ENR 2008 Top CM - Fee and Risk and PM

Top 100 Design-Build / Construction Management Firm 2008 June 9, 2008 This annual issue ranks the nation's 100 largest design-build firms, the 100 largest construction management firms based, and the 40 top program management firms (2008 rankings by 2007 revenue). Companies are ranked in $ millions based on 2006 revenue from contracts where the project is designed by employees of the firm or joint venture partner and built by its own force or subcontractors under its supervision. The list shows the headquarters city and domestic, international and total revenue for each firm. This issue also ranks the Top 20 firms in combined industry revenue (contracting, design, CM/PM-for-fee). In addition, you get insights from the top executives of these firms providing alternate project delivery services about the markets and issues affecting the markets, the issue, the trends and the industry as it pertains to alternate project delivery. Primary Content Stories: • The Top 100 Overview: Is There A Revolution on the Doorstep? • Owners’ Push for Efficiency and Speed Gives Firms Access to New Markets • Agency CM/PM is Booming as Owners Continue to Outsource Management • Firms Continue to Enjoy Success Even While Watching for a Downturn Data Tables: • The Top 100 Design-Build Firms • The Top 100 Construction Management-for Fee Firms • The Top 100 Construction Management at-Risk Firms • The Top 40 Program Management Firms • The Top 20 Firms in Combined Industry Revenue • The Top 20 Firms in Combined Design and CM/Professional Service Bar Charts: • Bar Chart: Design-Build Revenue Growth Accelerates • Bar Chart: Huge Surge In CM/PM-For-Fee Revenue • Bar Chart: Everyone Benefits From Boom In Agency CM/PM • Bar Chart: Cm-At-Risk Revenue Explodes

EENNRR • ISSUE: June 9, 2008/ PAGE: 34 / Version: #2Day, Month 00, 2003 0:00:00 PM 5 25 50 75 95LEFT HAND PAGE

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

34 m ENR m June 9, 2008 enr.com

Top 100 OverviewÄ

PHO

TO B

Y G

UY L

AWRE

NCE

FO

R EN

R

overseas because U.S. program managersare seen as the can-do people around theworld,” says Bruce D’Agostino, CEO ofthe Construction Management Associa-tion of America, McLean, Va. CMAAcurrently is working with the CharteredInstitute of Buildings in the U.K. to shareinformation on international CM/PMstandards.

Many firms are benefiting from thisinternational interest. “We are openingup offices in Dubai and Abu Dhabi,” saysMansour Aliabadi, CEO of Vanir Con-struction Management. And Rise Inter-national has turned its interest toward theinternational market. “We have been ac-

delivery. Clients now expect the entireproject or their entire program to bemanaged, allowing for efficiencies to berealized across the traditional lines thatthat marked the phases of a project.

The depth and impact of Americanmanagement skills can be seen from aninternational perspective. “American firmsare seeing more and more opportunities

TThe U.S. construction industry has some of the bestmanagers in the world. They must manage the cre-ative process, owner demands, tight budgets, toughschedules, changing materials prices and site condi-tions, myriad subcontractors and suppliers, and even

the weather, often on razor thin margins.Unlike much of American industry, everyconstruction project is unique and thefaces, personalities, and managementstyles of partners in the process changefrom job to job.

This wealth of management talent hasled inevitably to the mainstreaming ofwhat has been called alternate project

Is There a Revolution on the Doorstep?

By Gary J. Tulacz

THE TOP

100DESIGN-BUILDERSCONSTRUCTION MANAGERSPROGRAM MANAGERS

ENR_06_09_2008_p34_v2.qxd 6/2/08 3:56 PM Page 34

3864416465

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACKRIGHT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95

EENNRR • ISSUE: June 9, 2008/ PAGE: 35 / Version: #2Day, Month 00, 2003 0:00:00 PM

enr.com June 9, 2008 m ENR m 35

tive in the U.K. but now are seeing inter-est from the Middle East,” says LeifSelkregg, CEO. “There’s an intensity indevelopment there that requires a pro-gram manager to coordinate.”

One firm that has really taken offoverseas is Hill International. “We werelucky in that we got into the internation-al market early,” says David Richter, CEO.He says that the Middle East and NorthAfrica now account for 38% of the firm’sbusiness. “We see some competition inthe international market from some ofthe British quantity surveyors that gotinto PM, but U.S. firms are looked on asthe elite.”

IP…What?While design-build, CM on an at-riskand for-fee basis and PM have becomemainstream, there is a new concept inproject delivery that is creating a buzz inthe industry: integrated project delivery.With the advent of tools such as buildinginformation modeling, owner demandsfor faster, more efficient projects and agrowing shortage of professionals in theindustry, more firms and owners arelooking toward a more integrated ap-proach to project delivery.

But the problem is that there is a fun-damental confusion as to the nature ofIPD. For many in the industry, theapproach is old hat. “In 1993, we had aposter that read: ‘The world is turning tointegrated design and construction’,” saysWalker Lee Evey, CEO of the Design-Build Institute of America, Washington,D.C. “We have been practicing that foryears, but we just didn’t put a name onthe process,” says Paul Tyler, president ofthe commercial group at he Haskell Co.“Doing as many tasks as possible in thebuilding process in-house increases thelevel of collaboration and provides a moreefficient outcome.”

For many in the industry, the biggestproblem with IPD is defining it. “Thereare two schools of thought on what IPDis,” says Michael Kenig, vice chairman ofHolder Construction Co. and chair ofthe project delivery committee for Asso-ciated General Contractors, Arlington,

Va. “For many, IPD is a collaborativeapproach to a project, like with CM-at-Risk. When you add the technology ofBIM, you take that concept to a higherlevel.”

But Kenig says that, for many in theindustry, IPD implies a contractual rela-tionship where the owner, designer, andcontractor all work under a commoncontract. He notes the work of Will

The Top 40 Program-Management Firms

1 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo. 1,067.6 381.7 1,449.4

2 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP., Los Angeles, Calif. 818.0 0.0 818.0

3 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif. 778.0 17.0 795.0

4 URS CORP., San Francisco, Calif. 692.5 9.2 701.7

5 CB RICHARD ELLIS, El Segundo, Calif. 222.7 123.3 346.0

6 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC., New York, N.Y. 191.4 103.8 295.2

7 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif. 200.3 78.5 278.9

8 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif. 120.2 96.3 216.5

9 HILL INTERNATIONAL INC., Marlton, N.J. 75.0 92.0 167.0

10 BOVIS LEND LEASE, New York, N.Y. 21.0 111.2 132.2

11 HEERY INTERNATIONAL INC., Atlanta, Ga. 109.4 1.7 111.1

12 KBR, Houston, Texas 80.0 0.0 80.0

13 TETRA TECH INC., Pasadena, Calif. 75.0 0.0 75.0

14 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan. 43.0 19.5 62.5

15 HDR, Omaha, Neb. 52.3 0.0 52.3

16 ROBINS & MORTON, Birmingham, Ala. 45.0 0.0 45.0

17 FAITHFUL+GOULD, New York, N.Y. 41.6 0.0 41.6

18 GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I. 37.6 0.0 37.6

19 VERSAR INC., Springfield, Va. 0.0 37.5 37.5

20 THE BECK GROUP, Dallas, Texas 36.7 0.0 36.7

21 BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION, Dallas, Texas 35.7 0.0 35.7

22 PBS&J, Tampa, Fla. 35.2 0.0 35.2

23 FOSTER WHEELER LTD., Clinton, N.J. 7.0 27.0 34.0

24 ARCADIS US, Highlands Ranch, Colo. 32.7 0.0 32.7

25 THE FACILITY GROUP, Smyrna, Ga. 29.6 2.1 31.7

26 ON-BOARD ENGINEERING CORP., East Windsor, N.J. 29.1 0.0 29.1

27 JONES LANG LASALLE, Chicago, Ill. 27.7 0.0 27.7

28 WORLEYPARSONS CORP., Houston, Texas 1.8 24.5 26.3

29 ALPHA CORP., Dulles, Va. 23.1 0.5 23.7

30 EARTH TECH INC., Long Beach, Calif. 23.2 0.0 23.2

31 RISE INTERNATIONAL LLC, Chicago, Ill. 20.7 1.4 22.1

32 CDM, Cambridge, Mass. 22.0 0.0 22.0

33 R.W. BECK GROUP INC., Seattle, Wash. 20.5 0.0 20.5

34 MCDONOUGH BOLYARD PECK INC., Fairfax, Va. 18.8 0.9 19.7

35 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOC., Niagara Falls, N.Y. 11.0 6.0 17.0

