The Top 500 Design Firms

2006 Rankings by 2005 Revenue

April 24, 2006

ENR's Top 500 Designers is a comprehensive package of data and analysis. It contains
the ranking by 2005 revenue of the 500 largest engineers, architects and environmental consultants
in the U.S. It also contains the previous year’s rankings, revenue and percentage of
revenue by market. The list is accompanied by a story that extensively discusses business
developments affecting designers and consultants, markets and industry issues. There is also
a statistical summary of the Top 500 “at a glance” by markets and regions.

Contents

1. Pondering the Problems of Prosperity-- main analysis

2. The Top 500 Design Firms-company rankings and information on how to use the tables
3. Where To Find The Top 500--An alphabetical index of the Top 500 Design Firms
 Ä
Top 500 Overview
By Gary J. Tulacz
500
The
Top
DESIGN
FIRMS
Designers Ponder the Perils of Prosperity
T
The U.S. economy is strong and so is the construction mar-
ket. No one knows this more than designers who are at the
leading edge of the boom. But just as the recent recession
brought new issues and concerns to the design profession, so
has prosperity. A lack of
people to do the work, the drive for
greater efficiencies in light of techno-
logical developments and the per-
sonnel squeeze, and new and subtle
threats in the future have many think-
ing hard about where the design pro-
fession is headed.
From a pure numbers standpoint,
the ENR Top 500 Design Firms had
a huge year in 2005. Total design rev-
44 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com
ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 44 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM
$11.85 billion, up from $10.89 billion
in 2004.
For most firms, this prosperity is
continuing and there aren’t major
signs of a let-down any time soon. If
anything, there may be a continuing
ramp-up in work. “It’s not exactly
news that most of the markets are
enue for the Top 500 rose to $59.25 expanding,” says Lee McIntyre, pres-
billion in 2005, up 11.8% from $52.99 ident and COO of CH2M Hill Cos. “It’s
billion in 2004. The domestic growth a target-rich environment,” adds
was even larger, with the Top 500 Steve Wirtel, partner with Carollo
registering a 12.6% growth rate, to Engineers. “The problem is to find
$47.40 billion in design revenue from enough people to do the work.”
projects in the U.S., over 2004’s fig- With the tight market for people,
ure of $42.10 billion. The Top 500 design fees are rising. “After 30 years
also saw an 8.9% growth in revenue in this industry, I’ve finally seen the
from projects outside the U.S., to laws of supply and demand actually
CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK
LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
working,” says Bob Giorgio, presi-
dent of CDI Business Solutions
Group. He says engineering firms in
the industry are becoming more
savvy in their pricing and that clients,
while not generous, are recognizing
that squeezing fees isn’t necessarily
in their best interest. “After all, you
aren’t seeing any more of those
reverse auctions that everyone was
in a panic about a couple years ago,”
he says.
One thing the active market has
done is rekindle enthusiasm for
mergers and acquisitions. Among the
major acquisitions during the past
year was ENSR International by
AECOM in September 2005 and
Blasland Bouck & Lee Inc. by
Arcadis, also in September. And
many firms remain in the market for
acquisitions. However, some are tak-
ing a very cautious approach. “We
are very careful in who we acquire,”
says McIntyre. “We want to make
sure the firm we acquire matches our
corporate culture.” He says that
CH2M Hill is not looking to acquire
services or for geographic reach as
much as simply looking to add talent.
HDR is one firm that is acquiring
small firms to fill in specific needs,
but is relying on internal growth to
build size. “Size is important for firms
such as ours,” says Dennis
Hirschbrunner, director of marketing.
For example, he notes that in the
wake of Hurricane Katrina, the feder-
al government sought out firms to
mobilize large numbers of engineers
to address recovery needs quickly. “If
you can’t mobilize those numbers,
they are not going to call you,” he
says.
One interesting move this past
year was the merger of
SchenkelShultz and CSO Architects.
“We worked together on the Midfield
Terminal at Indianapolis International
Airport,” says Tom Chandler, CEO of
SchenkelShultz. Finding common
interests and cultures, the firms
decided to merge. But it was not a
ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 45 / Version: #2
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM
typical acquisition. “While we are now
one company, we both maintained
our equity positions in our firms. It’s
more like a partnership than a merg-
er,” he says.
Conceding to Concessions
The final enactment of the federal
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users has led to more sighs of
relief among designers than celebra-
tion. “In the past, when a highway bill
passed, the industry would feel that
happy days are here again,” says
Ben Watts, CEO of Carter & Burgess.
“But with this new SAFETEA-LU Act,
we generally just feel like it’s time to
get back to work.” Bruce Johinke,
director of global markets at Parsons
Brinckerhoff, agrees. “I don’t think
[SAFETEA-LU] will open the flood-
gates,” he says. “It’s more business
as usual. But if it hadn’t passed, we
would all be feeling it right now.”
The passage of SAFTEA-LU now
is allowing state departments of
transportation to define their pro-
grams. “Now they know what they
are getting, but also what they can’t
afford,” says Johinke. This is why
more DOTs are now looking to alter-
nate sources of funding for major
needed projects, he says. This is
making public-private partnerships a
more attractive alternative for these
agencies.
There are many design firms that
are wary of highway concessions as
a means of financing highways, par-
ticularly as much of the financing
comes from abroad. “The internation-
al investment community is used to
investing in infrastructure,” says
Johinke. “But the U.S. is slow to look
at concessions in public infrastruc-
ture.” That’s why such players as
Spanish contractors Ferrovial and
Dragados and investment banks like
Australia’s Macquarie Bank have
been active in highway concessions
here in the U.S.
One thing privatization and con-
CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK
RIGHT HAND PAGE
cessions has done is change the
nature of the client. “You are now
working for contractors or the lead
