Enr 2008 The Top 500 Design Firms
Enr 2008 The Top 500 Design Firms
Enr 2008 The Top 500 Design Firms
This annual issue published by ENR ranks the 500 largest engineering, architectural
and environmental design firms by revenue. It also ranks the largest firms in a wide
variety of market sectors.
Main Article:
Listings:
Individual Rankings
The Top 20 General Building
The Top 20 Industrial Process/Petroleum
The Top 20 Telecommunications
The Top 20 Power
The Top 20 Transportation
The Top 20 Manufacturing
The Top 20 Hazardous Waste
The Top 20 Water
The Top 20 Sewer/Waste
The 2008 Top 500 at a Glance (Volume, profitability, professional staff, backlog,
market analysis, international regions)
THE TOP
500
DESIGN
FIRMS
Watching for Signs of a Market Slowdown
market is clear in the volume numbers for for the Top 500, to $19.67 billion. sons Corp. “The commercial sector usu-
for ENR’s list of the Top 500 Design In the face of troubling economic ally feels a more immediate effect of a
Firms. As a group, they generated a total news and talk of recession in the U.S., top downturn, and we are already seeing
of $80.62 billion in revenue last year, up design firms are giving the next 12 signs of a slowdown there.” He believes
3242201717
ENR_04_21_2008_p38_v2.qxd 4/14/08 6:14 PM Page 39
that a brief recession will only be a blip source delivery, he says. “Procurement CH2M Hill’s purchase of Lockwood
on markets, but a prolonged one could decisions are no longer made at the plant Greene a few years ago moved the parent
have a two-to-three year impact on the level but by senior career executives at firm heavily into industrial markets.
industry. However, Scott says Parsons the corporate level,” he says. Washington
hasn’t seen any signs of a fall-off in its Group provided both self-perform con- Bargain Hunters from Abroad
markets. tracting and solid engineering, plus entry Another factor that may be fueling the
For many firms, there are some signs into growing energy markets for URS. level of acquisition activity is the fall in
of weakness in markets, but nothing dra- “We now can provide services for the the value of the U.S. dollar against for-
matic as yet. “The developer and mixed- whole project lifecycle, from planning eign currencies. This effective devalua-
use [building] markets have fallen off a and design, to construction, through tion has made acquisition of U.S. firms by
bit, but that is mostly regional in nature,” operations and maintenance through our foreign firms in high-value currency
says Carl Roehling, CEO of Smith- EG&G division,” Koffel says. countries a more enticing proposition.
Group. Adds Gordon Matheson, CEO As for continuing acquisitions, there “The European companies are being par-
of geotechnical specialist Schnabel Engi- always seem to be firms on the table. “We ticularly aggressive in courting U.S.
neering Inc.: “We’ve seen a little slow- are always alert for tactic add-ons,” says firms,” says Matheson. “Using Euros in
down in some of our markets, but noth- Koffel. But he doesn’t foresee another the U.S. is like getting 30% more for
ing is falling off the edge.” So far the only major strategic acquisition in the imme- your money.”
major casualty he has seen has been resi- diate future. “It will take us a couple years One successful European purchaser in
dential, “and we got out of that market in to consolidate our acquisition of Wash- the U.S. was Scotland’s RMJM, which
2000 because of liability issues.” ington Group,” he says. bought architect-engineer Hillier. U.K.-
As for public-sector markets, a lot CH2M Hill’s acquisition of VECO based Balfour Beatty also has been in the
depends on local economies and tax rev- was another with strategic roots. “Our hunt. “Balfour Beatty has always seen its
enue. “Everyone is watching for July 1, footprint in the energy markets wasn’t home U.K. market as core but now it and
when most state budgets have to be big enough to make any real impact,” other European firms are looking at the
passed, to see the impact of any reduced says Don Evans, CH2M Hill vice chair- U.S. as an extension of the core market,”
tax receipts from an economic slow- man. VECO filled that need in both says George Heitz, president of Heery
down,” says Martin Koffel, chairman and power and oil and gas sectors, just as International, whose own firm was
CEO of URS. However, he doesn’t be-
lieve that this year’s round of budgets will The Top 20 The Top 20
be as bad as it was in 2002. “I think there Industrial Process/Petro Telecommunications
will be a slowdown in growth, but no Revenue: $15.3 billion Revenue: $0.6 billion
major pullbacks,” he says.
1 FLUOR CORP. 1 PARSONS
One of the big stories in the past year has 3 BECHTEL 3 EYP MISSION CRITICAL FACILITIES
idation going on among the Top 500. In 5 THE SHAW GROUP INC. 5 KCI TECHNOLOGIES INC.
all, 16 design firms disappeared from last 6 CH2M HILL COS. 6 SYSKA HENNESSY GROUP INC.
year’s Top 500 Design Firms list through 7 FOSTER WHEELER LTD. 7 BECHTEL
acquisition. Another three firms no 8 CB&I 8 BLACK & VEATCH
longer appear under their own names, 9 MUSTANG ENGINEERING 9 TRC COS. INC.
now incorporated into their parent firms’ 10 URS CORP. 10 TENG AFFILIATED COS.
survey data. Among the year’s biggest 11 AMEC 11 LFR INC.
acquisitions were: ABB Lummus Global, 12 S&B HOLDINGS LTD. AND AFFILIATES 12 PRIMARY INTEGRATION
Bloomfield, N.J., by CB&I; VECO, 13 WORLEYPARSONS CORP. 13 L. ROBERT KIMBALL & ASSOCIATES INC.
Anchorage, Alaska, by CH2M Hill Cos.; 14 ENGLOBAL CORP. 14 MACTEC INC.
Carter & Burgess, Fort Worth, by Jacobs; 15 CDI ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS 15 CORGAN ASSOCIATES INC.
and Washington Group International, 16 FUGRO INC. 16 CMX
Boise, by URS Corp. 17 BE&K INC. 17 MICHELS CORP.
“We built this company as an engi- 18 UNIVERSAL ENSCO INC. 18 RTKL ASSOCIATES INC.
neering design firm,” says URS’ Koffel. 19 PARSONS 19 TECTONIC
But the firm saw the trend toward larger
20 GULF INTERSTATE ENGINEERING CO. 20 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC.
projects and clients that wanted single
3242312822
ENR_04_21_2008_p38_v2.qxd 4/14/08 6:14 PM Page 40
acquired by Balfour Beatty 20 years ago. Global market changes are further
The Top 20 The Netherlands-based Arcadis also intensifying competition in the U.S. “We
General Building has been on a buying spree, including are seeing large international organiza-
purchases of major environmental firms tions coming into the U.S. and becoming
Revenue: $7.0 billion
BBL, Syracuse, N.Y., and most recently, established in virtually every major city,”
1 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP. LFR Inc. and architect RTKL. “We are says Roehling of SmithGroup. He notes
2 JACOBS seeing many major clients in the environ- the arrival several years ago of British-
3 GENSLER mental markets looking for vendor con- based architect Sir Norman Foster. “Now,
4 HOK solidation, limiting bidders to the top Foster and Partners can do your design in
5 URS CORP.
three to five firms in the industry,” says Des Moines,” says Roehling. “This used
6 HKS INC.
Steve Blake, CEO of Arcadis U.S. “If to be a local business with local relation-
7 PERKINS+WILL
you’re not in that group, you are out of ships. Now, design is almost purely based
luck. Our goal is to be a global leader in on expertise.”
8 SKIDMORE OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
environmental services because it is truly
9 PARSONS
a global market.” An Old Story
10 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC.
The acquisition binge has had an For some, however, consolidation is an
11 RTKL ASSOCIATES INC.
impact on mid-sized and smaller firms. old story. “Industry consolidation has
12 TETRA TECH INC.
“We get offers to be acquired at least been going on forever,” says Paul Yarossi,
13 HDR
once a week,” says Schnabel’s Matheson. executive vice president of HNTB. “The
14 NBBJ
He says that acquisition is having a key only difference is that now you have a
15 RMJM HILLIER
impact in the competitor pool, noting few big public companies.” He claims
16 TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC.
smaller competitors that have been consolidation has had a negligible impact
17 LEO A DALY
acquired are getting more aggressively on HNTB. “We still are able to compete
18 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC. competitive. “They now have a larger on the big projects,” says Yarossi. “Plus,
19 CALLISON organization behind them, plus a larger consolidation may be a plus as it brings
20 SMITHGROUP INC. marketing budget and lower overhead,” some publicity to the business.”
he says. The consolidation trend is expected
to continue. “The public firms in the
The Top 20 The Top 20 industry have a whole lot of cash to spend
Power Transportation and need things to invest in,” says Scott
of Parsons Corp. “Plus, you have Wall
Revenue: $6.3 billion Revenue: $9.0 billion
Street demanding double-digit growth
1 THE SHAW GROUP INC. 1 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP. that the market can’t sustain. So acquisi-
2 URS CORP. 2 URS CORP. tion is the answer to increase size.” But
3 FOSTER WHEELER LTD. 3 JACOBS privately held firms such as Parsons are
4 BLACK & VEATCH 4 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC. also looking long and hard at potential
5 SARGENT & LUNDY LLC 5 LOUIS BERGER GROUP buys “because we use real money and
6 BECHTEL 6 HNTB COS. expect a real return,” says Scott.
7 WORLEYPARSONS CORP. 7 CH2M HILL COS. Even so, there is still some industry
8 BURNS & MCDONNELL 8 HDR skepticism on the acquisition trend. “A
9 BURNS AND ROE GROUP INC. 9 PARSONS lot of the consolidation makes sense to
10 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC. 10 PBS&J those who believe more is better,” says
11 CH2M HILL COS. 11 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC. Terry Neimeyer, chairman and CEO of
12 FLUOR CORP. 12 STV GROUP INC. KCI Technologies. “But I fail to see the
13 MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC. 13 TRANSYSTEMS CORP. synergies in many of these acquisitions.”
