New Laws Spur Market GrowthStates increasingly are authorizing the use of alternative delivery to help cash-strapped agencies build more efficiently By Gary J. Tulacz

Overview p. 40 // Design-Build Revenue p. 40 // CM-at-Risk Revenue p. 41 // 2016 Design-Build State Laws p. 42 Design-Build Total Revenue 2013-2015 p. 42 // CM-at-Risk Total Revenue 2013-2015 p. 42 // The ENR Top 100 Design-Build Firms List p. 43 // The ENR Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk Firms List p. 44

PHOT

O CO

URTE

SY O

F PC

L CO

NSTR

UCTI

ON E

NTER

PRIS

ES

enr.com June 13, 2016 ENR 39

NUMBER 19

TRAIN TO THE PLANE PCL Construction Enterprises is the design-builder on the South 200th Link Extension project, a 1.6-mile extension of the elevated light-rail system to Sea-Tac Airport in Seattle.

PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS

ENR06132016_Top100PDF_Opener.indd 39 6/6/16 1:53 PM

2007$53.75

2007$29.68

2008$64.42

2008$33.19

$ BILLIONS DOMESTIC REVENUE INTERNATIONAL REVENUE

2009$59.33

2010$50.23

2010$28.01

2011$54.68

2011$37.37

2012$56.56

2012$47.33

2013$60.92

2013$47.87

2014$69.26

2014$40.32

2015$72.74

2015$34.432009

$30.10

As the overall market continues to grow in the U.S., so has the market for alternative project delivery. Own-ers increasingly have been looking for means to squeeze confl icts and ineffi ciencies out of the construc-tion process and see the old system of looking for the lowest fi rst costs in the traditional design-bid-build procurement process as failing to address these con-cerns. This dissatisfaction with the old delivery systems is shown by the growing volume of state legislation authorizing public agencies to use alternative project delivery methods.

The market for alternative project delivery in 2015 also mirrors the global construction market, as can be seen in the rankings of ENR’s Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk (CMR) Firms and Top 100 Design-Build (DB) Firms. The Top 100 CMR fi rms had a combined revenue from CMR of $102.97 billion in 2015, down 1.0% from the $103.98 billion reported by the group in 2014.

But what is striking in the numbers is that CMR revenue from international projects in 2015 for the Top 100 dropped 40.2%, to $10.30 billion from $17.21 billion, in 2014. In the domestic market, CMR rose 6.8%, to a record $92.67 billion, in 2015.

The DB list provides a similar contrast between domestic and international project delivery: Overall, the Top 100 DB fi rms had total revenue of $107.21 billion in 2015, down 2.2% from 2014; revenue from domestic DB projects grew a healthy 5.0%, rising to $72.74 billion, in 2015. On the other hand, interna-tional DB revenue dropped 14.6% in 2015, thanks in part to a falloff in huge engineering-procurement-construction projects in the international mining, power and petroleum markets.

Domestic Design-Build Rises

Alternative project delivery options such as design-build and public-private partnerships continue to be an evolving part of construction. “Inevitably, it is all about creating partnerships that share in a risk-reward scenario that drives everyone to do their best work. We are regularly partnering with contractors to pursue large-scale opportunities,” says John Jastrem, CEO of Arcadis North America. He notes that Arcadis was part of the team that delivered the massive Carlsbad De-salination Plant using a design-build-operate-fi nance project delivery approach (see ENR 10/21/13 p. 32).

Public Agency GrowthMany fi rms comment that alternate project delivery is getting increased attention from owners—especially in the public-sector markets, long bastions of tradi-tional design-bid-build. For example, legislation authorizing alternative approaches to project delivery by public agencies has fl ourished over the past decade. Transportation agencies have been particular benefi -ciaries (see p. 24).

Agencies in a broad variety of sectors have gained from this enabling legislation. In 2015, 70% of the state bills to expand the use of design-build in the pub-lic sector that were supported by the Design-Build Institute of America, Washington, D.C., were passed, says Lisa Washington, DBIA’s CEO. “Missouri just became the 25th state to pass a law granting full au-thorization for public agencies to use design-build,” she notes.

