The Top 100 Project Delivery Firms

#42
McCarthy Holdings Inc. and No. 12-ranked Balfour Beatty are on the Darnell Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, Texas, design-build team.

Design-Builders and Domestic CM-at-Risk Firms Face Continued Revenue Declines in 2010 By Gary J. Tulacz
The industry is struggling to cope with a tough market, and firms specializing in alternate project delivery are not immune to the downturn. Firms providing design-build and construction management-at-risk services are not only facing a sluggish market but also finding that, in this competitive market, some owners believe they will get the best price by returning to design-bid-build. This situation has left many in the industry fighting to prove the value of collaboration in alternate project delivery.
THE TOP 100 INDEX

24 Overview 24 Design-Build Revenue

25 Domestic CM-at-Risk Revenue 26 Design-Build State Laws

29 Design-Build Top 100 List 31 CM-at-Risk Top 100 List

enr.com June 6, 2011

ENR

23

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS

Falling Design-Build Revenue

2005 $36.6 2006 $44.9 2007 $53.8 2008 $64.4 2009 $59.3 2010 50.2
International Market Revenue: $28.0

2005 $20.0

2006 $23.9

2007 $23.9

Domestic Market Revenue: $50.2

2008 $33.2 2009 $30.1 2010 $28.0

Domestic Revenue

International Revenue
(Measured $ millions)
Source: McGraw-Hill Construction Reasearch & Analytics/ENR.

(Measured $ millions)
Source: McGraw-Hill Construction Reasearch & Analytics/ENR.

Like the Top 500 Design Firms (ENR 4/25 p. 59) and the Top 400 Contractors (ENR, 5/16 p. 65), there has been a distinct falloff in revenue for the ENR Top 100 Design-Build Firms and the ENR Top 100 CMat-Risk firms. The Top 100 Design-Build Firms generated $78.32 billion in 2010 revenue from projects using designbuild or engineer-procure-construct project-delivery models. This is a decline of 12.0% from $89.43 billion in 2009 and 19.3% from $97.60 billion in 2008. The domestic market was hit the hardest, with design-build revenue in 2010 of $50.23 billion, falling 15.3% from 2009s level and 22.0% from 2008s mark. The international market fared a little better, falling to $28.01 billion in 2010, down 6.9% from 2009. The international design-build market is off 15.6% from 2008. The Top 100 CM-at-Risk Firms saw similar dropoffs. The Top 100 saw revenue from CM-at-Risk projects decline 12.3% in 2010 to $78.32 billion compared to $89.34 billion in 2009. CM-at-Risk revenue is down 24.2% from 2008s level of $103.34 billion. Domestic CM-at-Risk 2010 revenue was $63.97 billion, down 13.4% from 2009 and down 27.1% from 2008. On the international side, CM-at-Risk revenue is down 7.2% from 2009 and down 8.0% from 2008. Much of the decline can be attributed directly to the overall industry recession. However, the high level of competition among construction firms in the shrinking market has not gone unnoticed in the owner community. Some owners are moving to the more traditional design-bid-build delivery process, thinking this is a way to squeeze the best price out of a frantic indus24

BIM requires integration and integration requires BIM. Greg Gidez, director, preconstruction services, Hensel Phelps Construction, and chairman of DBIA

try. There is a segment of owners who realize that there is a sale going on in the industry right now and that they can draw 25 to 30 contractors into a pre-bid meeting, says Derek Glanvill, president of McCarthy. He says that, for these owners, the advantages of alternate project delivery go out the window in favor of the lowest possible price. These tend to be the less knowledgeable owners that do not think of the long-term cost of such an approach, Glanvill says. Owners that take this approach may be in for a rude awakening. Our experience is that our clients want to bid everything to take advantage of the hyper-competitive climate that exists today, says Mike Lanier, principal at Hoar Program Management. Our challenge is getting them to understand the risks contractors and subcontractors are taking in their bid strategies that could haunt the project should a firm fail. The sweetness of a low price can be erased pretty quickly. Many in the construction community share Laniers concerns. With many owners resorting to hard-bid contracts, we may end up where we were 10 years ago, with contract disputes, change orders and litigation, says Greg Gidez, director of preconstruction services for Hensel Phelps Construction and this years chairman of the Design-Build Institute of America, Washington, D.C. However, he says owners interest in collaborative approaches to project delivery is increasing. Thus, alternate project delivery should flourish once the market starts to recover, he adds. There is a countervailing trend that is beginning to offset this impulse to go hard bid. While many clients are leaning toward the design-bid-build methodology