14 AMEC 14 EARTH TECH INC. He says many deals are simply exit strate-
15 ZACHRY GROUP 15 MICHAEL BAKER CORP. gies for aging executives of acquired
16 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP. 16 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
firms. “I don’t see in many firms being
17 POWER ENGINEERS INC. 17 STANTEC INC.
acquired that the leadership is young and
18 ENERCON SERVICES INC. 18 BECHTEL
aggressive,” says Neimeyer.
For many firms, acquisitions serve a
19 CDI ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS 19 GANNETT FLEMING
second purpose beyond expanding scope
20 STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC. 20 TRANSCORE
and markets. Many firms believe it is the
3242436272
ENR_04_21_2008_p38_v2.qxd 4/14/08 6:14 PM Page 42
It’s Easy Being Green 5 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP. 5 BLACK & VEATCH
The trend toward sustainable and green 6 URS CORP. 6 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP.
“Within 10 years, you won’t even hear of 9 EARTH TECH INC. 9 MALCOLM PIRNIE INC.
the issue of sustainability. It will simply be 10 CDM 10 BROWN AND CALDWELL
part of the overall process of design,” says 11 LOUIS BERGER GROUP 11 JACOBS
Jeffrey Gill, vice president of MCG 12 PBS&J 12 LOUIS BERGER GROUP
Architecture. 13 MICHAEL BAKER CORP. 13 CAROLLO ENGINEERS PC
While sustainable building has been 14 CAROLLO ENGINEERS PC 14 PBS&J
big in California’s public sector buildings 15 STANTEC INC. 15 TETRA TECH INC.
market, he says many of his firm’s com- 16 DEWBERRY 16 STANTEC INC.
mercial and retail clients that build to 17 HAZEN AND SAWYER PC 17 SCS ENGINEERS
own for the long term are embracing sus- 18 GANNETT FLEMING 18 HAZEN AND SAWYER PC
tainability to cut lifecycle building costs. 19 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC. 19 GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC
California also is set to start forcing de- 20 BROWN AND CALDWELL 20 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD
velopers to incorporate sustainable
3242485652
ENR_04_21_2008_p38_v2.qxd 4/14/08 6:14 PM Page 45
design concepts, beginning in 2010, he Design (LEED) standards. “What will be their software,” says Kouhaila Hammer,
notes. more challenging is the Architecture2030 CEO of Ghafari Associates. “This can
There continues to be a cost premium Challenge to have all structures carbon eliminate thousands of shop drawings.”
associated with green building, so spark- neutral by the year 2030,” Roehling says. She says that working with all parties in
ing interest in the approach among pri- Integrated project delivery has be- the construction process from a digital
vate-sector developers and other clients is come a hot topic for many design firms in design can reduce or eliminate aspects
tough. “We put sustainability on the table building sectors. “Construction is the that don’t add value. Having a single
with every client,” says James McManus, only major industry in the country accurate and collision-free design pro-
CEO of The S/L/A/M Collaborative. that hasn’t improved the efficiency of vides subs and fabricators the freedom to
But many private sector clients seek in- its process in the past 30 years,” says work offsite, a plus in areas where labor
centives to counter additional costs asso- McManus. Bringing the general contrac- supplies are tight.
ciated with green building. “So we have tor on board early in the design process McManus says there remain road-
an arrangement with a consultant to was a good first step, he says. With the blocks to the approach. “The owner must
aggressively pursue any available tax new delivery approach, hiring of major be an active participant,” he says, adding
credits or other incentives that may subcontractors also would be expedited that there are issues relating to ownership
reduce or eliminate the extra cost of sus- so that design work could be done and control of the digital design and
tainable design for the client,” he says. together under the owners’ supervision. questions relating to liability. “However,
“Green is fast approaching the cost of Using this collaborative approach and architects are going to have to embrace
entry in many markets,” says Roehling. digital building information modeling this new technology and new approach to
SmithGroup has an initiative to have all can save time and money. “We take the construction design or risk being relegat-
firm partners accredited under the Lead- digitized model and share it with the fab- ed to delineators or illustrators,” he says.
ership in Energy and Environmental ricators in a form that is compatible with One big roadblock for BIM and digi-
Professional Staff
NUMBER OF FIRMS REPORTING AVERAGE % OF
DOMESTIC INTL. DOMESTIC INTL. International Regions
INCREASE 338 97 15.0 60.6
NUMBER REVENUE PERCENT
DECREASE 47 5 10.9 28.5 OF FIRMS $MIL. OF TOTAL
SAME 94 65 NA NA CANADA 117 3,213.4 16.3
LATIN AMERICA 141 928.1 4.7
CARRIBEAN ISLANDS 97 357.1 1.8
Backlog EUROPE 141 5,041.8 25.6
NUMBER OF FIRMS REPORTING AVERAGE % MIDDLE EAST 138 4,385.3 22.3
HIGHER 259 23.8 ASIA/AUSTRALIA 169 4,679.6 23.8
LOWER 86 14.5 AFRICA 75 1,035.3 5.3
SAME 104 NA ARCTIC/ANTARCTIC 2 28.1 0.1
3242609102
ENR_04_21_2008_p38_v2.qxd 4/14/08 6:14 PM Page 46
AutoDesk and Bentley BIM systems. 1 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP. EA 51 KCI TECHNOLOGIES INC. E
“We’ve always been primarily a Micro- 2 LOUIS BERGER GROUP EAP 52 CMX E
station firm, so we have tended to gravi- 3 MUSTANG ENGINEERING E 53 T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL E
tate toward Bentley. However, we do 4 HNTB COS. EA 54 GRESHAM, SMITH AND PARTNERS O
have offices that use AutoDesk, so com- 5 ARCADIS US E 55 VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN INC. E
patibility is an issue with us.” 6 CDI ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS EC 56 LANGAN ENG’G AND ENVIROMENTAL SVCS. E
7 HOK AE 57 GREENMAN-PEDERSEN INC. E
3242658482
ENR_04_21_2008_p38_v2.qxd 4/14/08 6:14 PM Page 48
some problems cropping up now. “Some the next five years and they don’t take it
The Top Designers of our clients are experiencing sticker seriously.”
International Markets shock,” says Rodman. “They are sur- Gaining public and political support
prised at costs pressures from the weak- for infrastructure funding remains a key
Revenue: $18.6 billion ness in labor availability, materials price challenge. “The problem is that infra-
1 FLUOR CORP. escalation, and the short supply of equip- structure isn’t a sexy issue to politicians,”
2 JACOBS ment.” He says equipment manufacturers says KCI’s Neimeyer. He says such needs
3 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP. have decided not to get caught in the are clearly documented, but they take a
4 KBR same kind of oversupply situation similar back seat to other spending priorities.
5 BECHTEL to one that occurred during the last pow- “Even when things go wrong, like the I-
6 FOSTER WHEELER LTD. er-market boom and bust, so they are not 35 bridge collapse, infrastructure be-
7 THE SHAW GROUP INC. expanding capacity. “This includes not comes a hot issue only as long as it’s in the
8 AMEC
just turbines, but more mundane items news cycle,” he says.
9 CB&I
like alloy piping, valves and such,” Rod- Another problem is that the public
10 LOUIS BERGER GROUP
man says. doesn’t understand how infrastructure
11 URS CORP.
12 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC.
Rodman also is concerned about envi- contributes to the economy. “History
13 CH2M HILL COS.
ronmental opposition to coal-fired pow- shows that every time we as a nation
14 MWH GLOBAL erplants. “In the long run, the need for made significant investments in our infra-
15 EARTH TECH INC. new generating capacity will be enor- structure, whether it be canals or rail-
16 ERM HOLDINGS LTD. mous,” he says. “But there have been roads or ports or the Interstate highway,
17 PARSONS about a dozen coal-fired projects stopped our economy took off,” says Tony Bar-
18 BLACK & VEATCH because of greenhouse-gas emissions.” tolomeo, CEO of Pennoni Associates.
19 HOK Rodman says there is more flexibility in He notes a Texas Transportation Initia-
20 CDI ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS saving costs in designing a coal-fired tive study released last September by
21 WORLEYPARSONS CORP. plant than a gas-fired facility: “Will peo- Texas A&M University that concludes
22 MUSTANG ENGINEERING
ple be willing to pay the increased cost traffic congestion costs the economy $78
23 SKIDMORE OWINGS & MERRILL LLP
[for gas-fired plants]?” billion a year. “Every dollar we waste due
24 RMJM HILLIER
Many firms are excited by the to inadequate transportation makes us a
25 MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.
26 INGENIUM INTERNATIONAL INC.
prospects of alternative energy, but some dollar less competitive in the world mar-
27 GENSLER
are seeing a fall-off. “A year ago, I would ket,” says Bartolomeo.
