SBA has KO support, long take a deep breath!
at least in later revisions. I personally stick to algebraic approximaton indexes. KO can be converted into an equivalent balanced count by subtracting 1/13 from each of its card values (I am stuborn about the old term), using this adjusted balanced count to find the surrender indexes, and then determining your average penetration (ie half the penetration in the game conditions you are aiming for, and then using this to estimate the running count for this balanced equivalent count at that point, and then adding back 4 points, for each deck up to that point, if it is necessary to use some program or method (algebraic approximation etc.) that requires a balanced count (style deliberate to emphacise just how intricate an unbalanced count can be: the price you pay for that initial no need to TC).
You are on your own at that point, knowing a KO running count index for a certain penetration, to convert it to your particular IRC and pivot count equivalents.
I used the Uston+/- as that counts the 7 and is the main count I use, but similar advice would come from hi-lo or KO, or TKO (true counted KO) users. You can find algebraic approximaton effects of removal for surrender on bjmath.com I recomend the original algebraic apprximation paper by Arnold Snyder (I hope rge still sells it) over the method outlined at bjmath.com, as Snyder's is much clearer. You can also use 6,7,8 Blackjack or Casino Verite for this. I would still recomend a look through the Snyder paper and the EORs, on bjmath.com and in Theory of Blackjack for the insight into indexes you will get from them. I also have a post on the beginer's board here (set the search date as far back as you can) on using Snyder's original method for multiparameter indexes, rather than the method given in TOB (an averaging method is used that may not be accurate for some counts and side counts) or on bjmath.com. Such side count methods are not needed but handy to know (just in case some new rule like Lucky Ladys comes up requiring a side count), and you might check with Igor for some review comments on my method by emailing him.
That said you should also not limit yourself to just one penetration point for your indexes either. Surrender is not as linear as other decisions. In the above I explained how you convert a true count index for an equivalent balanced count, into an unbalanced index for an average penetration. But the surrender index itself is not linear in the sense that true count indexes +1 TC point higher, and -1 TC point lower, are likely not going to have the same ev difference from the actual TC. Your simulator may find then some exceptions from usual assumptions where an unbalanced index may be better than a balanced one in general. So if at all possible try to get your simulator to work with the unbalanced index directly and compare.
I know that is a complex procedure, but by comparing the direct unbalanced count inputed index directly, with the index found the long way around, above, you can also setup your surrender indexes to need the least amount of pivot and IRC adjustment for different penetrations. Where the final index is little different, long or direct method, you have an index where an unbalanced count is slightly superior, and needs less pivot and IRC adjustment, where the imbalance of the unbalanced count, matches the imbalance, or non-linearity of the decision itself.
Simpler can be better--even though I am not an umbalanced count fan--but getting to that simpler situation can be a bumpy ride.