Home » ENR 2017 Top 100 Construction Management-for-Fee Firms

ENR 2017 Top 100 Construction Management-for-Fee Firms

June 2017

The construction process is becoming more complex, as project scope, risk mitigation, project delivery methods and teaming approaches have expanded well beyond the old days of design-bid-build. This new reality has owners increasingly turning to third-party professional service firms to explain their options and make sure their plans are executed.

The market for professional services remains strong, as can be seen in the results of the ENR Top 100 Construction Management-for-Fee and Program Management Firms list. Revenue for the CM-PM group was up 3.3%, to $23.41 billion, in 2016, up from $22.66 billion in 2015. Domestic revenue from CM-PM work rose only 0.1%, to $16.63 billion. However, CM-PM revenue from projects and programs abroad rose sharply by 12.3%, to $6.78 billion, in 2016.

More detailed information on the Top 100 CM-At-Risk and Design-Build Firms:
View complete list with revenue and market data

Click below for earlier editions:
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004

Companies are ranked based on total 2016 revenue in $ millions for construction-management or project/program-management services performed as a professional service for a fee.

**=Not ranked in 2016 among the Top 100 CMS.

Key to type of firm: A=Architect; C=Contractor; CM=Construction Management Firm; E=Engineer; EC=Engineer-Contractor; ENV=Environmental Firm. Other combinations are possible.

ENR 2017 Top 100 Construction Management-for-Fee Firms


RANK 2017	RANK 2016	FIRM	FIRM TYPE	TOTAL REV. 2016 ($ MIL.)
1	1	BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif.	EC	5909.0
2	2	AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif.	EAC	3253.7
3	3	CH2M, Englewood, Colo.	E	2204.4
4	6	PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif.	EC	1675.3
5	5	JLL, Chicago, Ill.	CM	1639.3
6	4	JACOBS, Dallas, Texas	EAC	1199.3
7	7	CBRE GROUP INC., Los Angeles, Calif.	CM	1030.0
8	8	HILL INTERNATIONAL INC., Philadelphia, Pa.	CM	690.1
9	**	CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD, Chicago, Ill.	CM	653.6
10	11	WSP \| PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, New York, N.Y.	E	490.3
11	13	ATKINS N.A./FAITHFUL+GOULD, New York, N.Y.	EA	269.8
12	12	LOUIS BERGER, Morristown, N.J.	EAP	247.0
13	17	HDR, Omaha, Neb.	EA	201.7
14	24	LENDLEASE, New York, N.Y.	C	199.0
15	16	THE LIRO GROUP, Syosset, N.Y.	EA	195.2
16	20	BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan.	EC	191.5
17	14	THE TURNER CORP., New York, N.Y.	EC	187.9
18	65	AMEC FOSTER WHEELER, Atlanta, Ga.	EC	183.3
19	15	ARCADIS N.A./CALLISON RTKL, Highlands Ranch, Colo.	EA	183.0
20	18	BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo.	EAC	177.0
21	23	GILBANE BUILDING CO., Providence, R.I.	C	136.6
22	21	CUMMING, Los Angeles, Calif.	CM	117.8
23	19	CDM SMITH, Boston, Mass.	EC	113.4
24	34	HASKELL, Jacksonville, Fla.	EC	103.4
25	38	KLEINFELDER, San Diego, Calif.	EA	85.9
26	22	MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, Pittsburgh, Pa.	EA	80.2
27	25	TURNER & TOWNSEND INC., New York, N.Y.	CM	79.7
28	32	CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC., Walnut Creek, Calif.	E	74.6
29	28	RS&H INC., Jacksonville, Fla.	EA	74.0
30	31	THE VERTEX COS. INC., Weymouth, Mass.	CM	73.5
31	29	HEERY INTERNATIONAL, Atlanta, Ga.	AE	71.7
32	53	MARKON SOLUTIONS, Falls Church, Va.	CM	52.8
33	36	MCDONOUGH BOLYARD PECK INC., Fairfax, Va.	CM	51.9
34	**	CARDNO, Lone Tree, Colo.	ENV	51.8
35	39	MORTENSON CONSTRUCTION, Minneapolis, Minn.	C	45.4
36	27	KITCHELL CORP., Phoenix, Ariz.	EC	45.0
37	50	TECTONIC ENG’G & SURVEYING, Mountainville, N.Y.	E	45.0
38	42	PMA CONSULTANTS LLC, Detroit, Mich.	CM	43.3
39	89	MARK G. ANDERSON CONSULT'S, Washington, D.C.	CM	40.3
40	**	HW LOCHNER, Chicago, Ill.	EC	40.0
41	41	GANNETT FLEMING, Camp Hill, Pa.	EA	38.1
42	44	URBAN ENGINEERS INC., Philadelphia, Pa.	E	37.1
43	26	VANIR CONSTRUCTION MGMT., Sacramento, Calif.	CM	36.5
44	52	LEA+ELLIOTT INC., Grand Prairie, Texas	EA	32.0
45	56	VALI COOPER & ASSOCIATES INC., Emeryville, Calif.	CM	31.1
46	**	TARGET ENGINEERING GROUP, Coral Gables, Fla.	CM	30.5
47	48	PROJECT TIME & COST LLC, Atlanta, Ga.	CM	30.0
48	**	LEE KENNEDY CO. INC., Quincy, Mass.	C	29.7
49	49	HARRIS & ASSOCIATES INC., Concord, Calif.	E	28.8
50	40	THE YATES COS. INC., Philadelphia, Miss.	EC	28.7
51	37	BALFOUR BEATTY US, Dallas, Texas	C	28.6
52	51	BOSWELL ENG'G INC., South Hackensack, N.J.	E	28.4
53	57	HGA, Ruston, La.	E	26.8
54	**	WILLIAMS INDUST. SERVICESS GROUP, Tucker, Ga.	C	26.0
55	61	ALPHA CORP., Dulles, Va.	CM	25.4
56	43	ATCS PLC, Herndon, Va.	E	25.3
57	60	BRAILSFORD & DUNLAVEY INC., Washington, D.C.	CM	25.0
58	64	FREESE AND NICHOLS INC., Fort Worth, Texas	EA	24.7
59	58	ON-BOARD ENGINEERING CORP., East Windsor, N.J.	E	24.0
60	**	METRIC ENGINEERING INC., Miami, Fla.	E	23.2
61	79	CHANEN CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., Phoenix, Ariz.	C	23.1
62	80	DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORP., Houston, Texas	E	22.5
63	66	GAFCON INC., San Diego, Calif.	CM	22.2
64	**	BARTLETT COCKE GEN’L CONTRS., San Antonio, Texas	EC	22.0
65	**	HOLLISTER CONSTR. SERVICES LLC, Parsippany, N.J.	C	21.9
66	75	EISMAN & RUSSO INC., Jacksonville, Fla.	CM	21.8
67	69	HOAR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, Birmingham, Ala.	CM	21.2
68	71	OMEGA, Lisle, Ill.	CM	20.9
69	59	CSA GROUP, New York, N.Y.	AE	20.4
70	**	CORDOBA CORP, Los Angeles, Calif.	E	20.0
71	93	FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas	EC	20.0
72	**	TETRA TECH INC., Pasadena, Calif.	E	20.0
73	92	ELECTRICAL CONSULTANTS INC., Billings, Mont.	E	19.3
74	54	MCKISSACK & MCKISSACK, Washington, D.C.	AE	19.0
75	77	STANTEC INC., Irvine, Calif.	EAL	18.0
76	78	SAVIN ENGINEERS PC, Pleasantville, N.Y.	CM	18.0
77	84	POWER ENGINEERS INC., Hailey, Idaho	EA	16.3
78	88	SWINERTON INC., San Francisco, Calif.	C	15.4
79	**	JAMES R. VANNOY & SONS CONSTR., Jefferson, N.C.	C	15.0
80	**	SKANSKA USA INC., New York, N.Y.	C	14.8
81	45	CRB, St. Louis, Mo.	C	14.2
82	**	C2G INTERNATIONAL LLC, Aliso Viejo, Calif.	CM	14.2
83	**	OAC SERVICES INC., Seattle, Wash.	CM	13.0
84	90	MOCA SYSTEMS INC., Boston, Mass.	CM	12.8
85	**	SACHSE CONSTRUCTION, Detroit, Mich.	C	12.6
86	72	CPH INC., Sanford, Fla.	EA	12.5
87	87	MCCARTHY HOLDINGS INC., St. Louis, Mo.	C	12.0
88	**	CAMPUS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, Pittsford, N.Y.	CM	11.9
89	95	HENDERSON ENGINEERS INC., Lenexa, Kan.	E	11.7
90	**	XL CONSTRUCTION CORP., Milpitas, Calif.	C	11.6
91	62	HR GREEN INC., Cedar Rapids, Iowa	E	11.4
92	**	GARVER, North Little Rock, Ark.	E	11.2
93	**	CDI CORP., Philadelphia, Pa.	EA	11.1
94	82	CPM, San Juan, P.R.	CM	11.0
95	**	HORROCKS ENGINEERS, Pleasant Grove, Utah	E	11.0
96	**	WOOD GROUP, Houston, Texas	EC	10.8
97	85	BERNARDS, San Fernando, Calif.	C	10.6
98	**	GRESHAM, SMITH AND PARTNERS, Nashville, Tenn.	AEP	10.5
99	47	LECHASE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, Rochester, N.Y.	C	10.3
100	98	BMWC CONSTRUCTORS INC., Indianapolis, Ind.	C	10.0
100	**	OMNIBUILD, New York, N.Y.	C	10.0

Prices Rise Sharply as Clouds Darken Construction Insurance Market for Buyers

Crack on I-40 bridge over Mississippi River

Fractured Beam May Close Key Mississippi River Crossing for Months

KCI Airport's Big, Progressive Design-Build Makeover

First Large-Scale US Offshore Wind Project OK'ed For Construction

Michigan Gov. Threatens to Seize Line 5 Pipeline Profits From Enbridge as Tunnel Gets First Permits

Industry Jobs

&lt;ilayer src="https://industry-jobs.enr.com/api/regionalcareercenter/?&searchregion=all&jobpostings=3&layout=4 " width="300" height="150"scrolling="no"&gt;&lt;/ilayer&gt;

Events

May 18, 2021

Reimagining Post Pandemic AEC Worklife and Remote Collaboration

This webinar will address which solutions to these challenges could remain long term and which won’t, how experts envision the workplace and marketplace of the post-pandemic future and what risks and rewards lay ahead for AEC professionals, clients and regulators.

Sponsored by:

May 25, 2021

Process Engineering for Project Delivery

Innovations in planning and execution borrowed from the manufacturing and logistics sector have shown promise in construction, but will reaping the benefits of this kind of process engineering require upending construction's culture? We'll talk to some of the proponents of shifting to a more process-driven model, and those who think it will take some work to align with the industry's contracting and project-delivery practices.