28 FUGRO INC. have bet on ethanol as the key alternative Firms in the transportation sector are
29 BURNS AND ROE GROUP INC. energy source,” says Parsons’ Scott. looking ahead to 2009 when the federal
30 ENVIRON “However, too many people got into reauthorization funding bill will be
31 STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC. ethanol on the speculative side and not addressed again in Congress. “The coali-
32 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOC. enough are investing in it as a true sus- tion to support reauthorization is building
33 RTKL ASSOCIATES INC. tainable energy source.” and seems stronger than the last time the
34 CDM federal bill came up,” says HNTB’s
35 WATG (WIMBERLY ALLISON TONG & GOO) Trillion-Dollar Needs Yarossi. He is encouraged that all three
36 TRANSCORE
In key infrastructure markets such as presidential candidates are talking about
37 T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL
transportation, water and waste treat- infrastructure. “However, there is no sil-
38 CORRPRO COS. INC.
ment, needs are so great that many ver bullet to answer our transportation
39 BELT COLLINS
designers express frustration that the needs—not the gas tax, not public private
40 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD
41 BURT HILL
public doesn’t understand the cost of partnerships, or other plans. You have to
42 ASRC ENERGY SERVICES investment. “The public is so used to piece together funding for each project
43 ARUP relying on their infrastructure that they where you can find it,” Yarossi says.
44 NBBJ take it for granted, and are surprised The price of gasoline is having a
45 BE&K INC. when something goes down like the I-35 major impact on transportation funding.
46 RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS PC bridge in Minneapolis,” says Dennis “With prices what they are, there’s no
47 SMALLWOOD, REYNOLDS, STEWART, Hirshbrunner, HDR executive vice pres- chance of getting an increase in the gas
STEWART & ASSOC. INC.
ident. “They see figures such as the $1.6 tax,” says George J. Pierson, chief oper-
48 PERKINS+WILL
trillion that [the American Society of ating officer of Parsons Brinckerhoff
49 WALDEMAR S. NELSON AND CO. INC.
Civil Engineers] estimates we will need to Americas. Plus, many states get the bulk
50 ARQUITECTONICA
spend to restore our infrastructure over of their funding through their own fuel
3242769587
ENR_04_21_2008_p38_v2.qxd 4/14/08 6:14 PM Page 50
taxes. “Look at Florida and Texas. People However, that vision has not quite come something of a low-cost center, but now
in those states are driving less to save to pass. “The 24/7 engineering model with the Canadian dollar trading higher
money on gas and tourism is off, which didn’t turn out as successful as we had than the U.S. dollar, we consider it a
means fewer receipts from gas taxes. But projected,” says Pierson of Parsons resource center,” he points out.
that doesn’t mean needs are less.” Brinckerhoff, echoing the feelings of Shortages in trained staff may be a
Many firms see a solid promise in many in the industry. Instead, PB is inte- limiting factor for firms looking to the
public-private partnerships, but acknowl- grating its offices worldwide to allow international market. “The falling dollar
edge that it will take some time for the common processes and easy access to has made us more competitive in foreign
American market to accept it. “There is internal experts both at home and abroad, markets, but it’s not like we have all this
plenty of U.S. equity ready to be invest- he says. excess capacity that needs to be sopped up
ed and the numbers make sense for PPP,” “With the new technology, there’s no by international projects,” says Evans of
says Blake of Arcadis. But he fears that longer a need for a monolithic central CH2M Hill.
old habits die hard. “Foreign equity office,” says Giorgio of CDI. “Now, you While the dollar’s falling value may
investors are used to working on a turn- can have a series of smaller offices to act boost the competitive position of some
key basis, but in the U.S., design-bid- as centers for excellence in a specific area U.S. design firms in overseas markets,
build is still the rule in infrastructure,” he or market.” He’s not alone in his assess- others are worried about the trend.
adds. But Blake believes PPP will be a ment. “Technology is moving at a great “There may be some competitive advan-
major factor in funding infrastructure in pace, allowing us to call on experts with- tage in bidding abroad from the falling
the long run. in the company on a moment’s notice to price of the dollar, but when you work
Parsons Corp. is particularly interest- allow them to see the problem and get abroad you are working using other cur-
ed in PPPs. “It’s changing the nature of their advice,” says HNTB’s Yarossi. rencies, so the impact is not great,” says
the market, particularly now in Canada,” For some firms, advances in telecom- Rodman.
says Scott. He says Parsons is taking part munications have produced new market Some are worried about the dollar.
in PPPs as a joint-venture partner, rather opportunities abroad. “We’ve done three “There has to be a correction or there
than as a sub. “Rewards are potentially projects in Dubai from our Pittsburgh will be repercussions,” says Scott of Par-
greater, but it changes your risk profile. office,” says Bartolomeo of Pennoni sons. He fears that the international com-
Any job can go soft munity may intervene or that the price of
with a big number, so “We are selling our services for oil and value of many currencies around
you have to be really
careful in who you
less than the cost of financing the world may be depegged from the dol-
lar. Such actions would lower the com-
team up with,” Scott the projects we design.” petitive position of the U.S. economy as
contends. — JACK SCOTT, PRESIDENT, PARSONS CORP., a whole.
For many engi- PASADENA, CALIF.
neering firms in the transportation sector, Associates. “We did the high-level con- Marginal Margins
increased use of design-build has gener- ceptual design in Pittsburgh, but the detail Scott contends that the engineering and
ated new concerns. “With design-build, work was done in India and shipped back construction industry “is probably a 3%
you are working for a different cus- to us for checking,” he says. to 4% margin business, and that hasn’t
tomer,” says Neimeyer of KCI. “While changed in my 30 years in the industry.
working for a county or state agency, Softening Dollar We had some of the smartest people in
there always is a sense of urgency, it’s The falling dollar has had an impact on the country working in this industry, but
nothing not like when you are working the competitiveness of U.S. firms in we are selling our services for less than
for a contractor.” He says that this often international markets. “U.S. designers the cost of financing the projects we
puts design firms in a difficult position of used to be the big guys on the block when design.”
siding with the contractor on disputes it came to technology in the internation- He adds that the industry should pay
against an agency knowing that the engi- al market,” says CDI’s Giorgio. “We are more attention to the bottom line and not
neer will be bidding to represent that still that, but now we are the low-cost be stuck in the mindset that the only way
agency on future projects. provider as well, at least against some of to increase it is to boost the top line, leav-
For design firms, the revolution in the European competitors.” ing little money left for critical invest-
telecommunications and technology However, Giorgio notes that firms ment in research and development.
promised a 24/7 workplace, with designs that decided to farm out work to other Unfortunately, that will take a fundamen-
circulated globally from the home office countries to save money are now experi- tal shift in the attitudes of the industry as
where high-end work is done to low-cost encing a little sticker shock of their own. a whole. “We at Parsons can’t do it by
centers where drafting can be performed. “We opened up a Canadian operation as ourselves,” he concludes. m
3242831312
Ä
Top 500
D
Despite the unease caused by the meltdown of the housing mar- ©
© COMPANIES
WATER SUPPLY=dams, reservoirs, transmission pipelines, distribution mains, irriga-
are ranked according to revenue for design services performed in 2007
ket in 2007, ENR’s Top 500 Design Firms had a banner year. As in $ millions (*). Those with subsidiaries are indicated by (†). For information on sub-
tion canals, desalination and potability treatment plants, pumping stations, etc.
© SEWERAGE/SOLID WASTE=sanitary and storm sewers, treatment plants, pumping
sidiaries and where each firm worked outside of the U.S., see http://www.enr.com.
a group, the Top 500 generated revenue of $80.62 billion, up plants, incinerators, industrial waste facilities, etc.
**=Firms not ranked last year. Some markets may not add up to 100% due to omis-
15.8% from $69.61 billion in 2006. The prosperity was wide- sion of “other” miscellaneous market category and rounding. NA=Not available. © INDUSTRIAL PROCESS=pulp and paper mills, steel mills, nonferrous metal refiner-
© KEY TO TYPE OF FIRM: A=architect; E=engineer; EC=engineer-contractor; AE= ies, pharmaceutical plants, chemical plants, food and other processing plants, etc.
spread. Of the 459 firms on this year’s Top 500 that submitted architect-engineer; EA=engineer-architect; ENV=environmental; GE=geotechnical engi- © PETROLEUM=refineries, petrochemical plants, offshore facilities, pipelines, etc.
neer; L=landscape architect; P=planner; O=other. Other combinations possible. Firms
surveys last year, 382 enjoyed revenue gains in 2007, while 77 © TRANSPORTATION =airports, bridges, roads, canals, locks, dredging, marine facilities,
classified themselves. piers, railroads, tunnels, etc.
experienced declines and one remained unchanged. However, © GENERAL BUILDING=commercial buildings, offices, stores, educational facilities, © HAZARDOUS WASTE=chemical and nuclear waste treatment, asbestos and lead
government buildings, hospitals, medical facilities, hotels, apartments, housing, etc. abatement, etc.
these numbers are not quite as good as last year’s list, when 413 © MANUFACTURING=auto, electronic assembly, textile plants, etc. © TELECOMMUNICATIONS=transmission lines and cabling, towers and antennae, data
of the Top 500 increased revenue over 2005 and 50 saw declines. © POWER=thermal and hydroelectric powerplants, waste-to-energy plants, transmis- centers, etc.
