can be reasonably estimated. We recognize income from contract change orders or claims when formally agreed with the customer. We regularly assess the collectability of contract revenues and receivables from customers.

Property, Plant and Equipment. We carry our property, plant and equipment at depreciated cost, reduced by provisions to recognize economic impairment when we determine impairment has occurred. Property, plant and equipment amounts are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset, or asset group, may not be recoverable. An impairment loss would be recognized when the carrying amount of an asset exceeds the estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to result from the use of the asset and its eventual disposition. The amount of the impairment loss to be recorded is calculated by the excess of the asset carrying value over its fair value. Fair value is generally determined using a discounted cash flow analysis. Our estimates of cash flow may differ from actual cash flow due to, among other things, technological changes, economic conditions or changes in operating performance. Any changes in such factors may negatively affect our business segments and result in future asset impairments.

We depreciate our property, plant and equipment using the straight-line method over estimated economic useful lives of eight to 33 years for buildings and three to 14 years for machinery and equipment. We expense the costs of maintenance, repairs and renewals, which do not materially prolong the useful life of an asset, as we incur them.

45

Table of Contents

Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates. We use the equity method of accounting for affiliates in which our investment ownership ranges from 20% to 50%, unless significant economic or governance considerations indicate that we are unable to exert significant influence, in which case the cost method is used. The equity method is also used for affiliates in which our investment ownership is greater than 50% but we do not have a controlling interest. Currently, all of our material investments in affiliates that are not included in our consolidated results are recorded using the equity method. Affiliates in which our investment ownership is less than 20% and where we are unable to exert significant influence are carried at cost.

Self-Insurance. We have a wholly owned insurance subsidiary that provides employer’s liability, general and automotive liability and workers’ compensation insurance and, from time to time, builder’s risk insurance within certain limits to our companies. We may also have business reasons in the future to have our insurance subsidiary accept other risks that we cannot or do not wish to transfer to outside insurance companies. When estimating our self-insurance liabilities, we consider a number of factors, including historical claims experience and trend lines, projected growth patterns, inflation and exposure forecasts. The assumptions we make with respect to each of these factors represent our judgment as to the most probable cumulative impact of each factor on our future obligations. Our calculation of self-insurance liabilities requires us to apply judgment to estimate the ultimate cost to settle reported claims and claims incurred but not yet reported as of the balance sheet date. We engage the services of an actuarial firm to assist us in the calculation of our liabilities for self-insurance. While the actual outcome of insured claims could differ significantly from estimated amounts, these loss estimates and accruals recorded in our financial statements for claims have historically been reasonable in light of the actual amount of claims paid. Provisions for exposure to self-insurance claims and the related payments of claims have historically not had a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows, and we do not expect these provisions to have a material impact on our self-insurance programs in the future.

Pension Plans and Postretirement Benefits. We utilize actuarial and other assumptions in calculating the cost and benefit obligations of our pension and postretirement benefits. The assumptions utilized in the determination of our benefit cost and obligations include assumptions regarding discount rates, expected returns on plan assets, mortality and health care cost trends. The assumptions utilized represent our best estimates based on historical experience and other factors.

We calculate the majority of our pension costs under both financial accounting standards (“FAS”) in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) and cost accounting standards (“CAS”) in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the related United States Government Cost Accounting Standards. We have prepared our consolidated financial statements and segment reporting disclosures utilizing pension costs calculated under FAS. Pension costs calculated under CAS are utilized as the basis for recovery of pension costs on our U.S. Government contracts. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, our CAS pension costs attributed to U.S. Government contracts totaled $57.7 million, $59.7 million and $45.1 million, respectively. Pension costs calculated under CAS are recovered on a percentage-of-completion method on the underlying U.S. Government contracts. As a result, the amount of recoverable CAS pension costs recognized as revenue on an annual basis may differ from the amounts noted above. See further discussion of our accounting for contracts and revenue recognition above and in Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report.

Actual experience that differs from these assumptions or future changes in assumptions will affect our recognized benefit obligations and related costs. We immediately recognize net actuarial gains and losses into earnings in the fourth quarter as a component of net periodic benefit cost. Net actuarial gains and losses occur when actual experience differs from any of the various assumptions used to value our pension and postretirement benefit plans or when assumptions, which are revisited annually through our update of our actuarial valuations, change due to current market conditions or underlying demographic changes. The primary factors contributing to net actuarial gains and losses are changes in the discount rate used to value the obligations as of the measurement date each year, the difference between the actual return on plan assets and the expected return on plan assets and changes in health care cost trends. The effect of changes in the discount rate and expected rate of return on plan

46

Table of Contents

assets assumptions in combination with the actual return on plan assets can result in significant changes in our estimated pension and postretirement benefit cost and our consolidated financial condition. Additionally, in the prior year, we adjusted our mortality assumption to reflect mortality improvements identified by the Society of Actuaries, adjusted for the Company’s experience. The impact of the change in this assumption caused a $70.9 million increase in our pension liability.

