Why Does a Simple Leidos DBA Claim Turn Into a Corporate Archaeology Project?
Your client was injured overseas in 2012 while working for "SAIC" on a Department of Defense intelligence contract. You need to identify the DBA carrier. The problem: the company your client worked for in 2012 no longer exists under that name. In September 2013, the old SAIC split into two separate publicly traded companies. The legacy entity renamed itself Leidos. A brand-new company took the SAIC name. Both continued doing federal work overseas. Both generated DBA claims.
That single corporate event turned every pre-2013 "SAIC" record into an ambiguous data point. ClaimTrove data shows at least 7 distinct name variations for Leidos entities across federal contract records, and the DOL case summary database lists both "Science Applications International" and "Leidos" as separate employer entries. The cumulative DBA case count across all Leidos and SAIC name variations exceeds 860 filings from 2001 through 2024.
For practitioners handling a DBA claim against Leidos or its predecessors, the carrier identification challenge is not just finding one name in one database. You are navigating a corporate lineage that split in two, absorbed a Lockheed Martin division, and generated claims under different names in different fiscal years.
What Happened When SAIC Split Into Two Companies?
Science Applications International Corporation was founded in 1969 by J. Robert Beyster. By the 2000s, it had grown into one of the largest federal IT and defense technology contractors in the country, with major contracts across the Department of Defense, intelligence community, and civilian agencies. SAIC workers deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, and dozens of other overseas locations under DBA-covered contracts.
In September 2013, SAIC executed a corporate reorganization that created two independent companies. The legacy entity, which retained most of the national security and engineering portfolio, renamed itself Leidos Holdings, Inc. A new company spun off with the SAIC name and took the government IT services business. Each company traded separately on the NYSE. Each maintained its own insurance arrangements.
The practical impact on DBA claims was immediate. DOL case summary records show "Science Applications International" generating 88 employer-sorted cases in FY2013 alone. By FY2014, the DOL began tracking "Leidos" as a separate employer entity. But the transition was not clean. Some records from the split year appear under the old name. Others reference hybrid designations like "SAIC/Leidos Holdings Inc." that appear in alias resolution databases.
For any injury that occurred before October 2013, you cannot assume the "SAIC" on your client's paperwork maps to either today's SAIC or today's Leidos without checking which business unit employed the claimant. The two companies divided their contract portfolios, and the carrier covering each portfolio may have been different.
How Did the Lockheed Martin Acquisition Change the Picture?
In August 2016, Leidos completed its acquisition of Lockheed Martin's Information Systems and Global Solutions (IS&GS) division. This was a $4.6 billion transaction that roughly doubled Leidos's revenue and added thousands of employees, many of them working overseas on defense and intelligence contracts.
The IS&GS acquisition introduced a new layer of complexity for DBA carrier identification. Workers who were employed by Lockheed Martin IS&GS before August 2016 were covered under Lockheed Martin's DBA insurance arrangements. After the acquisition closed, those same workers became Leidos employees. Their DBA coverage shifted to whatever carrier arrangement Leidos maintained at that time.
This matters because Lockheed Martin is a self-insured entity for many of its workers' compensation obligations. Whether that self-insurance extended to DBA coverage for the IS&GS division before the Leidos acquisition is a question that requires contract-level investigation. The broader pattern of defense contractor consolidation creating carrier identification gaps applies directly here.
ClaimTrove's federal contract data shows Leidos entities holding 328 contract awards in the USAspending database, with overseas performance across 47 countries. The top overseas locations by contract count include Germany (53 awards), Japan (40), South Korea (37), Portugal (25), and Afghanistan (17). Total overseas contract obligations exceed $4.4 billion. Each of these locations represents a potential DBA claim jurisdiction, and each may involve different carrier arrangements depending on the contract vehicle and time period.
How Many Name Variations Does Leidos Have in Federal Records?
Federal databases do not use a single canonical name for Leidos. ClaimTrove's analysis of USAspending contract awards identifies seven distinct recipient name entries: Leidos, Inc. (270 awards), Leidos Engineering, LLC (33), Leidos Inc (14), Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. (7), Leidos Integrated Technology, LLC (2), Leidos Engineering LLC (1), and Leidos Government Services Inc (1).