The long-term lack of a federal highway bill and uncertain infrastructure funding has forced public agencies to seek ways to streamline their procurement and project delivery processes. These factors have

“Inevitably, it is all about creating partnerships that share in a risk-reward scenario that drives everyone to do their best work.”

John Jastrem, CEO, Arcadis North America

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS #57MESSER CONSTRUCTION recently won an integrated project delivery contract for Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis.

40 � ENR � June 13, 2016 enr.com

SOURCE: DODGE DATA & ANALYTICS/ENR

ENR06132016TL_PDF_Overview.indd 40 6/6/16 2:30 PM

OVERVIEW

2007$79.23

2007$10.55

2008$87.74

2008$15.60

$ BILLIONS DOMESTIC REVENUE INTERNATIONAL REVENUE

2009$73.87

2010$63.97

2010$14.35

2011$64.19

2011$19.19

2012$70.89

2012$20.63

2013$77.83

2013$19.01

2014$86.77

2014$17.21

2015$92.67

2015$10.30

2009$15.47

created more opportunities for alternative delivery methods, such as public-private partnerships (P3s) and design-build, and forced all parties to work closer to-gether. “Stronger relationships with contractors, con-cessionaires, the fi nancial community and other stake-holders are no longer an option but a requirement,” says Nick DeNichilo, CEO of Mott MacDonald, North America, an Iselin, N.J.-based engineering fi rm.

While many designers resisted what they perceived as design-build’s usurpation of their traditional role in shaping the project’s concept and overseeing construc-tion, many have embraced the team concept associated with alternative project delivery. “With the fact that design-build and CM-at-risk have dominated the de-livery process for the past 15 or 20 years, the contrac-tor has necessarily become a strategic partner,” says Mike Medici, president of Detroit-based architect-engineer SmithGroupJJR. “I truly believe that focusing on collaboration is head and shoulders above the tra-ditional design-bid-build process,” he says.

These enabling laws have paid dividends to fi rms experienced in alternative project delivery. “In Ohio, our clients have many delivery methods to choose from. We see this as a positive for clients and our organization,” says Brian Burgett, CEO of Kokosing Inc. Kokosing currently is building a $98-million wastewater facility for the city of Euclid, the largest-ever CMR treatment facility to be let in Ohio, he says.

“We continue to see signifi cant change in project delivery in the water and wastewater-treatment market,” says Kevin McCarthy, CEO of PC Construc-tion. He says these markets used to be dominated by design-bid-build projects, with owners seeking out the lowest cost. “Now, they are seeing the benefi ts that

Domestic CM-at-Risk Tops Record

design-build and construction management-at-risk delivery provide.” PC Construction is working as a CMR contractor for the city of Atlanta’s water-supply program, the Charleston, S.C., water system and in-frastructure projects for Paulding County, Ga..

Many fi rms formerly thought of primarily as design-ers have developed their own in-house construction capabilities and now are embracing their role as an inte-grated design-builder. “Our ability to merge the tradi-tionally separate build and design roles into a seamless integrated team has proven to be a valuable service for our clients,” says Greg Carlson, vice president of Burns & McDonnell. Since these services are from a single source, the fi rm is able to provide the fl exibility to quickly adapt and expedite critical-path items—design decisions, permitting and staffi ng needs, for example—to achieve aggressive schedules and budgets, Carlson says.

ConcernsAlternative project delivery has raised concerns. Some design fi rms say that, when developing a project, own-ers are looking more toward contractors, rather than design fi rms. “In certain market sectors and in certain regions, clients go to contractors fi rst, and then design teams work through contractors,” says Kevin Hydes, CEO of Integral Group, an Oakland, Calif.-based en-gineering fi rm. “Typically, a lot of clients in the tech sector go that route.” To ensure their continued impact on projects, it is important for design fi rms to develop strong ties with contractors and owners, he notes.

Design fi rms worry about the legal implications of design under processes such as design-build. The po-tential shift in responsibility for design services from the traditional design consultant to the contractor un-

“A troubling trend is that owners are trying to get more sophisticated, getting into P3s or other alternative methods of procurement that they don’t understand. What happens is, the risk is all getting shoved down to the contractor level.”