The following sensitivity analysis shows the impact of a 25 basis point change in the assumed discount rate, return on assets and health care cost trend rate on our FAS pension and postretirement benefit plan obligations and expense for the year ended December 31, 2015:

Beginning in the first quarter of 2016, we will change the method that we use to estimate the interest and service cost components of our net periodic benefit cost for our pension and postretirement benefit plans. Previously, we estimated interest and service cost utilizing a single weighted-average discount rate derived from the yield curve data used to measure the benefit obligation. Our new method for estimating interest and service cost will utilize a spot rate approach which utilizes duration specific spot rates from the yield curve that was utilized to measure the benefit obligation. We are making this change to provide a more precise estimate of interest and service cost by improving the relationship of the discount rates utilized to measure our benefit obligation and the rates utilized to estimate interest and service cost. We estimate that this change will reduce net periodic benefit costs for the year ended December 31, 2016 compared to our previous method by approximately $11 million. This change will not affect the measurement of our total pension and postretirement benefit obligations or our total net periodic benefit cost as the change in our interest and service cost will be offset in our recognized net actuarial (gain) loss. We will account for this change as a change in accounting estimate, which will not impact previously reported results.

Loss Contingencies. We estimate liabilities for loss contingencies when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable. We provide disclosure when there is a reasonable possibility that the ultimate loss will exceed the recorded provision or if such probable loss is not reasonably estimable. We are currently involved in some significant litigation, as discussed in Note 10 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report. We have accrued our estimates of the probable losses associated with these matters. However, our losses are typically resolved over long periods of time and are often difficult to estimate due to the possibility of multiple actions by third parties. Therefore, it is possible that future earnings could be affected by changes in our estimates related to these matters.

47

Table of Contents

Goodwill and Intangible Assets. Each year, we evaluate goodwill at each reporting unit to assess recoverability, and impairments, if any, are recognized in earnings. We perform a qualitative analysis when we believe that there is sufficient excess fair value over carrying value based on our most recent quantitative assessment, adjusted for relevant facts and circumstances that could affect fair value. Deterioration in macroeconomic, industry and market conditions, cost factors, overall financial performance, share price decline or entity and reporting unit specific events could cause us to believe a qualitative test is no longer appropriate.

When we determine that it is appropriate to test goodwill for impairment utilizing a quantitative test, the first step of the test compares the fair value of a reporting unit to its carrying amount, including goodwill. We utilize both the income and market valuation approaches to provide inputs into the estimate of the fair value of our reporting units, which would be considered by market participants.

Under the income valuation approach, we employ a discounted cash flow model to estimate the fair value of each reporting unit. This model requires the use of significant estimates and assumptions regarding future revenues, costs, margins, capital expenditures, changes in working capital, terminal year growth rate and cost of capital. Our cash flow models are based on our forecasted results for the applicable reporting units. Actual results could differ materially from our projections. Some assumptions, such as future revenues, costs and changes in working capital are company driven and could be affected by a loss of one or more significant contracts or customers, failure to control costs on certain contracts; a decline in U.S. Government funding or a decline in demand based on changing economic or regulatory conditions. Changes in external market conditions may affect certain other assumptions, such as the cost of capital. Market conditions can be volatile and are outside of our control.

Under the market valuation approach, we employ the guideline publicly traded company method, which indicates the fair value of the equity of each reporting unit by comparing it to publicly traded companies in similar lines of business. After identifying and selecting guideline companies, we analyze their business and financial profiles for relative similarity. Factors such as size, growth, risk and profitability are analyzed and compared to each of our reporting units. Assumptions include the selection of our peer companies and use of market multiples, which could deteriorate or increase based on the profitability of our competitors and performance of their stock, which is often dependent on the performance of the stock market and general economy as a whole.

Adverse changes in these assumptions utilized within the first step of our impairment test could cause a reduction or elimination of excess fair value over carrying value, resulting in potential recognition of impairment. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, the second step of the goodwill impairment test is performed to measure the amount of the impairment loss, if any. The second step compares the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill.

We completed our annual review of goodwill for each of our reporting units for the year ended December 31, 2015, which indicated that we had no impairment of goodwill. The fair value of our reporting units was substantially in excess of carrying value.

Each year, we evaluate indefinite lived intangible assets to assess recoverability, and impairments, if any, are recognized in earnings. We perform a qualitative assessment when testing indefinite lived intangible assets for impairment to determine whether events or circumstances that could affect the significant inputs used in determining fair value have occurred that indicate that it is more likely than not that the indefinite lived intangible asset is impaired. Deterioration in macroeconomic, industry and market conditions, cost factors or overall financial performance could cause us to believe a qualitative test is no longer appropriate. When quantitative assessments are performed, we primarily utilize income-based valuation approaches. Under the income-based valuation approach, we employ a relief from royalty method of valuation. This method requires significant assumptions, including assumed royalty rate, future revenues and cost of capital. Assumptions related to operating performance, such as future revenues, could be affected by loss of a customer contract, a decline in

48

Table of Contents

U.S. Government funding or a decline in demand based on changing economic or regulatory conditions. Changes in external market conditions may affect certain other assumptions, such as the cost of capital. Market conditions can be volatile and are outside of our control.

Adverse changes in these assumptions utilized within our indefinite lived intangible asset impairment test could cause a reduction or elimination of excess fair value over carrying value, resulting in potential recognition of impairment.