36 LPCIMINELLI INC., Buffalo, N.Y. 16.4 0.0 16.4

37 U.S. COST, Atlanta, Ga. 15.2 1.1 16.3

38 BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES, Austin, Texas 16.0 0.0 16.0

39 KITCHELL CORP., Phoenix, Ariz. 16.0 0.0 16.0

40 PMA CONSULTANTS LLC, Detroit, Mich. 15.5 0.0 15.5

2007 REVENUE IN $ MIL.RANK FIRM DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL TOTAL

DESIGN-BUILDERSCONSTRUCTION MANAGERSPROGRAM MANAGERS

ENR_06_09_2008_p34_v2.qxd 6/2/08 3:56 PM 5

3864539915




Top 100 OverviewÄ

Lichtig in developing an integrated formof agreement for projects that shares risksand rewards as causing people in theindustry to rethink standard constructioncontracts [ENR 11/26/07 p. 80]. Themodel documents recently introduced bythe American Institute of Architects “isprobably the most articulated effort so farto produce standards for IPD contracts,”he says [ENR 6/2 p. 10].

Kenig goes on to point out that AIA’sguide on IPD, which was used to helpdevelop the AIA model contracts, speaksmore to the collaborative approach.“This approach can be used in a variety ofdifferent project-delivery methods,” hesays. IPD “is actually more closely relat-ed to a CM-at-risk approach since youhave three or more separate firm comingtogether.”

For some, technology is helping todrive IPD. “BIM is a tool. It doesn’t makethe process more efficient unless youdevelop a process to make it so and unlessyou have all the members of the teamwilling to participate fully in the collabo-ration needed to make it work,” says LesSnyder III, COO of Barton Malow Co.and AGC chair of the joint AIA-AGCcommittee. He says IPD is synonymouswith collaboration and that collaborationis generally associated with design-build.

Aliabadi sums the issue up as a logicalprogression. “First, you have the increasein collaboration and cooperation furtherup the project schedule, enabled byBIM,” he says. But this increase in inte-gration among the parties causes an in-crease in concern over issues of control,rights and responsibilities. “The next stepis to develop contract models to providea structure for these rights and responsi-bilities,” says Aliabadi. “We hope newmodel contracts will encourage the use ofIPD. We must as an industry accept thatchange is here. The bottom line is thatthe industry is moving in that direction.”

Project delivery is clearly undergoingchanges. The big question is, will IPD be-come a new project-delivery model orsimply an extension of what already exists?This will be the new management chal-lenge for the industry. m

The Top 20 Firms in Combined Industry Revenue

1 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif. 17,696.0 2,209.0 2,219.0 22,124.0

2 FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas 13,332.3 3,342.5 16.4 16,691.1

3 THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y. 9,400.2 0.0 186.2 9,586.4

4 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif. 4,589.4 4,314.4 520.4 9,424.2

5 URS CORP., San Francisco, Calif. 2,985.8 4,895.1 1,117.3 8,998.2

6 KBR, Houston, Texas 7,159.1 1,508.0 83.0 8,750.1

7 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo. 1,274.9 3,095.4 1,449.4 5,819.6

8 BOVIS LEND LEASE, New York, N.Y. 5,343.6 0.0 378.1 5,721.6

9 SKANSKA USA INC., Whitestone, N.Y. 5,575.4 37.6 28.1 5,641.1

10 KIEWIT CORP., Omaha, Neb. 5,628.3 0.0 0.0 5,628.3

11 CB&I, The Woodlands, Texas 4,447.0 787.6 0.0 5,234.6

12 FOSTER WHEELER LTD., Clinton, N.J. 3,448.0 1,423.0 236.0 5,107.0

13 THE SHAW GROUP INC., Baton Rouge, La. 2,616.0 2,443.0 31.3 5,090.3

14 PCL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES INC., Denver, Colo. 4,999.9 0.0 0.0 4,999.9

15 MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., Houston, Texas 4,574.1 280.7 0.0 4,854.8

16 PERINI CORP., Framingham, Mass. 4,628.0 0.0 0.0 4,628.0

17 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP., Los Angeles, Calif. 0.0 3,457.3 818.0 4,275.3

18 CLARK GROUP, Bethesda, Md. 4,208.0 0.0 0.0 4,208.0

19 THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING CO., Baltimore, Md. 3,965.0 0.0 0.0 3,965.0

20 THE WALSH GROUP LTD., Chicago, Ill. 3,635.7 0.0 0.0 3,635.7

2007 REVENUE IN $ MIL.RANK FIRM CONTRACTING DESIGN CM/PM-FOR-FEE TOTAL

The Top 20 Firms in Combined Design and CM/Professional Service

1 URS CORP., San Francisco, Calif. 4,895.1 1,117.3 6,012.4

2 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif. 4,314.4 520.4 4,834.8

3 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo. 3,095.4 1,449.4 4,544.8

4 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif. 2,209.0 2,219.0 4,428.0

5 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP., Los Angeles, Calif. 3,457.3 818.0 4,275.3

6 FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas 3,342.5 16.4 3,358.8

7 THE SHAW GROUP INC., Baton Rouge, La. 2,443.0 31.3 2,474.3

8 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif. 1,536.0 539.9 2,075.9

9 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC., New York, N.Y. 1,288.6 538.2 1,826.8

10 TETRA TECH INC., Pasadena, Calif. 1,607.0 75.0 1,682.0

11 FOSTER WHEELER LTD., Clinton, N.J. 1,423.0 236.0 1,659.0

12 KBR, Houston, Texas 1,508.0 83.0 1,591.0

13 AMEC, Atlanta, Ga. 1,366.0 5.0 1,371.0

14 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan. 1,009.6 137.0 1,146.6

15 HDR, Omaha, Neb. 994.6 52.3 1,046.9

16 EARTH TECH INC., Long Beach, Calif. 904.9 129.2 1,034.1

17 MWH GLOBAL, Broomfield, Colo. 1,012.1 0.0 1,012.1

18 LOUIS BERGER GROUP, Morristown, N.J. 874.2 0.0 874.2

19 WORLEYPARSONS CORP., Houston, Texas 748.0 80.6 828.7

20 ARCADIS US, Highlands Ranch, Colo. 717.0 75.8 792.8

2006 REVENUE IN $ MIL.RANK FIRM DESIGN CM/PM-FOR-FEE TOTAL

ENR_06_09_2008_p34_v2.qxd 6/2/08 3:56 PM Page 36

3864651020


EENNRR • ISSUE: June 9, 2008/ PAGE: 39 / Version: #2Day, Month 00, 2003 0:00:00 PM


resulted in many firms getting exposed todesign-build where they may not havedone it in the past and they are findingthey like it,” says Evey. But he says thefederal adoption of design-build also hasa wider impact. State and local agenciestend to follow the feds’ lead, causingmore local agencies to try it out.