Bob Alger, CEO, Lane Construction

#20SKANSKA USA recently completed a new clinic for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, an integrated project delivery project in San Carlos, Calif.

enr.com June 13, 2016 � ENR � 41

SOURCE: DODGE DATA & ANALYTICS/ENR

ENR06132016TL_PDF_Overview.indd 41 6/6/16 2:30 PM

der design-build and the emerging integrated project delivery models create “contractually gray areas that are presenting themselves and require cooperation and creative solutions,” says Philip M. Davis, senior vice president of architecture for Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber Inc., a Grand Rapids, Mich.-based architectural and engineering fi rm.

Risky BusinessMany owners see alternative project delivery as a means of limiting their risk on a project. However, risk-shifting is a double-edged sword. Alternative proj-ect delivery may help to mitigate some risks by foster-ing teamwork, but no process can eliminate all risk. Owners may not understand that shifting risk to the contractor or the design-build team comes at a price.

Many fi rms engaged in alternative project delivery say owners need to understand the cost of risk. “A trou-bling trend is that owners are trying to get more sophisticated, getting into P3s or other alternative methods of procurement that they don’t understand. What happens is, the risk is all getting shoved down to the contractor level … with onerous contract terms like consequential damages and the like. Then, when you try to price that risk, the owner says your price is too high. We need to fi nd a balance between price and risk,” says Bob Alger, CEO of Lane Construction.

Washington of DBIA stresses that understanding the process is the key to making design-build success-ful, particularly for owners. “It’s all about education. People have to understand the elements of design-build done right,” she says.

To address the issue of education, DBIA has intro-duced a series of best-practices guides, says Washington.

2016 Design-Build State Laws

She notes that DBIA produced a general guide to design-build best practices early in 2015 but now is is-suing a series of market-specifi c guides. “We came out with our best-practices guide for the federal sector last August, then one for the water and wastewater markets in January and one for transportation in March.”

Progressive Design-BuildMany fi rms note the increased use of design-assist, a process that brings in the contracting team early to assist the design team in planning out the project. “We are fi nding that the increasing need for design-assist or other very early trade input on projects is promot-ing much deeper relationships with the subset of sub-contractors that are able to successfully collaborate within teams and add value during the preconstruction and planning phase,” says Steven F. Roznowski, CEO of The Christman Co.

Washington of DBIA says there is a growing trend to extend this design-assist concept into the use of design-build; this method is called progressive design-build. A design-build team is brought in early in the design process to work closely with the owner on spec-ifi cation and equipment selection. Once the design is about 35% complete, the design-build team offers a guaranteed maximum price.

“This approach has become more common in the water and wastewater sectors, where complicated equipment selection is required early on,” says Wash-ington. She says this approach gives owners greater input into the design without sacrifi cing the collabora-tion and single point of responsibility inherent in design-build. “It also requires a qualifi cations-based selection process to be the most effective,” she says. �

“It’s all about education. People need to understand the elements of design-build done right.”

Lisa Washington, CEO, Design-Build Institute of America

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS OVERVIEW#40ROBINS & MORTON is the CMR for the new $187-million, 534,000-sq-ft replacement Baptist North Mississippi Hospital in Oxford, Miss.

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

Design-build is limited to onepolitical subdivision, e.g., agencycommission, or special project

Design-build iswidely permitted

Design-build isa limited option

SOURCE: DESIGN-BUILD INSTITUTE OF AMERICA, 2016

IL

WA

OR

CANV

IDWY

UTNE

SD

NDMN

WI

OH

MINY

TX

MO

AL

SC

FL

KYNC

ME

IN

LAMS

TN

GAAZ

OK AR

AK

WVKS

MT

CO

NM

PA

VA

IANJ

MDDE

DC

HI

CTRI

VTNH

MA

CM-AT-RISK2013 $96.84

DESIGN-BUILD2013 $108.79

CM-AT-RISK2014 $103.98

DESIGN-BUILD2014 $109.59

$ BILLIONS

CM-AT-RISK2015 $102.97

DESIGN-BUILD2015 $107.21

42 � ENR � June 13, 2016 enr.com

ENR06132016TL_PDF_Overview.indd 42 6/6/16 2:30 PM

The Top 100 Design-Build Firms

COMPANIES ARE RANKED IN $ MILLIONS BASED ON 2015 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 SUBCONTRACTORS UNDER ITS SUPERVISION. **NOT RANKED IN 2015 AMONG THE TOP DESIGN-BUILD FIRMS.