We have completed our annual review of our indefinite lived intangible assets for the year ended December 31, 2015, which indicated that we had no impairment. The fair value of our indefinite lived intangible assets was substantially in excess of carrying value.

Asset Retirement Obligations and Environmental Clean-up Costs. We accrue for future decommissioning of our nuclear facilities that will permit the release of these facilities to unrestricted use at the end of each facility’s life, which is a requirement of our licenses from the NRC. In accordance with the FASB Topic Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations, we record the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation in the period in which it is incurred. In estimating fair value, we use present value of cash flows expected to be incurred in settling our obligations. To the extent possible, we perform a marketplace assessment of the cost and timing of performing the retirement activities. We apply a credit-adjusted risk-free interest rate to our expected cash flows in our determination of fair value. When we initially record such a liability, we capitalize a cost by increasing the carrying amount of the related long-lived asset. Over time, the liability is accreted to its present value each period, and the capitalized cost is depreciated over the useful life of the related asset. Upon settlement of a liability, we will settle the obligation for its recorded amount or incur a gain or loss. This topic applies to environmental liabilities associated with assets that we currently operate and are obligated to remove from service. For environmental liabilities associated with assets that we no longer operate, we have accrued amounts based on the estimated costs of clean-up activities, net of the anticipated effect of any applicable cost-sharing arrangements. We adjust the estimated costs as further information develops or circumstances change. An exception to this accounting treatment relates to the work we perform for two facilities for which the U.S. Government is obligated to pay substantially all the decommissioning costs.

Income Taxes. Income tax expense for federal, foreign, state and local income taxes are calculated on pre-tax income based on current tax law and includes the cumulative effect of any changes in tax rates from those used previously in determining deferred tax assets and liabilities. Beginning in the second quarter of 2015, we began recognizing our consolidated income tax provision based on the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% due to the presumed repatriation of our Canadian earnings. We record a valuation allowance to reduce our deferred tax assets to the amount that is more likely than not to be realized. We assess deferred taxes and the adequacy of the valuation allowance on a quarterly basis. In the ordinary course of business there is inherent uncertainty in quantifying our income tax positions. We assess our income tax positions and record tax benefits for all years subject to examination based upon management’s evaluation of the facts, circumstances and information available at the reporting date. For those tax positions where it is more likely than not that a tax benefit will be sustained, we have recorded the largest amount of tax benefit with a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement with a taxing authority that has full knowledge of all relevant information. For those income tax positions where it is not more likely than not that a tax benefit will be sustained, no tax benefit has been recognized in the financial statements. We record interest and penalties (net of any applicable tax benefit) related to income taxes as a component of provision for income taxes on our consolidated statements of income.

In November 2015, the FASB issued an update to the Topic Income Taxes which requires that reporting entities classify deferred income tax assets and liabilities as non-current on the consolidated balance sheets. We early adopted this update in the quarter ended December 31, 2015 and applied its provisions prospectively.

Warranty. We accrue estimated expense included in cost of operations on our consolidated statements of income to satisfy contractual warranty requirements when we recognize the associated revenue on the related

49

Table of Contents

contracts. In addition, we record specific provisions or reductions when we expect the actual warranty costs to significantly differ from the accrued estimates. Factors that impact our estimate of warranty costs include prior history of warranty claims and our estimates of future costs of materials and labor. Such changes could have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Stock-Based Compensation. We account for stock-based compensation in accordance with FASB Topic Compensation – Stock Compensation. Under the fair value recognition provisions of this statement, the cost of employee services received in exchange for an award of equity instruments is measured at the grant date based on the fair value of the award. Stock-based compensation expense is recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service periods of the awards, which is generally equivalent to the vesting term. We use a Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine the fair value of certain share-based awards, such as stock options and stock appreciation rights. The determination of the fair value of a share-based payment award using an option-pricing model requires the input of highly subjective assumptions, such as the expected life of the award and stock price volatility. For liability-classified awards, such as cash-settled restricted stock units and performance units, fair values are determined at grant date using the closing price of our common stock and are remeasured at the end of each reporting period through the date of settlement.

For further discussion of recently adopted accounting standards, see Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS – YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013

Selected financial highlights are presented in the table below:

Consolidated Results of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2015 vs. 2014

Consolidated revenues decreased 2.4%, or $35.1 million, to $1,415.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to $1,450.6 million for the corresponding period in 2014 due primarily to a $46.4 million cumulative effect impact of a contract change order that was recorded by our Nuclear Operations segment during the year ended December 31, 2014.

50

Table of Contents

Consolidated operating income increased $180.8 million to $205.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to income of $25.1 million for the corresponding period in 2014. Operating income includes actuarial gains and losses (“MTM charges”) related to our pension and postretirement plans, which reflected a non-cash loss of $54.7 million and $141.1 million in 2015 and 2014, respectively. Operating income for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 includes special charges for restructuring activities totaling $16.6 million and $20.9 million, respectively. In addition, operating income for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 also includes costs to spin-off our former Power Generation business totaling $26.0 million and $0.2 million, respectively. Operating income for the year ended December 31, 2015 includes income related to litigation proceeds of $65.7 million. Operating income in our Nuclear Energy segment increased $24.9 million, primarily attributable to a $16.1 million loss resulting from an adverse jury verdict in the prior year. Operating income in our Other segment increased by $55.0 million due to slowing the pace of development related to the mPower program. These increases were partially offset by decreased operating income in our Nuclear Operations and Technical Services segments, which declined $13.1 million and $17.1 million, respectively.