ENR

June 6, 2011 enr.com

#18
2006 $67.7 2007 $79.2 2008 $87.7

Hensel Phelps Construction fell two slots to No. 11 on the DesignBuild Firms list but rose to No. 18 from No. 24 on the CM-at-Risk Firms list.

OVERVIEW

Domestic CM-at-risk Plunges

2005 $56.4 2009 $73.9 2010 $64.0 2005 $6.8
International Market Revenue: $14.4

Domestic Market Revenue: $64.0

2006 $6.4

2007 $10.6

2008 $15.6

2009 $15.5

Domestic Revenue

International Revenue

2010 $14.4
(Measured $ millions)
Source: McGraw-Hill Construction Reasearch & Analytics/ENR.

(Measured $ millions)
Source: McGraw-Hill Construction Reasearch & Analytics/ENR.

and away from CM-at-risk due to what they perceive as pricing advantages, other clients are adopting integrated project delivery [IPD] for some major projects, says Rich Tilghman, senior vice president with Pepper Construction. He says the trend is particularly strong in the health-care market. Gidez makes a distinction between pure IPD and what tries to pass for IPD. There is IPD that arises from a contract between the parties, and there is lowercased IPD that tries to use the collaborative approach to project delivery. However, he believes IPD has become a buzzword that is often misunderstood. The best way to guarantee collaboration is by including all parties under a single contract. That way, everyone is rowing in the same direction, he says. The increasing use of building information modeling in the delivery process has begun to pay dividends in saving time and money. However, Glanvill says BIM is just a tool. The important thing in project delivery is collaboration, and BIM is a way to make that possible, he says. Contractors and subcontractors have embraced BIM, but the best way to profit from the BIM tool is to have all parties onboard from the start, adds Gidez. BIM requires integration, and integration requires BIM, he notes. Design-Build Gaining in States After years of reluctance, the infrastructure market now is embracing design-build. This trend gained momentum when the federal stimulus money started to roll in. Public agencies had to get projects moving quickly, and design-build was the best approach for

In a hard-bid atmosphere, Our challenge is getting [owners] to understand the risks. The sweetness of a low price can be erased pretty quickly. Mike Lanier, principal, Hoar Program Management

this, says Lisa Washington, executive director of DBIA. At the DBIA conference on water and wastewater, overall attendance was up 30% over last year, but owner participation was up 50%, she says. A major driver for increased interest in design-build in infrastructure is the growing interest in alternative financingsuch as public-private partnershipsby cash-strapped public agencies. P3s mean more designbuild, so the transportation industry will have to change to keep up with this trend, says William G. Hasbrook, vice president of Webber LLC, Houston. Those few states that dont allow design-build are going to have to take a hard look at the delivery method now or get left behind in the infrastructure race. Partly in recognition of the need for outside financing, states increasingly are passing laws authorizing design-build by state and local agencies. As of mid2010, we can say for the first time that design-build now is allowed in some form in the public sector in all 50 states, says DBIAs Washington. She points out that, in 2007, there still were seven states that did not allow any public design-build. DBIA now is focusing on states that still have heavy restrictions on designbuild use, including Ohio, Iowa and New York. However, not everyone is optimistic P3s will flourish in this country in the near future. U.S. financial institutions began to show interest in the P3 market a few years ago after foreign investment firms and large companies from Australia and Europe started looking at the U.S. transportation market, says Bill Siegel, CEO of Kleinfelder. However, after the financial meltdown, most of the U.S. equity investment firms
enr.com June 6, 2011

ENR

25

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS

#15

Insituform Technologies Inc. is the highest-ranked newcomer to the Top 100 Design-Build Firms list. It designs and installs sewer pipe liners.