elements of the privatization group,
rather than dealing directly with the
DOTs,” says Terry Neimeyer, CEO of
KCI Technologies. He wonders how
the economics of concessions will
work out. “It’s an easy way for a state
to make money on a fixed asset,” he
says. “But will states save money in
the the long run?”
Not all private financing is on a
grand scale. “We are seeing more
transit-oriented development,” says
Mike McArdle, director of the rail
practice at VHB/ Vanasse Hangen
Brustlin Inc. In these cases, develop-
ers site their investments along exist-
ing or planned public transit lines and
invest in transportation upgrades. For
example, Spaulding & Slye Colliers
and Guilford Transportation Indus-
tries are developing a 45-acre North-
Point tract in Cambridge, Mass.,
across the river from Boston, and are
investing $35 million to build a new
train station along the rail line pass-
ing through the development. VHB is
working on the design. “More public
agencies are looking to developers
to help finance related public infra-
structure,” McArdle says.
For other types of infrastructure,
privatization is less of a concern.
There have been a few attempts to
privatize water and waste systems on
a local level by international groups
that have not been successful. “We
still have some pretty large privatized
water systems here in the U.S.,” says
Ed Wetzel, executive vice president
of the water and waste resources
sector for R.W. Beck Inc. But he
notes that even some of the more
successful European privatizing enti-
ties may be rethinking things. For
example, Germany’s RWE AG March
24 announced its intent to spin off its
American Water subsidiary through
an initial public offering of stock.
Some designers worry that
enr.com April 24, 2006 m ENR m 45
5 25 50 75 95
 Ä
Top 500 Overview
lessons haven’t been learned about
safeguarding infrastructure from
recent disasters. “We need to design
our infrastructure to be disaster
resilient,” says Chris Poland, CEO of
Degenkolb Engineers. He points out
that the scale of some recent disas-
ters like Hurricane Katrina or 9/11
show that infrastructure should be
hardened so that when there is a
major problem, the system can con-
tinue functioning while the damage is
being repaired.
“We are not very good at planning
for low-probability events. They hap-
pen, we throw money at the problem,
then we forget about it until the next
time,” Poland says. For example,
despite Hurricane Katrina, New
Orleans recently announced relaxed
requirements for elevating resi-
dences in the flood zone, to 3 ft (see
story, p. 14). “The model codes with
disaster provisions are all there in the
International Building Code. We just
need local authorities with the will to
adopt them,” Poland says.
For firms involved in designing
buildings, the market remains bullish
although some see softness in a few
sectors. “We think the condo market
reached its peak about the middle of
last year,” says Carl Roehling, CEO
of SmithGroup. “I think it’s nearing
the saturation point.”
For some firms, demographics is
the key. The K-12 school market con-
tinues to be vital in California. “The
state is continuing to grow in popula-
tion from people moving here,” says
Jerry Eick, managing principal at
HMC Architects. “And now, the state
has passed a regulation to reduce
class size, which is putting pressure
on school districts to expand their
facilities.”
Further, California’s seismic code
continues to fuel a hot healthcare
market. “All hospitals are struggling
to comply with the seismic require-
ments, even though the legislature
extended the compliance date to
accommodate them,” says Eick.
46 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com
ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 46 / Version: #2
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM
Now, there is a bill in the legislature
to further extend seismic compliance
for hospitals that decide to build
replacement hospitals rather than
upgrade existing facilities. However,
Eick worries that the development of
private hospitals may be curtailed in
the state by strangling regulations
and bureaucracy.
The airport market remains
strong, if tenuous. Many designers in
that market are concerned that the
recent bankruptcies and threatened
bankruptcies among the major air-
lines may threaten the market. “But
the number of passengers has
increased rapidly since the 9/11 drop-
off, so the need is there,” says Chan-
dler of SchenkelShultz. He says that
airlines’ financial woes may actually
spur new construction. “Airport
authorities see these airlines in trou-
ble and want to make sure they can
attract as broad a variety of carriers
as possible, so they are doing up-
grades and adding facilities,” he
says.
Transportation isn’t the only mar-
ket that is seeing more privatization.
“We are finishing a design-build job
at Oak Ridge that was done on a
public-private partnership, which a
private developer financed,” says Jim
Moynihan, CEO of Heery Internation-
al. He also notes that the Veterans
Administration has been inquiring
about private financing of hospitals.
“We are comfortable in that area,” he
says, noting that Heery’s parent com-
pany is the U.K.’s Balfour Beatty,
which is one of the leading builders
under that country’s Private Financ-
ing Initiative.
Risky Business
For many firms, design-build is prov-
ing a double-edged sword. “We are
doing more design-build projects,”
says Moynihan. Heery has been
moving more toward the old master
builder concept for several years. As
part of that move, the firm announced
on April 3 that it had acquired Char-
CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK
LEFT HAND PAGE
ter Builders, a Dallas-based special-
ist in construction management at-
risk. “There still is a place for the pure
designer, but chances are they will
simply be part of a larger team,” he
says. Heery is contemplating further
expansion and is in the due diligence
stage on two more potential acquisi-
tions.
Some design firms still are finding
owners falling into old habits.
“Design-build is a very effective deliv-
ery process, but it is beginning to fol-
low the same old design-bid-build
pattern,” says Ray Messer, president
of Walter P. Moore and Associates.
“They are beginning to bid out
design-build work instead of negotiat-
ing based on qualifications.” This
means teams are forced to remove
contingency money in their bids,
putting pressure on all parties and
hoping for no unexpected changes in
the project, he says. “This is going to
ruin design-build for a lot of people,”
he says.
Several firms are concerned about
increasingly risk-averse clients. “With
