Christopher E. Kubasik
Chair and Chief Executive Officer at L3Harris Technologies
Yeah. Thanks, Rich. I mean we always set our internal goals and aspirations to be more than 1.01 on book-to-bill. It's kind of hard to grow if you're not booking more orders than the revenue you're recognizing. I think the 1.3 was -- is absolutely a great way to start the year. When we talked last time, this is the impact of a continuing resolution, right? And until the CR gets broken loose, which it did, we'll start to see the money flow. And as I've said before, the only one who dislikes the CR more than industry is the Department of Defense.
So, I think we're off to a really good start. The President's budget request of $842 billion is 3% growth, as you know, Rich. And when you peel it back, 4% on the investment accounts. You couple that with what we've been able to do internationally the last several years, the interest in TECOM, the space international, you would clearly expect that we'll be over 1.0 for book-to-bill for the year. And aspirationally, I'd like to be at least at 1.05 and maybe even 1.1, but it's somewhat lumpy, right, as you know, and it depends on -- we only talk and record the funded backlog. So, that always has a little bit of a difference maybe relative to other companies.
But we're feeling really, really good, and I think the key message here is this just confirms that our strategy is working, and the customers appreciate and recognize what we're trying to do. Sometimes, we have more innovative solutions. The focus is on speed, and schedule, and cost, so we kind of mix those in, and we've been pretty aggressive in pursuing different markets and different technologies.
I will also say that Michelle, and I, and the team spend a lot of time focused on risk management, and we had two opportunities in the quarter that were pretty exciting to us, but when the final RFP came out, there were fixed price development with fixed priced options, and we chose not to bid those for obvious reasons. It's very hard to commit to a fixed price development program when you don't know the spec. I think we all look back at all the write-offs, and losses and, more times than not, they're tied to that. So, we will not be playing that game. I've elevated it to, what I think is the highest levels within the Pentagon and the RFPs come out, we're not going to bid. And I would think, over time, others aren't going to bid, and ultimately, we'll go back to the appropriate contracting vehicle for the appropriate opportunity. So, kind of a roundabout answer there, Rich, but I wanted to cover a few of those points.
I guess, I'll just maybe throw in the pending acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne. I mean by all accounts, and it's not always easy to look and compare apples-to-apples, but the munitions line in '24 appears to be at least 20% higher than '23. So, I think we all know the need, and the desire for these munitions for not only current threats, but future threats, in addition to refilling the stockpile. So, I think the acquisition in December made a heck of a lot of sense, and I think when you look at the budget, it makes even more sense. So, I'll just leave it at that.