2011-top design build firms

7/28/2019 2011-Top Design Build Firms

1/6

enr.com J 6, 2011 ENR 23

The industry is struggling to cope with a tough market, and rms specializing in alternate project deliveryare not immune to the downturn. Firms providing design-build and construction management-at-risk

services are not only acing a sluggish market but also nding that, in this competitive market, some

owners believe they will get the best price by returning to design-bid-build. This situation has let many

in the industry ghting to prove the value o collaboration in alternate project delivery.

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

THETOP 100 INDEX

Design-Builders and Domestic CM-at-Risk FirmsFace Continued Revenue Declines in 2010 By Gary J. Tulacz

TheTop 100Project Delivery Firms

#42Mccarthy holdings inc.andNo. 12-ranked Balfour Beatty are onthe Darnell Army Medical Center, FortHood, Texas, design-build team.


2/6

24 ENR J 6, 2011 enr.com

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS

Like the Top 500 Design Firms (ENR 4/25 p. 59)and the Top 400 Contractors (ENR, 5/16 p. 65), therehas been a distinct allo in revenue or the ENR Top100 Design-Build Firms and the ENR Top 100 CM-at-Risk rms.

The Top 100 Design-Build Firms generated $78.32billion in 2010 revenue rom projects using design-

build or engineer-procure-construct project-deliverymodels. This is a decline o 12.0% rom $89.43 billionin 2009 and 19.3% rom $97.60 billion in 2008. Thedomestic market was hit the hardest, with design-buildrevenue in 2010 o $50.23 billion, alling 15.3% rom2009s level and 22.0% rom 2008s mark. The inter-national market ared a little better, alling to $28.01billion in 2010, down 6.9% rom 2009. The interna-tional design-build market is o 15.6% rom 2008.

The Top 100 CM-at-Risk Firms saw similar drop-os. The Top 100 saw revenue rom CM-at-Risk proj-ects decline 12.3% in 2010 to $78.32 billion compared

to $89.34 billion in 2009. CM-at-Risk revenue is down24.2% rom 2008s level o $103.34 billion. DomesticCM-at-Risk 2010 revenue was $63.97 billion, down13.4% rom 2009 and down 27.1% rom 2008. On theinternational side, CM-at-Risk revenue is down 7.2%rom 2009 and down 8.0% rom 2008.

Much o the decline can be attributed directly tothe overall industry recession. However, the high levelo competition among construction rms in the shrink-ing market has not gone unnoticed in the owner com-munity. Some owners are moving to the more tradi-tional design-bid-build delivery process, thinking thisis a way to squeeze the best price out o a rantic indus-

try. There is a segment o owners who realize thatthere is a sale going on in the industry right now andthat they can draw 25 to 30 contractors into a pre-bidmeeting, says Derek Glanvill, president o McCarthy.He says that, or these owners, the advantages o alter-nate project delivery go out the window in avor o thelowest possible price. These tend to be the less knowl-

edgeable owners that do not think o the long-termcost o such an approach, Glanvill says.

Owners that take this approach may be in or a rudeawakening. Our experience is that our clients want tobid everything to take advantage o the hyper-compet-itive climate that exists today, says Mike Lanier, prin-cipal at Hoar Program Management. Our challengeis getting them to understand the risks contractors andsubcontractors are taking in their bid strategies thatcould haunt the project should a rm ail. The sweet-ness o a low price can be erased pretty quickly.

Many in the construction community share Laniers

concerns. With many owners resorting to hard-bidcontracts, we may end up where we were 10 years ago,with contract disputes, change orders and litigation,says Greg Gidez, director o preconstruction servicesor Hensel Phelps Construction and this years chair-man o the Design-Build Institute o America, Wash-ington, D.C. However, he says owners interest in col-laborative approaches to project delivery is increasing.Thus, alternate project delivery should fourish oncethe market starts to recover, he adds.

