Firms Fill In Owners’ GapsSome owners are wary about using outside project management, but they are happy to use CM firms to supplement their staffs By Gary J. Tulacz

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

PHOT

O CO

URTE

SY O

F HI

LL IN

TERN

ATIO

NAL

enr.com June 22, 2015 ENR 1

NUMBER 7

GRAND PROJECT 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

2007$9.65

SOURCE: DODGE DATA & ANALYTICS/ENR

$ BILLIONS

2007$2.42

2008$10.07

2008$3.83

2009$12.81

2009$3.22

2010$14.17

2010$3.38

2011$15.22

2011$3.44

2012$14.34

2012$4.87

2013$14.62

2013$4.79

2014$14.83

2014$5.08

DOMESTIC REVENUE INTERNATIONAL REVENUE

The market has returned to health, which should be good news to professional services firms like construc-tion 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 ser-vice 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 bil-lion, 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 Manage-ment 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 op-portunities, many owners are seeking assistance from the private sector for programmatic support for imple-menting 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 inter-national interest in CM and PM is Hill International. Hill has had a huge presence in the Middle East and

A Gradual Rise in CMF-PM Fees

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 grow-ing 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 signifi-cant 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 No-vember throughout California. “Our sweet spot is managing the construction process for school dis-tricts,” 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 Uni-versity 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 grow-ing, but it is not booming. “I see a trend where the owner’s decision-making process for bringing on out-

“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.

THE TOP 100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS OVERVIEW#40HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC. is CM/PM for the city of Carlsbad, Calif., on the Carlsbad Desalination Project, the largest desal plant in the U.S.

enr.com June 22, 2015 ENR 2

THE TOP 100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS

siders is driven by the perception that there is insuf-ficient budget to hire a full-spectrum program man-ager,” says Randall D. Martinez, executive vice president and COO, Cordoba Corp. So owners pro-cure services in a variety of hybrid management struc-tures, including staff augmentation and program man-ager with individual construction managers, among other variations, he says.

Many owners are looking to CM firms to supple-ment 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 rec-ognize 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 manage-ment 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 out-come of the construction project is greatest at the be-ginning of the project, and can gradually reduce to nearly zero by project completion if effective and con-tinual 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 fad-ing 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 PricingMany 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 busi-ness. “At Arcadis we’re seeing some clients shift away from agency PM/CM in favor of staff augmentation

enr.com June 22, 2015 ENR 3

OVERVIEW#14FAITHFUL+GOULD is manager and cost consultant to convert New York City’s landmark Metropolitan Life clock tower into a hotel.

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

The Top 20 Firms in Combined Industry Revenue

2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.

RANK DESIGN CM/PM-FOR- TOTAL2015 FIRM REVENUE FEE REVENUE 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

2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.

RANK CONTRACTING DESIGN CM/PM-FOR- TOTAL2015 FIRM REVENUE REVENUE FEE REVENUE 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

to complement their in-house teams,” says John Jas-trem, 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 pro-fessional services—design or management—as a com-modity service,” says Philios Angelides, president, Al-pha 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 TalentJust like contractors and design firms, professional ser-vice 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 Cum-ming. 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 prior-ity,” 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 col-leges 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 em-phasize 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 real-ize that construction is more than digging ditches.”

THE TOP 100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS OVERVIEW#3AECOM 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.

2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.

RANK DOMESTIC INT’L TOTAL2015 FIRM REVENUE REVENUE 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

The Top 50 Program Management Firms

enr.com June 22, 2015 ENR 4

THE TOP 100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS #64HOAR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT is program manager for the 750,000- sq-ft Airbus USA A320 assembly plant at Brookley Aeroplex in Mobile, Ala.

Construction Management-for-Fee Firms

enr.com June 22, 2015 ENR 5

2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.