OVERVIEW

2011 Design-Build State Laws

Design-Build 2008 $97.6
WA MT OR ID WY NV CA NE UT CO KS OK SD IA IL MO TN AR LA MS AL GA IN ND MN WI MI PA OH KY WV VA NC SC NY CT NJ VT ME NH MA RI

CM-at-Risk 2008 $103.3

Design-Build 2009 $89.4

CM-at-Risk 2009 $89.3

AZ

NM TX

Design-build is a limited option Design-build is widely permitted Design-build is permitted by all agencies for all types of design and construction

Design-Build 2010 $78.7

CM-at-Risk 2010 $78.3

AK

FL

HI
Source: Design-Build Institute of America, 2011

Source: McGraw-Hill Construction Reasearch & Analytics/ENR.

pulled back from P3s mainly due to tight credit markets and their inability to take on additional risks. He says it may be some time before the money flows into P3s on a large scale in the U.S. Designer Discomfort The move toward design-build in the public sector has put some strain on design firms. Many public agencies require detailed proposals from bidders on designbuild projects, forcing the design-build teams to do extensive and expensive pre-bid work. The cost of preparing proposals has always been part of contractors and subcontractors business plans but were never really part of designers business plans, says Gidez. Gidez says owners that require detailed and expensive proposals actually work against their own interests. If a proposal requires a lot of preparation, that will discourage smaller firms and design-build teams from participating, leaving the field to the large national firms that can afford the risk of losing the bid, he says. Gidez also argues that stipends for bidding teams that lose would help a wider variety of firms to complete. Stipends wont pay the cost of bid preparation, but it will ease the pain of losing a bid, he says. Some design-builders also worry public agencies may be taking advantage of a highly competitive market by demanding design-build teams assume additional risk on projects. One of the side effects of the recession in the construction industry has been the effort to re-allocate risks away from the owners to the design-builders, says Siegel of Kleinfelder. Siegel says several public agencies have been push26

As of mid2010, we can say for the first time that designbuild is now allowed in some form in the public sector in all 50 states. Lisa Washington, executive director, DBIA

ing to transfer all or a majority of the project risks to the design-builder, even in cases where the owner should logically retain certain risks. In a tough economy, owners are pushing the risk transfer, and unfortunately, contractors who need and want projects are grudgingly taking on these risks, Siegel says. There are new markets beyond the public sector that are opening up to alternate project delivery. Siegel says utilities are moving toward engineer-procureconstruct on both fossil-fuel plants as well as transmission and distribution. This model is used heavily by independent power producers in generation and merchants in the transmission business. We are seeing many utilities move in this direction for larger projects where it appears that they are looking to limit project and commodity risks, he says. Furthermore, Siegel says the wind and solar power markets are moving toward EPC, too. These markets had used balance-of-plant delivery, which is more like design-bid-build. But now, EPCwhere the contractor becomes responsible for wind or solar manufacturer and/or equipment selection and its performance and site designis more common, he says. A collaborative approach to project delivery offers owners potential advantages in scheduling, cost and lack of disputes. While cut-rate prices from hard-bid design-bid-build may be hard for owners to resist, the risks are high. Further, they may find that many top firms are not interested in the bidding frenzy these owners wish to create. I would rather have $1 billion in high-margin work than take the risks of $5 billion in low-margin work, says Glanvill.

ENR

June 6, 2011 enr.com

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS

#04
INTERNATIONAL

Kiewit corp. and the No. 5-ranked Shaw Group Inc. are the only two firms in the lists Top 10 that saw increases in design-build revenue in 2010.