1 1 URS CORP., San Francisco, Calif.† EAC 4,895.1 671.4 12 2 21 4 4 13 26 17 0 26 30 GENSLER, San Francisco, Calif. A 652.6 92.5 95 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
2 2 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif. EAC 4,314.4 1,919.9 16 4 1 1 3 40 24 10 1 27 23 CDM, Cambridge, Mass.† EC 635.0 65.0 3 2 1 20 48 2 6 20 0
3 3 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP., Los Angeles, Calif.† EA 3,457.3 1,397.0 33 0 4 6 6 0 39 13 0 28 29 ERM HOLDINGS LTD., Exton, Pa.† ENV 609.1 328.7 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 95 0
4 4 FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas† EC 3,342.5 2,118.4 0 0 6 0 0 88 2 4 0 29 25 PBS&J, Tampa, Fla. EA 581.5 0.0 9 0 1 15 16 1 58 0 0
5 5 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo.† E 3,095.4 504.2 3 7 6 11 14 27 17 15 0 30 28 S&B HOLDINGS LTD. AND AFFILIATES, Houston, Texas† EC 541.0 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 97 2 0 0
6 10 THE SHAW GROUP INC., Baton Rouge, La.† EC 2,443.0 913.5 0 0 47 0 1 41 0 11 0 31 33 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC., Raleigh, N.C. E 507.7 0.5 49 0 0 7 0 0 43 0 0
7 6 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif.† EC 2,209.0 1,332.0 1 0 14 0 0 63 6 14 1 32 35 BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo. EAC 491.0 19.0 1 4 45 2 4 14 16 14 0
8 8 TETRA TECH INC., Pasadena, Calif.† E 1,607.0 15.0 13 5 3 42 6 3 2 26 0 33 31 MACTEC INC., Alpharetta, Ga.† EA 456.3 0.0 21 2 13 3 3 12 20 23 4
9 7 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif.† EC 1,536.0 289.2 16 2 1 2 3 11 24 30 8 34 37 FUGRO INC., Houston, Texas† E 416.9 89.0 13 0 2 3 2 72 6 0 2
10 9 KBR, Houston, Texas† EC 1,508.0 1,390.1 7 0 0 1 0 90 1 0 0 35 40 SARGENT & LUNDY LLC, Chicago, Ill.† EA 380.8 24.2 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 12 FOSTER WHEELER LTD., Clinton, N.J.† EC 1,423.0 923.0 0 0 41 0 0 58 0 0 0 36 43 HKS INC., Dallas, Texas AE 379.3 30.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 11 AMEC, Atlanta, Ga.† EC 1,366.0 792.0 6 2 11 2 3 39 8 7 0 37 45 STANTEC INC., Irvine, Calif.† EAL 366.9 0.0 14 0 2 17 22 8 35 2 0
13 13 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC., New York, N.Y.† EAC 1,288.6 596.9 13 0 15 4 2 2 60 1 1 38 44 ENGLOBAL CORP., Houston, Texas† EC 366.4 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
14 18 MWH GLOBAL, Broomfield, Colo.† EC 1,012.1 465.8 0 0 4 51 41 0 0 5 0 39 39 MALCOLM PIRNIE INC., White Plains, N.Y. E 356.0 6.6 0 0 0 39 44 0 0 17 0
15 14 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan. EC 1,009.6 288.4 2 0 48 20 20 7 0 1 2 40 38 MICHAEL BAKER CORP., Moon Twp., Pa.† EA 354.0 8.5 10 0 0 25 5 2 46 10 1
16 19 HDR, Omaha, Neb.† EA 994.6 11.3 19 0 5 15 16 0 44 0 0 41 51 TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC., Olathe, Kan.† EC 335.8 0.0 53 2 6 4 2 4 10 16 3
17 16 EARTH TECH INC., Long Beach, Calif.† EC 904.9 391.1 6 0 5 15 30 1 19 23 0 42 48 PERKINS+WILL, Chicago, Ill.† A 330.5 36.2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 15 LOUIS BERGER GROUP, Morristown, N.J.† EAP 874.2 693.4 0 0 2 11 13 0 73 0 0 43 52 SKIDMORE OWINGS & MERRILL LLP, New York, N.Y. AE 310.9 166.1 95 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
19 ** CB&I, The Woodlands, Texas† EC 787.6 769.4 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 44 41 DEWBERRY, Fairfax, Va. EA 306.2 0.0 35 0 1 19 12 0 27 0 2
20 21 WORLEYPARSONS CORP., Houston, Texas† EC 748.0 208.9 0 0 34 0 0 66 0 0 0 45 46 THE KLEINFELDER GROUP INC., San Diego, Calif.† E 304.0 0.0 16 1 2 15 5 4 13 42 1
21 26 MUSTANG ENGINEERING, Houston, Texas E 725.0 180.0 0 6 1 0 0 94 0 0 0 46 50 TRC COS. INC., Lowell, Mass.† E 295.0 2.9 9 3 23 1 1 18 22 14 7
22 27 HNTB COS., Kansas City, Mo.† EA 721.1 2.9 11 0 0 2 2 0 85 0 0 47 47 BE&K INC., Birmingham, Ala.† EC 294.4 37.0 0 2 6 0 0 73 0 0 18
23 20 ARCADIS US, Highlands Ranch, Colo.† E 717.0 7.0 1 0 0 4 4 0 6 76 0 48 42 MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC., Houston, Texas† EC 280.7 122.9 0 0 56 0 0 43 0 2 0
24 22 CDI ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, Philadelphia, Pa.† EC 683.3 281.9 10 8 15 1 1 47 18 0 1 49 49 BROWN AND CALDWELL, Walnut Creek, Calif.† E 273.0 0.0 0 0 0 18 56 0 0 24 0
25 32 HOK, St. Louis, Mo.† AE 652.8 284.2 94 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 50 59 STV GROUP INC., New York, N.Y.† EA 263.8 0.0 17 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0
(Continued on page 56)
54 m ENR m April 21, 2008 enr.com enr.com April 21, 2008 m ENR m 55
Top 500
28514282
ENR_04_21_2008_p54_v2.qxd 4/11/08 5:55 PM Page 60
Top 500
28563662
ENR_04_21_2008_p54_v2.qxd 4/11/08 5:55 PM Page 63
Top 500
28687112
ENR_04_21_2008_p54_v2.qxd 4/11/08 5:55 PM Page 65
Top 500
201 227 COOPER CARRY INC., Atlanta, Ga. A 62.1 0.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
202 165 WILSON & CO., ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS, Albuquerque, N.M.† EA 61.0 0.0 11 0 0 6 5 1 63 0 0
203 254 TRO JUNG|BRANNEN, Boston, Mass. AE 61.0 19.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 186 PGAL, Houston, Texas EA 60.7 0.0 35 0 1 0 0 0 64 0 0
205 228 GAI CONSULTANTS INC., Homestead, Pa. E 60.6 0.1 16 1 36 1 2 0 41 1 0
206 200 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC., Sacramento, Calif.† E 60.1 1.7 65 0 0 7 11 0 17 0 0
207 208 CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS INC., Pittsburgh, Pa. E 60.0 0.0 25 0 5 3 25 33 0 8 0
208 282 KAPLAN MCLAUGHLIN DIAZ, San Francisco, Calif.† A 60.0 9.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
209 167 ATWELL-HICKS, Ann Arbor, Mich.† E 59.8 0.0 86 4 1 1 2 1 3 0 2
210 202 HANSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC., Springfield, Ill. EA 59.6 1.1 19 1 8 2 2 0 56 1 11
211 220 SCHNABEL ENGINEERING INC., Glen Allen, Va.† GE 59.5 0.0 71 0 0 20 0 0 4 4 0
212 248 BELT COLLINS, Honolulu, Hawaii L 59.4 41.3 87 0 0 5 5 0 3 0 0
213 270 GEI CONSULTANTS INC., Woburn, Mass. E 59.0 0.0 17 0 29 47 0 0 0 5 0
214 337 STEELMAN PARTNERS, Las Vegas, Nev.† A 59.0 8.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
215 346 APEX COS. LLC, Rockville, Md. ENV 58.8 0.0 22 0 0 4 45 13 6 9 1
216 205 MCCORMICK TAYLOR, Philadelphia, Pa. E 58.7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
217 234 LITTLE DIVERSIFIED ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS, Charlotte, N.C. AE 58.1 0.9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
218 245 MOSELEY ARCHITECTS, Richmond, Va. AE 58.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
219 ** THE PRESTON PARTNERSHIP, Atlanta, Ga. EA 58.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
220 273 SWANKE HAYDEN CONNELL ARCHITECTS, New York, N.Y.† A 57.9 32.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
221 229 GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC, Chicago, Ill.† E 57.5 0.0 0 0 0 16 84 0 0 0 0
222 217 NTD ARCHITECTURE, San Diego, Calif. AE 57.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
223 197 OTAK INC., Lake Oswego, Ore.† EA 56.8 6.6 67 0 0 0 12 0 21 0 0
224 284 X-NTH, Maitland, Fla. E 56.8 3.8 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
225 364 FKP ARCHITECTS INC., Houston, Texas† A 56.6 0.2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
226 203 FREESE AND NICHOLS INC., Fort Worth, Texas EA 56.5 0.0 5 2 0 51 16 3 14 0 0
227 185 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, Orlando, Fla. GE 56.0 0.0 42 2 4 4 4 1 36 9 0
228 209 TLC ENGINEERING FOR ARCHITECTURE, Orlando, Fla. E 55.5 1.1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
229 210 EA ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECH. INC., Hunt Valley, Md. ENV 55.0 0.0 0 0 5 3 25 1 9 56 0
230 219 BARGE WAGGONER SUMNER & CANNON INC., Nashville, Tenn.† EA 54.8 0.0 20 9 0 3 5 1 16 1 1
231 300 HARRIS GROUP INC., Seattle, Wash. E 54.4 0.0 0 13 10 0 5 65 7 0 0
232 246 OZ ARCHITECTURE, Denver, Colo. A 54.3 0.6 96 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
233 232 AYRES ASSOCIATES, Eau Claire, Wis. EA 53.8 0.0 3 0 19 18 18 0 32 4 0
234 242 JCJ ARCHITECTURE, Hartford, Conn. A 53.2 1.3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
235 231 DYER RIDDLE MILLS & PRECOURT INC., Orlando, Fla.† E 53.0 0.0 0 0 0 1 1 0 37 0 0
236 240 OWP/P, Chicago, Ill. AE 52.9 3.3 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