Year Ended December 31, 2014 vs. 2013

Consolidated revenues decreased 6.2%, or $96.1 million, to $1,450.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to $1,546.7 million for the corresponding period in 2013 due to decreases in revenues from our Technical Services and Nuclear Energy segments totaling $19.4 million and $129.1 million, respectively. These decreases were partially offset by increased revenues in our Nuclear Operations segment totaling $53.3 million.

Consolidated operating income decreased $281.8 million to $25.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to $306.9 million for the corresponding period in 2013. Operating income includes actuarial gains and losses (“MTM charges”) related to our pension and postretirement plans, which reflected a non-cash gain (loss) of $(141.1) million and $130.6 million in 2014 and 2013, respectively. In addition, operating income for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013 includes special charges for restructuring activities totaling $20.9 million and $21.3 million, respectively. Operating income in our Technical Services and Nuclear Energy segments declined $23.0 million and $31.9 million, respectively. These decreases were partially offset by increased operating income in our Nuclear Operations and Other segment totaling $32.7 million and $12.4 million, respectively.

Nuclear Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2015 vs. 2014

Revenues decreased by 3.4%, or $41.1 million, to $1,179.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to $1,221.0 million in the corresponding period of 2014. This decrease in revenues is primarily attributable to a $46.4 million cumulative effect impact of a contract change order that was recorded during the year ended December 31, 2014. This change order continued to benefit segment revenue during 2015 by $17.3 million. Volumes associated with the manufacturing of nuclear components for U.S. Government businesses were higher in 2015 when compared to 2014.

Operating income decreased $13.1 million to $257.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to $270.5 million in the corresponding period of 2014, primarily attributable to the change order

51

Table of Contents

discussed above that had a $20.6 million favorable impact on operating income in the prior year and continued to benefit 2015 by $9.6 million. Contract improvements in the prior year associated with our naval nuclear fuel and downblending operations resulted in an additional decline in operating income which was partially offset by a $3.0 million benefit from the settlement of a property-related insurance claim during the year ended December 31, 2015.

Year Ended December 31, 2014 vs. 2013

Revenues increased by 4.6%, or $53.3 million, to $1,221.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to $1,167.7 million in the corresponding period of 2013. This increase in revenues is primarily attributable to the $46.4 million cumulative effect impact of a contract change order that increased the value of existing contracts. In addition, increased activity in the manufacturing of nuclear components for U.S. Government programs resulted in increased revenues totaling $11.2 million in 2014 as compared to 2013. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in revenues in our naval nuclear fuel and downblending activities totaling $4.2 million due to lower downblending activities.

Operating income increased $32.7 million to $270.5 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to $237.9 million in the corresponding period of 2013, primarily attributable to $20.6 million impact of the change order discussed above, partially offset by the recognition of the associated costs being recovered, as well as positive performance on our naval nuclear fuel and downblending activities.

Technical Services

Year Ended December 31, 2015 vs. 2014

Revenues totaled $83.8 million and were relatively unchanged when compared to $84.8 million for the prior year. This was primarily attributable to a decrease in specialty manufacturing associated with the termination of our work scope for the American Centrifuge Program that occurred in 2014, which was offset primarily by higher volume at our Naval Reactor decommissioning and decontamination project.

Operating income decreased $17.1 million to $18.1 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to $35.2 million in the corresponding period of 2014. This decrease was primarily attributable to the loss of the Pantex and Y-12 contracts in 2014, which resulted in a decrease in operating income of $21.6 million when compared to the prior year. In addition, the termination of our work scope for the American Centrifuge Program contributed $4.1 million to the decline in operating income. These declines were partially offset by improved fee performance at several of our other sites as well as favorable billing rate adjustments compared to the prior year.

Year Ended December 31, 2014 vs. 2013

Revenues decreased 18.6%, or $19.4 million, to $84.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to $104.3 million for the corresponding period of 2013, primarily attributable to a decrease in specialty manufacturing associated with the termination of our work scope for the American Centrifuge Program that occurred in the second quarter of 2014.

Operating income decreased $23.0 million to $35.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to $58.2 million in the corresponding period of 2013. The loss of fee income on the Pantex and Y-12 contracts contributed $12.5 million of this decrease. We also earned lower fee income due to the contamination and

52

Table of Contents

shutdown incident at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. In addition, selling, general and administrative expenses were $3.3 higher compared to the corresponding period of 2013 primarily due to increased business development activities.

Nuclear Energy

Year Ended December 31, 2015 vs. 2014

Revenues of $155.0 million were relatively unchanged when compared to the prior year. The translation of our Canadian Dollar denominated contracts into U.S. Dollars had a $12.7 million negative impact on revenue when compared to the prior year. The disposal of our Nuclear Projects business in the second quarter of 2014 resulted in a decline in revenue of $7.3 million. These decreases were offset by an increase of $9.7 million attributable to our nuclear services business in Canada as well as increased activity in our nuclear equipment business of $8.7 million which was driven largely by production work on a new steam generator manufacturing project announced in the third quarter of 2015.