The Top 100 Design-Build Firms

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Rank 2011 2010
Total Rev. ($ mil.) DOMESTIC REVENUE

3 Jacobs, Pasadena, Calif. 5 Kiewit Corp., Omaha, Neb. 7 The Shaw Group Inc., Baton Rouge, La. 6 CB&I, The Woodlands, Texas 4 McDermott International Inc., Houston, Texas 8 KBR, Houston, Texas 10 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo. 11 Clark Group, Bethesda, Md. 9 Hensel Phelps Construction, Greeley, Colo. 20 Balfour Beatty US, Dallas, Texas 12 URS Corp., San Francisco, Calif. 16 The Turner Corp., New York, N.Y. ** Insituform Technologies Inc., Chesterfield, Mo. 21 Clayco Inc., St. Louis, Mo. 19 Mortenson Construction, Minneapolis, Minn. 14 Black & Veatch, Overland Park, Kan. 25 The Walsh Group Ltd., Chicago, Ill. ** Lend Lease, New York, N.Y. 22 Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, Mo. 13 Zachry Holdings, San Antonio, Texas 81 Contrack International Inc., McLean, Va. 26 B.L. Harbert Int'l LLC, Birmingham, Ala. 23 Flatiron Construction Corp., Firestone, Colo. 18 Hunt Building Co. Ltd., El Paso, Texas 34 Sundt Construction Inc., Tempe, Ariz. 24 Caddell Construction Co., Montgomery, Ala. 17 Skanska USA, New York, N.Y. 45 Whiting-Turner Contracting, Baltimore, Md. 15 Parsons, Pasadena, Calif. 37 Haskell, Jacksonville, Fla. 30 Swinerton Inc., San Francisco, Calif. 43 Stellar, Jacksonville, Fla. 35 The Yates Cos. Inc., Philadelphia, Miss. 29 Granite Construction Inc., Watsonville, Calif. ** Ryan Cos. US Inc., Minneapolis, Minn. ** Lakeshore TolTest Corp., Detroit, Mich. 27 Barton Malow Co., Southfield, Mich. 58 Harper Construction Co. Inc., San Diego, Calif. ** HBE Corp., St. Louis, Mo. 41 McCarthy Holdings Inc., St. Louis, Mo. 40 MACTEC Inc., Alpharetta, Ga. 51 CDM, Cambridge, Mass. ** Anderson Columbia Co. Inc., Lake City, Fla. 55 Jingoli - DCO, Lawrenceville, N.J. 33 S&B Engineers & Constructors, Houston, Texas 38 Taggart Global, Canonsburg, Pa. ** Zachry Construction Corp., San Antonio, Texas ** Arcadis/Malcolm Pirnie, Highlands Ranch, Colo.
1 Fluor Corp., Irving, Texas 2 Bechtel, San Francisco, Calif.

12,802.8 10,196.0 7,981.4 4,482.5 3,633.6 3,041.4 2,403.8 1,822.9 1,711.9 1,566.6 1,437.9 1,229.4 1,143.0 993.0 876.5 836.0 827.0 823.2 706.1 676.4 616.2 571.7 561.7 552.4 539.0 534.0 464.9 428.0 426.7 421.7 409.4 393.5 392.6 384.5 377.3 367.0 360.0 359.6 359.1 353.8 348.0 342.0 326.2 326.0 322.0 305.0 296.1 291.0 265.4 260.0

3,708.9 6,643.0 4,831.2 2,790.2 3,211.0 821.8 54.1 33.4 1,220.4 1,566.6 1,437.9 1,229.4 1,066.9 993.0 588.5 836.0 827.0 371.6 693.1 676.4 601.2 571.7 0.0 179.9 180.0 534.0 464.9 307.7 426.7 421.7 288.3 367.5 392.6 343.0 361.5 367.0 360.0 172.4 359.1 353.8 348.0 342.0 326.2 302.0 322.0 305.0 295.5 200.0 265.4 260.0

9,093.9 3,553.0 3,150.2 1,692.4 422.6 2,219.6 2,349.6 1,789.5 491.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.1 0.0 287.9 0.0 0.0 451.6 13.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 561.7 372.5 359.0 0.0 0.0 120.3 0.0 0.0 121.1 26.0 0.0 41.5 15.8 0.0 0.0 187.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.0 0.0 0.0