237 230 CPH ENGINEERS INC., Sanford, Fla. A 52.8 3.8 56 0 0 13 21 0 9 0 0
238 196 QORE PROPERTY SCIENCES, Duluth, Ga. E 52.8 0.0 34 6 1 3 5 4 36 11 1
239 243 PBK ARCHITECTS, Houston, Texas AE 52.7 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
240 142 WOOD RODGERS INC., Sacramento, Calif. E 52.6 0.5 0 0 0 14 0 0 12 0 0
241 ** ASRC ENERGY SERVICES, Anchorage, Alaska† EC 52.4 38.5 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
242 187 H.W. LOCHNER INC., Chicago, Ill.† E 52.3 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
243 ** GLOBAL PERFORMANCE, Greenville, S.C.† EC 52.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
244 239 GREENBERGFARROW, Atlanta, Ga. AP 51.8 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
245 235 M+W ZANDER US OPERATIONS INC., Plano, Texas† EA 51.2 5.6 6 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
246 268 ESERV, A PEROT SYSTEMS CO., Peoria, Ill.† E 50.5 0.3 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
247 ** HENDERSON ENGINEERS INC., Lenexa, Kan. E 50.5 0.7 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
248 259 LS3P ASSOCIATES LTD., Charleston, S.C. A 50.4 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
249 256 OPUS GROUP, Minnetonka, Minn.† AEC 50.1 0.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 264 WARE MALCOMB, Irvine, Calif. A 49.8 0.6 97 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
(Continued on page 66)
28736492
ENR_04_21_2008_p54_v2.qxd 4/11/08 5:55 PM Page 66
Top 500
28859942
ENR_04_21_2008_p54_v2.qxd 4/11/08 5:55 PM Page 68
Top 500
301 316 MEAD & HUNT INC., Madison, Wis. EA 41.8 0.0 7 0 7 9 2 3 66 0 0
302 309 KKE ARCHITECTS INC., Minneapolis, Minn. A 41.5 0.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 292 BOSWELL ENGINEERING, S. Hackensack, N.J.† E 41.4 0.0 1 0 0 2 11 0 85 1 0
304 ** V3 COS. LTD., Woodridge, Ill.† E 40.9 0.6 40 1 0 2 1 0 25 3 0
305 260 PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES, Chantilly, Va. E 40.8 0.0 66 1 0 9 2 0 6 0 11
306 275 PAYETTE, Boston, Mass. A 40.2 4.4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
307 297 BOLTON & MENK INC., Mankato, Minn. E 40.2 0.0 0 0 0 17 22 0 27 0 0
308 384 RNL, Denver, Colo. AE 40.1 9.7 73 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
309 356 DURRANT, Dubuque, Iowa AE 40.0 2.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
310 345 MARK THOMAS & CO. INC., San Jose, Calif. E 40.0 0.0 0 0 0 3 6 0 91 0 0
311 298 JONES, EDMUNDS & ASSOCIATES INC., Gainesville, Fla.† E 40.0 0.0 7 0 3 19 45 0 17 0 0
312 318 M-E ENGINEERS INC., Wheat Ridge, Colo. E 39.8 6.1 97 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
313 496 LIONAKIS, Sacramento, Calif. AE 39.7 0.0 90 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 5
314 255 MANHARD CONSULTING LTD., Vernon Hills, Ill. E 39.7 0.0 87 0 0 3 8 0 3 0 0
315 ** EMJ CORP., Chattanooga, Tenn.† EC 39.6 0.0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
316 355 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DESIGN INC., Chicago, Ill. E 39.6 2.2 99 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
317 304 FUSS & O’NEILL INC., Manchester, Conn.† E 39.4 0.0 5 10 0 3 13 20 15 27 0
318 302 FROEHLING & ROBERTSON INC., Richmond, Va.† E 39.3 2.1 59 5 4 5 4 3 10 7 4
319 349 MBH ARCHITECTS, Alameda, Calif. A 39.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
320 362 MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES INC., Seattle, Wash. E 39.2 2.7 89 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0
321 271 LEIGHTON GROUP INC., Irvine, Calif.† GE 39.1 0.0 56 0 0 8 8 3 23 3 0
322 328 GOODWYN, MILLS & CAWOOD INC., Montgomery, Ala. AE 38.9 0.0 41 0 0 10 10 0 3 0 0
323 313 REMINGTON & VERNICK ENGINEERS INC., Haddonfield, N.J.† E 38.8 0.0 22 8 0 23 33 0 11 1 0
324 294 LOIEDERMAN SOLTESZ ASSOCIATES INC., Rockville, Md. E 38.3 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
325 360 WHR ARCHITECTS INC., Houston, Texas† A 38.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
326 303 BOWMAN CONSULTING, Chantilly, Va. E 38.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
327 325 ULTEIG ENGINEERS INC., Fargo, N.D. E 38.2 0.0 17 0 34 6 6 0 21 0 6
328 333 HARDESTY & HANOVER LLP, New York, N.Y. E 38.1 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
329 445 SB ARCHITECTS, San Francisco, Calif. A 38.1 16.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
330 ** MARNELL CORRAO ASSOC., Las Vegas, Nev.† A 38.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
331 311 BEYER BLINDER BELLE ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, New York, N.Y. A 37.9 1.5 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
332 ** CRAWFORD, MURPHY & TILLY INC., Springfield, Ill.† E 37.9 0.0 0 0 0 8 16 0 64 0 0
333 281 AMMANN & WHITNEY, New York, N.Y. EA 37.9 0.4 26 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0
334 371 LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS INC., Memphis, Tenn. A 37.8 0.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
335 352 LANDDESIGN, Alexandria, Va. EPL 37.8 1.8 67 0 0 0 24 0 10 0 0
336 296 ENGLAND-THIMS & MILLER INC., Jacksonville, Fla.† E 37.7 0.0 73 0 0 0 2 0 25 0 0
337 374 ENSAFE INC., Memphis, Tenn.† ENV 37.7 0.5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 18 0
338 444 FEHR & PEERS, Walnut Creek, Calif. E 37.7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
339 ** SKANSKA USA INC., Whitestone, N.Y.† EC 37.6 0.0 38 0 0 0 0 6 56 0 0
340 ** ENGINEERING AND TESTING SERVICES CORP., San Ramon, Calif.† GO 37.5 0.0 60 3 5 11 8 4 8 0 1
341 317 SOLOMON CORDWELL BUENZ, Chicago, Ill. A 37.4 0.1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
342 393 POLSHEK PARTNERSHIP ARCHITECTS LLP, New York, N.Y. A 37.4 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
343 342 FANNING/HOWEY ASSOCIATES INC., Celina, Ohio AE 37.3 0.0 96 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
344 354 BERMELLO AJAMIL & PARTNERS INC., Miami, Fla. AE 37.0 11.0 65 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0
345 301 PATE ENGINEERS INC., Houston, Texas E 36.9 0.0 0 0 0 7 17 0 18 0 0
346 389 DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORP., Houston, Texas E 36.9 0.0 0 0 0 12 21 0 45 0 0
347 447 C&I ENGINEERING, Louisville, Ky. E 36.8 0.0 0 0 3 0 0 97 0 0 0
348 335 BL COS. INC., Meriden, Conn. AE 36.6 0.0 70 1 11 0 0 0 3 2 0
349 357 CO ARCHITECTS, Los Angeles, Calif. A 36.4 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
350 334 ORBITAL ENGINEERING INC., Pittsburgh, Pa. E 36.4 1.5 1 2 15 0 2 78 2 0 0
(Continued on page 70)
28909322
ENR_04_21_2008_p54_v2.qxd 4/11/08 5:55 PM Page 70
Top 500
351 283 MAGUIRE GROUP INC., Foxborough, Mass. AEP 36.2 1.5 21 0 0 18 6 0 48 7 0
352 ** JBA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Las Vegas, Nev.† E 36.2 1.5 96 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
353 288 GOULD EVANS, Kansas City, Mo. A 36.0 0.0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
354 361 CHIANG, PATEL & YERBY INC., Dallas, Texas† E 35.9 0.6 0 0 0 41 8 0 48 0 0
355 344 GRAEF ANHALT SCHLOEMER & ASSOC. INC., Milwaukee, Wis. EA 35.9 0.0 37 21 1 3 3 0 26 1 0
356 395 WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD LLC, Philadelphia, Pa. ALP 35.8 1.4 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
357 324 SEBESTA BLOMBERG, Roseville, Minn. E 35.8 0.8 41 53 2 0 2 0 2 0 0
358 363 BOHANNAN HUSTON INC., Albuquerque, N.M. E 35.8 0.0 17 0 0 13 3 0 27 0 0
359 368 FARNSWORTH GROUP INC., Bloomington, Ill. EA 35.8 0.0 62 0 0 12 10 8 8 0 0
360 291 SHEPLEY BULFINCH RICHARDSON AND ABBOTT, Boston, Mass. A 35.8 0.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
361 442 TSOI/KOBUS & ASSOCIATES INC., Cambridge, Mass. A 35.7 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
362 380 HOWARD R. GREEN CO., Cedar Rapids, Iowa EA 35.7 0.0 24 2 0 16 22 0 29 0 0
363 369 URBITRAN GROUP, New York, N.Y.† EA 35.5 0.0 28 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0
364 373 URBAN ENGINEERS INC., Philadelphia, Pa.† E 35.4 0.0 9 0 0 0 0 3 86 1 0
365 287 THE RUDOLPH/LIBBE COS. INC., Walbridge, Ohio† EC 35.2 0.0 59 0 0 0 0 14 27 0 0
366 ** THE JERDE PARTNERSHIP, Venice, Calif. A 35.0 28.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
367 372 PARKHILL, SMITH & COOPER INC., Lubbock, Texas EA 34.9 0.0 52 0 0 12 10 0 15 0 0
368 338 TKDA, St. Paul, Minn.† EA 34.8 0.0 9 23 0 2 2 0 52 0 0
369 500 SHAFER KLINE & WARREN INC., Lenexa, Kan. E 34.5 0.0 28 0 5 3 3 45 13 0 0
370 416 SHIVE-HATTERY INC., Cedar Rapids, Iowa EA 34.5 0.0 62 0 0 1 3 8 11 1 8
371 330 TIMMONS GROUP, Richmond, Va. E 34.3 0.0 76 0 0 0 9 0 4 0 0
372 359 KARLSBERGER, Columbus, Ohio† A 34.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
373 278 WDG ARCHITECTURE, Washington, D.C.† A 34.2 0.4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
374 385 EI ASSOCIATES, Cedar Knolls, N.J. AE 34.1 0.0 44 12 0 0 0 44 0 0 0
375 378 ALFRED BENESCH & CO., Chicago, Ill. E 33.9 0.0 1 0 0 1 1 0 96 0 0
376 ** THE HAGERMAN GROUP, Fort Wayne, Ind.† EC 33.9 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
377 353 MCDONOUGH ASSOCIATES INC., Chicago, Ill. EA 33.9 0.0 3 0 0 9 5 0 79 0 0
378 383 ON-BOARD ENGINEERING CORP., East Windsor, N.J.† EC 33.9 0.0 5 8 1 0 0 79 7 0 0
379 ** WWCOT, Santa Monica, Calif. A 33.8 3.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
380 403 THE S/L/A/M COLLABORATIVE, Glastonbury, Conn.† AE 33.7 0.0 98 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
381 343 MASER CONSULTING PA, Red Bank, N.J. E 33.6 0.0 51 0 0 2 2 0 11 7 0
382 428 DESIMONE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, New York, N.Y. E 33.3 0.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
383 279 DAVIS BRODY BOND AEDAS, New York, N.Y. A 33.2 1.3 96 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
384 425 THE FACILITY GROUP, Smyrna, Ga.† AE 33.1 3.0 67 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0
385 418 STEARNS & WHELER LLC, Cazenovia, N.Y. E 33.0 0.0 0 0 0 6 85 0 0 0 0
386 379 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC., Clovis, Calif. E 32.9 0.0 73 8 1 1 1 4 5 8 1
387 377 J-U-B ENGINEERS INC., Boise, Idaho E 32.9 0.0 5 0 0 26 23 0 41 0 0
388 441 C.H. FENSTERMAKER & ASSOCIATES INC., Lafayette, La. L 32.8 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
389 417 BIS FRUCON ENGINEERING INC., Ballwin, Mo. EA 32.8 0.0 3 0 1 0 2 94 0 0 0
390 332 ERDMAN, ANTHONY AND ASSOCIATES INC., Rochester, N.Y. E 32.6 0.0 20 3 0 1 1 9 64 0 1
391 367 FAY SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE, Burlington, Mass.† E 32.6 0.0 17 0 0 10 29 0 44 0 0
392 421 NAC|ARCHITECTURE, Seattle, Wash. AE 32.6 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
393 406 TIGHE & BOND INC., Westfield, Mass. E 32.6 0.0 0 0 0 27 34 0 13 24 0
394 450 PEI COBB FREED & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS LLP, New York, N.Y.† A 32.4 3.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
395 412 STUDIOS ARCHITECTURE, San Francisco, Calif. A 32.4 0.6 95 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
396 424 DAVIS & FLOYD INC., Greenwood, S.C. EA 32.2 0.0 9 4 0 18 17 0 36 2 0
397 409 CENTURY ENGINEERING INC., Hunt Valley, Md. E 32.2 0.0 23 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0
398 ** BLT ARCHITECTS, Philadelphia, Pa.† A 32.1 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
399 397 O’NEAL INC., Greenville, S.C.† EC 32.1 0.0 3 44 0 0 0 53 0 0 0
400 429 WITHERS & RAVENEL, Cary, N.C. E 32.0 0.0 0 0 0 3 14 0 0 6 0
28958702
ENR_04_21_2008_p54_v2.qxd 4/11/08 5:55 PM Page 71
401 358 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF CORP., Kansas City, Mo. EA 31.9 0.0 23 0 2 2 3 0 62 1 0
402 422 TRC WORLD ENGINEERING INC., Brentwood, Tenn.† E 31.9 0.0 97 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
403 423 H2M GROUP/HOLZMA CHER MCLENDON & MURRELL, Melville, N.Y.† EA 31.9 0.0 22 0 0 24 10 0 12 31 0
404 293 MS CONSULTANTS INC., Columbus, Ohio EA 31.9 0.0 22 0 0 8 17 0 49 0 0
405 350 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC., Plymouth, Minn. E 31.8 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
406 453 GRW ENGINEERS INC., Lexington, Ky.† EA 31.5 0.0 12 0 0 39 38 0 11 0 0
407 347 FREEMANWHITE INC., Charlotte, N.C. AE 31.3 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
408 464 BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS INC., Federal Way, Wash.† E 31.3 3.7 8 0 0 2 0 3 86 0 0
409 ** TECTONIC, Mountainville, N.Y. E 31.2 0.0 28 0 2 4 3 0 35 0 28
410 265 MACKAY & SOMPS CIVIL ENGINEERS INC., Pleasanton, Calif. E 31.2 0.0 98 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
411 382 THE RBA GROUP, Morristown, N.J. EA 31.2 0.0 18 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0
412 387 COSTAS KONDYLIS AND PARTNERS LLP, New York, N.Y.† A 31.2 1.8 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413 326 GEOCON, San Diego, Calif.† GE 31.1 0.0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0
414 432 WIGHT & CO., Darien, Ill. AE 31.1 0.0 86 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 0
415 365 FUSCOE ENGINEERING INC., Irvine, Calif. 31.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
416 461 RDG PLANNING & DESIGN, Des Moines, Iowa† A 31.0 0.0 86 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
417 401 BRPH CO. INC., Melbourne, Fla.† AE 30.7 0.0 90 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418 494 KIRKSEY, Houston, Texas A 30.6 0.0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
419 ** SLCE ARCHITECTS, New York, N.Y. A 30.4 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 376 BAXTER & WOODMAN INC., Crystal Lake, Ill.† E 30.1 0.0 0 0 0 14 28 0 25 2 2
421 ** RDK ENGINEERS, Andover, Mass. E 30.1 0.2 88 4 0 0 0 2 4 0 2
422 ** AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC., St. Paul, Minn. GE 30.0 0.0 50 0 0 0 17 17 0 0 0
423 ** MURPHY/JAHN INC., Chicago, Ill.† A 30.0 19.5 87 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0
424 410 RBB ARCHITECTS INC., Los Angeles, Calif. A 30.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
425 315 JMA, Las Vegas, Nev. A 29.9 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
426 392 HERBERT, ROWLAND & GRUBIC INC., Harrisburg, Pa. E 29.9 0.0 41 0 0 23 16 0 20 0 0
427 488 PROCESSES UNLIMITED INTERNATIONAL INC., Bakersfield, Calif. E 29.9 1.6 0 0 7 0 0 93 0 0 0
428 400 GEORGE BUTLER ASSOCIATES INC., Lenexa, Kan. EA 29.8 0.0 16 0 0 1 16 8 36 3 12
429 468 CRAFTON TULL SPARKS & ASSOCIATES INC., Rogers, Ark. AE 29.7 0.0 87 0 0 2 1 3 7 0 0
430 498 ARROWSTREET, Somerville, Mass. A 29.6 0.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
431 408 DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED, Washington, D.C. E 29.5 0.0 22 0 0 7 22 0 49 0 0
432 415 BARTLETT & WEST INC., Topeka, Kan. E 29.5 0.0 5 0 0 34 13 0 48 0 0
433 437 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PA, Wichita, Kan. E 29.5 0.0 20 30 0 10 12 0 19 0 0
434 439 HIGHLAND ASSOC. LTD. ARCH. ENG’G INT. DES., Clarks Summit, Pa. AE 29.4 0.0 97 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 405 MCG ARCHITECTURE, Pasadena, Calif. A 29.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 ** MSA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, Baraboo, Wis. EA 29.1 0.0 1 0 0 5 15 0 14 0 0
437 ** GKKWORKS, Irvine, Calif. A 28.9 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
438 499 H+L ARCHITECTURE, Denver, Colo. A 28.8 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
439 449 MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, New York, N.Y. GE 28.8 0.6 27 5 0 4 7 2 29 0 0
440 ** ADD INC., Cambridge, Mass. A 28.8 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
441 402 EARTH SYSTEMS INC., San Luis Obispo, Calif.† GE 28.7 0.0 78 1 3 6 1 2 7 2 0
442 308 QUAD KNOPF INC., Visalia, Calif. EPL 28.6 0.0 73 0 0 9 6 8 5 0 0
443 443 HAKS ENGINEERS, ARCHS. & LAND SURVEYORS PC, New York, N.Y. E 28.4 0.0 19 0 0 7 2 0 71 0 0
444 399 GPD GROUP, Akron, Ohio AE 28.3 0.0 41 0 6 0 0 0 27 0 26
445 407 DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC., Anaheim, Calif. E 28.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
446 456 DOWL ENGINEERS LLC, Anchorage, Alaska E 28.2 0.0 26 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0
447 398 POGGEMEYER DESIGN GROUP INC., Bowling Green, Ohio† EAP 28.0 0.4 25 8 0 12 17 1 27 0 0
448 375 HUBBELL, ROTH & CLARK INC., Bloomfield Hills, Mich. E 28.0 0.0 0 0 0 36 46 0 18 0 0
449 391 KEITH AND SCHNARS PA, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. E 28.0 0.0 7 0 0 0 4 0 71 0 0
450 404 SEC GROUP INC., McHenry, Ill.† E 28.0 0.0 48 4 0 4 8 0 37 0 0
(Continued on page 72)
29020427
ENR_04_21_2008_p54_v2.qxd 4/11/08 5:55 PM Page 72
Top 500
29131532
ENR_04_21_2008_p74_v2.qxd 4/11/08 7:12 PM Page 74
85153142
ENR_04_21_2008_p74_v2.qxd 4/11/08 7:12 PM Page 75
Haley & Aldrich Inc. 125 KPFF Consulting Engineers 108 Mulkey Engineers & Consultants 492 Project Design Consultants 456
Halff Associates Inc. 178 Krazan & Associates Inc. 386 MulvannyG2 Architecture 155 Psomas 102
Hall & Foreman Inc. 490 KTGY Group Inc. 187 Murphy/Jahn Inc. 423
Q
Hammel Green and Abrahamson Inc. 126 Mustang Engineering 21
L QORE Property Sciences 238
Delon Hampton & Associates MWH Global 14
Chartered 431 LandDesign 335 Quad Knopf Inc. 442
Langan Engineering and Environ- N
Halcrow Inc. 139
mental Services 85 R
Hanson Professional Services Inc. 210 NAC|Architecture 392
Langdon Wilson Architecture Nadel Inc. 282 The RBA Group 411
Hardesty & Hanover LLP 328
Planning Interiors 477 NBBJ 66 RBB Architects Inc. 424
Harley Ellis Devereaux 181
Leighton Group Inc. 321 Neel-Schaffer Inc. 270 RBF Consulting 70
Harris Group Inc. 231
LFR Inc. 91 Waldemar S. Nelson and Co. Inc. 188 RCM Technologies Inc. 171
Hatch Mott MacDonald 59
T.Y. Lin International 82 Niles Bolton Associates Inc. 300 RDG Planning & Design 416
Hazen and Sawyer PC 90
Lionakis 313 Ninyo & Moore 255 RDK Engineers 421
HDR 16
Little Diversified Architectural Nolte Associates Inc. 206 Remington & Vernick Engineers
Heery International Inc. 74
Consultants 217 NTD Architecture 222 Inc. 323
Henderson Engineers Inc. 247
LJA Engineering & Surveying Inc. 265 NTH Consultants Ltd. 251 Reynolds Smith and Hills Inc. 78
Herbert, Rowland & Grubic Inc. 426
H.W. Lochner Inc. 242 River 476
Highland Associates Ltd. Architec–
Loiederman Soltesz Associates Inc. 324 O RMJM Hillier 65
ture, Engineering, Int. Design 434
Looney Ricks Kiss Architects Inc. 334 O’Brien & Gere 130 RMT Inc. 121
HKS Inc. 36
LopezGarcia Group Inc. 459 Olsson Associates 172 RNL 308
HLW International LLP 290
Lord Aeck & Sargent 472 On-Board Engineering Corp. 378 Rolf Jensen & Associates Inc. 288
HMC Architects 164
The LPA Group Inc. 173 O’Neal Inc. 399 RTKL Associates Inc. 51
HNTB Cos. 22
LS3P Associates Ltd. 248 Opus Group 249 The Rudolph/Libbe Cos. Inc. 365
HOK 25
Orbital Engineering Inc. 350 Rummel Klepper & Kahl LLP 128
Hubbell, Roth & Clark Inc. 448 M Otak Inc. 223
Huitt-Zollars Inc. 147 S
M+W Zander US Operations Inc. 245 Owen Group Inc. 483
Hussey, Gay, Bell & DeYoung - A
MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers Inc. 410 OWP/P 236 S&B Holdings Ltd. and Affiliates 30
Bell Co. 455
MACTEC Inc. 33 OZ Architecture 232 S&ME Inc. 123
I Magnusson Klemencic Associates The S/L/A/M Collaborative 380
P
Ingenium International Inc. 97 Inc. 320 Sargent & Lundy LLC 35
Maguire Group Inc. 351 PageSoutherlandPage 144 Sasaki Associates Inc. 192
Interface Engineering Inc. 489
Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 39 Pape-Dawson Engineers Inc. 169 SB Architects 329
J Manhard Consulting Ltd. 314 Parametrix 153 Schirmer Engineering 276
Jacobs 2 Marnell Corrao Assoc. 330 Parkhill, Smith & Cooper Inc. 367 Schnabel Engineering Inc. 211
JBA Consulting Engineers 352 Martin Associates Group Inc. 191 Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. 13 SLCE Architects 419
JCJ Architecture 234 Maser Consulting PA 381 Parsons 9 SCS Engineers 122
The Jerde Partnership 366 MBH Architects 319 Pate Engineers Inc. 345 Sebesta Blomberg 357
JMA 425 McCormick Taylor 216 Patrick Engineering Inc. 263 Shafer Kline & Warren Inc. 369
Johnson Fain 491 McDermott International Inc. 48 Patton Harris Rust & Associates 305 Shalom Baranes Associates PC 457
Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson 140 McDonough Associates Inc. 377 Paulus Sokolowski & Sartor LLC 156 Shannon & Wilson Inc. 283
Jones, Edmunds & Associates Inc. 311 MCG Architecture 435 Payette 306 The Shaw Group Inc. 6
Jordan Construction 274 McKim & Creed PA 196 PBK Architects 239 Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and
Jordan, Jones & Goulding 143 McLarand Vasquez Emsiek & PBS&J 29 Abbott 360
J-U-B Engineers Inc. 387 Partners 252 Pei Cobb Freed & Partners Shive-Hattery Inc. 370
M-E Engineers Inc. 312 Architects LLP 394 Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. 135
K Mead & Hunt Inc. 301 Penfield & Smith 465 SHW Group LLP 158
Albert Kahn Family of Cos. (Kahn) 294 Merrick & Co. 185 Pennoni Associates Inc. 134 Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. 170
Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz 208 Middough Inc. 124 Perkins+Will 42 Skanska USA Inc. 339
Karlsberger 372 Marshall Miller and Associates Inc. 498 Perkins Eastman 89 Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP 43
KBR 10 Moffatt & Nichol 127 Perkowitz + Ruth Architects 257 Smallwood, Reynolds, Stewart,
KCI Technologies Inc. 80 Moody Nolan Inc. 487 PGAL 204 Stewart & Assoc. Inc. 152
Keith and Schnars PA 449 Walter P Moore 179 Poggemeyer Design Group Inc. 447 SEC Group Inc. 450
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 132 Morris Architects 259 Polshek Partnership Architects LLP 342 Smith Seckman Reid Inc. 174
L. Robert Kimball & Associates Inc. 166 Morrison-Maierle Inc. 289 POWER Engineers Inc. 79 T. Baker Smith Inc. 467
Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 31 A. Morton Thomas and Associates The Preston Partnership 219 Wilbur Smith Associates 71
Kirksey 418 Inc. 460 Primary Integration 494 SmithGroup Inc. 77
Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. 453 Moseley Architects 218 Processes Unlimited International Soil and Materials Engineers Inc. 466
KJWW Engineering Consultants 256 MS Consultants Inc. 404 Inc. 427 Solomon Cordwell Buenz 341
KKE Architects Inc. 302 MSA Professional Services 436 Professional Engineering Sparling 495
The Kleinfelder Group Inc. 45 Mueser Rutledge Consulting Consultants PA 433 SRF Consulting Group Inc. 405
KlingStubbins 112 Engineers 439 Professional Service Indus. (PSI) 53 SSOE Inc. 106
85264247
ENR_04_21_2008_p74_v2.qxd 4/11/08 7:12 PM Page 76
Stanley Consultants Inc. 57 Thornton Tomasetti Inc. 113 Vanderweil Engineers 183 Wight & Co. 414
Stantec Inc. 37 Tighe & Bond Inc. 393 Vector Engineering 451 Willbros Group Inc. 116
Stearns & Wheler LLC 385 Timmons Group 371 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. 84 Willdan 154
Steelman Partners 214 TLC Engineering for Architecture 228 Rafael Vinoly Architects PC 161 Wilson & Co., Engineers &
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates 488 TMAD Taylor & Gaines 272 VOA Associates Inc. 268 Architects 202
Strand Associates Inc. 262 TKDA 368 Volkert & Associates Inc. 145 WilsonMiller Inc. 157
Studios Architecture 395 TransCore 98 VT Aepco Inc. 162 WATG (Wimberly Allison Tong &
STV Group Inc. 50 TranSystems Corp. 61 Goo) 120
Superior Engineering LLC 454 TRC Cos. Inc. 46 WXY Wink Cos. LLC 141
Swanke Hayden Connell Architects 220 TRC World Engineering Inc. 402 Wade Trim 197 Winzler & Kelly 279
SWCA Inc. 260 TRO Jung|Brannen 203 Walker Parking Consultants 186 Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc. 149
Syska Hennessy Group Inc. 115 Tsoi/Kobus & Associates Inc. 361 G. C. Wallace Cos. 267 Withers & Ravenel 400
Wallace Roberts & Todd LLC 356 Wood Rodgers Inc. 240
T U Ware Malcomb 250 Woodard & Curran 146
T&M Associates 275 Ulteig Engineers Inc. 327 WHR Architects Inc. 325 Woolpert Inc. 88
Taylor Wiseman & Taylor 468 Universal Engineering Sciences 227 WDG Architecture 373 WorleyParsons Corp. 20
TBE Group Inc. 176 Universal Ensco Inc. 60 Weidlinger Associates 195 WSP Group 64
TECTONIC 409 Urban Engineers Inc. 364 Weston & Sampson Inc. 296 WWCOT 379
Teng Affiliated Cos. 182 Urbitran Group 363 Weston Solutions Inc. 62 X-nth 224
Terracon Consultants Inc. 41 URS Corp. 1 Whitman, Requardt & Associates
Tetra Tech Inc. 8 USKH Inc. 478 LLP 200 Z
Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. 310 Whitney, Bailey, Cox & Magnani Zachry Group 72
Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & V LLC 473 Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects
Associates Inc. 184 V3 Cos. Ltd. 304 WHPacific (formerly ASCG Inc.) 133 LLP 94
85387697
2008 ENR Top 500 Design Firms – Subsidiaries by Rank
493 ENTRAN
Frmrly: American Consulting
Engineers
494 Primary Integration
Encorp
PI Energy
PI Solutions
Salus
Where the Top 500 Design Firms Work – by Country 1
Black & Veatch Stanley Consultants Inc. The Shaw Group Inc.