There is a countervailing trend that is beginning tooset this impulse to go hard bid. While many clientsare leaning toward the design-bid-build methodology

Falling Design-Build Revenue

BIM requires

integration

and integration

requires BIM.

Greg Gidez,

director,

preconstruction

services,

Hensel Phelps

Construction,

and chairman

of DBIA

Source:McGraw-Hill Construction

Reasearch & Analytics/ENR.

(Measured $ millions)

Domestic

Revenue

International

Revenue

Source: McGraw-Hill ConstructionReasearch & Analytics/ENR.


2005$36.6

2006

$44.9

2007$53.8

2008$64.4

2009$59.3

2010$50.2

2010$28.0

2009$30.1

2008$33.2

2006$23.9

2007$23.9

2005$20.0

International MarketRevenue: $28.0

Domestic MarketRevenue: $50.2


3/6

and away rom CM-at-risk due to what they perceiveas pricing advantages, other clients are adopting inte-grated project delivery [IPD] or some major projects,says Rich Tilghman, senior vice president with PepperConstruction. He says the trend is particularly strongin the health-care market.

Gidez makes a distinction between pure IPD and

what tries to pass or IPD. There is IPD that arisesrom a contract between the parties, and there islowercased IPD that tries to use the collaborativeapproach to project delivery. However, he believesIPD has become a buzzword that is oten misunder-stood. The best way to guarantee collaboration is byincluding all parties under a single contract. That way,everyone is rowing in the same direction, he says.

The increasing use o building inormation model-ing in the delivery process has begun to pay dividendsin saving time and money. However, Glanvill says BIMis just a tool. The important thing in project delivery

is collaboration, and BIM is a way to make that pos-sible, he says. Contractors and subcontractors haveembraced BIM, but the best way to prot rom theBIM tool is to have all parties onboard rom the start,adds Gidez. BIM requires integration, and integrationrequires BIM, he notes.

Design-Build Gaining in States

Ater years o reluctance, the inrastructure marketnow is embracing design-build. This trend gainedmomentum when the ederal stimulus money startedto roll in. Public agencies had to get projects movingquickly, and design-build was the best approach or

OVERVIEW

this, says Lisa Washington, executive director oDBIA. At the DBIA conerence on water and waste-water, overall attendance was up 30% over last year,but owner participation was up 50%, she says.

A major driver or increased interest in design-buildin inrastructure is the growing interest in alternativenancingsuch as public-private partnershipsby

cash-strapped public agencies. P3s mean more design-build, so the transportation industry will have tochange to keep up with this trend, says William G.Hasbrook, vice president o Webber LLC, Houston.Those ew states that dont allow design-build aregoing to have to take a hard look at the delivery methodnow or get let behind in the inrastructure race.

Partly in recognition o the need or outside nanc-ing, states increasingly are passing laws authorizingdesign-build by state and local agencies. As o mid-2010, we can say or the rst time that design-buildnow is allowed in some orm in the public sector in all

50 states, says DBIAs Washington. She points outthat, in 2007, there still were seven states that did notallow any public design-build. DBIA now is ocusingon states that still have heavy restrictions on design-build use, including Ohio, Iowa and New York.

However, not everyone is optimistic P3s will four-ish in this country in the near uture. U.S. nancialinstitutions began to show interest in the P3 market aew years ago ater oreign investment rms and largecompanies rom Australia and Europe started lookingat the U.S. transportation market, says Bill Siegel,CEO o Kleinelder. However, ater the nancialmeltdown, most o the U.S. equity investment rms

Domestic CM-at-risk Plunges

enr.com J 6, 2011 ENR 25

In a hard-bid

atmosphere,

Our challenge

is getting

[owners] to

understand

the risks.

The sweetness

o a low price

can be erased

pretty quickly.

Mike Lanier,

principal,

Hoar Program

Management

#18hensel PhelPs constructionfell two sl ots to No. 11 on the Design-Build Firms list but ros e to No. 18 from

No. 24 on the CM-at-Risk Firms li st.



Domestic

Revenue

International

Revenue



2005$56.4

2006$67.7

2007$79.2

2008$87.7

2009$73.9

2010$64.0

2005$6.8

2006$6.4 2007

$10.62008$15.6

2009$15.5

2010

$14.4

International Market

Revenue: $14.4

Domestic MarketRevenue: $64.0


4/6

26 ENR J 6, 2011 enr.com

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS #15insituforM technologies inc.is the highest-ranked newcomer to theTop 100 Design-Build Firms li st. Itdesigns and installs sewer pipe liners.

pulled back rom P3s mainly due to tight credit mar-kets and their inability to take on additional risks. Hesays it may be some time beore the money fows intoP3s 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 rms. Many public agenciesrequire detailed proposals rom bidders on design-build projects, orcing the design-build teams to doextensive and expensive pre-bid work. The cost opreparing proposals has always been part o contrac-tors and subcontractors business plans but were neverreally part o designers business plans, says Gidez.

Gidez says owners that require detailed and expen-sive proposals actually work against their own interests.I a proposal requires a lot o preparation, that willdiscourage smaller rms and design-build teams romparticipating, leaving the eld to the large national

rms that can aord the risk o losing the bid, he says.Gidez also argues that stipends or bidding teams thatlose would help a wider variety o rms to complete.Stipends wont pay the cost o bid preparation, but itwill ease the pain o losing a bid, he says.

Some design-builders also worry public agenciesmay be taking advantage o a highly competitive mar-ket by demanding design-build teams assume addi-tional risk on projects. One o the side eects o therecession in the construction industry has been theeort to re-allocate risks away rom the owners to thedesign-builders, says Siegel o Kleinelder.

Siegel says several public agencies have been push-

ing to transer all or a majority o the project risks tothe design-builder, even in cases where the ownershould logically retain certain risks. In a tough econ-omy, owners are pushing the risk transer, and unor-tunately, contractors who need and want projects aregrudgingly taking on these risks, Siegel says.

There are new markets beyond the public sector

that are opening up to alternate project delivery. Siegelsays utilities are moving toward engineer-procure-construct on both ossil-uel plants as well as transmis-sion and distribution. This model is used heavily byindependent power producers in generation and mer-chants in the transmission business. We are seeingmany utilities move in this direction or larger projectswhere it appears that they are looking to limit projectand commodity risks, he says.

Furthermore, Siegel says the wind and solar powermarkets are moving toward EPC, too. These marketshad used balance-o-plant delivery, which is more like

design-bid-build. But now, EPCwhere the contrac-tor becomes responsible or wind or solar manuac-turer and/or equipment selection and its perormanceand site designis more common, he says.

A collaborative approach to project delivery oersowners potential advantages in scheduling, cost andlack o disputes. While cut-rate prices rom hard-biddesign-bid-build may be hard or owners to resist, therisks are high. Further, they may nd that many toprms are not interested in the bidding renzy theseowners wish to create. I would rather have $1 billionin high-margin work than take the risks o $5 billionin low-margin work, says Glanvill.

2011 Design-Build State Laws

As o mid-

2010, we cansay or the

frst time

that design-

build is now

allowed in

some orm

in the public

sector in all

50 states.

Lisa Washington,

executive

director, DBIA

OVERVIEW

IL

WA

OR

CA

NV

ID

WY

UT

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

OH

MI

NY

TX

MO

AL

SC

FL

KY

NC

ME

IN

LA

MS

TN

GA

AZOK

AR

AK

WV

KS

MT

CO

NM

PA

VA

IA

VT

CT

NJ

NH

MA

HI

RI

Design-build is permittedby all agencies for all typesof design and construction

Design-build iswidely permitted

Design-build isa limited option

Source:Design-Build Institute of America, 2011

Design-Build2008$97.6


CM-at-Risk2008$103.3

CM-at-Risk2009$89.3


CM-at-Risk2010$78.3

Source: McGraw-Hill Construction

Reasearch & Analytics/ENR.


5/6

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 subContaCtorsunder its supervision. **not ranked in 2010 among the top design-build firms.

enr.com Jun 6, 2011 ENR 29

The Top 100 Design-Build Firmsrank

2011 2010rank

2011 2010domestiCrevenue

domestiCrevenue

total rev.($ mil.)

total rev.($ mil.)

inter-national

inter-national

1 1 Fluor Corp., Irving, Texas 12,802.8 3,708.9 9,093.9

2 2 BeChtel, San Francisco, Cali. 10,196.0 6,643.0 3,553.0

3 3 JaCoBs, Pasadena, Cali. 7,981.4 4,831.2 3,150.2

4 5 Kiewit Corp., Omaha, Neb. 4,482.5 2,790.2 1,692.4

5 7 the shaw Group inC., Baton Rouge, La. 3,633.6 3,211.0 422.6

6 6 CB&i, The Woodlands, Texas 3,041.4 821.8 2,219.6

7 4 MCDerMott international inC., Houston, Texas 2,403.8 54.1 2,349.6

8 8 KBr, Houston, Texas 1,822.9 33.4 1,789.5

9 10 Ch2M hill, Englewood, Colo. 1,711.9 1,220.4 491.5

10 11 ClarK Group, Bethesda, Md. 1,566.6 1,566.6 0.0

11 9 hensel phelps ConstruCtion, Greeley, Colo. 1,437.9 1,437.9 0.0

12 20 BalFour Beatty us, Dallas, Texas 1,229.4 1,229.4 0.0

13 12 urs Corp., San Francisco, Cali. 1,143.0 1,066.9 76.1

14 16 the turner Corp., New York, N.Y. 993.0 993.0 0.0 15 ** insituForM teChnoloGies inC., Chesterield, Mo. 876.5 588.5 287.9

16 21 ClayCo inC., St. Louis, Mo. 836.0 836.0 0.0

17 19 Mortenson ConstruCtion, Minneapolis, Minn. 827.0 827.0 0.0

18 14 BlaCK & VeatCh, Overland Park, Kan. 823.2 371.6 451.6

19 25 the walsh Group ltD., Chicago, Ill. 706.1 693.1 13.0

20 ** lenD lease, New York, N.Y. 676.4 676.4 0.0

21 22 Burns & MCDonnell, Kansas City, Mo. 616.2 601.2 15.0

22 13 ZaChry holDinGs, San Antonio, Texas 571.7 571.7 0.0

23 81 ContraCK international inC., McLean, Va. 561.7 0.0 561.7

24 26 B.l. harBert int'l llC, Birmingham, Ala. 552.4 179.9 372.5

25 23 Flatiron ConstruCtion Corp., Firestone, Colo. 539.0 180.0 359.0

26 18 hunt BuilDinG Co. ltD., El Paso, Texas 534.0 534.0 0.0

27 34 sunDt ConstruCtion inC., Tempe, Ariz. 464.9 464.9 0.0

28 24 CaDDell ConstruCtion Co., Montgomery, Ala. 428.0 307.7 120.3 29 17 sKansKa usa, New York, N.Y. 426.7 426.7 0.0

30 45 whitinG-turner ContraCtinG, Baltimore, Md. 421.7 421.7 0.0

31 15 parsons, Pasadena, Cali. 409.4 288.3 121.1

32 37 hasKell, Jacksonville, Fla. 393.5 367.5 26.0

33 30 swinerton inC., San Francisco, Cali. 392.6 392.6 0.0

34 43 stellar, Jacksonville, Fla. 384.5 343.0 41.5

35 35 the yates Cos. inC., Philadelphia, Miss. 377.3 361.5 15.8

36 29 Granite ConstruCtion inC., Watsonville, Cali. 367.0 367.0 0.0

37 ** ryan Cos. us inC., Minneapolis, Minn. 360.0 360.0 0.0

38 ** laKeshore toltest Corp., Detroit, Mich. 359.6 172.4 187.1

39 27 Barton Malow Co., Southield, Mich. 359.1 359.1 0.0

40 58 harper ConstruCtion Co. inC., San Diego, Cali. 353.8 353.8 0.0

41 ** hBe Cor p., St. Louis, Mo. 348.0 348.0 0.0

42 41 MCCarthy holDinGs inC., St. Louis, Mo. 342.0 342.0 0.0

43 40 MaCteC inC., Alpharetta, Ga. 326.2 326.2 0.0

44 51 CDM, Cambridge, Mass. 326.0 302.0 24.0

45 ** anDerson ColuMBia Co. inC., Lake City, Fla. 322.0 322.0 0.0

46 55 JinGoli - DCo, Lawrenceville, N.J. 305.0 305.0 0.0

47 33 s&B enGineers & ConstruCtors, Houston, Texas 296.1 295.5 0.0

48 38 taGGart GloBal, Canonsburg, Pa. 291.0 200.0 91.0

49 ** ZaChry ConstruCtion Corp., San Antonio, Texas 265.4 265.4 0.0

50 ** arCaDis/MalColM pirnie, Highlands Ranch, Colo. 260.0 260.0 0.0

51 32 DuKe ConstruCtion, Indianapolis, Ind. 255.7 255.7 0.0

52 54 the Korte Co., Highland, Ill. 253.9 253.9 0.0

53 36 tutor perini Corp., Sylmar, Cali. 252.4 122.9 129.5

54 ** priMoris serViCes Corp., Lake Forest, Cali. 250.0 250.0 0.0

55 85 Dpr ConstruCtion inC., Redwood City, Cali. 247.5 247.5 0.0

56 ** eCC, Burlingame, Cali. 237.8 82.7 155.0

57 49 Gray ConstruCtion, Lexington, Ky. 214.1 214.1 0.0

58 39 FaGen inC., Granite Falls, Minn. 209.2 205.0 4.2

59 ** GilBane BuilDinG Co., Providence, R.I. 206.5 189.2 17.3

60 ** wooDwarD DesiGn+BuilD, New Orleans, La. 205.0 205.0 0.0

61 70 sCienCe appliCations intl Corp., McLean, Va. 204.4 204.0 0.0

62 44 o & G inDustries inC., Torrington, Conn. 201.2 201.2 0.0

63 97 w.M. JorDan Co. inC., Newport News, Va. 197.8 197.8 0.0

64 65 weBCor BuilDers, San Francisco, Cali. 179.7 179.7 0.0 65 56 GeMMa power systeMs, Glastonbury, Conn. 174.9 174.9 0.0

66 64 h&M Co. inC., Jackson, Tenn. 160.0 160.0 0.0

67 68 BBl ConstruCtion serViCes llC, Albany, N.Y. 156.9 156.9 0.0

68 80 Forrester ConstruCtion Co., Rockville, Md. 155.0 155.0 0.0

69 ** aMes ConstruCtion inC., Burnsville, Minn. 149.1 149.1 0.0

70 28 pCl ConstruCtion enterprises, Denver, Colo. 145.7 132.9 12.8

71 47 Dennis enGineerinG Group, Springield, Mass. 144.0 144.0 0.0

72 84 the neenan Co., Fort Collins, Colo. 136.0 136.0 0.0

73 ** ConsiGli ConstruCtion Co. inC., Milord, Mass. 134.8 134.8 0.0

74 ** GilChrist ConstruCtion Co. llC, Alexandria, La. 132.8 132.8 0.0

75 72 w.l. Butler ConstruCtion, Redwood City, Cali. 130.0 130.0 0.0

76 ** Ftr international inC., Irvine, Cali. 130.0 130.0 0.0

77 ** hitt ContraCtinG inC., Falls Church, Va. 130.0 130.0 0.0

78 94 MCGouGh ConstruCtion, St. Paul, Minn. 128.7 128.7 0.0 79 ** solteK paCiFiC ConstruCtion, San Diego, Cali. 128.0 128.0 0.0

80 ** the lauren Corp., Abilene, Texas 127.8 127.8 0.0

81 ** enGloBal, Houston, Texas 125.0 105.0 20.0

82 ** CoaKley & williaMs Constr., Gaithersburg, Md. 120.7 120.7 0.0

83 96 walBriDGe, Detroit, Mich. 120.6 96.4 24.2

84 59 rMt inC., Madison, Wis. 120.0 120.0 0.0

85 ** williaMs inDustrial serViCes, Tucker, Ga. 119.0 119.0 0.0

86 ** GeorGe sollitt ConstruCtion, Wood Dale, Ill. 118.6 118.6 0.0

87 92 Je Dunn ConstruCtion Group, Kansas City, Mo. 115.4 115.4 0.0

88 ** osBorne ConstruCtion Co., Kirkland, Wash. 115.0 115.0 0.0

89 100 struCture tone, New York, N.Y. 115.0 100.0 15.0

90 ** tB peniCK & sons inC., San Diego, Cali. 112.9 112.9 0.0

91 53 CoGDell spenCer erDMan (sM), Madison, Wis. 112.3 112.3 0.0

92 89 BiG-D ConstruCtion Corp., Salt Lake City, Utah 109.0 109.0 0.0

93 ** sinanian DeVelopMent inC., Tarzana, Cali. 105.0 105.0 0.0

94 75 Grunley ConstruCtion Co. inC., Rockville, Md. 103.0 103.0 0.0

95 ** inGeniuM international inC., Detroit, Mich. 100.9 0.0 100.9

96 ** Danis BuilDinG ConstruCtion, Miamisburg, Ohio 100.0 100.0 0.0

97 ** neeser ConstruCtion inC., Anchorage, Alaska 100.0 100.0 0.0

98 ** arMaDa hoFFler Constr., Virginia Beach, Va. 99.1 99.1 0.0

99 99 the BeCK Group, Dallas, Texas 98.8 98.8 0.0

100 ** traylor Bros. inC., Evansville, Ind. 98.3 98.3 0.0

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS #04Kiewit corp. and the No. 5-rankedShaw Group Inc. are the only two frmsin the lists Top 10 that saw increasesin design-build revenue in 2010.

ENR06062011TL_Top100List.indd 29 5/27/11 3:59:33 PM


6/6

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS

rank2011 2010

total rev.($ mil.)

inter-national

Construction Management-at-Risk Firms

1 1 BeChtel, San Francisco, Cali. 10,709.0 9,470.0

2 2 the turner Corp., New York, N.Y. 6,586.9 24.8

3 9 Fluor Corp., Irving, Texas 3,631.4 2,790.7

4 3 tutor perini Corp., Sylmar, Cali. 2,946.9 0.0

5 5 GilBane BuilDinG Co., Providence, R.I. 2,714.6 5.0

6 11 ClarK Group, Bethesda, Md. 2,384.6 0.0

7 17 BalFour Beatty us, Dallas, Texas 2,206.8 0.0

8 7 sKansKa usa, New York, N.Y. 2,083.8 71.0

9 8 struCture tone, New York, N.Y. 1,983.2 103.3

10 10 the whitinG-turner ContraCtinG Co., Baltimore, Md. 1,935.8 0.0

11 13 pCl ConstruCtion enterprises inC., Denver, Colo. 1,926.2 1,517.1

12 12 Je Dunn ConstruCtion Group, Kansas City, Mo. 1,744.8 0.0

13 14 suFFolK ConstruCtion Co. inC., Boston, Mass. 1,670.0 0.0

14 4 lenD lease, New York, N.Y. 1,602.6 0.0 15 16 holDer ConstruCtion Co., Atlanta, Ga. 1,596.0 5.0

16 15 Mortenson ConstruCtion, Minneapolis, Minn. 1,464.3 0.0

17 19 Dpr ConstruCtion inC., Redwood City, Cali. 1,182.0 0.0

18 24 hensel phelps ConstruCtion Co., Greeley, Colo. 907.8 0.0

19 33 Kiewit Corp., Omaha, Neb. 856.3 0.0

20 20 FlintCo llC, Tulsa, Okla. 795.0 0.0

21 18 austin inDustries, Dallas, Texas 767.3 0.0

22 21 hoFFMan Corp., Portland, Ore. 707.9 0.0

23 6 MCCarthy holDinGs inC., St. Louis, Mo. 676.0 0.0

24 22 Manhattan ConstruCtion Group, Tulsa, Okla. 652.0 0.0

25 25 hunt ConstruCtion Group, Scottsdale, Ariz. 635.0 0.0

26 26 layton ConstruCtion Co. inC., Sandy, Utah 615.6 0.0

27 23 pepper ConstruCtion Group, Chicago, Ill. 601.1 0.0

28 ** roBins & Morton, Birmingham, Ala. 562.0 0.0 29 32 DaViD e. harVey BuilDers inC., Houston, Texas 540.5 0.0

30 ** weBCor BuilDers, San Francisco, Cali. 520.3 0.0

31 29 power ConstruCtion Co. llC, Schaumburg, Ill. 509.8 0.0

32 30 howarD s. wriGht, Portland, Ore. 509.1 0.0

33 54 KBr, Houston, Texas 502.0 77.0

34 36 Chanen ConstruCtion Co. inC., Phoenix, Ariz. 501.0 0.0

35 60 DuKe ConstruCtion, Indianapolis, Ind. 484.6 0.0

36 27 hunter roBerts ConstruCtion Group, New York, N.Y. 469.5 0.0

37 34 swinerton inC., San Francisco, Cali. 441.7 0.0

38 39 sunDt ConstruCtion inC., Tempe, Ariz. 433.1 0.0

39 28 oKlanD ConstruCtion Co. inC., Salt Lake City, Utah 419.4 0.0

40 41 aDolFson & peterson ConstruCtion, Minneapolis, Minn. 415.0 0.0

41 45 Kraus-anDerson ConstruCtion Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 400.0 0.0

42 76 JaCoBsen ConstruCtion Co. inC., Salt Lake City, Utah 396.4 0.0

43 43 Kenny ConstruCtion, Northbrook, Ill. 396.1 0.0

44 64 the walsh Group ltD., Chicago, Ill. 390.0 0.0

45 44 alBeriCi Corp., St. Louis, Mo. 379.8 64.3

46 63 Choate ConstruCtion Co., Atlanta, Ga. 367.8 0.0

47 71 leChase ConstruCtion serViCes llC, Rochester, N.Y. 359.4 0.0

48 62 hoar ConstruCtion llC, Birmingham, Ala. 356.2 0.0

49 ** eMJ Corp., Chattanooga, Tenn. 350.8 6.4

50 48 tellepsen, Houston, Texas 347.9 0.0

rank2011 2010

total rev.($ mil.)

inter-national

51 35 DiMeo ConstruCtion Co., Providence, R.I. 343.7 0.0

52 53 Fru-Con holDinG Corp., Woodbridge, Va. 328.2 0.0

53 56 F.a. wilhelM ConstruCtion Co. inC., Indianapolis, Ind. 327.0 0.0

54 50 plaZa ConstruCtion Corp., New York, N.Y. 326.0 0.0

55 51 Bartlett CoCKe Genl ContraCtors, San Antonio, Texas 318.2 0.0

56 72 saunDers ConstruCtion inC., Centennial, Colo. 315.0 0.0

57 87 ConsiGli ConstruCtion Co. inC., Milord, Mass. 314.4 0.0

58 77 spawGlass holDinG lp, Selma, Texas 311.9 0.0

59 89 walBriDGe, Detroit, Mich. 309.0 0.0

60 ** anDres ConstruCtion serViCes, Dallas, Texas 304.5 0.0

61 40 Messer ConstruCtion Co., Cincinnati, Ohio 295.6 0.0

62 37 KitChell Corp., Phoenix, Ariz. 290.9 0.0

63 99 Core ConstruCtion Group, Phoenix, Ariz. 290.5 0.0

64 79 MCGouGh ConstruCtion, St. Paul, Minn. 286.4 0.0 65 ** J.F. white ContraCtinG Co., Framingham, Mass. 286.0 0.0

66 47 the BeCK Group, Dallas, Texas 282.0 12.8

67 46 walsh Brothers inC., Boston, Mass. 282.0 0.0

68 ** hitt ContraCtinG inC., Falls Church, Va. 278.0 0.0

69 78 the ChristMan Co., Lansing, Mich. 276.3 0.0

70 68 lee lewis ConstruCtion inC., Lubbock, Texas 271.0 0.0

71 ** eCC, Burlingame, Cali. 269.9 152.5

72 61 roDGers BuilDers inC., Charlotte, N.C. 264.0 0.0

73 58 the BolDt Co., Appleton, Wis. 262.2 0.0

74 ** naBholZ ConstruCtion Corp., Conway, Ark. 260.0 0.0

75 86 harDin ConstruCtion Co. llC, Atlanta, Ga. 259.5 0.0

76 ** ryan Cos. us inC., Minneapolis, Minn. 258.0 0.0

77 67 w.M. JorDan Co. inC., Newport News, Va. 257.2 0.0

78 65 ClanCy & theys ConstruCtion Co., Raleigh, N.C. 251.1 0.0 79 66 shiel sexton Co. inC., Indianapolis, Ind. 250.0 0.0

80 82 torCon inC., Red Bank, N.J. 247.0 17.0

81 ** JaMes G. DaVis ConstruCtion Corp., Rockville, Md. 243.2 0.0

82 75 the penta BuilDinG Group, Las Vegas, Nev. 235.1 0.0

83 80 lpCiMinelli inC., Bualo, N.Y. 233.7 0.0

84 ** Ge Johnson ConstruCtion Co., Colorado Springs, Colo. 229.0 0.0

85 38 C.w. DriVer, Pasadena, Cali. 227.6 11.8

86 57 oneil inDustries inC., Chicago, Ill. 226.0 0.0

87 49 linBeCK Group llC, Houston, Texas 214.0 0.0

88 90 BernarDs, San Fernando, Cali. 207.0 0.0

89 ** asrC enerGy serViCes, Anchorage, Alaska 201.3 0.0

90 ** urs Cor p., San Francisco, Cali. 199.1 7.9

91 ** Forrester ConstruCtion Co., Rockville, Md. 198.0 0.0

92 ** BalDwin & shell ConstruCtion Co., Little Rock, Ark. 197.3 0.0

93 59 Gly ConstruCtion inC., Bellevue, Wash. 196.9 0.0

94 73 Coastal ConstruCtion Group, Miami, Fla. 187.3 0.0

95 ** Gh phipps ConstruCtion Cos., Greenwood Village, Colo. 186.5 0.0

96 92 Barr & Barr inC., New York, N.Y. 182.0 0.0

97 ** the shaw Group inC., Baton Rouge, La. 180.7 10.8

98 ** pariC Corp., OFallon, Mo. 179.7 0.0

99 70 BrasFielD & Gorrie llC, Birmingham, Ala. 175.3 0.0

100 ** Barton Malow Co., Southield, Mich. 168.3 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 Jun 6, 2011 ENR 31

ENR06062011TL_Top100List.indd 31 5/27/11 3:59:35 PM

2011-top design build firms

Documents