Operating income increased $24.9 million to income of $1.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to a loss of $23.2 million in the corresponding period of 2014, primarily attributable to a $16.1 million loss recognition resulting from an adverse jury verdict in a lawsuit involving commercial nuclear contracts that occurred during the year ended December 31, 2014. Nuclear services and equipment operating income increased by $6.8 million due to the increased revenue noted above and lower fixed cost resulting from the margin improvement initiatives that began in 2014. Selling, general and administrative expenses also decreased by $2.2 million compared to the same period in 2014 primarily due to margin improvement initiatives.

Year Ended December 31, 2014 vs. 2013

Revenues decreased 45.5%, or $129.1 million, to $154.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to $283.9 million in the corresponding period of 2013. This decrease is primarily attributable to the exit of our low margin nuclear projects business resulting in a $78.7 million decrease in revenues. In addition, we experienced a decrease in revenues from our nuclear equipment business totaling $42.1 million largely due to the completion of a replacement steam generator contract that was ongoing in the prior year period.

Operating income decreased $31.9 million to a loss of $23.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to income of $8.6 million in the corresponding period of 2013, primarily attributable to the $16.1 million loss recognition resulting from an adverse jury verdict in a lawsuit involving commercial nuclear contracts. We also experienced reduced operating income from our nuclear equipment business related to the decrease in revenues noted above. In addition, during the year ended December 31, 2013, we recognized $7.1 million of warranty improvements associated with favorable warranty experience. This decline in operating income was partially offset by $5.4 million of reduced selling, general and administrative expenses associated with cost savings from GCI and margin improvement initiatives.

Other

53

Table of Contents

Year Ended December 31, 2015 vs. 2014

Operating income increased $55.0 million to a loss of $13.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to a loss of $68.9 million in the corresponding period of 2014, due to the slowing of the pace of development related to our previously announced plans to restructure the mPower program. Research and development activities related to the development of the BWXT mPower^™ reactor decreased $71.2 million, which was partially offset by a $27.8 million decline in reimbursements under a Cooperative Agreement with the DOE under its Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support Program. At this time, the latest extension to the Cooperative Agreement has expired and the DOE funding has been suspended. Selling, general and administrative expenses also decreased $10.7 million compared to the prior year primarily due to the restructuring of our mPower program to focus on technology development.

Year Ended December 31, 2014 vs. 2013

Operating income increased $12.4 million to a loss of $68.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to a loss of $81.3 million in the corresponding period of 2013, due to the slowing of the pace of development related to our announced plans to restructure the mPower program. Research and development activities related to the development of the BWXT mPower^™ reactor decreased by $52.1 million with a related decrease in the recognition of the cost-sharing award from the DOE under our Cooperative Agreement totaling $50.6 million. The year ended December 31, 2013 included the recognition of $9.7 million related to cost reimbursement for the 2012 pre-award period. Selling, general and administrative expenses also decreased $10.5 million.

Unallocated Corporate

Unallocated corporate expenses of $25.7 million were largely unchanged for the year ended December 31, 2015, as compared to the corresponding period in 2014. Unallocated corporate expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015 include certain expenses that were incurred to manage and provide corporate support of a larger consolidated group prior to the spin-off of the Power Generation business. General corporate overhead expenses that are not specifically identifiable with our former Power Generation business are reflected as part of continuing operations for the historical financial statements. We expect unallocated corporate expenses to be approximately $15 to $20 million on an annual basis subsequent to the spin-off.

Unallocated corporate expenses of $26.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2014 were largely unchanged as compared to $25.9 million for the corresponding period in 2013.

Income Related to Litigation Proceeds

In September 2015, we received a $94.8 million payment, inclusive of pre- and post-judgment interest totaling $29.1 million, in connection with a legal judgment. Operating income includes income related to these litigation proceeds of $65.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2015. See Note 10 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report for further information related to this legal judgment.

Special Charges for Restructuring Activities

Special charges for restructuring activities decreased $4.3 million to $16.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2015, as compared to $20.9 million in 2014, due to increased charges associated with our restructuring of our mPower program, offset by decreased charges related to our margin improvement program. All restructuring activities have reached substantial completion, and we do not anticipate significant expenditures related to any of these initiatives.

Special charges for restructuring activities decreased $0.3 million to $20.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2014, as compared to $21.3 million in 2013, due to charges associated with our margin improvement program and restructuring of our mPower program, offset by the absence of restructuring charges related to our GCI initiative as it was completed in 2013.

54

Table of Contents

Cost to Spin-off Power Generation Business

We incurred $26.0 million of costs related to the spin-off of our power generation business in 2015. These charges consisted of $21.4 million in retention and severance-related costs, $2.4 million of facility costs and $2.2 million of professional services and other charges. We do not anticipate any further charges associated with the spin-off. See Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report for further information related to the spin-off.

Mark to Market Adjustment

We immediately recognize actuarial gains (losses) for our pension and postretirement benefit plans into earnings as a component of net periodic benefit cost. The effect of this adjustment on operating income was $(54.7) million in 2015, as compared to $(141.1) million in 2014, which included a $70.9 million loss recognized in 2014 on the adoption of a new mortality assumption and a decline in discount rates. The mark to market loss recorded during the year ended December 31, 2015 was primarily related to the difference between the actual return on plan assets and the expected return.