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS #31GRAY CONSTRUCTION is the design-builder on the 578,742-sq-ft Clemens Food Group pork-processing facility in Coldwater, Mich.

enr.com June 13, 2016 ENR 43

RANK TOTAL REV. DOMESTIC INTER-2016 2015 FIRM ($ MIL.) REVENUE NATIONAL

1 1 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif. 17,417.0 6,517.0 10,900.0

2 2 FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas 11,552.2 4,484.6 7,067.6

3 3 CB&I INC., The Woodlands, Texas 10,446.1 6,907.3 3,538.8

4 4 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif. 8,470.0 4,190.0 4,280.0

5 5 KIEWIT CORP., Omaha, Neb. 5,768.9 4,747.8 1,021.1

6 6 KBR, Houston, Texas 3,238.4 911.5 2,326.9

7 8 THE WALSH GROUP LTD., Chicago, Ill. 2,144.4 2,144.4 0.0

8 20 ZACHRY GROUP, San Antonio, Texas 1,991.0 1,991.0 0.0

9 7 WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING, Baltimore, Md. 1,797.9 1,797.9 0.0

10 9 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan. 1,577.8 1,074.6 503.2

11 13 BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo. 1,486.7 1,321.6 165.2

12 21 SWINERTON INC., San Francisco, Calif. 1,457.0 1,457.0 0.0

13 11 MATRIX SERVICE CO., Tulsa, Okla. 1,321.4 1,175.6 145.8

14 18 MORTENSON CONSTRUCTION, Minneapolis, Minn. 1,288.9 1,242.1 46.8

15 17 CLAYCO INC., Chicago, Ill. 1,282.5 1,282.5 0.0

16 19 CLARK GROUP, Bethesda, Md. 1,180.0 1,180.0 0.0

17 23 BABCOCK & WILCOX ENTERPR., Charlotte, N.C. 1,164.9 480.1 684.8

18 10 HENSEL PHELPS, Greeley, Colo. 1,154.4 952.4 202.0

19 16 PCL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, Denver, Colo. 1,110.9 33.5 1,077.5

20 24 SKANSKA USA, New York, N.Y. 1,103.6 1,103.1 0.0

21 25 MCCARTHY HOLDINGS INC., St. Louis, Mo. 1,018.0 1,018.0 0.0

22 14 BALFOUR BEATTY US, Dallas, Texas 1,006.6 977.2 0.0

23 22 CH2M, Englewood, Colo. 992.6 672.7 319.9

24 ** M+W GROUP, Albany, N.Y. 990.0 990.0 0.0

25 26 THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y. 871.4 859.3 12.1

26 15 FERROVIAL US CONSTRUCTION, Austin, Texas 815.0 815.0 0.0

27 58 AMEC FOSTER WHEELER, Tucker, Ga. 813.0 708.0 105.0

28 27 ARCO CONSTRUCTION COS., St. Louis, Mo. 773.9 773.8 0.0

29 29 RYAN COS. US INC., Minneapolis, Minn. 712.0 712.0 0.0

30 32 S&B ENG’RS & CONSTRUCTORS, Houston, Texas 700.3 700.3 0.0

31 43 GRAY CONSTRUCTION, Lexington, Ky. 660.0 660.0 0.0

32 31 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC., Watsonville, Calif. 649.0 649.0 0.0