51 32 Duke Construction, Indianapolis, Ind. 52 54 The Korte Co., Highland, Ill. 53 36 Tutor Perini Corp., Sylmar, Calif. 54 ** Primoris Services Corp., Lake Forest, Calif. 55 85 DPR Construction Inc., Redwood City, Calif. 56 ** ECC, Burlingame, Calif. 57 49 Gray Construction, Lexington, Ky. 58 39 Fagen Inc., Granite Falls, Minn. 59 ** Gilbane Building Co., Providence, R.I. 60 ** Woodward Design+Build, New Orleans, La. 61 70 Science Applications Intl Corp., McLean, Va. 62 44 O & G Industries Inc., Torrington, Conn. 63 97 W.M. Jordan Co. Inc., Newport News, Va. 64 65 Webcor Builders, San Francisco, Calif. 65 56 Gemma Power Systems, Glastonbury, Conn. 66 64 H&M Co. Inc., Jackson, Tenn. 67 68 BBL Construction Services LLC, Albany, N.Y. 68 80 Forrester Construction Co., Rockville, Md. 69 ** Ames Construction Inc., Burnsville, Minn. 70 28 PCL Construction Enterprises, Denver, Colo. 71 47 Dennis Engineering Group, Springfield, Mass. 72 84 The Neenan Co., Fort Collins, Colo. 73 ** Consigli Construction Co. Inc., Milford, Mass. 74 ** Gilchrist Construction Co. LLC, Alexandria, La. 75 72 W.L. Butler Construction, Redwood City, Calif. 76 ** FTR International Inc., Irvine, Calif. 77 ** HITT Contracting Inc., Falls Church, Va. 78 94 McGough Construction, St. Paul, Minn. 79 ** Soltek Pacific Construction, San Diego, Calif. 80 ** The Lauren Corp., Abilene, Texas 81 ** ENGlobal, Houston, Texas 82 ** Coakley & Williams Constr., Gaithersburg, Md. 83 96 Walbridge, Detroit, Mich. 84 59 RMT Inc., Madison, Wis. 85 ** Williams Industrial Services, Tucker, Ga. 86 ** George Sollitt Construction, Wood Dale, Ill. 87 92 JE Dunn Construction Group, Kansas City, Mo. 88 ** Osborne Construction Co., Kirkland, Wash. 89 100 Structure Tone, New York, N.Y. 90 ** TB Penick & Sons Inc., San Diego, Calif. 91 53 Cogdell Spencer ERDMAN (SM), Madison, Wis. 92 89 Big-D Construction Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah 93 ** Sinanian Development Inc., Tarzana, Calif. 94 75 Grunley Construction Co. Inc., Rockville, Md. 95 ** Ingenium International Inc., Detroit, Mich. 96 ** Danis Building Construction, Miamisburg, Ohio 97 ** Neeser Construction Inc., Anchorage, Alaska 98 ** Armada Hoffler Constr., Virginia Beach, Va. 99 99 The Beck Group, Dallas, Texas 100 ** Traylor Bros. Inc., Evansville, Ind.

Rank 2011 2010

Total Rev. ($ mil.)

DOMESTIC REVENUE

INTERNATIONAL

255.7 253.9 252.4 250.0 247.5 237.8 214.1 209.2 206.5 205.0 204.4 201.2 197.8 179.7 174.9 160.0 156.9 155.0 149.1 145.7 144.0 136.0 134.8 132.8 130.0 130.0 130.0 128.7 128.0 127.8 125.0 120.7 120.6 120.0 119.0 118.6 115.4 115.0 115.0 112.9 112.3 109.0 105.0 103.0 100.9 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.8 98.3

255.7 253.9 122.9 250.0 247.5 82.7 214.1 205.0 189.2 205.0 204.0 201.2 197.8 179.7 174.9 160.0 156.9 155.0 149.1 132.9 144.0 136.0 134.8 132.8 130.0 130.0 130.0 128.7 128.0 127.8 105.0 120.7 96.4 120.0 119.0 118.6 115.4 115.0 100.0 112.9 112.3 109.0 105.0 103.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.8 98.3