The effect of the mark to market adjustment on operating income was $(141.1) million in 2014, as compared to $130.6 million in 2013, mainly related to a $70.9 million loss recognized on the adoption of a new mortality assumption and a decline in discount rates, offset by actual return on assets that exceeded expected return, in 2014. The 2013 period experienced an increase in discount rates.

Other Income Statement Items

Other – net decreased by $18.9 million to a loss of $5.0 million in the year ended December 31, 2015, as compared to a gain of $13.9 million for the corresponding period in 2014, primarily due to the receipt and related fair market value adjustment of Centrus shares and notes received on USEC’s emergence from bankruptcy in the year ended December 31, 2014 totaling $14.2 million. We subsequently recognized a $3.9 million loss on our investment in Centrus in the year ended December 31, 2015.

Other – net increased by $32.8 million to a gain of $13.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2014, as compared to a loss of $19.0 million for the corresponding period in 2013, primarily due to the receipt and related fair market value adjustment of Centrus shares and notes received on USEC’s emergence from bankruptcy in the year ended December 31, 2014 totaling $14.2 million. We recognized a $19.1 million loss on our previous investment in Centrus in the year ended December 31, 2013.

Net Loss Attributable to Noncontrolling Interest

Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest decreased $7.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to 2014, primarily attributable to a decline in recognition of our partner’s share of losses incurred in connection with BWXT mPower^™ reactor development efforts as a result of the restructuring of the mPower program.

Net loss attributable to noncontrolling interest decreased $5.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2014 compared to 2013, primarily attributable to a decline in recognition of our partner’s share of losses incurred in connection with BWXT mPower^™ reactor development efforts as a result of the restructuring of the mPower program.

Provision for Income Taxes

55

Table of Contents

We primarily operate in the United States and Canada. Beginning in the second quarter of 2015, we began recognizing our consolidated income tax provision based on the U.S. federal statutory rate of 35% due to the presumed repatriation of our Canadian earnings.

For the year ended December 31, 2015, our provision for income taxes increased $78.7 million to $80.4 million, while income before provision for income taxes increased $188.9 million to $221.1 million. Our effective tax rate was approximately 36.4% for 2015, as compared to 5.3% for 2014. Our effective tax rate for 2015 exceeded our statutory rate primarily due to the change in our tax footprint associated with the spin-off of our former Power Generation business, resulting in revaluations of deferred tax assets and liabilities as well as the need to recognize tax provision on our global earnings at our U.S. federal rate due to the likely repatriation of future foreign earnings. In addition, our effective tax rate is higher due to the increase in the valuation allowance related to fair market value adjustments on our Centrus investment and the loss of certain capital loss carry back opportunities. These amounts were partially offset due to the release of uncertain tax positions and adjustments related to the filing of our 2014 U.S. tax return. See discussion of our 2014 tax rate below.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, our provision for income taxes decreased $99.1 million to $1.7 million, while income before provision for income taxes decreased $253.4 million to $32.1 million. Our effective tax rate was approximately 5.3% for 2014, as compared to 35.3% for 2013. This decrease in our effective tax rate was primarily due to the impact of an increase in benefits from amended federal manufacturing deductions and the receipt of a favorable ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that retroactively reduced the U.S. tax owed on income from certain of our foreign joint ventures. In addition, our effective tax rate was lower due to the $14.2 million gain and fair market value adjustment related to our Centrus investment for which the related tax provision was offset by the reversal of a previously established valuation allowance related to prior impairments of the USEC investment. The significant decrease in income before provision for income taxes attributable to our mark to market pension adjustments also had an effect to the reduction of our effective tax rate in 2014 as compared to 2013.

See Note 5 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report for further information on income taxes.

EFFECTS OF INFLATION AND CHANGING PRICES

Our financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, using historical U.S. dollar accounting (“historical cost”). Statements based on historical cost, however, do not adequately reflect the cumulative effect of increasing costs and changes in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar, especially during times of significant and continued inflation.

In order to minimize the negative impact of inflation on our operations, we attempt to cover the increased cost of anticipated changes in labor, material and service costs, either through an estimate of those changes, which we reflect in the original price, or through price escalation clauses in our contracts. However, there can be no assurance we will be able to cover all changes in cost using this strategy.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

Our overall liquidity position, which we generally define as our unrestricted cash and investments plus amounts available for borrowings under our credit facility, remained strong in 2015. Our liquidity position at December 31, 2015 decreased by approximately $482.1 million to $482.1 million from $964.2 million at December 31, 2014, mainly due to the refinancing of our credit facility and related factors discussed below that decreased our aggregate borrowing capacity by $600.0 million, partially offset by the changes in our cash flows from operating, investing and financing activities. We experienced net cash generated from operations in each of the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013. Typically, the fourth quarter has been the period of highest cash flows from operating activities because of the timing of payments received from the U.S. Government on accounts receivable retainages and cash dividends received from our joint ventures.