Local agencies in the water and waste-water sectors are an example of the pub-lic sector coming on board with design-build. “Water, sewer and wastewaterprojects generally are procured locally,and many of these municipal agencieshave not built anything in years,” saysTyler. “It’s a big risk for an agency direc-tor who is used to maintaining facilities tosuddenly have to go out and spend $25million on a new project without guid-ance.” Haskell created a water/waste-water division five years ago not simply todesign and build projects, but to assistmunicipal agencies in needs and costsassessments, and procuring grants.

One example of a market that is test-ing design-build is health care. “Healthcare hasn’t traditionally used design-buildas they tended to plan out their facilitiesover an extended period of time,” saysTyler. He says health-care providers noware seeing increasing competition and arebeing forced to get their new facilities inoperation quicker and more efficiently.

Evey is excited about DBIA’s certifica-tion program. “Three years ago, we had87 people with DBIA after their names.It’s tough to argue to an owner to givequalification points for a certified design-build practitioner when there are onlytwo or three in the entire state,” he says.Now, there are 500 certified practitionerswith another 700 in the pipeline. “Nowyou are seeing qualification points givenfor certification,” he says. m

just designers in the room, but having thecontractor, subcontractors and suppliersthere can avoid expensive value engineer-ing and rework down the road.”

In the search for more efficiency,many design-build firms are embracingBuilding Information Modeling. “It’s thebig design-build firms that are drivingBIM, not the architect/engineers,” saysBob Clark, CEO of Clayco. He notesthat BIM is expensive and takes a lot oftraining, but the firms that have tried it

successfully don’twant to go back tothe old system.“We purchase $40million to $50 mil-lion in design ser-vices a year, andwe look for de-signers who areexperienced inBIM,” he says.

Escalating ma-terials prices pro-vide a strong argu-ment for design-build. Hiring a de-signer first, thenbidding to a con-tractor leaves theowner at the mer-

cy of volatile materials prices down theline, says Tyler. “If you have a $10-millionbudget and hire a designer for $500,000,that $500,000 will be spent before youeven have an idea of what the project willcost,” he says. With design-build, “youdon’t have to wait until the wallpaper styleis chosen before you break ground.”

The Dept. of Defense’s Base Realign-ment and Closure program has embraceddesign-build, leading to a fertile newmarket. “BRAC’s use of design-build has

Owners’ Push for Efficiency and SpeedGives Firms Access to New MarketsAdded Public-Sector Interest May Soften Economic Concerns

Design-build continues to be amajor presence in the con-struction landscape, as moreowners search for efficienciesin the construction process.

For ENR’s Top 100 Design-Build Firms,2007 was a big year. The group generat-ed $83.44 billion in revenue in 2007, up21.2% from 2006. Domestically, the rev-enue figure was $53.75 billion, an in-crease of 19.7% over 2006, while interna-tional work, much of it from giant en-gineer-procure-construct jobs,rose to $29.68 bil-lion, up 24.1%.

“The Sword ofDamocles is notthe acceptance ofdesign-build, butthe economy,” saysWalker Lee Evey,CEO of the De-sign-Build Insti-tute of America,Washington, D.C.“In general, we arebeginning to seethe impact of aslowdown.” Hesays most firmshave a strong back-log and new projects have only justslowed down, not stopped.

Pressure from owners to build morequickly and efficiently is leading to anincreased reliance on design-build earlierin the process in many new sectors. “Youcan affect so much more in the planningphase, building in efficiencies and lettingthe owner know how its choices affectcosts and schedules,” says Paul Tyler,president of the commercial group atThe Haskell Co. “You can do that with

Design-Build Firms Top 100Ä

20

10

30

40

50

60

70

80

Domestic revenue

International revenue

Design-Build RevenueGrowth Accelerates

In $

bill

ions

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

By Gary J. Tulacz

ENR_06_09_2008_p39_v2.qxd 6/2/08 5:09 PM Page 39

3918709775


EENNRR • ISSUE: June 6 , 2008/ PAGE: 41 / Version: #2Day, Month 00, 2008 0:00:00 PM


Top 100Ä

The Top Design-Build Firms

COMPANIES ARE RANKED IN $ MILLIONS BASED ON 2007 REVENUE FROM DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS WHERE THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED BY EMPLOYEES OF THE FIRM OR JOINT-VENTURE PARTNER AND BUILT BY ITS OWN FORCEOR SUBCONTRACTORS UNDER ITS SUPERVISION. **=NOT RANKED IN 2007 AMONG THE TOP DESIGN-BUILD FIRMS

RANK TOTAL INTER- RANK TOTAL INTER-2008 2007 FIRM ($ MIL.) DOMESTIC NATIONAL 2008 2007 FIRM ($ MIL.) DOMESTIC NATIONAL

1 2 FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas 11,234.7 3,413.5 7,821.22 1 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif. 10,544.0 4,813.0 5,731.03 3 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif. 8,012.7 4,447.2 3,565.54 4 CB&I, The Woodlands, Texas 4,491.3 1,987.4 2,503.95 5 MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Houston, Texas 3,356.3 1,817.7 1,538.66 6 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan. 3,098.9 1,788.0 1,310.97 9 FOSTER WHEELER LTD., Clinton, N.J. 2,803.0 492.0 2,311.08 10 KIEWIT CORP., Omaha, Neb. 2,713.0 1,588.7 1,124.39 13 FAGEN INC., Granite Falls, Minn. 2,001.4 2,001.4 0.0

10 8 OPUS GROUP, Minnetonka, Minn. 1,917.1 1,882.5 34.611 7 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo. 1,680.2 1, 132.9 547.312 ** URS CORP., San Francisco, Calif. 1,324.3 1, 148.5 175.813 11 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif. 1, 229.2 1, 008.7 220.514 15 KBR, Houston, Texas 1, 106.4 14.9 1, 091.515 20 ZACHRY GROUP, San Antonio, Texas 1, 102.0 999.4 102.616 18 HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.,

Greeley, Colo. 1, 066.8 1, 066.8 0.017 14 CLARK GROUP, Bethesda, Md. 902.5 902.5 0.018 22 RYAN COS. US INC., Minneapolis, Minn. 838.1 838.1 0.019 21 CLAYCO INC., St. Louis, Mo. 827.5 827.5 0.020 16 DUKE CONSTRUCTION, Indianapolis, Ind. 808.0 808.0 0.021 17 THE SHAW GROUP INC.,

Baton Rouge, La. 780.9 714.2 66.722 33 M.A. MORTENSON CO.,

Minneapolis, Minn. 725.3 725.3 0.023 50 THE WALSH GROUP LTD., Chicago, Ill. 684.8 684.8 0.024 25 THE HASKELL CO., Jacksonville, Fla. 658.2 632.2 26.025 19 PANATTONI CONSTRUCTION INC.,

Sacramento, Calif. 651.2 650.8 0.426 ** GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC.,

Watsonville, Calif. 634.5 634.5 0.027 29 MWH GLOBAL, Broomfield, Colo. 572.2 507.3 64.928 41 BE&K INC., Birmingham, Ala. 562.4 522.5 39.929 36 HUNT BUILDING CO. LTD., El Paso, Texas 552.0 552.0 0.030 26 S&B HOLDINGS LTD. AND AFFILIATES,

Houston, Texas 541.0 540.0 1.031 24 STELLAR, Jacksonville, Fla. 528.5 484.5 44.032 27 EARTH TECH INC., Long Beach, Calif. 526.1 314.2 211.933 31 THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y. 515.6 515.6 0.034 28 BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo. 511.0 511.0 0.035 ** SELLEN CONSTRUCTION CO.,