33 75 LEIDOS, Reston, Va. 648.4 648.4 0.0

34 55 JE DUNN CONSTRUCTION, Kansas City, Mo. 629.6 629.6 0.0

35 38 HANOVER RS CONSTRUCTION, Houston, Texas 620.0 620.0 0.0

36 45 ALSTON CONSTRUCTION CO., Sacramento, Calif. 576.0 576.0 0.0

37 39 BL HARBERT INTERNATIONAL, Birmingham, Ala. 525.3 83.0 442.3

38 49 BARTON MALOW CO., Southfield, Mich. 500.0 500.0 0.0

39 30 WALBRIDGE, Detroit, Mich. 482.4 266.4 216.0

40 37 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif. 477.2 426.3 50.9

41 34 HASKELL, Jacksonville, Fla. 476.2 454.6 21.6

42 ** AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif. 451.9 451.9 0.0

43 ** HOFFMAN CORP., Portland, Ore. 440.0 440.0 0.0

44 71 DPR CONSTRUCTION, Redwood City, Calif. 412.8 412.8 0.0

45 50 CDM SMITH, Boston, Mass. 410.6 384.6 26.0

46 61 DEVCON CONSTRUCTION INC., Milpitas, Calif. 405.0 405.0 0.0

47 48 DEACON CORP., Citrus Heights, Calif. 398.5 398.5 0.0

48 56 OHL USA INC., College Point, N.Y. 391.4 139.5 251.9

49 57 THE BECK GROUP, Dallas, Texas 376.8 376.8 0.0

50 ** SHIMIZU NORTH AMERICA LLC, Atlanta, Ga. 375.0 273.0 102.0

RANK TOTAL REV. DOMESTIC INTER-2016 2015 FIRM ($ MIL.) REVENUE NATIONAL

51 33 DUKE CONSTRUCTION, Indianapolis, Ind. 368.7 368.7 0.0

52 46 FLATIRON CONSTR. CORP., Broomfield, Colo. 366.0 143.5 222.5

53 ** TUTOR PERINI CORP., Sylmar, Calif. 365.6 323.4 42.2

54 52 GEMMA POWER SYSTEMS, Glastonbury, Conn. 360.3 360.3 0.0

55 42 LANE INDUSTRIES INC., Cheshire, Conn. 336.2 336.2 0.0

56 91 AUSTIN INDUSTRIES, Dallas, Texas 322.5 322.5 0.0

57 62 MESSER CONSTRUCTION CO., Cincinnati, Ohio 319.5 319.5 0.0

58 53 THE MCSHANE COS., Rosemont, Ill. 316.8 316.8 0.0

59 73 GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I. 316.2 274.4 41.8

60 68 TRAYLOR BROS. INC., Evansville, Ind. 314.5 314.5 0.0

61 64 ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION, San Antonio, Texas 312.0 312.0 0.0

62 ** LPCIMINELLI INC., Buffalo, N.Y. 309.6 309.6 0.0

63 ** MWH GLOBAL, Broomfield, Colo. 299.0 50.4 248.6

64 67 AMERICAN BRIDGE CO., Coraopolis, Pa. 293.4 232.0 61.4

65 60 LENDLEASE, New York, N.Y. 283.7 283.7 0.0

66 ** HERZOG FAMILY OF COS., St. Joseph, Mo. 280.7 274.6 6.1

67 74 KLINGER COS. INC., Sioux City, Iowa 280.0 280.0 0.0

68 ** XL CONSTRUCTION CORP., Milpitas, Calif. 275.0 275.0 0.0

69 93 TRANSCORE, Nashville, Tenn. 268.4 257.6 10.8

70 ** DOME CONSTR. CORP., So. San Francisco, Calif. 251.0 251.0 0.0

71 87 BBL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC, Albany, N.Y. 249.6 249.6 0.0

72 47 DENNIS ENGINEERING GROUP, Springfield, Mass. 247.8 247.8 0.0

73 ** BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., Salt Lake City, Utah 245.6 245.6 0.0

