From Over-Billed Principals to Operational Clarity

The Challenge: Taylor leads a 32-person engineering firm billing $10M gross, $8M of which was net service revenue. She is one of four principals holding equity, and none of them has a buy-sell in place. Despite strong demand, they were billing roughly 92% of their time, margins varied widely by discipline, WIP visibility was limited, and growth depended on a handful of senior engineers who could not be replaced.
‍

What We Did:

• Set utilization targets and pricing discipline by role, so principal time stopped being sold at project-engineer economics.
• Rebuilt WIP and backlog reporting, cutting the month-end close by nearly a week.
• Backfilled principal production capacity by hiring three project engineers and redeploying two senior staff off principal-shadow work, taking headcount from 32 to 35, then shifted principal focus to mentoring, QA, and strategic client work.
• Began building a leadership bench across disciplines, with named successors at the discipline-lead level and development plans behind them.
  ‍

Engagement:  18-month advisory

Value Builder Score™:  49 before → 61 after  ·  Owner hours 63 → 54
‍

Results

• Margin Improvement:

Discipline-level gross margins on net service revenue increased 5 points through utilization alignment and scope control.

• Operational Visibility:

Month-end close went from 21 days to 16, giving leadership real forecasting instead of hindsight.

• Reduced Key-Person Risk:

Principal billable time went from 92% to 64%. The roughly ninety hours a week of production that came off the principals’ desks was backfilled by three hires and two redeployments, not lost.

What It Was Worth

This is what buying transferability instead of profit looks like. The five points of margin were largely consumed by the backfill, so EBITDA held steady, and nothing here shows up as a better year. What changed is what the year is worth. A firm where principals bill 92% of their time is priced as a job, not an asset; moving the Value Builder Score™ from 49 to 61 took this firm off the bottom of the 3.5–5x band and past the average business,  a twelve-point move with flat profit, because it came from the transferability and key-person drivers, not the financial ones, which score profitability and held flat once the backfill was paid for. That points it toward the 6–7.5x band engineering firms reach once leadership is fully transferable, a band it has not arrived in yet, and on $8M of net service revenue the gap is measured in millions. Taylor traded a better income statement for a better balance sheet, and she did it deliberately.

_{“A firm can look profitable and still be worth very little, because the profit is the owners’ unpaid labor. Once you normalize principal compensation to market, what’s left is the number a buyer actually underwrites, and closing that gap is the work.” — Stephane, CPA}

‍

What didn’t go smoothly:  The utilization targets were resisted hardest by the principals who set them, and one discipline lead never accepted them; he left in the second year, taking two client relationships with him, billings the existing backlog absorbed within two quarters. Two quarters also passed before anyone trusted the reporting.  
_{Figures reflect the underlying engagements’ own reporting, measured against the twelve months prior to engagement.
‍}

Still open:  The leadership bench is real in two disciplines and thin in the third. As of engagement close, she had no named successor, and a buyer would still price that gap.