Seattle, Wash. 485.0 485.0 0.036 40 THE HANOVER CO., Houston, Texas 477.0 477.0 0.037 38 SKANSKA USA INC., Whitestone, N.Y. 458.6 458.6 0.038 39 THE FACILITY GROUP, Smyrna, Ga. 415.8 363.4 52.439 32 WEBCOR BUILDERS, San Mateo, Calif. 404.8 404.8 0.040 70 SUNDT CONSTRUCTION INC., Tempe, Ariz. 377.5 377.5 0.041 42 THE MCSHANE COS., Rosemont, Ill. 371.8 371.8 0.042 23 LAUTH CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC,

Indianapolis, Ind. 371.6 371.6 0.043 35 MACTEC INC., Alpharetta, Ga. 363.8 363.8 0.044 34 PCL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES INC.,

Denver, Colo. 357.5 214.9 142.645 66 TUTOR-SALIBA CORP., Sylmar, Calif. 344.0 344.0 0.046 44 H & M CO. INC., Jackson, Tenn. 342.3 342.3 0.047 45 GRAY CONSTRUCTION, Lexington, Ky. 308.0 308.0 0.048 59 MARSHALL ERDMAN & ASSOCIATES,

Madison, Wis. 302.3 302.3 0.049 64 CONTRACK INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Arlington, Va. 295.0 0.0 295.050 51 SWINERTON INC., San Francisco, Calif. 295.0 295.0 0.0

51 ** GRAYCOR, Homewood, Ill. 282.8 282.8 0.052 53 BRINDERSON, Costa Mesa, Calif. 270.0 270.0 0.053 57 CDM, Cambridge, Mass. 245.0 234.0 11.054 60 B.L. HARBERT INTERNATIONAL LLC,

Birmingham, Ala. 240.6 103.0 137.655 69 FLATIRON CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

Longmont, Colo. 233.7 153.2 80.556 82 ALBERT C. KOBAYASHI INC.,

Waipahu, Hawaii 219.0 219.0 0.057 ** MARNELL CORRAO ASSOC., Las Vegas, Nev. 217.4 217.4 0.058 ** ARCADIS US, Highlands Ranch, Colo. 209.0 209.0 0.059 52 CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.,

Montgomery, Ala. 206.2 68.9 137.260 ** RMT INC., Madison, Wis. 200.5 200.5 0.061 67 THE KORTE CO., Highland, Ill. 198.0 198.0 0.062 37 MCGOUGH CONSTRUCTION, St. Paul, Minn. 196.5 196.5 0.063 ** GEMMA POWER SYSTEMS, Glastonbury, Conn. 181.5 181.5 0.064 46 MCCARTHY HOLDINGS INC., St. Louis, Mo. 180.0 180.0 0.065 62 THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING CO.,

Baltimore, Md. 179.0 179.0 0.066 ** THE YATES COS. INC., Philadelphia, Miss. 177.3 177.3 0.067 63 BBL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC,

Albany, N.Y. 164.4 164.4 0.068 54 DPR CONSTRUCTION INC.,

Redwood City, Calif. 162.8 162.8 0.069 61 FCL BUILDERS, Itasca, Ill. 161.0 161.0 0.070 90 KLINGER COS. INC., Sioux City, Iowa 161.0 161.0 0.071 93 DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC., Milpitas, Calif. 159.0 159.0 0.072 ** THE LAYTON COS., Sandy, Utah 157.2 157.2 0.073 79 OLTMANS CONSTRUCTION CO., Whittier, Calif. 156.0 156.0 0.074 ** DAVIS CONSTRUCTORS & ENGINEERS INC.,

Anchorage, Ark. 154.3 154.3 0.075 74 CR MEYER, Oshkosh, Wis. 154.0 154.0 0.076 58 MESSER CONSTRUCTION, Cincinnati, Ohio 148.2 148.2 0.077 ** TENG AFFILIATED COS., Chicago, Ill. 148.0 148.0 0.078 80 CHOATE CONSTRUCTION CO., Atlanta, Ga. 147.1 147.1 0.079 68 PERINI CORP., Framingham, Mass. 147.0 14.0 133.080 ** JOSEPH JINGOLI & SON INC.,

Lawrenceville, N.J. 144.0 144.0 0.081 89 JE DUNN CONSTRUCTION GROUP,

Kansas City, Mo. 142.7 142.7 0.082 ** THE BENHAM COS. LLC, Oklahoma City, Okla. 140.8 140.8 0.083 ** STRUCTURE TONE, New York, N.Y. 138.7 138.7 0.084 75 KINSLEY CONSTRUCTION INC., York, Pa. 138.0 138.0 0.085 100 THE NEENAN CO., Fort Collins, Colo. 132.0 132.0 0.086 95 VCC, Little Rock, Ark. 120.0 120.0 0.087 ** AMERICAN CONSTRUCTORS INC.,

Huntington Beach, Calif. 119.8 119.8 0.088 86 THE HOWARD S. WRIGHT COS., Seattle, Wash. 117.0 117.0 0.089 ** DICK CONSTRUCTION CO., Pittsburgh, Pa. 115.0 68.0 47.090 97 CORRPRO COS. INC., Medina, Ohio 114.6 81.0 33.691 99 BARTON MALOW CO., Southfield, Mich. 112.5 61.2 51.492 97 GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I. 112.0 112.0 0.093 ** FORRESTER CONSTRUCTION CO., Rockville, Md. 110.0 110.0 0.094 72 THE HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP,

Scottsdale, Ariz. 110.0 110.0 0.095 ** WALBRIDGE ALDINGER, Detroit, Mich. 110.0 82.0 28.096 ** WESTON SOLUTIONS INC., West Chester, Pa. 108.1 108.1 0.097 ** THE NORWOOD CO., Malvern, Pa. 107.8 107.8 0.098 ** HDR, Omaha, Neb. 107.7 107.7 0.099 ** BARNHART INC., San Diego, Calif. 104.3 104.3 0.0

100 ** AMES CONSTRUCTION INC., Burnsville, Minn. 104.0 104.0 0.0

ENR_06_09_2008_p41_v2.qxd 6/2/08 4:01 PM Page 41

3868082930




Top 100 CM-for-Fee FirmsÄ

coordinate massive programs. One sectoris the U.S. Dept. of Defense’s BaseRealignment and Closure program. Pecksays his firm is providing program-man-agement services for BRAC on severalprograms, including the Walter ReedMedical Center project in Bethesda, Md.,and assisting on the BRAC program atFort Belvoir, Va. “These are all $1-billionprograms,” he notes.

Vanir increasingly is getting involvedin the health-care and infrastructure mar-kets, Aliabadi says. For example, Vanirwas selected as program manager on plansby Alameda County, Calif., to replaceHighland Hospital in Oakland. The firmalso is program manager for the Califor-nia Dept. of Corrections’ $2.7-billionplan to add 16,000 beds to its system.

For some PM and CM firms, integrat-ed project delivery may indirectly turnout to be a boom market. “When youhave the owner, designer and contractorall signed up to a single contract, theowner is going to have to be responsiblefor many of the decisions made,” saysPeck. “So if you, as an owner, don’t havethe in-house expertise to make thosedecisions, you better hire someone whodoes to help with those decisions.” m

government work is strong,” says Man-sour Aliabadi, CEO of Vanir Construc-tion Management. He says voters con-tinue to approve school bond issues. “Weare having three waves of bond issues thisyear in California alone,” he notes.

The mergers and acquisitions trend isalive and well among CM firms, just as itis with designers and contractors. One ofthe most active acquiring firms is Hill In-ternational. To help expand its interna-tional presence, Hill recently acquiredJohn Shreeves Holdings, London, U.K.,and Gerens Management Group, Barce-lona, Spain.