74 ** CAHILL CONTRACTORS INC., San Francisco, Calif. 236.0 236.0 0.0

75 81 CADDELL CONSTRUCTION CO., Montgomery, Ala. 231.9 46.0 185.9

76 ** FAGEN INC., Granite Falls, Minn. 228.7 228.7 0.0

77 78 CONTINENTAL BUILDING SYS., Columbus, Ohio 223.1 223.1 0.0

78 54 H&M CO. INC., Jackson, Tenn. 218.0 218.0 0.0

79 70 ARCADIS/CALLISONRTKL, Highlands Ranch, Colo. 212.0 192.0 20.0

80 77 ODEBRECHT CONSTRUCTION, Coral Gables, Fla. 210.0 210.0 0.0

81 66 STRUCTURE TONE, New York, N.Y. 210.0 125.0 85.0

82 ** PRIMUS BUILDERS INC., Woodstock, Ga. 193.0 193.0 0.0

83 63 VCC LLC, Irving, Texas 189.3 189.3 0.0

84 99 SUNDT CONSTRUCTION INC., Tempe, Ariz. 187.3 187.3 0.0

85 ** CORVAL GROUP INC., St. Paul, Minn. 187.0 187.0 0.0

86 ** ELECTRICAL CONSULTANTS INC., Billings, Mont. 174.3 174.3 0.0

87 ** JINGOLI-DCO, Lawrenceville, N.J. 170.0 170.0 0.0

88 ** PRO CON INC., Hooksett, N.H. 165.6 165.6 0.0

89 90 SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION CO., Oakland, Calif. 164.3 164.3 0.0

90 83 CAROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, Oxford, Miss. 160.0 160.0 0.0

91 ** LAUREN ENG’S & CONSTRUCTORS, Abilene, Texas 155.8 155.8 0.0

92 ** LAYTON CONSTRUCTION CO. LLC, Sandy, Utah 147.0 147.0 0.0

93 ** THE HUBBARD GROUP INC., Orlando, Fla. 145.1 145.1 0.0

94 ** ROSENBERGER CONSTR., Sugar Land, Texas 139.1 139.1 0.0

95 95 CONSIGLI BUILDING GROUP INC., Milford, Mass. 135.3 135.3 0.0

96 ** POWER CONSTRUCTION CO. LLC, Chicago, Ill. 122.5 122.5 0.0

97 ** DAVID E. HARVEY BUILDERS, Houston, Texas 120.0 120.0 0.0

98 ** BERNARDS, San Fernando, Calif. 116.7 116.7 0.0

99 ** THE WEITZ CO., Des Moines, Iowa 114.7 114.7 0.0

100 ** LEVEL 10 CONSTRUCTION, Sunnyvale, Calif. 114.5 114.5 0.0

ENR06132016Top100_PDF_List.indd 43 6/6/16 1:52 PM

Construction Management-at-Risk Firms

BASED ON 2015 REVENUE IN $ MILLIONS FROM “AT RISK” CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OR PROJECT AND PROGRAM CONTRACTS IN WHICH A FIRM IS EXPOSED TO FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND RISK SIMILAR TO THOSE OF A GENERAL CONTRACTOR **=NOT RANKED IN 2015 AMONG THE TOP 100 CM FIRMS-AT-RISK.

THE TOP 100 PROJECT DELIVERY FIRMS #70THE CHRISTMAN CO. is CM on the $271-million medical-center project for Mercy Health in Muskegon, Mich.

RANK TOTAL REV. INTER-NATIONAL2016 2015 FIRM ($ MIL.)

1 1 THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y. 9,683.2 719.9

2 2 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif. 6,970.0 6,916.0

3 5 SKANSKA USA, New York, N.Y. 3,684.6 2.8

4 ** AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif. 3,233.4 0.0

5 8 STRUCTURE TONE, New York, N.Y. 3,098.2 123.2

6 6 GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I. 3,093.3 214.7

7 7 BALFOUR BEATTY US, Dallas, Texas 2,944.6 0.0

8 9 THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING CO., Baltimore, Md. 2,704.4 0.0

9 12 LENDLEASE, New York, N.Y. 2,689.1 43.1

10 11 DPR CONSTRUCTION, Redwood City, Calif. 2,660.0 0.0

11 14 SUFFOLK CONSTRUCTION CO., Boston, Mass. 2,481.0 0.0

12 10 PCL CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES INC., Denver, Colo. 2,174.8 1,555.7