56

Table of Contents

Credit Facility

On May 11, 2015, we entered into a credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with a syndicate of lenders and letter of credit issuers, and Bank of America, N.A., as administrative agent. The Credit Agreement provides for a five-year, senior secured revolving credit facility in an aggregate amount of up to $400 million, the full amount of which is available for the issuance of letters of credit, and a senior secured term loan facility of $300 million which was drawn upon closing on June 30, 2015. Obligations under the Credit Agreement are scheduled to mature on the fifth anniversary of its closing date. The proceeds of loans under the Credit Agreement were used to repay all indebtedness under our former secured credit facility, and remaining amounts are available for working capital needs and other general corporate purposes.

The Credit Agreement includes provisions for additional financial institutions to become lenders, or for any existing lender to increase its commitment thereunder, subject to an aggregate maximum of $250 million for all incremental term loan, revolving credit borrowings and letter of credit commitments.

The Credit Agreement is (i) guaranteed by substantially all of our wholly owned domestic subsidiaries, excluding our captive insurance subsidiary, and (ii) secured by first-priority liens on certain assets owned by us and our guarantors (other than the our subsidiaries comprising our Nuclear Operations and Technical Services segments).

The Credit Agreement requires interest payments on revolving loans on a periodic basis until maturity. We are also required to make quarterly amortization payments on the term loan portion of the Credit Agreement in an amount equal to 1.25% of the aggregate principal amount of the term loan facility that is utilized beginning in the first quarter of 2016. We may prepay all loans under the Credit Agreement at any time without premium or penalty (other than customary LIBOR breakage costs), subject to notice requirements.

The Credit Agreement includes financial covenants that are tested on a quarterly basis, based on the rolling four-quarter period that ends on the last day of each fiscal quarter. The maximum permitted leverage ratio is 3.00 to 1.00, which ratio may be increased to 3.25 to 1.00 for up to four consecutive fiscal quarters after a material acquisition. The minimum consolidated interest coverage ratio is 4.00 to 1.00. In addition, the Credit Agreement contains various restrictive covenants, including with respect to debt, liens, investments, mergers, acquisitions, dividends, equity repurchases and asset sales. At December 31, 2015 we were in compliance with all covenants set forth in the Credit Agreement.

Loans outstanding under the Credit Agreement bear interest at our option at either the LIBOR rate plus a margin ranging from 1.25% to 1.75% per year or the base rate (the highest of the Federal Funds rate plus 0.50%, the one month LIBOR rate plus 1.0%, or the administrative agent’s prime rate) plus a margin ranging from 0.25% to 0.75% per year. Starting on the closing date of the Credit Agreement, we are charged a commitment fee on the unused portions of the revolving credit facility and term loan facility, and that fee varies between 0.150% and 0.250% per year. Additionally, we are charged a letter of credit fee of between 1.25% and 1.75% per year with respect to the amount of each financial letter of credit issued under the Credit Agreement and a letter of credit fee of between 0.75% and 1.05% per year is charged with respect to the amount of each performance letter of credit issued under the Credit Agreement. The applicable margin for loans, the commitment fee and the letter of credit fees set forth above will vary quarterly based on our leverage ratio. Upon the closing of the Credit Agreement, we paid certain upfront fees to the lenders thereunder, and paid arrangement and other fees to the arrangers and agents of the Credit Agreement. At December 31, 2015, borrowings outstanding totaled $300.0 million and $0.0 million under our term loan and revolving line of credit, respectively, and letters of credit issued under the Credit Agreement totaled $82.2 million. As a result, we had $317.8 million available for borrowings or to meet letter of credit requirements as of December 31, 2015, excluding the additional $250 million available to us for term loan, revolving credit borrowings and letter of credit commitments.

Based on the current credit ratings of the Credit Agreement, the applicable margin for Eurocurrency rate loans is 1.25%, the applicable margin for base rate loans is 0.25%, the letter of credit fee for financial letters of

57

Table of Contents

credit is 1.25%, the letter of credit fee for performance letters of credit is 0.75%, and the commitment fee for unused portions of the Credit Agreement is 0.15%. The Credit Agreement does not have a floor for the base rate or the Eurocurrency rate. As of December 31, 2015, the interest rate on borrowings under our Credit Agreement was 1.67%.

The Credit Agreement generally includes customary events of default for a secured credit facility, some of which allow for an opportunity to cure. If an event of default relating to bankruptcy or other insolvency events occurs under the Credit Agreement, all obligations under the Credit Agreement will immediately become due and payable. If any other event of default exists under the Credit Agreement, the lenders will be permitted to accelerate the maturity of the obligations outstanding under the Credit Agreement. If any event of default occurs under the Credit Agreement, the lenders will be permitted to terminate their commitments thereunder and exercise other rights and remedies, including the commencement of foreclosure or other actions against the collateral.

If any default occurs under the Credit Agreement, or if we are unable to make any of the representations and warranties in the Credit Agreement, we will be unable to borrow funds or have letters of credit issued under the Credit Agreement.

Other Arrangements

We have posted surety bonds to support contractual obligations to customers relating to certain projects and legal matters. We utilize bonding facilities to support such obligations, but the issuance of bonds under those facilities is typically at the surety’s discretion. Although there can be no assurance that we will maintain our surety bonding capacity, we believe our current capacity is adequate to support our existing project requirements for the next twelve months. In addition, these bonds generally indemnify customers should we fail to perform our obligations under the applicable contracts. We, and certain of our subsidiaries, have jointly executed general agreements of indemnity in favor of surety underwriters relating to surety bonds those underwriters issue in support of some of our contracting activity. As of December 31, 2015, bonds issued and outstanding under these arrangements in support of contracts totaled approximately $19.3 million.

