The idea of a construction conglomerate is a mistake. Aecon went down the same path and struggled as well. Only $33m of inter-company revenue was exchanged between the various Churchill subsidiaries or less than 4% of total revenue so Churchill is made up of a bunch of disparate companies that don't or can't work together.

The original concept of building a conglomerate was to take advantage of the supposed synergies between the companies when bidding or designing a project. In theory, the group could work together to offer a better and cheaper solution. This does not work for a variety of reasons.

Churchill has proven that it cannot manage a disparate group of companies. To recover shareholder value, they need to sell off the subsidiary units and concentrate on general contracting. In the process, they would be able to get rid of that bloated corporate office that cost $8.4m for the nine months to Sept 30, excluding depreciation and financing costs. Where is the accountability?