13 13 JE DUNN CONSTRUCTION, Kansas City, Mo. 2,164.4 0.0

14 15 MORTENSON CONSTRUCTION, Minneapolis, Minn. 2,138.0 0.0

15 51 CLARK GROUP, Bethesda, Md. 2,019.0 0.0

16 17 HOLDER CONSTRUCTION CO., Atlanta, Ga. 2,017.0 0.0

17 16 MCCARTHY HOLDINGS INC., St. Louis, Mo. 1,789.0 0.0

18 20 DAVID E. HARVEY BUILDERS, Houston, Texas 1,650.0 0.0

19 28 SWINERTON INC., San Francisco, Calif. 1,477.0 0.0

20 19 KBR, Houston, Texas 1,280.7 130.8

21 27 WEBCOR BUILDERS, San Francisco, Calif. 1,207.8 0.0

22 22 BARTON MALOW CO., Southfield, Mich. 1,161.5 33.8

23 34 HUNTER ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION GRP., New York, N.Y. 1,139.0 0.0

24 ** HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE CONSTR., San Francisco, Calif. 1,098.0 0.0

25 26 HITT CONTRACTING INC., Falls Church, Va. 1,082.8 0.0

26 23 CHINA CONSTR. AMER./PLAZA CONSTR., Jersey City, N.J. 1,075.0 0.0

27 46 ALBERICI-FLINTCO, St. Louis, Mo. 1,050.2 282.6

28 41 LAYTON CONSTRUCTION CO. LLC, Sandy, Utah 1,029.4 0.0

29 25 SHAWMUT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, Boston, Mass. 905.6 0.0

30 18 HOFFMAN CORP., Portland, Ore. 894.0 0.0

31 47 PEPPER CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Chicago, Ill. 893.9 0.0

32 31 COASTAL CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Miami, Fla. 885.0 0.0

33 32 MANHATTAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, Naples, Fla. 862.7 0.0

34 49 EMJ CORP., Chattanooga, Tenn. 840.0 6.0

35 33 AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES INC., Arlington, Va. 815.6 0.0

36 57 THE BECK GROUP, Dallas, Texas 780.0 39.6

37 39 CONSIGLI BUILDING GROUP INC., Milford, Mass. 779.5 0.0

38 29 POWER CONSTRUCTION CO. LLC, Chicago, Ill. 768.0 0.0

39 54 TELLEPSEN, Houston, Texas 715.0 0.0

40 45 ROBINS & MORTON, Birmingham, Ala. 701.4 0.0

41 37 MESSER CONSTRUCTION CO., Cincinnati, Ohio 693.5 0.0

42 36 CHOATE CONSTRUCTION CO., Atlanta, Ga. 677.7 0.0

43 38 LEVEL 10 CONSTRUCTION, Sunnyvale, Calif. 676.4 0.0

44 ** AUSTIN INDUSTRIES, Dallas, Texas 670.4 0.0

45 48 KIEWIT CORP., Omaha, Neb. 635.4 0.0

46 43 KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, Minneapolis, Minn. 634.0 0.0

47 56 HOAR CONSTRUCTION, Birmingham, Ala. 624.2 0.0

48 70 OKLAND CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Salt Lake City, Utah 581.0 0.0

49 60 GLY CONSTRUCTION, Bellevue, Wash. 562.0 0.0

50 44 CLUNE CONSTRUCTION CO., Chicago, Ill. 540.6 0.0

RANK TOTAL REV. INTER-NATIONAL2016 2015 FIRM ($ MIL.)

51 63 SUNDT CONSTRUCTION INC., Tempe, Ariz. 526.1 0.0

52 61 C.W. DRIVER COS., Pasadena, Calif. 517.8 0.0

53 53 THE BOLDT CO., Appleton, Wis. 497.5 0.0

54 ** LEASE CRUTCHER LEWIS, Seattle, Wash. 497.3 0.0

55 55 JACOBSEN CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Salt Lake City, Utah 494.0 10.0