0.0 0.0 129.5 0.0 0.0 155.0 0.0 4.2 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 24.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Companies are ranked in $ millions based on 2010 revenue from design-build contracts where the project is designed by employees of the firm or joint-venture partner and built by its own force or subcontactors under its supervision. **Not ranked in 2010 among the Top Design-Build Firms.

enr.com June 6, 2011

ENR

29

ENR06062011TL_Top100List.indd 29

5/27/11 3:59:33 PM

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS

Construction Management-at-Risk Firms

Rank 2011 2010
Total Rev. ($ mil.) INTERNATIONAL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

9 Fluor Corp., Irving, Texas 3 Tutor Perini Corp., Sylmar, Calif. 5 Gilbane Building Co., Providence, R.I. 11 Clark Group, Bethesda, Md. 17 Balfour Beatty US, Dallas, Texas 7 Skanska USA, New York, N.Y. 8 Structure Tone, New York, N.Y. 10 The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., Baltimore, Md. 13 PCL Construction Enterprises Inc., Denver, Colo. 12 JE Dunn Construction Group, Kansas City, Mo. 14 Suffolk Construction Co. Inc., Boston, Mass. 4 Lend Lease, New York, N.Y. 16 Holder Construction Co., Atlanta, Ga. 15 Mortenson Construction, Minneapolis, Minn. 19 DPR Construction Inc., Redwood City, Calif. 24 Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Greeley, Colo. 33 Kiewit Corp., Omaha, Neb. 20 Flintco LLC, Tulsa, Okla. 18 Austin Industries, Dallas, Texas 21 Hoffman Corp., Portland, Ore. 6 McCarthy Holdings Inc., St. Louis, Mo. 22 Manhattan Construction Group, Tulsa, Okla. 25 Hunt Construction Group, Scottsdale, Ariz. 26 Layton Construction Co. Inc., Sandy, Utah 23 Pepper Construction Group, Chicago, Ill. ** Robins & Morton, Birmingham, Ala. 32 David E. Harvey Builders Inc., Houston, Texas ** Webcor Builders, San Francisco, Calif. 29 Power Construction Co. LLC, Schaumburg, Ill. 30 Howard S. Wright, Portland, Ore. 54 KBR, Houston, Texas 36 Chanen Construction Co. Inc., Phoenix, Ariz. 60 Duke Construction, Indianapolis, Ind. 27 Hunter Roberts Construction Group, New York, N.Y. 34 Swinerton Inc., San Francisco, Calif. 39 Sundt Construction Inc., Tempe, Ariz. 28 Okland Construction Co. Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah 41 Adolfson & Peterson Construction, Minneapolis, Minn. 45 Kraus-Anderson Construction Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 76 Jacobsen Construction Co. Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah 43 Kenny Construction, Northbrook, Ill. 64 The Walsh Group Ltd., Chicago, Ill. 44 Alberici Corp., St. Louis, Mo. 63 Choate Construction Co., Atlanta, Ga. 71 LeChase Construction Services LLC, Rochester, N.Y. 62 Hoar Construction LLC, Birmingham, Ala. ** EMJ Corp., Chattanooga, Tenn. 48 Tellepsen, Houston, Texas
1 Bechtel, San Francisco, Calif. 2 The Turner Corp., New York, N.Y.

Rank 2011 2010

Total Rev. ($ mil.)