the litigation boom, owners are allow-
ing their attorneys to dictate contract
provisions pushing the standard of
care to a standard of perfection,”
says Messer. This means that design
firms are being forced to fall back on
the most conservative designs and
practices, rather than what may be
the best for the project. “This practice
stifles any creative design solutions
and hurts the client,” he says.
The solution to innovation in an
increasingly litigious environment
often depends upon an owner willing
to step in to be the first, say several
design executives. R.W. Beck’s Wet-
zel notes that there are a few public
owners willing to go with the best
solution rather than the most conser-
vative, making innovation more palat-
able to future clients.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
In an informal email poll by ENR of
the most significant issues facing Top
5 25 50 75 95
 Ä
Top 500 Overview
500 Design Firms, the one most cit-
ed by far was the lack of trained per-
sonnel. A comment by Mike Patton,
senior vice president of ENGlobal, is
typical: “We have 2,000 employees,
but we could use about 200 more.”
This has led to a major renewal
among design firms to recruit and
retain people.
The lack of people to do the work
has caused some firms to alter their
human resources policies. “In the
past, we may have looked for a per-
son from the county or area around
the local office that needed that per-
son,” says Charles Dalluge, execu-
tive vice president of Leo A Daly.
“Now, we are in a continuous re-
cruitment mode.” He says that all
local offices are tasked with finding
people, and are not limited to the
local area where they work. “If we
find a good candidate in North Dako-
ta who is willing to relocate, we want
that person,” he says.
Many firms are finding the answer
in exposing young people to their
firms early. “We are increasing our
internship program dramatically this
year,” says Roehling of SmithGroup.
“Once a young person sees the work
environment and the quality of pro-
jects we work on here, we are confi-
dent that they will want to come to
work with us full-time after they grad-
uate.”
The real trick is retaining good
people once they join the firm. Many
lament the fact that firms constantly
are stealing people from each other.
So retention has become a priority.
“Retention is not just about money,”
says Glenn Bell, CEO of Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger. “A lot of it is hav-
ing interesting work, giving young
people clear growth paths and open-
ing up ownership opportunities.”
One thing the personnel crunch
has done is give a boost to younger
workers. “Everyone’s looking for
experienced people, and firms are
robbing each other of people left and
right,” say Neimeyer. This means that
48 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com
ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 48 / Version: #2
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM
firms that had recruited only experi-
enced people in the past are recruit-
ing in the schools now. “Younger peo-
ple are being given greater
responsibilities, which they love,” he
says.
For some firms, recruitment and
retention is old hat. “We have five full-
time recruiters on staff,” says Heery’s
Moynihan. The firm established
Heery University, its in-house train-
ing program over 10 years ago, to
ensure its staff is technologically
sophisticated. “Other firms like to
brag about their new training pro-
grams, but are they willing to spend
millions the way we did to make sure
their people are fully equipped for the
job?” he asks.
CDI began as a staffing business.
“We haven’t had to fight the image of
being a staffing firm for quite a few
years, but even as a full-service firm
we continue to do staffing work,” says
Giorgio. The firm still retains 170
recruiters. So now, it is marketing a
new product, “Recruiting Process
Outsourcing,” in which it will take
over human resources recruiting
functions for design firms, he says.
Modeling the Future
One of the most talked-about issues
this year is the emergence of Building
Information Management systems.
“BIM is a real mindshift,” says Dal-
luge of Leo A Daly. “Every line on the
screen means something and any
change will have an impact on other
elements of the design that have to
be documented and communicated.”
BIM systems allow these changes to
be reflected. “Everyone has to be
very knowledgeable in the system,
but once everyone is on board with it,
it’s a very powerful tool,” he says.
One major concern for BIM’s
future is what system, if any, will
become an industry standard. Sever-
al systems are emerging and are
beginning to be used by designers,
often as test platforms. “Autodesk’s
Revit is quite powerful and it now has
CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK
LEFT HAND PAGE
a structural tool and they promise to
have an HVAC system released with-
in the next month or two,” says
Mahadev Raman, principal and build-
ings sector leader for Arup Americas.
“And Microstation has a platform that
a lot of people swear by.”
One firm that is experimenting
broadly is Studios Architecture. “We
came out of Silicon Valley and one of
our first major clients was Apple, so
we ended up working Macs rather
than PCs,” says CEO Todd DeGar-
mo. The firm is trying out a wide vari-
ety of BIM platforms. “We have a
team working on the Pentagon using
Microstation. Another team is using
Revit on a project and we have peo-
ple using ArchiCAD on another pro-
ject.” He says the firm has been
working with ArchiCAD for a long
time, “so 3D is ingrained in our cul-
ture.”
Many designers complain that the
learning curve for BIM systems is
steep, as are training costs. “It is very
complicated and a major investment
in training and you have to change
your processes,” says Roehling of
SmithGroup. But he says there will
be a real “stratification between firms
working with BIM, and those that
don’t. The ones that don’t are going
to fall by the wayside.”
Exporting Work
To meet the increasing demands
brought about by a strong market
and shrinking work force, firms
increasingly are looking to outsource
basic design and drafting to design
centers in places like India. “We are
constantly getting brochures from
Indian firms saying, ‘We will do your
drafting for you,’” says Eick of HMC.
But many see the outsourcing
trend as ominous. “It’s a reflection
that there is more work than people
to do it,” says Wetzel. “But it also is a
reflection that design is treated as a
commodity here in the U.S.” Adds
Raman: “The price differential
between U.S. and Indian design work
5 25 50 75 95
 Ä Ä