Callison Tetra Tech Inc. Swanke Hayden Connell
CB&I URS Corp. Architects
CDM Vanderweil Engineers Universal Ensco Inc.
CH2M HILL VOA Associates Inc. Walker Parking Consultants
Corrpro Cos. Inc. Weston Solutions Inc. WATG (Wimberly Allison
CUH2A WATG (Wimberly Allison Tong & Goo)
Davis Brody Bond Aedas Tong & Goo)
Ecology & Environment Inc. WorleyParsons Corp. U.A.E.
Environmental Systems WSP Group AECOM Technology Corp.
Design Inc. R.W. Armstrong &
ERM Holdings Ltd. SYRIA Associates Inc.
EYP Mission Critical Owen Group Inc. Arquitectonica
Facilities Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. Arrowstreet
Fluor Corp. Parsons Arup
Foster Wheeler Ltd. RTKL Associates Inc. Michael Baker Corp.
Fugro Inc. Smallwood, Reynolds, Bechtel
FxFowle Architects PC Stewart, Stewart & Belt Collins
Gensler Assoc. Inc. Louis Berger Group
Ghafari Associates LLC WSP Group Bermello Ajamil & Partners
Hussey, Gay, Bell & Inc.
DeYoung - A Bell Co. TURKEY Black & Veatch
HOK AMEC Burns & McDonnell
Jacobs Arquitectonica Burt Hill
JCJ Architecture Michael Baker Corp. Callison
KBR Louis Berger Group CB&I
Langan Eng'g and Bermello Ajamil & Partners CBT/Childs Bertman
Enviromental Svcs. Inc. Tseckares Inc.
Langdon Wilson Black & Veatch CDM
Architecture Planning Cannon Design CH2M HILL
Interiors CB&I Corrpro Cos. Inc.
T.Y. Lin International CH2M HILL CUH2A
Malcolm Pirnie Inc. Cooper Carry Inc. Leo A Daly
McDermott International Costas Kondylis and EDSA
Inc. Partners LLP Ellerbe Becket
Moffatt & Nichol Delta Consultants ENVIRON
Walter P Moore Environmental Systems ERM Holdings Ltd.
Nadel Inc. Design Inc. EYP Mission Critical
NBBJ ERM Holdings Ltd. Facilities
Owen Group Inc. Fluor Corp. Fentress Architects
PageSoutherlandPage Foster Wheeler Ltd. Fluor Corp.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. Gensler Foster Wheeler Ltd.
Parsons Haley & Aldrich Inc. Fugro Inc.
Perkins+Will Halcrow Inc. FxFowle Architects PC
POWER Engineers Inc. Hardesty & Hanover LLP Gensler
RTKL Associates Inc. HOK Gulf Interstate Engineering
Sargent & Lundy LLC Moffatt & Nichol Co.
Sasaki Associates Inc. NBBJ Halcrow Inc.
Schirmer Engineering Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. HDR
The Shaw Group Inc. Parsons RMJM Hillier
Skidmore Owings & Merrill Pei Cobb Freed & Partners HKS Inc.
LLP Architects LLP HLW International LLP
Smallwood, Reynolds, Perkins+Will HOK
Stewart, Stewart & POWER Engineers Inc. Interface Engineering Inc.
Assoc. Inc. RTKL Associates Inc. Jacobs
Wilbur Smith Associates Sargent & Lundy LLC JCJ Architecture
Where the Top 500 Design Firms Work – by Country 16
RMJM Hillier
HNTB Cos. MALAYSIA NEW ZEALAND
HOK AMEC AECOM Technology Corp.
The Jerde Partnership Arquitectonica AMEC
Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz Bechtel Bechtel
KBR R.W. Beck Group Inc. CH2M HILL
KlingStubbins Belt Collins ENVIRON
KPFF Consulting Engineers The Benham Cos. LLC ERM Holdings Ltd.
Malcolm Pirnie Inc. Louis Berger Group Golder Associates Inc.
MulvannyG2 Architecture CB&I HKS Inc.
Nadel Inc. CH2M HILL Jacobs
NBBJ Corrpro Cos. Inc. KBR
Waldemar S. Nelson and Co. Delta Consultants MWH Global
Inc. Earth Tech Inc. Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. ENGlobal Corp. RNL
Parsons ENVIRON RTKL Associates Inc.
Processes Unlimited ERM Holdings Ltd. Sargent & Lundy LLC
International Inc. Fluor Corp. SCS Engineers
Rolf Jensen & Associates Foster Wheeler Ltd. URS Corp.
Inc. Fugro Inc. WorleyParsons Corp.
RTKL Associates Inc. GeoSyntec Consultants
Sargent & Lundy LLC Golder Associates Inc. PACIFIC ISLANDS
Sasaki Associates Inc. Haley & Aldrich Inc. AECOM Technology Corp.
Schirmer Engineering HOK Belt Collins
SCS Engineers Jacobs The Benham Cos. LLC
The Shaw Group Inc. The Jerde Partnership Louis Berger Group
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger KBR Burgess & Niple Inc.
Inc. T.Y. Lin International Burns & McDonnell
Skidmore Owings & Merrill MWH Global CDM
LLP NBBJ CH2M HILL
Wilbur Smith Associates Waldemar S. Nelson and Co. Leo A Daly
SmithGroup Inc. Inc. Haley & Aldrich Inc.
Syska Hennessy Group Inc. Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. Hanson Professional
AC Martin Partners RTKL Associates Inc. Services Inc.
Tetra Tech Inc. Sargent & Lundy LLC Jacobs
Thornton Tomasetti Inc. The Shaw Group Inc. Parsons
TranSystems Corp. Skidmore Owings & Merrill WATG (Wimberly Allison
URS Corp. LLP Tong & Goo)
Vanderweil Engineers Smallwood, Reynolds, Winzler & Kelly
Walker Parking Consultants Stewart, Stewart &
Weidlinger Associates Assoc. Inc. PAPUA N.GUINEA
Weston Solutions Inc. SSOE Inc. Bechtel
WATG (Wimberly Allison Thornton Tomasetti Inc. Louis Berger Group
Tong & Goo) Weston Solutions Inc. ERM Holdings Ltd.
Winzler & Kelly WATG (Wimberly Allison Fugro Inc.
WorleyParsons Corp. Tong & Goo) POWER Engineers Inc.
WSP Group WSP Group Schirmer Engineering
Zimmer Gunsul Frasca URS Corp.
Architects LLP NEPAL
AECOM Technology Corp. PHILIPPINES
KOREA, NORTH Louis Berger Group AECOM Technology Corp.
ERM Holdings Ltd. CDM Arquitectonica
ERM Holdings Ltd. Arup
KYRGYZSTAN Wilbur Smith Associates R.W. Beck Group Inc.
Louis Berger Group Weidlinger Associates Belt Collins
Sasaki Associates Inc. WSP Group
Where the Top 500 Design Firms Work – by Country 21
UGANDA
Louis Berger Group
CDM
CUH2A
ERM Holdings Ltd.
The LPA Group Inc.
Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc.
RTKL Associates Inc.
The information contained herein has been obtained by The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc. from sources believed to be reliable. However, because of the possibility of human
or mechanical error, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. does not guarantee the accuracy
or completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions or
for the results obtained from use of such information.