RANK FIRM TOTAL REV. DOMESTIC2015 2014 FIRM TYPE ($ MIL.) REVENUE

1 1 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif. EC 4,462.0 807.0

2 2 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo. EAC 2,576.6 471.1

3 6 AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif. EA 2,235.0 558.8

4 3 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif. AEC 1,621.6 802.0

5 5 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif. EC 1,160.2 195.1

6 7 JLL, Chicago, Ill. CM 1,003.4 476.6

7 9 HILL INTERNATIONAL INC., Philadelphia, Pa. CM 640.3 470.5

8 11 CBRE INC., Dallas, Texas CM 606.0 316.6

9 17 BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo. EAC 496.9 12.2

10 ** WSP | PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, New York, N.Y. EA 427.0 0.0

11 10 LEIDOS, Reston, Va. EAC 408.0 0.0

12 13 LOUIS BERGER, Morristown, N.J. EAP 258.3 192.2

13 12 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan. EC 249.7 178.8

14 14 ATKINS N. AMERICA/FAITHFUL+GOULD, Dallas, Texas EA 237.3 5.1

15 24 DTZ, Chicago, Ill. CM 211.3 123.8

16 27 HDR, Omaha, Neb. EA 182.1 2.0

17 16 THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y. EC 175.4 58.0

18 18 ARCADIS U.S./RTKL/CALLISON, Highlands Ranch, Colo. EA 143.0 4.0

19 19 THE LIRO GROUP, Syosset, N.Y. EA 140.4 0.0

20 23 CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, New York, N.Y. CM 129.4 97.0

21 20 CDM SMITH, Boston, Mass. EC 117.0 42.9

22 35 GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I. C 101.7 24.1

23 25 LEND LEASE, New York, N.Y. C 84.6 13.0

24 37 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, Moon Township, Pa. EA 80.5 21.5

25 26 WORLEYPARSONS GROUP INC., Bellaire, Texas EC 79.6 72.5

26 40 TURNER & TOWNSEND INC., New York, N.Y. CM 78.2 0.0

27 38 CUMMING, San Diego, Calif. CM 73.4 8.8

28 33 VANIR CONSTRUCTION MGMT., Sacramento, Calif. CM 66.8 1.3

29 29 HEERY INTERNATIONAL INC., Atlanta, Ga. AP 64.2 0.0

30 36 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD, Iselin, N.J. E 60.7 20.6

31 41 RS&H INC., Jacksonville, Fla. EA 59.0 0.0

32 ** TUTOR PERINI CORP., Sylmar, Calif. EC 57.3 0.0

33 28 UNIVERSALPEGASUS INTERNATIONAL, Houston, Texas E 57.0 5.0

34 32 BALFOUR BEATTY US, Dallas, Texas C 49.0 0.0

35 43 THE VERTEX COS. INC., Weymouth, Mass. CM 48.8 15.0

36 45 MCDONOUGH BOLYARD PECK INC., Fairfax, Va. CM 46.7 3.1

37 64 DLZ, Columbus, Ohio EA 42.1 11.0

38 ** F.A. WILHELM CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Indianapolis, Ind. CM 42.0 0.0

39 48 URBAN ENGINEERS INC., Philadelphia, Pa. E 40.0 0.0

40 46 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC., Concord, Calif. E 39.0 0.0

41 50 GANNETT FLEMING, Harrisburg, Pa. EA 38.1 0.0

42 57 PROJECT TIME & COST LLC, Atlanta, Ga. CM 37.3 3.2

43 49 PMA CONSULTANTS LLC, Ann Arbor, Mich. CM 37.0 0.0

44 52 KITCHELL CORP., Phoenix, Ariz. EC 37.0 0.0

45 15 WOOD GROUP MUSTANG INC., Houston, Texas EC 35.8 4.3

46 53 PLAZA CONSTRUCTION, New York, N.Y. C 33.0 0.0

47 93 THE YATES COS. INC., Philadelphia, Miss. EC 31.7 0.0

48 67 THE PIKE COS. LTD., Rochester, N.Y. EC 31.0 0.0

49 95 HUNTER ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION, New York, N.Y. C 30.0 0.0