The DOL case summary database adds more variations. Cumulative employer entries include "Science Applications International" (403 cases), "Leidos" (240 cases), "SAIC" (116 cases), "Leidos, Inc." (73 cases), "Science Applications International(SAIC)" (17 cases), "Leidos Holdings Inc." (14 cases), and "Leidos Inc." (12 cases). Even a misspelled entry, "SAIc," appears with 11 cases in FY2013.
This fragmentation is not cosmetic. Each name variation may appear in different source databases. A search for "Leidos" in one system will miss records filed under "Science Applications International." A search for "SAIC" will return results for both today's SAIC and the pre-split entity that became Leidos. Without systematic alias resolution, you will miss relevant records every time.
ClaimTrove's employer alias database maps both "Science Applications International Corporation" and "Leidos" to a canonical SAIC entry, but the real-world relationship is more nuanced. Post-2013 SAIC and post-2013 Leidos are genuinely separate companies with separate carrier arrangements. Any alias resolution system needs to account for the temporal dimension: the same name means different things depending on whether the injury occurred before or after September 2013.
What Makes Leidos DBA Claims Different From Other Large Contractors?
Most large defense contractors generate DBA claims under a single corporate identity with predictable carrier relationships. KBR claims involve KBR and its Halliburton predecessor. DynCorp claims trace through Amentum. Leidos is unusual because the 2013 split created two active companies that both continue generating DBA claims, and both inherit a shared pre-split claims history.
DOL case summary data illustrates the divergence. In FY2015, Leidos generated 14 employer-sorted cases while "Science Applications International" still appeared as a separate entry. By FY2022, Leidos had climbed to 32 cases per year while SAIC (the new entity) held steady at 10. In FY2024, Leidos generated 42 cases compared to SAIC's 12. The trajectory shows Leidos absorbing the larger share of DBA-generating overseas work, consistent with its acquisition of the Lockheed Martin IS&GS division.
The carrier identification challenge also differs because Leidos operates across an unusually broad range of contract types. Unlike a logistics contractor concentrated in one theater, Leidos performs IT infrastructure management, intelligence analysis, engineering services, and scientific research across 47 countries. Different contract vehicles may carry different DBA insurance requirements, and carriers can shift between contract periods without any change in the employer's name.
For practitioners accustomed to looking up a single employer name and finding a single carrier, Leidos represents a different category of problem. You need the employer name, the injury date, the contract vehicle, and ideally the business unit to narrow down the correct carrier. Missing any of these variables increases the risk of filing against the wrong insurer.
How Should You Approach a Leidos DBA Carrier Investigation?
Start by pinning down the injury date relative to three critical transitions. First, was the injury before or after September 2013? If before, you are dealing with the pre-split SAIC, and you need to determine which business unit (national security vs. IT services) employed your client. Second, was the injury before or after August 2016? If after, your client may have been a former Lockheed Martin IS&GS employee who transitioned to Leidos. Third, what contract vehicle was involved? Agency-specific contracts, particularly those with the State Department, USAID, or USACE, may have had mandatory carrier requirements that override the employer's standard DBA policy.
Next, collect every name variation your client or their records reference. "SAIC," "Science Applications International," "Leidos," "Leidos Holdings," and "Leidos, Inc." all appear in federal databases as separate entries. Your investigation needs to search across all of them. The challenges that L3Harris presents with its merger history offer a useful parallel for how corporate transitions fragment carrier records.
ClaimTrove automates this process by resolving employer aliases, cross-referencing FOIA database results, and mapping carrier relationships across the pre-split and post-split timeline. A single search for "Leidos" or "SAIC" triggers the full alias chain, pulling records from DOL case summaries, federal contract awards, and carrier mapping databases simultaneously.
Search ClaimTrove for Leidos, SAIC, or any predecessor to identify the correct carrier for your client's injury date. The platform resolves the corporate split automatically and shows you which carrier covered which entity in which time period, so you can file against the right insurer the first time.