But Hill is not through. “There’s a lotmore CM/PM firms out there available,”says David Richter, Hill’s CEO. “Wecould close on as many as five or six thisyear.” He says acquisitions have helpedHill avoid personnel shortages. “Whenyou acquire a firm, you can pick up 100top people at once, rather than hiringthem one at a time,” he says, adding thatHill will continue to concentrate on CMand PM. “We can attract people andclients because they know that PM is ourfocus, and not just a side business.”

The federal market increasingly islooking to program managers to help

Agency CM/PM is Booming as OwnersContinue to Outsource ManagementPM Flourishes as Programs Get Larger and More Complex

Construction and program man-agement has never been so bigas it is now. As projects get big-ger, more complex, more de-manding and the talent pool

among owners dwindles, the need forprofessional construction-managementskills has become intense.

For ENR’s Top 100 ConstructionManagement/Program ManagementFirms, 2007 was a watershed year. TheTop 100 generated $12.07 billion in rev-enue from fee-based construction andprogram-management work, up an amaz-ing 38.4% from 2006’s totals.

“It’s a case of baby boomers retiringfrom owners’ management teams and notbeing replaced, and those who are left arenot used to handling huge projects,” saysBlake Peck, COO of McDonough Bol-yard Peck. “With the talent shortage outthere, it’s tough to recruit project man-agers, particularly in the public sector.”This has left owners with little alternativebut to outsource much of their project andprogram-management needs, he says.

Firms doing CM and PM on a feebasis are trying to read the economic tealeaves. For many, there is good news andbad news. “Residential is very bad, but

By Gary J. TulaczIn

$ b

illio

ns

In $

bill

ions

2.5

1.5

0.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Engineer- General Design Pure CMConstructors Contractors Firms Firms

Huge Surge In CM/PM-For-Fee Revenue Everyone Benefits From Boom In Agency CM/PM200520062007

ENR_06_09_2008_p42_v2.qxd 6/2/08 5:12 PM Page 42

3920783735


EENNRR • ISSUE: June 6 , 2008/ PAGE: 43 / Version: #2Day, Month 00, 2008 0:00:00 PM


Construction Management-for-Fee Firms (Includes Program-Management Revenue)

COMPANIES ARE RANKED BASED ON TOTAL 2007 REVENUE IN $ MILLIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OR PROJECT/PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES PERFORMED AS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FOR A FEE; **=NOTRANKED IN 2007 AMONG THE TOP 100 CMS. KEY TO TYPE OF FIRM: C=CONTRACTOR; CM=CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRM; D=DESIGN FIRM; EC-ENGINEER-CONTRACTOR; ENV=ENVIRONMENTAL FIRM.

1 2 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif. EC 2,219.0 449.02 1 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo. EAC 1,449.4 381.73 6 URS CORP., San Francisco, Calif. EAC 1,117.3 9.24 ** AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP.,

Los Angeles, Calif. D 818.0 0.05 5 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif. EC 539.9 171.76 4 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC.,

New York, N.Y. EAC 538.2 178.07 7 JACOBS., Pasadena, Calif. EAC 520.4 231.58 12 CB RICHARD ELLIS., El Segundo, Calif. CM 421.8 145.09 9 BOVIS LEND LEASE, New York, N.Y. C 378.1 137.5

10 11 JONES LANG LASALLE, Chicago, Ill. CM 305.0 132.011 10 HILL INTERNATIONAL INC., Marlton, N.J. CM 290.3 162.912 8 FOSTER WHEELER LTD., Clinton, N.J. EC 236.0 84.013 13 TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

New York, N.Y. CM 193.7 0.014 ** THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y. EC 186.2 15.915 22 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan. EC 137.0 92.516 14 PBS&J, Tampa, Fla. D 133.9 0.017 31 EARTH TECH INC., Long Beach, Calif. EC 129.2 0.018 15 HEERY INTERNATIONAL INC., Atlanta, Ga. D 123.8 1.719 20 FAITHFUL+GOULD, New York, N.Y. CM 122.2 3.020 16 KBR, Houston, Texas EC 83.0 0.021 17 WORLEYPARSONS CORP., Houston, Texas EC 80.6 71.022 24 GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I. C 80.0 0.023 21 ARCADIS US, Highlands Ranch, Colo. D 75.8 0.024 23 TETRA TECH INC., Pasadena, Calif. D 75.0 0.025 26 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC.,

Concord, Calif. D 63.4 0.026 34 VANIR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC.,

Sacramento, Calif. CM 54.7 0.027 28 HDR, Omaha, Neb. D 52.3 0.028 36 MICHAEL BAKER CORP., Moon Twp., Pa. D 48.0 12.529 29 THE LIRO GROUP, Syosset, N.Y. D 48.0 0.030 40 KITCHELL CORP., Phoenix, Ariz. C 45.1 0.031 ** ROBINS & MORTON, Birmingham, Ala. C 45.0 0.032 30 PMA CONSULTANTS LLC, Detroit, Mich. CM 43.2 3.733 46 CUMMING CORP.,

San Juan Capistrano, Calif. CM 43.2 0.034 ** BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION,

Dallas, Texas C 40.5 0.035 ** VERSAR INC., Springfield, Va. D 37.5 37.536 41 THE FACILITY GROUP, Smyrna, Ga. D 36.7 2.137 35 THE BECK GROUP, Dallas, Texas D 36.7 0.038 37 BOSWELL ENGINEERING,

S. Hackensack, N.J. D 35.3 0.039 39 SWINERTON INC., San Francisco, Calif. C 34.5 0.040 ** S.M. WILSON & CO., St. Louis, Mo. C 34.5 0.041 45 ON-BOARD ENGINEERING CORP.,

East Windsor, N.J. EC 33.3 0.042 62 THE SHAW GROUP INC.,

Baton Rouge, La. EC 31.3 2.343 57 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD, Millburn, N.J. D 31.3 15.244 44 FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

St. Louis, Mo. EC 30.7 0.045 91 MUSTANG ENGINEERING, Houston, Texas D 30.0 0.046 ** AGUIRRE CORP., Dallas, Texas D 28.1 0.047 33 SKANSKA USA INC., Whitestone, N.Y. EC 28.1 0.048 67 BOYKEN INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Atlanta, Ga. CM 28.0 6.449 38 BARNHART INC., San Diego, Calif. C 27.2 0.050 43 ALPHA CORP., Dulles, Va. D 27.1 0.7

51 42 URBAN ENGINEERS INC., Philadelphia, Pa. D 26.6 0.052 50 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES,

Niagara Falls, N.Y. ENV 26.5 7.553 73 BARTON MALOW CO., Southfield, Mich. C 23.8 1.554 53 MCDONOUGH BOLYARD PECK INC., Fairfax, Va. CM 23.6 0.955 ** METRIC ENGINEERING INC., Miami, Fla. D 23.1 0.056 58 RISE INTERNATIONAL LLC, Chicago, Ill. CM 22.1 1.457 ** CDM, Cambridge, Mass. EC 22.0 0.058 52 DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED,

Washington, D.C. D 21.4 0.059 51 VALI COOPER & ASSOCIATES INC.,

Pt. Richmond, Calif. CM 21.0 0.060 27 R.W. BECK GROUP INC., Seattle, Wash. D 20.5 0.061 71 GREYHAWK, Woodbury, N.Y. CM 20.3 1.062 ** FTR INTERNATIONAL INC., Irvine, Calif. C 20.0 20.063 ** THE MORGANTI GROUP INC., Danbury, Conn. C 19.9 17.564 54 LEA+ELLIOTT INC., Arlington, Texas CM 19.0 1.065 68 MCKISSACK & MCKISSACK, Washington, D.C. D 18.7 0.066 79 CAROLLO ENGINEERS PC, Phoenix, Ariz. D 18.6 0.067 ** SAVIN ENGINEERS PC, Pleasantville, N.Y. CM 18.2 0.068 69 JOSEPH JINGOLI & SON INC.,

Lawrenceville, N.J. C 18.0 0.069 75 GAFCON INC., San Diego, Calif. CM 17.4 0.070 55 LPCIMINELLI INC., Buffalo, N.Y. C 16.9 0.071 72 PROWEST CONSTRUCTORS, Wildomar, Calif. CM 16.7 0.072 ** GKKWORKS, Irvine, Calif. D 16.6 0.073 ** CARIBBEAN PROJ. MGMT., San Juan, P.R. CM 16.4 0.074 66 FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas EC 16.4 10.775 63 U.S. COST, Atlanta, Ga. CM 16.3 1.176 85 BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES, Austin, Texas CM 16.0 0.077 47 CHANEN CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Phoenix, Ariz. C 16.0 0.078 59 KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO.,

Minneapolis, Minn. C 15.5 0.079 76 SGI CONSTRUCTION MGMT., Pasadena, Calif. CM 15.0 0.080 84 QUANDEL ENTERPRISES INC., Harrisburg, Pa. C 14.9 0.081 77 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC., Sacramento, Calif. D 14.9 0.082 70 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT INC.,

Honolulu, Hawaii CM 14.4 6.083 61 THE SKILLMAN CORP., Indianapolis, Ind. CM 14.0 0.084 83 GRANARY ASSOCIATES, Philadelphia, Pa. D 13.8 0.085 ** O’BRIEN & GERE, East Syracuse, N.Y. D 13.2 0.186 88 SOUTHERN MGMT. GRP., Columbia, S.C. CM 13.1 0.087 93 DONN TODD ASSOCIATES,

San Francisco, Calif. CM 13.1 0.088 64 TDX CONSTRUCTION CORP., New York, N.Y. CM 12.8 0.089 ** STRUCTURE TONE, New York, N.Y. C 12.6 0.090 82 REYNOLDS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC.,

Harrisburg, Pa. CM 12.4 0.091 32 NAVARRO RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING INC.,

Oak Ridge, Tenn. D 12.3 0.092 ** P.J. DICK-TRUMBULL-LINDY, West Miflin, Pa. C 11.0 0.093 ** GLOBAL PERFORMANCE, Greenville, S.C. EC 11.0 2.094 60 PSOMAS, Los Angeles, Calif. D 11.0 0.095 ** PAUL C. RIZZO ASSOCIATES INC.,

Monroeville, Pa. D 11.0 0.096 ** H.W. LOCHNER INC., Chicago, Ill. D 10.6 0.097 ** SHIEL SEXTON CO. INC., Indianapolis, Ind. C 10.4 0.098 74 M.A. MORTENSON CO., Minneapolis, Minn. C 10.3 0.099 99 DICK CONSTRUCTION CO., Pittsburgh, Pa. C 10.0 0.0

100 100 DLZ CORP., Columbus, Ohio D 10.0 0.0100 ** THE LAUREN CORP., Abilene, Texas D 10.0 0.0100 80 STANTEC INC., Irvine, Calif. D 10.0 0.0

RANK TOTAL INTER- RANK TOTAL INTER-2008 2007 FIRM TYPE ($ MIL.) NATIONAL 2008 2007 FIRM TYPE ($ MIL.) NATIONAL

ENR_06_09_2008_p43_v2.qxd 6/2/08 3:57 PM Page 43

3865132475




Top 100 CM-at-Risk FirmsÄ

the CM-at-risk market,” says Gouveia.He also notes that gaming continues tobe strong. “There’s an awful lot of stateswith casino gambling measures on theirballots this year,” he says.

One market thathas tanked is themulti-unit residentialmarket in southernFlorida. “We werelucky. We have of-fices in West PalmBeach, Miami andSarasota,” says Gou-veia. “We began tran-sitioning out of thecondo market abouttwo years ago to takea run at the educa-tion market downthere, so we weren’thurt.”

For some proj-ects, having a CM-at-risk firm can makea world of difference.

“We have a three-part, $100-millionproject for the University of Utah Hos-pital in Salt Lake City,” says Layton. The300,000-sq-ft job is to remove the heli-pad and add three floors to the parkinggarage before rebuilding the helipad, addtwo floors to an existing critical-carepavilion, and build a new five-story criti-cal-care facility, all at the same time andwhile the existing facility continues tooperate.

“We had 30 user groups within thehospital to communicate and coordinatewith from the start,” says Layton. “It waslogistically the most complicated proj-ect we have ever done, but it is goingsmoothly and predictably. You couldn’tdo that on a design-bid-build basis.” m

tractors will simply build in contingenciesfor materials price hikes, he claims. “Ifthe inflation doesn’t materialize, theclient has overpaid.” Many CMs agree.“In design-bid-build, the design team cancreate a budget for a project, but theydon’t always have theexperience and ex-pertise on materialsprices and trends thata contractor can pro-vide,” says Jeff Gou-veia Jr., executive vicepresident and generalmanager of SuffolkConstruction.

Currently, firmsare seeing projectsput on hold and find-ing project financ-ing takes longer. Forsome firms, it comesdown to understand-ing not just the mar-ket as a whole, butthe customer’s market. “It all comesdown to the money stream,” says Gou-veia Jr. “You have to understand how theclient is going to market the project. AsCMs, we sometimes can bring our ownbusiness expertise on marginal projects tohelp them become more viable.”

However, many CM-at-risk marketscontinue to be strong. “We probably domore data centers than just about anyoneand that continues to be a strong marketthat’s almost entirely done on a CM-at-risk basis,” says Kenig. He also notes thathigher education continues to be a hotCM-at-risk market, as is most of the pub-lic-sector building market.

“There’s a lot of education, health-care, and institutional work available in

Firms Continue to Enjoy SuccessEven While Watching for a DownturnCM-at-Risk Continues to Be Largest Project-Delivery Market

The market for firms providingconstruction management on anat-risk basis has been boomingfor several years. Owners in-creasingly are attracted to the

idea that employing a construction-man-agement firm does not mean they have toassume the burden of all the risk.

For the ENR Top 100 Construction-Management-at-Risk Firms, 2007 wasanother big year. The Top 100 generateda total of $89.78 billion in revenue, up21.2% from 2006. On the domestic side,the Top 100 had a combined revenue of$79.23 billion, up 17.0% over 2006,while revenue from projects outside theU.S. rose a huge 65.6%, to $10.55 bil-lion. It continues to be the largest alter-native project-delivery system by revenuemeasured by ENR and far and away thelargest domestic system.

Like most in the industry, CM-at-riskfirms are watching the economy with awary eye. “In construction, we tend tolag the economy,” says Michael Kenig,vice chairman of Holder ConstructionCo. But he said that, while constructionused to lag the economy by 18-24 months,with the accelerated pace of the construc-tion process, firms will generally beginfeeling the pinch in 12-18 months if thereis a major downturn.

Some firms in the CM-at-risk marketsay that the volatility of materials pricesover the past few years has given them anedge. “What clients are looking for arepredictable outcomes,” says David Lay-ton, CEO of The Layton Cos. “Whenyou have the designer and the CM work-ing together early on, you can developstrategies to manage materials price in-creases. This helps ease the inflationarypressures on a project.”

On a design-bid-build project, con-

2004 2005 2006 2007

50

45

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

In $

bill

ions

Domestic revenueInternational revenue

CM-at-RiskRevenue Explodes

By Gary J. Tulacz

ENR_06_09_2008_p44_v2.qxd 6/2/08 5:14 PM Page 44

3922203410

EENNRR • ISSUE: June 6 , 2008/ PAGE: 46 / Version: #2Day, Month 00, 2008 0:00:00 PM 5 25 50 75 95LEFT HAND PAGE



Top 100Ä

The Top Construction Management At-Risk Firms

BASED ON 200X REVENUE IN $ MILLIONS FROM “AT-RISK” CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OR PROJECT/PROGRAM CONTRACTS WHERE THE FIRM IS EXPOSED TO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND RISK SIMILAR TO THOSE OFA GENERAL CONTRACTOR. †=AMEC REVENUE LIMITED TO U.S.-BASED OPERATIONS. **=NOT RANKED IN 200X AMONG THE TOP 100 CM FIRMS-AT-RISK. KEY TO TYPE OF FIRMS: C=CONTRACTOR; EC=ENGINEER-CONTRACTOR;EAC/AEC=ENGINEER-ARCHITECT-CONTRACTOR.

1 100 NAME COMPANY NAME, Location† XXX 0,000.0 0,000.0

The Top Construction Management-at-Risk Firms

BASED ON 2007 REVENUE IN $ MILLIONS FROM “AT-RISK” CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OR PROJECT/PROGRAM CONTRACTS WHERE THE FIRM IS EXPOSED TO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND RISK SIMILAR TO THOSE OF AGENERAL CONTRACTOR. †=AMEC REVENUE LIMITED TO U.S.-BASED OPERATIONS. **=NOT RANKED IN 2007 AMONG THE TOP 100 CM FIRMS-AT-RISK. KEY TO TYPE OF FIRMS: C=CONTRACTOR; EC=ENGINEER-CONTRACTOR;EAC/AEC=ENGINEER-ARCHITECT-CONTRACTOR.

1 1 THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y. C 8,884.6 0.02 9 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif. EC 8,299.0 6,992.03 2 BOVIS LEND LEASE, New York, N.Y. C 4,979.8 0.04 6 PERINI CORP., Framingham, Mass. C 4,147.0 0.05 4 STRUCTURE TONE, New York, N.Y. C 3,111.2 144.66 3 SKANSKA USA INC., Whitestone, N.Y. EC 3,103.2 0.07 5 GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I. C 2,770.1 0.08 7 JE DUNN CONSTRUCTION GROUP,

Kansas City, Mo. C 2,484.7 0.09 10 THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING CO.,

Baltimore, Md. C 2,310.0 0.010 19 PCL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES INC.,

Denver, Colo. C 1, 801.4 1,340.411 8 FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas EC 1,654.5 1,345.412 13 CLARK GROUP, Bethesda, Md. EC 1,376.3 0.013 14 DPR CONSTRUCTION INC., Redwood City, Calif. C 1,304.5 0.014 17 SWINERTON INC., San Francisco, Calif. C 1,295.0 0.015 16 THE WEITZ CO. LLC, Des Moines, Iowa. C 1,291.5 0.016 24 HOLDER CONSTRUCTION CO., Atlanta, Ga. C 1,226.0 0.017 15 SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.,

Boston, Mass. C 1,191.2 0.018 20 M.A. MORTENSON CO., Minneapolis, Minn. C 1,110.5 0.019 11 HOFFMAN CORP., Portland, Ore. C 1, 105.0 0.020 26 PEPPER CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Chicago, Ill. C 1,067.0 0.021 23 HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO.,

Greeley, Colo. C 1,024.7 0.022 35 AUSTIN INDUSTRIES, Dallas, Texas C 941.0 0.023 34 SHAWMUT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION,

Boston, Mass. C 850.6 0.024 22 HARDIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LLC, Atlanta, Ga. C 837.0 0.025 ** L.F. DRISCOLL CO., Bala Cynwyd, Pa. C 778.1 0.026 32 THE HOWARD S. WRIGHT COS., Seattle, Wash. C 769.0 0.027 18 MCCARTHY HOLDINGS INC., St. Louis, Mo. C 754.0 0.028 41 THE FLINTCO COS. INC., Tulsa, Okla. C 747.0 0.029 30 KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION CO.,

Minneapolis, Minn C 740.0 0.030 39 MOSS & ASSOCIATES LLC,

Fort Lauderdale, Fla. C 649.7 32.631 12 BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION,

Dallas, Texas C 643.5 0.032 31 KITCHELL CORP., Phoenix, Ariz. C 633.0 0.033 46 WILLIAM A. BERRY & SON INC., Danvers, Mass. C 629.6 15.534 38 OKLAND CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.,

Salt Lake City, Utah C 629.4 0.035 25 HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Scottsdale, Ariz. C 621.0 0.036 21 URS CORP., San Francisco, Calif. EAC 607.9 211.637 51 CHOATE CONSTRUCTION CO., Atlanta, Ga. C 588.2 0.038 77 BE&K INC., Birmingham, Ala. EC 583.9 0.039 49 MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., Tulsa, Okla. C 575.3 29.140 29 KRAFT CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.,

Naples, Fla. EC 559.2 0.041 36 THE BECK GROUP, Dallas, Texas AC 544.8 58.742 43 SUNDT CONSTRUCTION INC., Tempe, Ariz. C 506.1 0.043 45 DIMEO CONSTRUCTION CO., Providence, R.I. C 489.0 0.044 ** OHL USA INC., Davie, Fla. C 488.5 17.245 54 C.W. DRIVER, Pasadena, Calif. C 477.3 0.046 63 HOAR CONSTRUCTION LLC, Birmingham, Ala. C 476.1 0.047 47 RODGERS BUILDERS INC., Charlotte, N.C. C 473.9 0.048 55 THE LAYTON COS., Sandy, Utah C 466.7 0.049 37 ADOLFSON & PETERSON CONSTR.,

Minneapolis, Minn. C 450.5 0.050 68 THE BOLDT CO., Appleton, Wis. EC 439.9 0.0

51 53 THE YATES COS. INC., Philadelphia, Miss. EC 439.3 0.052 33 CHANEN CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.,

Phoenix, Ariz. C 438.2 0.053 40 BARTON MALOW CO., Southfield, Mich. C 436.1 0.054 70 O’NEIL INDUSTRIES INC., Chicago, Ill. C 430.7 0.055 60 FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

St. Louis, Mo. EC 429.8 0.056 42 TORCON INC., Red Bank, N.J. C 406.0 25.057 44 THE SHAW GROUP INC., Baton Rouge, La. EC 398.7 26.758 ** ALBERICI CORP., St. Louis, Mo. C 397.6 0.059 ** BARR & BARR INC., New York, N.Y. C 394.0 0.060 ** LPCIMINELLI INC., Buffalo, N.Y. C 386.8 0.061 62 F.A. WILHELM CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.,

Indianapolis, Ind. C 381.9 0.062 76 LEE LEWIS CONSTRUCTION INC.,

Lubbock, Texas C 375.0 0.063 ** SNYDER LANGSTON, Irvine, Calif. C 375.0 0.064 99 LINBECK, Houston, Texas C 371.3 0.065 82 BRASFIELD & GORRIE LLC, Birmingham, Ala. C 369.9 0.066 75 HRH CONSTRUCTION LLC, White Plains, N.Y. C 365.4 0.067 ** ANDERSEN CONSTRUCTION CO., Portland, Ore. C 365.0 0.068 90 KENNY CONSTRUCTION, Northbrook, Ill. C 361.0 0.069 48 D.L. WITHERS CONSTRUCTION, Phoenix, Ariz. C 358.3 0.070 65 T.N. WARD CO., Ardmore, Pa. EC 351.0 0.071 69 THE BETTE COS., Latham, N.Y. C 346.1 0.072 95 WALSH BROTHERS INC., Boston, Mass. C 337.5 0.073 61 BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