56 59 MCGOUGH, St. Paul, Minn. 477.0 0.0

57 58 LEE LEWIS CONSTRUCTION, Lubbock, Texas 475.0 0.0

58 30 HENSEL PHELPS, Greeley, Colo. 473.1 0.0

59 3 FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas 455.1 175.6

60 ** FORTIS CONSTRUCTION INC., Portland, Ore. 444.0 0.0

61 85 THE WALSH GROUP LTD., Chicago, Ill. 437.8 20.3

62 62 O’NEIL INDUSTRIES INC., Chicago, Ill. 430.5 0.0

63 84 INTECH CONSTRUCTION LLC, Philadelphia, Pa. 430.0 0.0

64 87 WEIS BUILDERS INC., Minneapolis, Minn. 406.7 0.0

65 82 BARTLETT COCKE GEN’L CONTRACTORS, San Antonio, Texas 406.4 0.0

66 52 WALBRIDGE, Detroit, Mich. 402.6 13.6

67 75 BUILD GROUP INC., San Francisco, Calif. 401.7 0.0

68 66 KITCHELL CORP., Phoenix, Ariz. 390.0 0.0

69 65 GE JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION CO., Colorado Springs, Colo. 386.0 0.0

70 67 THE CHRISTMAN CO., Lansing, Mich. 380.8 0.0

71 42 THE YATES COS. INC., Philadelphia, Miss. 378.2 0.0

72 ** THE PIKE COS. LTD., Rochester, N.Y. 362.0 0.0

73 78 J.H. FINDORFF & SON INC., Madison, Wis. 354.0 0.0

74 77 HILL & WILKINSON GENERAL CONTR., Richardson, Texas 353.9 0.0

75 69 DIMEO CONSTRUCTION CO., Providence, R.I. 347.4 0.0

76 80 THE PENTA BUILDING GROUP, Las Vegas, Nev. 344.4 0.0

77 ** KNUTSON CONSTRUCTION, St. Louis Park, Minn. 332.0 0.0

78 ** T.G. NICKEL & ASSOCIATES LLC, Ronkonkoma, N.Y. 321.2 0.0

79 89 RODGERS BUILDERS INC., Charlotte, N.C. 319.5 0.0

80 74 SAUNDERS CONSTRUCTION INC., Centennial, Colo. 319.0 0.0

81 71 LECHASE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC, Rochester, N.Y. 315.0 0.0

82 ** JAMES R. VANNOY & SONS CONSTR., Jefferson, N.C. 314.0 0.0

83 ** JOERIS GENERAL CONTRACTORS LTD., San Antonio, Texas 313.2 0.0

84 73 LPCIMINELLI INC., Buffalo, N.Y. 304.6 0.0

85 ** BNBT BUILDERS INC., Redwood City, Calif. 300.0 0.0

86 ** JORDAN FOSTER CONSTRUCTION LLC, El Paso, Texas 297.0 0.0

87 ** IMC CONSTRUCTION, Malvern, Pa. 290.0 0.0

88 91 J.P. CULLEN & SONS INC., Janesville, Wis. 289.9 0.0

89 94 PLANT CONSTRUCTION CO. LP, San Francisco, Calif. 289.3 0.0

90 ** SKENDER CONSTRUCTION, Chicago, Ill. 287.0 0.0

91 ** ENGINEERED STRUCTURES INC. (ESI), Meridian, Idaho 285.4 0.0

92 ** KAST CONSTRUCTION CO. LLC, West Palm Beach, Fla. 276.4 0.0

93 96 BARR & BARR INC., New York, N.Y. 274.6 0.0

94 21 M+W GROUP, Albany, N.Y. 271.1 12.0

95 72 BIG-D CONSTRUCTION CORP., Salt Lake City, Utah 266.5 0.0

96 ** COMMODORE BUILDERS, Waltham, Mass. 263.0 0.0

97 92 DELLBROOK/JK SCANLAN, Quincy, Mass. 260.7 0.0

98 ** NEW SOUTH CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Atlanta, Ga. 259.5 0.0

99 81 SPAWGLASS HOLDING LP, Selma, Texas 259.5 0.0

100 ** W.M. JORDAN CO., Newport News, Va. 259.0 0.0

44 ENR Month 00, 2013 enr.com 44 ENR June 13, 2016 enr.com

ENR06132016Top100_PDF_List.indd 44 6/6/16 1:52 PM