50 59 LEA+ELLIOTT INC., Grand Prairie, Texas EA 28.0 0.0

2014 REVENUE IN $ MIL.

RANK FIRM TOTAL REV. DOMESTIC2015 2014 FIRM TYPE ($ MIL.) REVENUE

51 63 KLEINFELDER, San Diego, Calif. EA 27.2 0.0

52 54 VALI COOPER AND ASSOCIATES INC., Emeryville, Calif. CM 26.5 0.0

53 72 ON-BOARD ENGINEERING CORP., East Windsor, N.J. E 26.3 0.0

54 56 BOSWELL ENGINEERING INC., South Hackensack, N.J. E 25.7 0.0

55 61 MCKISSACK & MCKISSACK, Washington, D.C. AE 25.5 0.0

56 ** AMEC FOSTER WHEELER, Tucker, Ga. EC 25.1 20.3

57 78 CSA GROUP, Miami, Fla. AE 24.8 6.4

58 62 GAFCON INC., San Diego, Calif. CM 24.4 0.0

59 66 TECTONIC ENG’G & SURVEYING, Mountainville, N.Y. E 23.0 0.0

60 55 ALPHA CORP., Dulles, Va. CM 21.9 0.0

61 80 TARGET ENGINEERING GROUP INC., Coral Gables, Fla. CM 21.0 0.0

62 ** BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY, Washington, D.C. CM 21.0 0.0

63 ** FLINTCO LLC, Tulsa, Okla. CM 21.0 0.0

64 70 HOAR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, Birmingham, Ala. CM 20.4 0.0

65 ** CPH INC., Sanford, Fla. EA 20.0 2.6

66 ** THE DENNIS ENGINEERING GROUP, Springfield, Mass. EAC 20.0 0.0

67 58 MCCARTHY HOLDINGS INC., St. Louis, Mo. C 20.0 0.0

68 75 SAVIN ENGINEERS PC, Pleasantville, N.Y. CM 20.0 0.0

69 91 CRB, St. Louis, Mo. CM 20.0 0.0

70 84 MWH GLOBAL, Broomfield, Colo. EC 19.8 0.0

71 65 CORDOBA CORP., Los Angeles, Calif. E 19.4 0.0

72 ** FREESE AND NICHOLS INC., Fort Worth, Texas EA 18.8 0.0

73 68 METRIC ENGINEERING INC., Miami, Fla. E 18.4 0.0

74 76 SGI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, Pasadena, Calif. CM 18.0 0.0

75 74 KS ENGINEERS PC, Newark, N.J. E 18.0 0.0

76 73 CPM, San Juan, P.R. CM 17.8 1.7

77 92 MCMILLEN JACOBS ASSOCIATES, San Francisco, Calif. EC 17.5 1.4

78 86 MARKON SOLUTIONS, Falls Church, Va. CM 17.2 3.3

79 ** GBA, Lenexa, Kan. EA 17.0 0.0

80 ** EISMAN & RUSSO INC., Jacksonville, Fla. CM 16.5 0.0

81 77 COTTER CONSULTING INC., Chicago, Ill. CM 16.5 0.0

82 39 CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC., Walnut Creek, Calif. E 16.1 0.0

83 51 STANTEC INC., Irvine, Calif. EAL 15.5 0.0

84 83 CHANEN CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Phoenix, Ariz. C 15.4 0.0

85 85 ALLEN & SHARIFF, Columbia, Md. E 15.3 15.3

86 88 MORTENSON CONSTRUCTION, Minneapolis, Minn. C 15.3 0.0

87 79 SWINERTON INC., San Francisco, Calif. C 14.9 0.0

88 ** BERNARDS, San Fernando, Calif. C 14.9 0.0

89 98 DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORP., Houston, Texas E 14.5 0.0

90 87 NXL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC., Richmond, Va. CM 14.3 0.0

91 ** GHAFARI ASSOCIATES LLC, Dearborn, Mich. EA 14.2 0.0

92 94 HR GREEN INC., Cedar Rapids, Iowa EA 14.2 0.0

93 ** EXP US SERVICES INC., Chicago, Ill. E 14.0 5.0

94 ** HGA (HUNT GUILLOT & ASSOCIATES), Ruston, La. E 13.8 0.0

95 82 BROADDUS & ASSOCIATES, Austin, Texas CM 13.0 0.0

96 ** MOODY NOLAN INC., Columbus, Ohio AE 12.8 0.0

97 21 BARTON MALOW CO., Southfield, Mich. EC 12.0 0.0

98 ** GHD INC., San Francisco, Calif. E/ENV 12.0 2.1

99 90 KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, Minneapolis, Minn. C 12.0 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.