INTERNATIONAL

10,709.0 6,586.9 3,631.4 2,946.9 2,714.6 2,384.6 2,206.8 2,083.8 1,983.2 1,935.8 1,926.2 1,744.8 1,670.0 1,602.6 1,596.0 1,464.3 1,182.0 907.8 856.3 795.0 767.3 707.9 676.0 652.0 635.0 615.6 601.1 562.0 540.5 520.3 509.8 509.1 502.0 501.0 484.6 469.5 441.7 433.1 419.4 415.0 400.0 396.4 396.1 390.0 379.8 367.8 359.4 356.2 350.8 347.9

9,470.0 24.8 2,790.7 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 71.0 103.3 0.0 1,517.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

56 F.A. Wilhelm Construction Co. Inc., Indianapolis, Ind. 50 Plaza Construction Corp., New York, N.Y. 51 Bartlett Cocke Genl Contractors, San Antonio, Texas 72 Saunders Construction Inc., Centennial, Colo. 87 Consigli Construction Co. Inc., Milford, Mass. 77 SpawGlass Holding LP, Selma, Texas 89 Walbridge, Detroit, Mich. ** Andres Construction Services, Dallas, Texas 40 Messer Construction Co., Cincinnati, Ohio 37 Kitchell Corp., Phoenix, Ariz. 99 CORE Construction Group, Phoenix, Ariz. 79 McGough Construction, St. Paul, Minn. ** J.F. White Contracting Co., Framingham, Mass. 47 The Beck Group, Dallas, Texas 46 Walsh Brothers Inc., Boston, Mass. ** HITT Contracting Inc., Falls Church, Va. 78 The Christman Co., Lansing, Mich. 68 Lee Lewis Construction Inc., Lubbock, Texas ** ECC, Burlingame, Calif. 61 Rodgers Builders Inc., Charlotte, N.C. 58 The Boldt Co., Appleton, Wis. ** Nabholz Construction Corp., Conway, Ark. 86 Hardin Construction Co. LLC, Atlanta, Ga. ** Ryan Cos. US Inc., Minneapolis, Minn. 67 W.M. Jordan Co. Inc., Newport News, Va. 65 Clancy & Theys Construction Co., Raleigh, N.C. 66 Shiel Sexton Co. Inc., Indianapolis, Ind. 82 Torcon Inc., Red Bank, N.J. ** James G. Davis Construction Corp., Rockville, Md. 75 The PENTA Building Group, Las Vegas, Nev. 80 LPCiminelli Inc., Buffalo, N.Y. ** GE Johnson Construction Co., Colorado Springs, Colo. 38 C.W. Driver, Pasadena, Calif. 57 ONeil Industries Inc., Chicago, Ill. 49 Linbeck Group LLC, Houston, Texas 90 Bernards, San Fernando, Calif. ** ASRC Energy Services, Anchorage, Alaska ** URS Corp., San Francisco, Calif. ** Forrester Construction Co., Rockville, Md. ** Baldwin & Shell Construction Co., Little Rock, Ark. 59 GLY Construction Inc., Bellevue, Wash. 73 Coastal Construction Group, Miami, Fla. ** GH Phipps Construction Cos., Greenwood Village, Colo. 92 Barr & Barr Inc., New York, N.Y. ** The Shaw Group Inc., Baton Rouge, La. ** Paric Corp., OFallon, Mo. 70 Brasfield & Gorrie LLC, Birmingham, Ala. ** Barton Malow Co., Southfield, Mich.
35 Dimeo Construction Co., Providence, R.I. 53 Fru-Con Holding Corp., Woodbridge, Va.

343.7 328.2 327.0 326.0 318.2 315.0 314.4 311.9 309.0 304.5 295.6 290.9 290.5 286.4 286.0 282.0 282.0 278.0 276.3 271.0 269.9 264.0 262.2 260.0 259.5 258.0 257.2 251.1 250.0 247.0 243.2 235.1 233.7 229.0 227.6 226.0 214.0 207.0 201.3 199.1 198.0 197.3 196.9 187.3 186.5 182.0 180.7 179.7 175.3 168.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 152.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Based on 2010 revenue in $ millions from at risk Construction Management or Project/Program contracts in which the firm is exposed to financial responsibilities and risk similar to those of a general contractor. **=Not ranked in 2010 among the Top 100 CM firms-at-risk.

enr.com June 6, 2011

ENR

31

ENR06062011TL_Top100List.indd 31

5/27/11 3:59:35 PM