OTHER

Cash, Cash Equivalents, Restricted Cash and Investments

In the aggregate, our cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and cash equivalents and investments decreased by approximately $7.2 million to $182.4 million at December 31, 2015 from $189.6 million at December 31, 2014, primarily due to the items discussed below. Our domestic and foreign cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and cash equivalents and investments as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 were as follows:

Our working capital decreased by $55.3 million to $293.5 million at December 31, 2015 from $348.8 million at December 31, 2014, attributable primarily to changes in net contracts in progress and advance billings due to the timing of project cash flows.

58

Table of Contents

Our net cash provided by operating activities was $330.2 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to $74.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2014. This increase was largely attributable to improved project cash flows and working capital in relation to the prior year. In addition, we received a $94.8 million payment in connection with the ANI legal judgment during 2015.

Our net cash used in investing activities decreased by $127.9 million to $71.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2015 from cash used in investing activities of $199.8 million in the year ended December 31, 2014. The higher cash used in investing activities in 2014 was primarily attributable to the prior year acquisition of MEGTEC associated with our former Power Generation business.

Our net cash used in financing activities was $409.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2015, compared to cash provided by financing activities of $104.6 million in the year ended December 31, 2014. This increase in net cash used in financing activities was primarily attributable to cash divested in connection with the spin-off of our former Power Generation business. In addition, we borrowed less from our credit facility and repurchased fewer common shares during the 2015 period as compared to the prior year period.

At December 31, 2015, we had restricted cash and cash equivalents totaling $18.1 million, $2.7 million of which was held for future decommissioning of facilities (which we include in other assets on our consolidated balance sheets), and $15.4 million of which was held to meet reinsurance reserve requirements of our captive insurer.

At December 31, 2015, we had short-term and long-term investments with a fair value of $9.5 million. Our investment portfolio consists primarily of investments in corporate bonds, equities and highly liquid money market instruments. Our investments are carried at fair value and are either classified as trading, with unrealized gains and losses reported in earnings, or as available-for-sale, with unrealized gains and losses, net of tax, being reported as a component of other comprehensive income. Based on our analysis of these available-for-sale investments, we recorded an impairment charge related to the Centrus common stock of $2.1 million and $4.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Based on our liquidity position, we believe we have sufficient cash and letter of credit and borrowing capacity to fund our operating requirements for at least the next twelve months.

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

Our cash requirements as of December 31, 2015 under current contractual obligations were as follows:

We expect cash requirements totaling approximately $11.1 million for contributions to our pension plans in 2016. In addition, we anticipate cash requirements totaling approximately $3.1 million for contributions to our other postretirement benefit plans in 2016.

Our contingent commitments under letters of credit, bank guarantees and surety bonds currently outstanding expire as follows:

59

Table of Contents

Our exposure to market risk from changes in interest rates relates primarily to our cash equivalents and our investment portfolio, which primarily consists of investments in highly liquid money market instruments denominated in U.S. dollars. Additionally, we hold corporate bonds, equities, mutual funds and commercial paper. We are averse to principal loss and seek to ensure the safety and preservation of our invested funds by limiting default risk, market risk and reinvestment risk. Our investments are primarily classified as available-for-sale.

We have exposure to changes in interest rates on the Credit Agreement (see Item 7 – “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Liquidity and Capital Resources”). At December 31, 2015, we had $300 million in outstanding borrowings under this facility, which has a capacity of $700 million. We have no material future earnings or cash flow exposures from changes in interest rates on our other long-term debt obligations.

We have operations in foreign locations, and, as a result, our financial results could be significantly affected by factors such as changes in foreign currency exchange (“FX”) rates or weak economic conditions in those foreign markets. In order to manage the risks associated with FX rate fluctuations, we attempt to hedge those risks with FX derivative instruments. Historically, we have hedged those risks with FX forward contracts. We do not enter into speculative derivative positions.

Interest Rate Sensitivity

The following tables provide information about our financial instruments that are sensitive to changes in interest rates. The tables present principal cash flows and related weighted-average interest rates by expected maturity dates.

60

Table of Contents

Exchange Rate Sensitivity

The following table provides information about our FX forward contracts outstanding at December 31, 2015 and presents such information in U.S. dollar equivalents. The table presents notional amounts and related weighted-average FX rates by expected (contractual) maturity dates and constitutes a forward-looking statement. These notional amounts generally are used to calculate the contractual payments to be exchanged under the contract. The average contractual FX rates are expressed using market convention, which is dependent on the currencies being bought and sold under the forward contract.

61

Table of Contents

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of BWX Technologies, Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of BWX Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (formerly known as The Babcock & Wilcox Company) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of BWX Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries (formerly known as The Babcock & Wilcox Company) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on the criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated February 24, 2016 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina

February 24, 2016

62

Table of Contents

BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

63

Table of Contents

BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements.

64

Table of Contents

BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME