Overview pg 2 // PM/CM-for-Fee Revenue pg 2 // The Top 20 Firms in Combined Design and CM/PM Professional Service
Revenue pg 3 // The Top 20 Firms in Combined Industry Revenue pg 3 // The Top 50 Program Management Firms pg 4 The
Top 100 CM-for-Fee/Program Management Firms pg 5
GRAND PROJECT
PHOTO COURTESY OF HILL INTERNATIONAL
NUMBER 7
Hill International is the lead
project manager on the
$800-million, 870,000-sq-ft
Grand Egyptian Museum in
Giza, which is scheduled to
open in August.
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS
Firms Fill In Owners’ Gaps
Some owners are wary about using outside project management, but
they are happy to use CM firms to supplement their staffs By Gary J. Tulacz
enr.com June 22, 2015

ENR

1
THE TOP 100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS
#40
HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC. is
CM/PM for the city of Carlsbad, Calif.,
on the Carlsbad Desalination Project,
the largest desal plant in the U.S.
OVERVIEW
A Gradual Rise in CMF-PM Fees
DOMESTIC REVENUE
$ BILLIONS
INTERNATIONAL REVENUE
2011
$14.17
2009
2014
2013
2012
$15.22
2010
$14.83
$14.62
$14.34
$12.81
2008
2007
$10.07
$9.65
2012
2008
2007
$2.42
$3.83
2009
$3.22
2010
$3.38
2011
$4.87
2014
2013
$5.08
$4.79
$3.44
SOURCE: DODGE DATA & ANALYTICS/ENR
The market has returned to health, which should be
good news to professional services firms like construction and program managers. However, many CMs and
PMs are seeing the market as a mixed bag, with owners
having to be convinced that CM services are worth the
price and that experience and expertise, not price,
should govern their hiring choices.
The steady if uncertain market for professional service firms can be seen in the results of the ENR Top
100 Construction Management-for-Fee and Program
Management Firms list. Revenue for the CM-PM
group rose 2.6%, to $19.91 billion, in 2014. Domestic
revenue from CM-PM work rose only 1.4%, to $14.83
billion. CM-PM revenue from projects and programs
abroad fared a little better, rising 6.1%, to $5.08 billion, after declining 1.6% in 2013.
The overall market is strong. “If we didn’t have the
oil and gas sector slowdown, I don’t know whether we
could find enough people to do all the work,” says
Bruce D’Agostino, CEO of the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA), McLean, Va.
He notes CMAA has grown to 14,000 members.
The public sector market is growing for many CM
firms. “With the increase in number and size of opportunities, many owners are seeking assistance from
the private sector for programmatic support for implementing their increased portfolio of work,” says Mike
Orth, senior vice president of Black & Veatch’s water
business. He says public agencies also are seeking more
construction management support to augment their
staff for increased oversight during construction.
One firm that is benefiting from a growing international interest in CM and PM is Hill International.
Hill has had a huge presence in the Middle East and
“The ROI for
professional
services is not
gained through
evaluating the
unit cost or
hourly rate for
such services.
Instead, it’s
gained through
sourcing those
firms who have
measurable
qualifications
and
experience.”
Philios
Angelides,
President,
Alpha Corp.
that is increasing with its acquisition on April 15 of
IMS, an Istanbul-based CM firm. “We went from 50
people to 150 in Turkey with that acquisition,” says
David Richter, Hill’s CEO. He says Turkey is a growing market for both infrastructure and buildings.
However, Hill’s big target now is Asia. “We are
looking at a major acquisition in Asia and hope to have
some news in the next month or two,” Richter says.
While Hill has some work in Asia, Richter says the
acquisition will help the firm increase its presence in
the Chinese, Indian and Australian markets.
Hill also is expanding in U.S. markets. Its 2014
acquisition of Boston-based Collaborative Partners
Inc. gives Hill an expanded presence in the education
and health care markets. “And we finally got a significant presence in New England,” Richter says, noting
that Boston is one of the nation’s hottest markets.
Some CM firms are enjoying a significant uptick in
their local core markets. For example, many local
school bond issues gained voter approval this past November throughout California. “Our sweet spot is
managing the construction process for school districts,” says Lisa Larabee, CEO of Harris & Associates.
She says Harris is gaining new work in the state in the
K-12 market, for community colleges and in the University of California system.
On the other hand, California is struggling to fund
infrastructure projects. “Most infrastructure projects
are funding on the local level, so we have launched a
new initiative to aid local agencies in finding funds to
pay for needed infrastructure upgrades,” says Larabee.
The market for professional services may be growing, but it is not booming. “I see a trend where the
owner’s decision-making process for bringing on outenr.com June 22, 2015

ENR

2
#14
THE TOP 100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS
siders is driven by the perception that there is insufficient budget to hire a full-spectrum program manager,” says Randall D. Martinez, executive vice
president and COO, Cordoba Corp. So owners procure services in a variety of hybrid management structures, including staff augmentation and program manager with individual construction managers, among
other variations, he says.
Many owners are looking to CM firms to supplement their project management staffs, rather than hiring
in-house staff, says Reza Amirkhalili, president of Atkins
North America/Faithful+Gould. He says owners are
keeping a core team in house and using CM firms to
supplement their teams or for specific task-orientated
work, such as estimating or risk management.
Amirkhalili says owners continue to self-manage
their smaller and less complex projects, where they recognize the risks are manageable and only use PM/CM
firms to augment their staff, focusing on project controls
over costs and schedule. He says owners generally will
hire PM/CM firms to manage the entire project only
on larger, more complex building programs.
But many executives argue that CM firms should
be brought in at the outset of a project. For example,
Martinez warns that choosing the appropriate management structure and project delivery method is critical
to the success of the project and must occur at the start
of a construction program when the owner is in the
best position to affect its outcome.
“The owner’s ability to intervene to affect the outcome of the construction project is greatest at the beginning of the project, and can gradually reduce to
nearly zero by project completion if effective and continual guidance is not interjected by the owner
throughout the life of the program,” Martinez says.
The recovering market has helped CM firms in an
indirect way. When work was scarce, designers and
contractors would provide extra services as a means of
acquiring a new contract. That practice in slowly fading as opportunities have grown and firms become less
desperate for work. “We are seeing a reduction in ‘free’
services offered by various players in the industry as a
form of business development,” says Peter Heald,
president of Cumming. Owners have to find a way to
obtain those services in the marketplace, and they are
using CM firms to fill this gap.
Commodity Pricing
Many agency CM firms say that owners continue to
press for up-front cost savings. The emphasis on cost
has carried over into the program management business. “At Arcadis we’re seeing some clients shift away
from agency PM/CM in favor of staff augmentation
FAITHFUL+GOULD is manager and
cost consultant to convert New York
City’s landmark Metropolitan Life
clock tower into a hotel.
OVERVIEW
The Top 20 Firms in Combined
Design and CM/PM
Professional Service Revenue
2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.
RANK
2015
FIRM
DESIGN
REVENUE
CM/PM-FORFEE REVENUE
TOTAL
REVENUE
1
AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif.
10,311.2
2,235.0
12,546.2
2
JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif.
5,969.5
1,621.6
7,591.2
3
BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif.
2,208.0
4,462.0
6,670.0
4
CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo.
3,539.5
2,576.6
6,116.1
5
FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas
3,999.1
3.4
4,002.5
6
PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif.
1,638.2
1,160.2
2,798.4
7
AMEC FOSTER WHEELER, Tucker, Ga.
2,642.9
25.1
2,668.0
8
CB&I, The Woodlands, Texas
2,657.9
0.0
2,657.9
9
TETRA TECH INC., Pasadena, Calif.
2,360.0
0.0
2,360.0
10
HDR, Omaha, Neb.
1,804.7
182.1
1,986.8
11
ARCADIS U.S./RTKL/CALLISON, Highlands Ranch, Colo.
1,490.0
143.0
1,633.0
12
BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo.
1,103.1
496.9
1,599.9
13
WOOD GROUP MUSTANG INC., Houston, Texas
1,551.6
35.8
1,587.4
14
WSP | PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, New York, N.Y.
1,143.6
427.0
1,570.5
15
KBR, Houston, Texas
1,527.0
0.0
1,527.0
16
BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan.
1,266.6
249.7
1,516.3
17
WORLEYPARSONS GROUP INC., Bellaire, Texas
1,391.8
79.6
1,471.3
18
GENSLER, Washington, D.C.
1,041.3
0.0
1,041.3
19
JLL, Chicago, Ill.
0.0
1,003.4
1,003.4
20
STANTEC INC., Edmonton, Alberta
971.8
15.5
987.3
The Top 20 Firms in
Combined Industry Revenue
2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.
RANK
2015
FIRM
CONTRACTING
REVENUE
DESIGN
REVENUE
CM/PM-FORFEE REVENUE
TOTAL
REVENUE
1
BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif.
28,302.0
2,208.0
4,462.0
34,972.0
2
FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas
16,924.9
3,999.1
3.4
20,927.4
3
AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif.
7,095.0
10,311.2
2,235.0
19,641.2
4
CB&I, The Woodlands, Texas
10,317.0
2,657.9
0.0
12,974.9
5
JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif.
5,104.0
5,969.5
1,621.6
12,695.2
6
THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y.
10,797.5
0.0
175.4
10,972.9
7
KIEWIT CORP., Omaha, Neb.
10,165.2
283.7
0.0
10,448.9
8
PCL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES INC., Denver, Colo.
7,232.9
0.0
0.0
7,232.9
9
SKANSKA USA, New York, N.Y.
7,025.1
0.0
0.0
7,025.1
10
KBR, Houston, Texas
4,839.0
1,527.0
0.0
6,366.0
11
THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING CO., Baltimore, Md.
6,347.1
0.0
0.0
6,347.1
12
CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo.
0.0
3,539.5
2,576.6
6,116.1
13
BALFOUR BEATTY US, Dallas, Texas
4,877.2
0.0
49.0
4,926.2
14
TUTOR PERINI CORP., Sylmar, Calif.
4,492.3
131.4
57.3
4,681.0
15
THE WALSH GROUP LTD., Chicago, Ill.
4,608.1
0.0
0.0
4,608.1
16
CLARK GROUP, Bethesda, Md.
4,151.0
0.0
1.6
4,152.5
17
GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I.
3,804.9
0.0
101.7
3,906.6
18
STRUCTURE TONE, New York, N.Y.
3,666.0
0.0
0.0
3,666.0
19
AMEC FOSTER WHEELER, Tucker, Ga.
942.8
2,642.9
25.1
3,610.8
20
PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif.
727.5
1,638.2
1,160.2
3,525.9
enr.com June 22, 2015

ENR

3
#3
THE TOP 100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS
The Top 50 Program
Management Firms
RANK
2015
FIRM
2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.
DOMESTIC
REVENUE
INT’L
REVENUE
TOTAL
REVENUE
1
CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo.
2,105.5
471.1
2,576.6
2
AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif.
1,676.3
558.8
2,235.0
3
BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif.
1,294.0
14.0
1,308.0
4
JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif.
596.5
569.4
1,165.8
5
PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif.
772.0
149.5
921.5
6
CBRE INC., Dallas, Texas
256.4
306.8
563.2
7
JLL, Chicago, Ill.
263.4
238.3
501.7
8
HILL INTERNATIONAL INC., Philadelphia, Pa.
103.2
349.0
452.2
9
LEIDOS, Reston, Va.
393.2
0.0
393.3
10
LOUIS BERGER, Morristown, N.J.
50.4
140.6
191.0
11
ATKINS NORTH AMERICA/FAITHFUL+GOULD, Dallas, Texas
182.4
3.9
186.3
12
HDR, Omaha, Neb.
180.1
2.0
182.1
13
WSP | PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, New York, N.Y.
175.8
0.0
175.8
14
CDM SMITH, Boston, Mass.
74.1
42.9
117.0
15
BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo.
115.0
0.0
115.0
16
BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan.
26.8
74.9
101.7
17
ARCADIS U.S./RTKL/CALLISON, Highlands Ranch, Colo.
81.0
3.0
84.0
18
WORLEYPARSONS GROUP INC., Bellaire, Texas
7.1
72.5
79.6
19
DTZ, Chicago, Ill.
32.1
41.3
73.4
20
GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I.
49.1
24.1
73.2
21
TURNER & TOWNSEND INC., New York, N.Y.
51.9
0.0
51.9
22
HEERY INTERNATIONAL INC., Atlanta, Ga.
51.3
0.0
51.3
23
F.A. WILHELM CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Indianapolis, Ind.
42.0
0.0
42.0
24
LEND LEASE, New York, N.Y.
31.4
8.4
39.8
25
RS&H INC., Jacksonville, Fla.
38.0
0.0
38.0
26
PROJECT TIME & COST LLC, Atlanta, Ga.
34.1
3.2
37.3
27
MCDONOUGH BOLYARD PECK INC., Fairfax, Va.
29.6
3.1
32.7
28
VANIR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT INC., Sacramento, Calif.
31.0
0.0
31.0
29
LEA+ELLIOTT INC., Grand Prairie, Texas
28.0
0.0
28.0
30
ON-BOARD ENGINEERING CORP., East Windsor, N.J.
26.3
0.0
26.3
31
THE PIKE COS. LTD., Rochester, N.Y.
26.0
0.0
26.0
32
CSA GROUP, Miami, Fla.
18.5
6.4
24.8
33
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD, Iselin, N.J.
17.5
4.2
21.7
34
ALPHA CORP., Dulles, Va.
21.5
0.0
21.5
35
MCKISSACK & MCKISSACK, Washington, D.C.
21.4
0.0
21.4
36
BALFOUR BEATTY US, Dallas, Texas
21.4
0.0
21.4
37
BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY, Washington, D.C.
21.0
0.0
21.0
38
HOAR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, Birmingham, Ala.
20.4
0.0
20.4
39
GAFCON INC., San Diego, Calif.
19.2
0.0
19.2
40
PMA CONSULTANTS LLC, Ann Arbor, Mich.
19.1
0.0
19.1
41
FREESE AND NICHOLS INC., Fort Worth, Texas
18.8
0.0
18.8
42
DLZ, Columbus, Ohio
7.0
11.0
18.0
43
SGI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, Pasadena, Calif.
17.1
0.0
17.1
44
STANTEC INC., Irvine, Calif.
15.5
0.0
15.5
45
CPH INC., Sanford, Fla.
13.0
2.0
15.0
46
HUNTER ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION GROUP, New York, N.Y.
15.0
0.0
15.0
47
DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORP., Houston, Texas
14.5
0.0
14.5
48
CPM, San Juan, P.R.
12.5
1.5
14.0
49
EXP US SERVICES INC., Chicago, Ill.
9.0
5.0
14.0
50
HGA (HUNT GUILLOT & ASSOCIATES), Ruston, La.
13.8
0.0
13.8
AECOM jumped three slots on the Top
100 CM/PM list after acquiring URS
Corp., which ranked No. 4 on last
year’s Top 100 list.
OVERVIEW
to complement their in-house teams,” says John Jastrem, CEO of Arcadis U.S. He says the cost savings of
this approach “is debatable.”
Many CM firms say this focus on cost is a hangover
from the market recession, where low-ball bids were
common and owners came to expect more for less.
“There’s an increasing trend in the industry to see professional services—design or management—as a commodity service,” says Philios Angelides, president, Alpha Corp. “The ROI for professional services is not
gained through evaluating the unit cost or hourly rate
for such services. Instead, it’s gained through sourcing
those firms who have measurable qualifications and
experience.”
But D’Agostino says that more owners are joining
CMAA specifically to address this issue. “We now have
3,100 owner-practitioners as members.” He says that
the growth of CMAA, particularly among owners, has
been driven largely by the groups CM certification
program. “Owners increasingly are demanding that the
firms they hire are qualified to manage their projects.”
Finding Talent
Just like contractors and design firms, professional service firms are worrying about finding qualified people
to do the work. At the same time, a talent shortage may
be driving some owners to resort to hiring outside CM
firms to manage their projects rather than joining the
search for people in a diminishing pool.
“With all of the players across the continuum from
subcontractors to owners fighting for a limited pool of
talent, owners are becoming more and more likely to
bring on third-party consultants to help set up and
manage large, complex projects,” says Heald of Cumming. He says some owners are reluctant to build up
internal teams due to memories of downsizing from
the last recession.
CM firms are worried about their own potential
staff shortages. “Finding good people is our top priority,” says Richter. He says Hill vigorously recruits new
graduates at top colleges around the country. “We have
4,800 employees and will probably exceed 5,000 by the
end of the year.”
D’Agostino says CMAA is working hard with colleges to develop academic CM programs. “But the real
impact is when you reach down to the high schools to
get students interested in construction as a career.”
D’Agostino says the way to reach students is to emphasize concepts they can relate to. “When you start
talking about drones, geospatial analysis, laser scanning
and building information modeling in construction,
young people sit up and take notice. The begin to realize that construction is more than digging ditches.” n
enr.com June 22, 2015

ENR

4
#64
THE TOP 100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS
HOAR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
is program manager for the 750,000sq-ft Airbus USA A320 assembly plant
at Brookley Aeroplex in Mobile, Ala.
Construction Management-for-Fee Firms
2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.
RANK
2015 2014
FIRM
FIRM TOTAL REV. DOMESTIC
($ MIL.)
TYPE
REVENUE
2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.
RANK
2015 2014
FIRM TOTAL REV. DOMESTIC
($ MIL.)
TYPE
REVENUE
FIRM
1
1 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif.
EC
4,462.0
807.0
51
63 KLEINFELDER, San Diego, Calif.
EA
27.2
0.0
2
2 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo.
EAC
2,576.6
471.1
52
54 VALI COOPER AND ASSOCIATES INC., Emeryville, Calif.
CM
26.5
0.0
3
6 AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif.
EA
2,235.0
558.8
53
72 ON-BOARD ENGINEERING CORP., East Windsor, N.J.
E
26.3
0.0
4
3 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif.
AEC
1,621.6
802.0
54
56 BOSWELL ENGINEERING INC., South Hackensack, N.J.
E
25.7
0.0
5
5 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif.
EC
1,160.2
195.1
55
61 MCKISSACK & MCKISSACK, Washington, D.C.
AE
25.5
0.0
6
7 JLL, Chicago, Ill.
CM
1,003.4
476.6
56
** AMEC FOSTER WHEELER, Tucker, Ga.
EC
25.1
20.3
9 HILL INTERNATIONAL INC., Philadelphia, Pa.
7
CM
640.3
470.5
57
78 CSA GROUP, Miami, Fla.
AE
24.8
6.4
8
11 CBRE INC., Dallas, Texas
CM
606.0
316.6
58
62 GAFCON INC., San Diego, Calif.
CM
24.4
0.0
9
17 BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo.
EAC
496.9
12.2
59
66 TECTONIC ENG’G & SURVEYING, Mountainville, N.Y.
E
23.0
0.0
10
** WSP | PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, New York, N.Y.
EA
427.0
0.0
60
55 ALPHA CORP., Dulles, Va.
CM
21.9
0.0
11
10 LEIDOS, Reston, Va.
EAC
408.0
0.0
61
80 TARGET ENGINEERING GROUP INC., Coral Gables, Fla.
CM
21.0
0.0
12
13 LOUIS BERGER, Morristown, N.J.
EAP
258.3
192.2
62
** BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY, Washington, D.C.
CM
21.0
0.0
13
12 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan.
EC
249.7
178.8
63
** FLINTCO LLC, Tulsa, Okla.
CM
21.0
0.0
14
14 ATKINS N. AMERICA/FAITHFUL+GOULD, Dallas, Texas
EA
237.3
5.1
64
70 HOAR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, Birmingham, Ala.
CM
20.4
0.0
15
24 DTZ, Chicago, Ill.
CM
211.3
123.8
65
** CPH INC., Sanford, Fla.
EA
20.0
2.6
16
27 HDR, Omaha, Neb.
EA
182.1
2.0
66
** THE DENNIS ENGINEERING GROUP, Springfield, Mass.
EAC
20.0
0.0
17
16 THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y.
EC
175.4
58.0
67
58 MCCARTHY HOLDINGS INC., St. Louis, Mo.
C
20.0
0.0
18
18 ARCADIS U.S./RTKL/CALLISON, Highlands Ranch, Colo.
EA
143.0
4.0
68
75 SAVIN ENGINEERS PC, Pleasantville, N.Y.
CM
20.0
0.0
19
19 THE LIRO GROUP, Syosset, N.Y.
EA
140.4
0.0
69
91 CRB, St. Louis, Mo.
CM
20.0
0.0
20
23 CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, New York, N.Y.
CM
129.4
97.0
70
84 MWH GLOBAL, Broomfield, Colo.
EC
19.8
0.0
21
20 CDM SMITH, Boston, Mass.
EC
117.0
42.9
71
65 CORDOBA CORP., Los Angeles, Calif.
E
19.4
0.0
22
35 GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I.
C
101.7
24.1
72
** FREESE AND NICHOLS INC., Fort Worth, Texas
EA
18.8
0.0
23
25 LEND LEASE, New York, N.Y.
C
84.6
13.0
73
68 METRIC ENGINEERING INC., Miami, Fla.
E
18.4
0.0
24
37 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, Moon Township, Pa.
EA
80.5
21.5
74
76 SGI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, Pasadena, Calif.
CM
18.0
0.0
25
26 WORLEYPARSONS GROUP INC., Bellaire, Texas
EC
79.6
72.5
75
74 KS ENGINEERS PC, Newark, N.J.
E
18.0
0.0
26
40 TURNER & TOWNSEND INC., New York, N.Y.
CM
78.2
0.0
76
73 CPM, San Juan, P.R.
CM
17.8
1.7
27
38 CUMMING, San Diego, Calif.
CM
73.4
8.8
77
92 MCMILLEN JACOBS ASSOCIATES, San Francisco, Calif.
EC
17.5
1.4
28
33 VANIR CONSTRUCTION MGMT., Sacramento, Calif.
CM
66.8
1.3
78
86 MARKON SOLUTIONS, Falls Church, Va.
CM
17.2
3.3
29
29 HEERY INTERNATIONAL INC., Atlanta, Ga.
AP
64.2
0.0
79
** GBA, Lenexa, Kan.
EA
17.0
0.0
30
36 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD, Iselin, N.J.
E
60.7
20.6
80
** EISMAN & RUSSO INC., Jacksonville, Fla.
CM
16.5
0.0
31
41 RS&H INC., Jacksonville, Fla.
EA
59.0
0.0
81
77 COTTER CONSULTING INC., Chicago, Ill.
CM
16.5
0.0
32
** TUTOR PERINI CORP., Sylmar, Calif.
EC
57.3
0.0
82
39 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC., Walnut Creek, Calif.
E
16.1
0.0
33
28 UNIVERSALPEGASUS INTERNATIONAL, Houston, Texas
E
57.0
5.0
83
51 STANTEC INC., Irvine, Calif.
EAL
15.5
0.0
34
32 BALFOUR BEATTY US, Dallas, Texas
C
49.0
0.0
84
83 CHANEN CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Phoenix, Ariz.
C
15.4
0.0
35
43 THE VERTEX COS. INC., Weymouth, Mass.
CM
48.8
15.0
85
85 ALLEN & SHARIFF, Columbia, Md.
E
15.3
15.3
36
45 MCDONOUGH BOLYARD PECK INC., Fairfax, Va.
CM
46.7
3.1
86
88 MORTENSON CONSTRUCTION, Minneapolis, Minn.
C
15.3
0.0
37
64 DLZ, Columbus, Ohio
EA
42.1
11.0
87
79 SWINERTON INC., San Francisco, Calif.
C
14.9
0.0
38
** F.A. WILHELM CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Indianapolis, Ind.
CM
42.0
0.0
88
** BERNARDS, San Fernando, Calif.
C
14.9
0.0
39
48 URBAN ENGINEERS INC., Philadelphia, Pa.
E
40.0
0.0
89
98 DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORP., Houston, Texas
E
14.5
0.0
40
46 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC., Concord, Calif.
E
39.0
0.0
90
87 NXL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC., Richmond, Va.
CM
14.3
0.0
41
50 GANNETT FLEMING, Harrisburg, Pa.
EA
38.1
0.0
91
** GHAFARI ASSOCIATES LLC, Dearborn, Mich.
EA
14.2
0.0
42
57 PROJECT TIME & COST LLC, Atlanta, Ga.
CM
37.3
3.2
92
94 HR GREEN INC., Cedar Rapids, Iowa
EA
14.2
0.0
43
49 PMA CONSULTANTS LLC, Ann Arbor, Mich.
CM
37.0
0.0
93
** EXP US SERVICES INC., Chicago, Ill.
E
14.0
5.0
44
52 KITCHELL CORP., Phoenix, Ariz.
EC
37.0
0.0
94
** HGA (HUNT GUILLOT & ASSOCIATES), Ruston, La.
E
13.8
0.0
45
15 WOOD GROUP MUSTANG INC., Houston, Texas
EC
35.8
4.3
95
82 BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES, Austin, Texas
CM
13.0
0.0
46
53 PLAZA CONSTRUCTION, New York, N.Y.
C
33.0
0.0
96
** MOODY NOLAN INC., Columbus, Ohio
AE
12.8
0.0
47
93 THE YATES COS. INC., Philadelphia, Miss.
EC
31.7
0.0
97
21 BARTON MALOW CO., Southfield, Mich.
EC
12.0
0.0
48
67 THE PIKE COS. LTD., Rochester, N.Y.
EC
31.0
0.0
98
** GHD INC., San Francisco, Calif.
E/ENV
12.0
2.1
49
95 HUNTER ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION, New York, N.Y.
C
30.0
0.0
99
90 KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, Minneapolis, Minn.
C
12.0
0.0
50
59 LEA+ELLIOTT INC., Grand Prairie, Texas
EA
28.0
0.0
100
81 POWER ENGINEERS INC., Meridian, Idaho
EA
12.0
0.0
COMPANIES ARE RANKED BASED ON TOTAL 2014 REVENUE IN $ MILLIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION-MANAGEMENT OR PROJECT/PROGRAM-MANAGEMENT SERVICES PERFORMED AS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FOR A FEE. **=NOT RANKED IN 2014 AMONG THE
TOP 100 CMS. KEY TO TYPE OF FIRM: A=ARCHITECT; C=CONTRACTOR; CM=CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRM; EC=ENGINEER-CONTRACTOR; ENV=ENVIRONMENTAL FIRM. OTHER COMBINATIONS ARE POSSIBLE.
enr.com June 22, 2015

ENR

5