Top 500 Overview Overview Top 500

is roughly six-to-one, which makes
such proposals for outsourcing hard
to resist in a competitive market.”
Some firms are comfortable in the
idea of offshoring on a limited basis.
“I can see where you have a project
where the client wants to add a cou-
ple floors to a building. I don’t see a
problem with off-shoring the repeti-
tive drafting that would require,” says
DeGarmo of Studios Architecture. He
says the role of the architect is to pro-
vide value and leadership in the
design process, and not do repetitive
drafting work.
Many firms wonder about the eco-
nomics of offshoring. “There’s this
fairyland view that while we are
sleeping, engineers in India, China,
Poland, or wherever are busy work-
ing on our designs and, when we
wake up, you can step right in and
The 2006 Top 500 at a Glance
Volume
DOMESTIC
take over,” says Marco Aieta, director
of water practice at Carollo. “Designs
have to be carefully coordinated. You
can’t just hand it back and forth. It
takes a big investment and you must
have the right people to do the job.”
There also are political and social
implications to offshoring. “We might
have a client in Las Vegas who might
object to having part of the work done
in Phoenix. They want quick, local
access to the people doing their
design,” says Carollo’s Wirtel.
Offshoring has not been a suc-
cessful experience for some firms.
“We bought a firm in Manila about
seven or eight years ago to help with
drafting and simple design issues,”
says Roehling. But after a few years,
SmithGroup closed the subsidiary.
“We found that design is a value-
added exercise throughout the
Market Analysis
INTERNATIONAL TOTAL
process and you just can’t hand off
portions of the project to people from
abroad,” he says.
For many firms, the refusal to off-
shore is a point of principle. “We have
never done that. When you hire Leo
A Daly, Leo A Daly people will be
doing the work,” says Dalluge.
Moynihan adds: “I want to be the one
who hires the people working on
Heery projects.”
There are those who look at off-
shoring as sending the wrong sig-
nals. “In the short-term, offshoring
scratches an itch,” says Patton of
ENGlobal. “But in the long term, I
think it further discourages kids here
in the U.S. from looking at engineer-
ing as a profession.”
One of the long-term concerns is
that, as U.S. design firms farm out
more and more work to these Indian
REVENUE PERCENT
and Chinese outsourcing facilities,
they may be building design power-
houses that could become competi-
tors to U.S. firms in the international
market, or even in the U.S. market.
“This happened in the information
technology industry two decades
ago, as IT firms shipped more and
more of their work to low-cost cen-
ters,” says Raman. He points out that
India-based IT firms like Cognizant
and Infosys now are major players in
the U.S. market. “They came over
here to cut out the middleman—the
U.S. firms,” he says.
However, not everyone is so pes-
simistic. “You’re not seeing in this
industry what happened in so many
other industries, where whole chunks
of work were being farmed out to
India or China with very little local
input,” says CDI’s Giorgio. He says
the U.S. design sector has been very
careful and professional in outsourc-
ing the basic
drafting work “Successful projects need the
while retaining in-
best design people possible.
house control
sustainable design is not that much
more than traditional building. And
with energy costs the way they are,
sustainability makes economic
sense.”
Many owners and designers do
not see LEED as the be-all and
end-all. “LEED is gaining a lot of
traction,” says Raman. “However,
many owners are saying that gain-
ing LEED points is fine, but is the
design really sustainable?” Raman
notes that high energy prices have
made the design of energy-efficient
buildings more attractive to owners.
He believes that in the upcoming
years, energy efficiency will not
only be attractive, but critical.
“There’s a theory called ‘Peak
Oil’ that is gaining some notice,”
Raman says. The theory is that we
are slowly reaching peak produc-
tion of oil. Once that peak is
reached, worldwide oil production
the energy and water side to pre-
pare us to move into the global
market,” says Wetzel of R.W. Beck.
He notes that Beck already is work-
ing in Singapore and is looking to
expand into other countries in Asia.
What is interesting is that, as the
megafirms in the industry get big-
ger, they are providing an interna-
tional market for smaller firms.
“These big firms seem to be con-
centrating more on management,
so they are providing a safe way for
niche firms to get into the global
market by subcontracting work to
them on international projects,”
says Bell.
Design executives also note a
growing tendency for students from
India and China, who used to
attend university in the U.S. and
then stay to work for U.S. compa-
nies, to return home after gradua-
tion. “It’s a sign of the economic
growth and maturity of those mar-
kets that Indian and Chinese stu-
dents are going home,” says
Johinke. “But it also means that the

over the value- talent pool in those nations is get-

$BIL. % CHG. $BIL. % CHG. $BIL. % CHG. TYPE OF WORK $MIL. OF TOTAL
That is not being a commodity.
added portions of ting broader.”
BUILDING 13,589.7 22.9
REVENUE 47.4 +12.6 11.9 +8.9 59.3 +11.8
That is being a professional.”
the design. Ironically, this trend is working to
MANUFACTURING 1,263.2 2.1

the benefit of some U.S. firms. Bell

INDUSTRIAL 2,907.8 4.9
— LEE MCINTYRE, PRESIDENT, CH2M HILL

Designing for the Future will begin a slow decline, while at notes that some foreign-born engi-
PETROLEUM 8,017.1 13.5
Profitability
There is a growing interest in sustain- the same time demand for petrole- neers hired by Simpson Gumpertz
WATER 3,807.3 6.4
NUMBER OF FIRMS REPORTING AVERAGE % OF

ability in building design, led by the um products will increase from left after a few years to return to
PROFIT LOSS PROFIT LOSS SEWER/WASTE 4,166.4 7.0
TRANSPORTATION 12,043.4 20.3

U.S. Green Building Council’s Lead- large developing countries like Chi- their home countries. “At first, we
DOMESTIC 449 16 7.5 NA
HAZARDOUS WASTE 6,747.8 11.4

ership in Energy and Environmental na, India, and Brazil, among others. were disappointed. But now, we
INTERNATIONAL 130 32 6.9 NA
POWER 3,549.6 6.0
TELECOMMUNICATIONS 941.9 1.6 Design standards here in the U.S. “The current high oil prices aren’t a are finding a positive as they are
OTHER 2,217.2 3.7
For example, the U.S. Army April 10 temporary thing, but something we becoming our business partners
Professional Staff announced that it would be transition- will have to adjust to. So sustain- with their new firms in their home
ing from its own sustainability project ability won’t be a luxury, but a countries,” he says.
rating tool to LEED, beginning in necessity,” Raman says. There are many concerns about
NUMBER OF FIRMS REPORTING AVERAGE % OF

2008. the future of design. Some see it

DOMESTIC INTL. DOMESTIC INTL.
International Regions
For many firms, the move toward It’s a Small World After All gradually becoming one more
INCREASE 357 69 12.2 27.3
NUMBER REVENUE PERCENT

sustainability is cultural. “Sustainabil- Design firms are continuing to price-driven element in the con-
DECREASE 35 4 15.3 26 OF FIRMS $MIL. OF TOTAL

ity is just now becoming widespread,” move abroad to meet the demands struction process. But CH2M Hill’s
SAME 95 63 NA NA CANADA 102 1,857.9 15.7

says Roehling of SmithGroup. “Just of a globalized market. “Up until a McIntyre disagrees. “Design is not
LATIN AMERICA 119 719.4 6.1

about everything we do is LEED rat- couple years ago, we were happy a commodity,” he says. “For any
CARRIBEAN ISLANDS 92 257.4 2.2
Backlog
ed.” He says Ford Motor Co. Chair- to stay in the U.S. market,” says project to be successful, you need
EUROPE 125 4,078.9 34.4
NUMBER OF FIRMS REPORTING AVERAGE %

man William Clay Ford Jr. is a major Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger’s the best design people possible for
MIDDLE EAST 102 1,423.2 12.0
HIGHER 341 16.3

advocate of sustainable design and Bell. Now, his firm is in China, the the job. That is not being a
ASIA/AUSTRALIA 142 2,895.1 24.4
LOWER 34 10.5 AFRICA 61 619.5 5.2
SAME 84 NA ARCTIC/ANTARCTIC 1 1.0 0.0 that has spurred the concept in the Emirates, Korea and Pakistan. “We commodity. That is being a profes-
Detroit area. “Further, the cost of a are continuing to expand on both sional.”m
50 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com enr.com April 24, 2006 m ENR m 51

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 50 / Version: #2 ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 51 / Version: #2
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95 Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM RIGHT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500

Prosperity Reigns Across Markets

HOW TO USE THE TABLES sion lines, substations, cogeneration plants, etc.

D
Design firms based in the U.S. enjoyed a banner year in 2005. As
a group, the ENR Top 500 Design Firms generated design rev-
enue of $59.25 billion in 2005, up 11.8% from 2004’s level. And
the bounty was shared very widely. Of the 478 design firms on
the Top 500 that submitted data both last year and this year, 404
enjoyed increased revenue over 2004 levels, while only 71 saw
declines, with the remaining three basically flat. Overall, the gains
for this group were not just widespread, but significant. Over half
of the Top 500 enjoyed double-digit revenue growth.
© COMPANIES
are ranked according to revenue for design services performed in 2005
in $ millions (*). Those with subsidiaries are indicated by (†). For information on sub-
sidiaries and where each firm worked outside of the U.S., see http://www.enr.com.
**=Firms not ranked last year. Some markets may not add up to 100% due to omis-
sion of “other” miscellaneous market category and rounding. NA=Not available.
© KEY TO TYPE OF FIRM: A=architect; E=engineer; EC=engineer-contractor; AE=
architect-engineer; EA=engineer-architect; ENV=environmental; GE=geotechnical engi-
neer; L=landscape architect; P=planner; O=other. Other combinations possible. Firms
classified themselves.
© GENERAL BUILDING=commercial buildings, offices, stores, educational facilities,
government buildings, hospitals, medical facilities, hotels, apartments, housing, etc.
© MANUFACTURING=auto, electronic assembly, textile plants, etc.
© POWER=thermal and hydroelectric powerplants, waste-to-energy plants, transmis-
©
WATER SUPPLY=dams, reservoirs, transmission pipelines, distribution mains, irriga-
tion canals, desalination and potability treatment plants, pumping stations, etc.
© SEWERAGE/SOLID WASTE=sanitary and storm sewers, treatment plants, pumping
plants, incinerators, industrial waste facilities, etc.
© INDUSTRIAL PROCESS=pulp and paper mills, steel mills, nonferrous metal refiner-
ies, pharmaceutical plants, chemical plants, food and other processing plants, etc.
© PETROLEUM=refineries, petrochemical plants, offshore facilities, pipelines, etc.
© TRANSPORTATION =airports, bridges, roads, canals, locks, dredging, marine facilities,
piers, railroads, tunnels, etc.
© HAZARDOUS WASTE=chemical and nuclear waste treatment, asbestos and lead
abatement, etc.
© TELECOMMUNICATIONS=transmission lines and cabling, towers and antennae, data
centers, etc.

The Top 500 Design Firms

MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE) MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE)
RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE- RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE-
2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM. 2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM.

1 1 URS, San Francisco, Calif.† EAC 3,303.0 313.8 16 3 6 4 5 10 32 22 0 26 27 VECO CORP., Anchorage, Alaska† EC 440.8 127.0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
2 3 AECOM TECHNOLOGY CORP., Los Angeles, Calif.† EA 2,588.0 664.0 21 0 3 7 13 0 46 10 0 27 31 GENSLER, San Francisco, Calif.† A 406.4 35.9 89 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0
3 4 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif. EAC 2,487.5 723.5 14 5 1 1 2 46 19 11 1 28 28 HOK, St. Louis, Mo.† AE 396.2 147.5 93 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
4 2 FLUOR CORP., Aliso Viejo, Calif.† EC 2,103.6 1,289.5 1 0 4 0 0 81 0 9 3 29 24 MACTEC INC., Alpharetta, Ga.† EAC 394.8 0.0 21 4 2 1 3 9 20 26 13
5 5 CH2M HILL COS., Englewood, Colo.† E 2,047.8 249.9 0 10 6 15 18 9 17 20 5 30 40 WORLEYPARSONS CORP., Houston, Texas EA 391.7 170.0 0 0 48 0 0 52 0 0 0
6 7 KBR, Houston, Texas† EC 1,733.8 1,517.0 6 0 0 2 0 78 3 0 0 31 29 CARTER & BURGESS INC., Fort Worth, Texas EA 364.0 0.0 38 0 1 6 11 1 43 0 0
7 6 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif.† EC 1,576.0 770.0 1 0 18 0 0 45 8 26 1 32 32 WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, Boise, Idaho† EC 359.4 57.0 1 1 36 4 0 12 26 21 0
8 8 TETRA TECH INC., Pasadena, Calif.† E 1,207.0 10.0 15 5 2 35 4 4 2 26 7 33 37 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC., Raleigh, N.C. E 350.7 0.1 46 0 0 7 0 0 47 0 0
9 9 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif.† EC 1,119.8 196.6 16 2 0 3 2 9 29 21 15 34 33 MUSTANG ENGINEERING, Houston, Texas† E 350.0 120.0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
10 10 PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF INC., New York, N.Y.† EAC 946.5 361.6 11 0 10 3 2 2 68 1 0 35 35 BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo. EC 340.0 13.4 2 6 33 4 7 17 18 13 0
11 12 AMEC AMERICAS, Washington, D.C.† EC 834.0 514.0 13 2 9 3 3 22 9 15 0 36 38 AKER KVAERNER, Houston, Texas† EC 330.5 70.9 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
12 15 MWH, Broomfield, Colo.† EC 798.6 290.8 0 0 3 38 41 0 0 18 0 37 30 MICHAEL BAKER CORP., Moon Township, Pa.† EA 325.3 3.8 8 0 0 30 6 2 44 7 1
13 11 EARTH TECH INC., Long Beach, Calif. EC 794.0 274.0 8 0 4 22 22 0 18 26 0 38 34 TRC COS. INC., Windsor, Conn.† E 305.9 1.8 10 10 24 1 1 16 23 13 2
14 16 THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, East Orange, N.J.† EA 779.7 628.1 0 0 2 11 12 0 67 8 0 39 36 MALCOLM PIRNIE INC., White Plains, N.Y. E 283.9 3.7 0 0 0 42 42 0 0 16 0
15 13 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan. EC 775.2 194.3 2 0 43 23 22 3 2 2 2 40 41 BUREAU VERITAS, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.† E 283.0 0.0 26 4 2 3 2 1 16 27 0
16 17 THE SHAW GROUP INC., Baton Rouge, La.† EC 707.2 161.8 0 0 31 1 2 40 1 24 0 41 43 SARGENT & LUNDY LLC, Chicago, Ill.† EA 282.1 10.4 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 19 HDR, Omaha, Neb.† EA 670.3 5.6 20 1 5 15 15 0 44 0 0 42 44 FUGRO INC., Houston, Texas† E 272.2 55.0 14 0 1 1 1 75 5 0 1
18 18 FOSTER WHEELER LTD., Clinton, N.J.† EC 621.0 467.0 0 0 27 0 0 69 0 0 0 43 51 THE KLEINFELDER GROUP INC., San Diego, Calif.† E 252.6 0.0 24 2 3 5 6 5 16 37 2
19 22 CDI BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, Philadelphia, Pa.† EC 584.0 232.0 14 6 16 1 1 42 16 0 3 44 46 WESTON SOLUTIONS INC., West Chester, Pa.† ENV 240.0 3.4 0 0 0 19 4 0 0 77 0
20 26 ARCADIS, Highlands Ranch, Colo.† E 560.0 3.0 1 1 0 6 5 0 8 71 0 45 58 ENGLOBAL CORP., Houston, Texas† EC 233.6 6.9 0 0 3 0 0 97 0 0 0
21 14 ABB LUMMUS GLOBAL, Bloomfield, N.J.† EC 554.1 551.4 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 46 42 GANNETT FLEMING, Harrisburg, Pa.† EA 231.8 0.5 12 0 2 18 2 0 52 8 0
22 21 PBS&J, Tampa, Fla. EA 521.0 0.0 10 0 0 14 16 0 60 0 0 47 39 BE&K INC., Birmingham, Ala.† EC 231.0 24.0 0 0 10 0 0 68 0 0 22
23 20 CDM, Cambridge, Mass.† EC 515.0 58.0 2 2 1 23 45 2 5 19 0 48 47 BROWN AND CALDWELL, Walnut Creek, Calif.† ENV 230.0 0.0 0 0 0 15 53 0 0 26 0
24 25 ERM HOLDINGS LTD., Exton, Pa.† ENV 487.2 242.7 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 95 0 49 45 DEWBERRY, Fairfax, Va.† EA 230.0 0.0 36 0 0 16 6 0 37 1 2
25 23 HNTB COS., Kansas City, Mo.† EA 483.6 1.3 8 0 0 2 1 0 88 0 0 50 52 TERRACON, Lenexa, Kan.† E 228.0 0.0 51 1 3 1 3 4 11 22 4

58 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com enr.com April 24, 2006 m ENR m 59

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 58 / Version: #3 ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 59 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95 Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM RIGHT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500

The Top 500 Design Firms

MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE)
RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE-
2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM.

51 49 SKIDMORE OWINGS & MERRILL LLP, New York, N.Y. AE 223.0 90.0 91 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0
52 466 AUSTIN INDUSTRIES, Dallas, Texas† CM 220.8 0.0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
53 56 HKS INC., Dallas, Texas AE 219.8 13.9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 50 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUS. (PSI), Oakbrook Terrace, Ill. E 218.2 0.0 57 1 1 1 0 4 14 21 1
55 54 S&B HOLDINGS LTD. AND AFFILIATES, Houston, Texas† EC 217.6 0.0 0 0 0 0 1 92 5 0 1
56 48 STV GROUP INC., New York, N.Y.† EA 215.9 0.0 17 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0
57 53 TRANSCORE, Hummelstown, Pa. EC 192.8 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
58 62 STANTEC INC., Phoenix, Ariz.† EA 191.6 0.0 11 0 1 18 19 11 39 0 0
59 59 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOC., Niagara Falls, N.Y.† ENV 191.0 46.0 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 93 0
60 57 ATC GROUP SERVICES INC., Woburn, Mass.† E 190.6 0.0 13 0 0 1 2 26 6 49 3
61 60 BURNS AND ROE, Oradell, N.J.† EC 189.5 97.0 3 0 79 8 0 0 0 9 0
62 64 PERKINS+WILL, Atlanta, Ga.† A 182.8 21.9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 72 RTKL ASSOCIATES INC., Baltimore, Md.† AE 173.3 43.6 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
64 63 GENERAL PHYSICS CORP., Elkridge, Md.† EC 172.1 16.1 0 48 6 0 17 15 0 9 5
65 55 LEO A DALY, Omaha, Neb.† AE 162.1 1.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 71 ENVIRON, Arlington, Va.† ENV 156.3 50.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0
67 67 EDAW, San Francisco, Calif.† ALP 155.5 65.8 23 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0
68 74 STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC., Muscatine, Iowa EA 152.7 32.5 9 0 39 8 7 2 35 0 0
69 73 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD, Millburn, N.J.† E 152.0 22.8 4 0 0 15 20 7 50 5 0
70 69 RBF CONSULTING, Irvine, Calif. E 151.6 0.3 42 0 0 14 12 0 27 0 0
71 68 EDWARDS AND KELCEY INC., Morristown, N.J.† EA 149.6 1.6 10 0 0 1 0 0 74 0 12
72 70 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES, Columbia, S.C. E 140.4 12.9 1 0 0 0 3 0 94 0 0
73 76 SMITHGROUP INC., Detroit, Mich.† AE 131.7 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
74 65 HEERY INTERNATIONAL INC., Atlanta, Ga.† AE 130.9 5.0 92 2 0 0 0 0 6 0 0
75 78 GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC., Atlanta, Ga. E 130.7 6.4 7 18 8 5 18 5 9 2 0
76 88 TRANSYSTEMS CORP., Kansas City, Mo.† EA 126.8 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
77 84 CAROLLO ENGINEERS PC, Phoenix, Ariz. E 121.6 0.0 0 0 0 46 54 0 0 0 0
78 85 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC., Portland, Ore.† EA 120.5 0.0 3 0 3 12 13 0 69 0 0
79 81 DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS INC., St. Paul, Minn.† ENV 117.5 8.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
80 77 ARUP, New York, N.Y.† E 116.9 10.6 64 0 0 0 0 6 26 0 2
81 80 HAZEN AND SAWYER PC, New York, N.Y. E 116.5 3.6 0 0 0 36 64 0 0 0 0
82 113 CALLISON, Seattle, Wash. A 114.0 31.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 86 T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL, San Francisco, Calif.† E 111.1 41.4 13 0 0 3 1 0 84 0 0
84 90 VHB/VANASSE HANGEN BRUSTLIN INC., Watertown, Mass. E 109.0 0.0 27 0 0 0 0 0 57 2 0
85 101 KCI TECHNOLOGIES INC., Hunt Valley, Md.† E 104.7 0.0 18 0 0 1 2 0 54 2 24
86 91 CORRPRO COS. INC., Medina, Ohio† EC 104.1 38.9 6 8 8 11 6 41 16 0 0
87 102 CANNON DESIGN, Grand Island, N.Y. AE 102.4 8.4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 92 SCHOOR DEPALMA INC., Manalapan, N.J. E 102.1 0.0 53 0 0 4 9 0 18 4 7
89 89 THE BENHAM COS. LLC, Oklahoma City, Okla.† EAC 98.5 4.3 44 11 2 3 1 21 11 7 0
90 110 LANGAN ENG’G AND ENVIRO. SVCS., Elmwood Park, N.J. E 98.5 1.8 34 5 5 9 10 6 10 20 1
91 121 PSOMAS, Los Angeles, Calif.† E 97.7 0.0 51 0 2 11 17 0 20 0 0
92 105 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS, Atlanta, Ga.† ENV 97.2 7.1 0 0 0 2 28 3 1 65 0
93 96 REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS INC., Jacksonville, Fla.† EA 97.0 0.0 15 7 0 0 2 0 75 0 0
94 97 POWER ENGINEERS INC., Hailey, Idaho† EA 95.9 9.4 0 2 75 0 0 17 0 0 7
95 107 ECS, Chantilly, Va.† E 95.8 0.0 78 4 0 1 3 0 10 2 2
96 98 GREENMAN-PEDERSEN INC., Babylon, N.Y.† E 93.0 2.4 6 1 7 1 1 1 74 0 1
97 94 ASCG INC., Anchorage, Alaska† EA 92.3 0.0 27 0 0 21 13 0 38 0 0
98 109 WOOLPERT INC., Dayton, Ohio† EAP 92.1 0.0 52 1 0 3 10 0 7 0 0
99 103 RMT INC., Madison, Wis.† ENV 91.9 3.2 0 27 10 0 6 27 0 30 0
100 104 SYSKA HENNESSY GROUP INC., New York, N.Y.† EC 91.6 2.0 56 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 35

60 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 60 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500

The Top 500 Design Firms

MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE)
RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE-
2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM.

101 79 ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT INC., Lancaster, N.Y.† ENV 91.4 21.6 0 0 5 3 8 19 5 51 0
102 126 PERKINS EASTMAN, New York, N.Y.† A 91.0 8.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
103 93 GRESHAM, SMITH AND PARTNERS, Nashville, Tenn. AE 90.5 0.3 52 1 0 8 1 2 29 0 0
104 114 DLZ CORP., Columbus, Ohio† EA 90.0 3.0 9 0 3 6 30 13 37 2 0
105 111 CLOUGH HARBOUR & ASSOCIATES LLP, Albany, N.Y.† E 89.8 0.0 38 5 2 2 5 8 22 2 14
106 108 KOHN PEDERSEN FOX ASSOCIATES PC, New York, N.Y.† A 88.0 48.0 85 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0
107 123 GHAFARI ASSOCIATES LLC, Dearborn, Mich.† AE 86.7 2.5 6 87 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
108 99 SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON INC., Minneapolis, Minn.† EA 85.3 0.0 6 0 5 11 15 0 53 3 0
109 122 ZIMMER GUNSUL FRASCA PARTNERSHIP, Portland, Ore. AP 84.0 2.3 92 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
110 106 O’BRIEN & GERE, Syracuse, N.Y.† E 81.6 2.7 0 5 0 10 20 14 7 43 0
111 137 DAY & ZIMMERMANN GROUP, Philadelphia, Pa.† EC 81.0 20.0 16 5 0 0 0 79 0 0 0
112 117 VOLLMER ASSOCIATES LLP, New York, N.Y. E 80.0 0.0 8 0 0 0 12 0 62 0 0
113 129 RUMMEL KLEPPER & KAHL LLP, Baltimore, Md. E 79.9 0.0 0 0 0 3 6 1 89 0 0
114 135 HAYES, SEAY, MATTERN & MATTERN INC., Roanoke, Va.† AE 79.3 0.7 47 2 0 3 34 0 7 0 6
115 112 BURGESS & NIPLE INC., Columbus, Ohio† EA 78.7 0.3 20 0 0 16 16 0 41 5 2
116 134 GEOMATRIX CONSULTANTS INC., Oakland, Calif.† E 78.5 4.5 2 5 5 4 1 23 7 50 1
117 131 LFR INC., Emeryville, Calif. ENV 76.5 0.0 0 13 8 1 0 13 10 26 7
118 162 CUH2A, Princeton, N.J. AE 76.2 3.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 120 PAULUS, SOKOLOWSKI & SARTOR LLC, Warren, N.J.† EA 75.9 0.0 68 0 4 1 4 14 0 5 0
120 125 SCS ENGINEERS, Long Beach, Calif. ENV 75.7 1.2 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 29 0
121 133 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, San Francisco, Calif. EA 75.5 0.0 1 4 0 32 34 3 15 11 0
122 100 UTILITY ENGINEERING CORP., Denver, Colo. EA 74.8 0.0 0 0 95 0 0 4 0 0 0
123 116 HALEY & ALDRICH INC., Boston, Mass.† ENV 74.5 0.5 34 0 4 1 2 2 4 53 0
124 136 S&ME INC., Raleigh, N.C. E 73.6 0.0 47 5 1 3 2 3 11 25 2
125 147 STS CONSULTANTS LTD., Vernon Hills, Ill. E 73.3 0.0 29 5 9 8 10 15 21 0 1
126 124 GREENHORNE & O’MARA, Laurel, Md. E 73.1 0.0 46 0 0 5 0 0 49 1 0
127 118 KLING, Philadelphia, Pa.† AE 73.0 3.5 92 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
128 119 JORDAN, JONES & GOULDING, Norcross, Ga. E 71.5 0.0 1 0 3 24 52 0 9 0 0
129 144 THORNTON-TOMASETTI INC., New York, N.Y. EA 70.0 7.0 97 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
130 95 R.W. BECK INC., Seattle, Wash. E 68.7 1.8 0 0 71 16 12 0 0 0 1
131 132 DLR GROUP, Omaha, Neb. AE 68.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
132 143 VOLKERT & ASSOCIATES INC., Mobile, Ala. E 67.8 0.0 5 0 0 3 2 0 88 3 0
133 153 THE WILLDAN GROUP OF COS., Anaheim, Calif.† E 67.6 0.0 23 0 0 23 23 0 31 0 0
134 165 MOFFATT & NICHOL, Long Beach, Calif. E 67.1 6.1 0 0 0 17 0 0 81 0 0
135 142 KPFF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Seattle, Wash. E 67.1 0.6 88 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 0
136 130 WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES INC., Northbrook, Ill.† EA 66.7 0.0 79 2 0 1 1 2 14 0 0
137 158 PENNONI ASSOCIATES INC., Philadelphia, Pa. E 66.5 0.0 23 0 0 3 6 0 24 8 0
138 336 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC., Watsonville, Calif.† EC 66.2 0.0 3 0 0 0 0 0 97 0 0
139 156 SSOE INC., Toledo, Ohio AE 65.9 3.0 25 36 1 0 1 33 4 0 0
140 127 WIMBERLY ALLISON TONG & GOO, Honolulu, Hawaii A 65.9 45.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
141 159 AEPCO INC., Rockville, Md. E 65.8 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 171 UNIVERSAL ENSCO INC., Houston, Texas† EC 65.5 4.0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
143 145 WOODARD & CURRAN, Portland, Maine E 65.0 0.0 4 2 0 27 31 4 0 32 0
144 149 HARLEY ELLIS DEVEREAUX, Southfield, Mich.† AE 64.9 0.0 98 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
145 163 WILSONMILLER INC., Naples, Fla. EP 64.7 0.2 80 0 0 2 1 0 16 0 0
146 138 HAMMEL GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON INC., Minneapolis, Minn. A 64.7 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
147 151 THE BURKE GROUP, Rosemont, Ill.† E 64.2 0.0 48 2 0 5 8 0 23 0 0
148 140 THE RETEC GROUP, Concord, Mass.† ENV 64.1 0.0 2 0 0 0 6 0 2 90 0
149 154 HMC ARCHITECTS, Ontario, Calif.† A 64.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 177 HUITT-ZOLLARS INC., Dallas, Texas AE 62.9 0.0 55 0 0 10 6 0 30 0 0