Salt Lake City, Utah C 331.0 0.074 50 FOSTER WHEELER LTD., Clinton, N.J. EC 330.0 308.075 67 THE CHRISTMAN CO., Lansing, Mich. C 328.7 0.076 ** MCGOUGH CONSTRUCTION, St. Paul, Minn. C 320.7 0.077 97 HEERY INTERNATIONAL INC., Atlanta, Ga. AEC 315.9 0.078 ** GLOBAL PERFORMANCE, Greenville, S.C. EC 303.0 1.079 ** PIRTLE CONSTRUCTION CO., Davie, Fla. C 302.6 0.080 56 GOTHAM CONSTRUCTION CO. LLC,

New York, N.Y. C 297.7 0.081 ** COASTAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Miami, Fla. C 296.5 0.082 52 JACOBSEN CONSTRUCTION CO. INC.,

Salt Lake City, Utah C 292.9 0.083 92 MESSER CONSTRUCTION, Cincinnati, Ohio C 290.6 0.084 ** SPAWGLASS HOLDING LP, Selma, Texas C 283.5 0.085 ** TELLEPSEN, Houston, Texas C 283.0 0.086 79 INTECH CONSTRUCTION INC.,

Philadelphia, Pa. C 275.0 0.087 57 W. M. JORDAN CO., Newport News, Va. C 270.0 0.088 ** BARTLETT COCKE GENERAL CONTRACTORS,

San Antonio, Texas C 268.089 88 BERNARDS, San Fernando, Calif. C 266.0 0.090 ** CG SCHMIDT INC., Milwaukee, Wis. C 265.5 0.091 68 S. M. WILSON & CO., St. Louis, Mo. C 264.8 0.092 ** WELBRO BUILDING CORP., Maitland, Fla. C 259.4 0.093 83 SAUNDERS CONSTRUCTION INC.,

Centennial, Colo. C 257.7 0.094 71 HASELDEN CONSTRUCTION LLC,

Centennial, Colo. C 250.0 0.095 ** W.G. MILLS INC., Sarasota, Fla. C 250.0 0.096 59 WALBRIDGE ALDINGER, Detroit, Mich. C 250.0 0.097 ** ROCKFORD CONSTRUCTION CO.,

Grand Rapids, Mich. C 239.5 0.098 93 H.J. RUSSELL & CO., Atlanta, Ga. C 229.0 0.099 89 FUSCO CORP., New Haven, Conn. EC 228.7 0.0

100 100 WEIS BUILDERS INC., Minneapolis, Minn. EC 223.9 0.0

RANK TOTAL INTER- RANK TOTAL INTER-2008 2007 FIRM TYPE ($ MIL.) NATIONAL 2008 2007 FIRM TYPE ($ MIL.) NATIONAL

ENR_06_09_2008_p46_v2.qxd 6/2/08 3:59 PM Page 46

3866366975

ENR’s Complete Top List and Sourcebook Series: Page images of all stories and data related to Top Lists and Sourcebooks published in ENR Available at The McGraw-Hill Information Center

ENR Top Lists – 2008 Top 500 Design Firms – April 21 Top 400 Contractors – May 19/26 Top 100 Construction Management For Fee, Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk, Top 100 Design- Build Firms, Top 40 Program Management Firms – June 9 Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – June 30/July 7 Top Green Contractors – September 22 Top 200 International Design Firms – July 21 Top 225 International Contractors – August 18 Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 13 ENR Sourcebooks – 2008 Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 23 Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 22 Top Owners Sourcebook – November 24 Global Construction Sourcebook – December 15

ENR Top Lists – 2007 Top 500 Design Firms – April 23 Top 400 Contractors – May 21/28 Top 100 Construction Management For Fee, Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk, Top 100 Design- Build Firms, Top 40 Program Management Firms – June 11 Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – July 2 Top 200 International Design Firms – July 23 Top 225 International Contractors – August 20 Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 15 ENR Sourcebooks – 2007 Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 25 Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 24 Top Owners Sourcebook – November 26 Global Construction Sourcebook – December 24/31

ENR Top Lists – 2006 Top 500 Design Firms – April 24 Top 400 Contractors – May 22 Top 100 Construction Management For Fee, Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk, Top 100 Design-Build Firms, Top 40 Program Management Firms – June 12 Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – July 3 Top 200 International Design Firms – July 24 Top 225 International Contractors – August 21/28 Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 16 ENR Sourcebooks – 2006 Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 26 Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 18 Top Owners Sourcebook – November 13 Global Construction Sourcebook – December 18

ENR Top Lists – 2005 Top 500 (U.S.) Design Firms – April 18 Top 400 (U.S.) Contractors – May 16 Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, & Program Managers – June 13 Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – July 4 Top 200 International Design Firms – July 25 Top 225 International Contractors – August 22/29 Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 17 ENR SOURCEBOOKS – 2005 Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 20 Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 19 Top Owners Sourcebook – November 14 2005 Global Construction Sourcebook – December 12

Copyright © 2008, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The information contained herein has been obtained by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. from sources believed to be reliable. However, because of the possibility of human or mechanical error, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from use of such information. This material is the property of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“McGraw-Hill”) or is licensed to McGraw-Hill. This material may not be reproduced, transmitted, or distributed without the express written permission of McGraw-Hill. The user of this material may not commingle any portion of this material with any other information and shall not edit, modify, or alter any portion.

ENR (Engineering News-Record), (ISSN 0891-9526). Published weekly except for one week in January, March, April, May, July, August, September, October, November and December; 42 weeks a year by The McGraw-Hill Companies, 1221 Ave. of the Americas, New York, N.Y. 10020. Founder: James H. McGraw (1860-1948). Executive, editorial, circulation, advertising offices: Two Penn Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10121-2298. Phone (212) 512-2000. Postmaster: Please send address changes to ENR/Engineering News-Record, Attention: Fulfillment Manager, P.O. Box 5730, Harlan, IA 51593. Periodicals postage paid at New York, N.Y., and at additional mailing offices. Canada Post Publication Mail Agreement No.40012501. Registered for GST as The McGraw-Hill Companies. GST #R123075673. RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: DPGM Ltd., 2-7496 Bath Road, Mississauga, ON L4T 1L2. Email: [email protected]. Copyright, printing and reprinting: Titles Engineering News-Record (ENR) and CONSTRUCTION WEEK reg. ® in U.S. Patent Office. Copyright © 2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Officers of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: Harold W. McGraw III, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer; Robert J. Bahash, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Kenneth M. Vittor, Executive Vice President and General Counsel; Frank D. Penglase, Senior Vice President, Treasury Operations. McGraw-Hill Construction: Norbert W. Young, Jr., FAIA, President; Howard Mager, Sr. VP., MH Construction; Nilo Ramos, Sr. Director, Finance. Where necessary, permission is granted by copyright owner for those registered with Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, www.copyright.com, to photocopy any article herein for personal or internal reference use only for the flat fee of $1.20 per copy for each article. ENR Construction Economics, Top Rankings and Sourcebooks available for a fee in downloadable PDF format at www.ENR.com. Send payment to CCC. ISSN 0891-9526/92. Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without express permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies is prohibited. Write the editor to request such permission. Printed in the USA. Subscription rates for individuals in the field of the publication: U.S. and possessions, $82 per year (single copies $9.95 in U.S.); Canada and Mexico, $89 per year; outside North America, $195 per year. Please allow four to six weeks for shipment. Subscriber service and single copoies: (877) 876-8208 or (515) 237-3681. Send all correspondence, notices and subscription orders to Fulfillment Manager, ENR, P.O. Box 5730, Harlan, IA 51593. If possible, attach address label from a recent issue. Please contact customer service to change your name or address. If the postal authorities alert us that your magazine is undeliverable, we have no further obligation unless we receive a corrected address within two years. Please allow a month for change of address to take effect. Classified advertising: Send ads to ENR, Classified Advertising, Two Penn Plaza, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10121. Phone (212) 904-2815.

ENR 2008 Top CM - Fee and Risk and PM

Documents

Transcript of ENR 2008 Top CM - Fee and Risk and PM