62 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 62 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500

The Top 500 Design Firms

MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE)
RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE-
2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM.

151 166 CORGAN ASSOCIATES, Dallas, Texas A 62.4 0.3 44 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 12

152 187 THE LPA GROUP INC., Columbia, S.C. EAP 62.4 3.4 2 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0
153 115 HILLIER ARCHITECTURE, Princeton, N.J. A 62.3 4.3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
154 195 ATWELL-HICKS, Ann Arbor, Mich. E 62.3 0.0 84 0 0 0 1 5 0 9 0
155 146 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORP., Newport Beach, Calif. EA 62.0 0.0 3 0 0 38 33 0 14 0 0
156 155 JOHNSON, MIRMIRAN & THOMPSON, Sparks, Md.† E 61.9 0.0 1 0 0 1 5 0 94 0 0
157 308 ARQUITECTONICA, Miami, Fla. A 61.2 18.9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
158 180 FOTH & VAN DYKE, Green Bay, Wis.† E 60.3 0.0 0 70 0 0 5 0 3 0 0
159 170 TBE GROUP INC., Clearwater, Fla. E 59.4 0.3 2 0 0 0 6 0 75 4 0
160 196 WOOD RODGERS INC., Sacramento, Calif. E 59.4 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0
161 152 GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL INC., Norwood, Mass.† EC 59.4 0.2 8 0 8 3 5 11 11 54 0
162 190 TENG AFFILIATED COS., Chicago, Ill. EA 59.3 0.0 32 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 35
163 183 L. ROBERT KIMBALL & ASSOCIATES INC., Ebensburg, Pa. AE 58.8 0.0 38 2 0 2 1 0 21 6 20
164 139 PARAMETRIX, Sumner, Wash. EA 58.7 0.0 4 0 0 4 18 0 36 11 0
165 231 GULF INTERSTATE ENGINEERING CO., Houston, Texas† EA 58.5 18.2 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
166 150 WADE-TRIM GROUP, Detroit, Mich.† E 58.5 0.0 0 0 0 8 50 0 26 0 0
167 161 AFFILIATED ENGINEERS INC., Madison, Wis.† E 58.1 0.0 83 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 1
168 232 THOMPSON VENTULETT STAINBACK & ASSOCIATES, Atlanta, Ga.† A 56.9 17.4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 201 ENERCON SERVICES INC., Tulsa, Okla. EA 56.7 0.0 0 0 81 0 0 10 0 9 0
170 191 BURT HILL, Butler, Pa. AE 55.6 6.9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
171 184 JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES INC., Sacramento, Calif. ENV 54.9 0.0 13 0 5 22 0 0 23 0 0
172 174 WEIDLINGER ASSOCIATES, New York, N.Y.† E 54.6 3.6 86 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0
173 206 UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, Orlando, Fla. GE 54.4 0.0 60 0 0 2 2 2 22 11 1
174 247 BARR ENGINEERING CO., Minneapolis, Minn. E 53.8 0.6 0 10 18 2 2 19 1 26 0
175 228 PAPE-DAWSON ENGINEERS INC., San Antonio, Texas E 53.8 0.0 45 2 0 9 1 0 12 0 0
176 148 WILSON & CO., ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS, Albuquerque, N.M. EA 52.7 0.0 6 0 0 19 5 2 66 0 0
177 169 MCCORMICK TAYLOR, Philadelphia, Pa. E 52.5 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
178 157 BIBB AND ASSOCIATES INC., Lenexa, Kan. E 52.3 3.2 0 7 93 0 0 0 0 0 0
179 ** M+W ZANDER US OPERATIONS INC., Plano, Texas† EA 52.1 3.1 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
180 194 QORE PROPERTY SCIENCES, Duluth, Ga. GE 52.0 0.0 38 7 1 3 5 4 33 10 1
181 226 FLACK + KURTZ, New York, N.Y. E 51.5 4.5 93 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
182 179 G. C. WALLACE COS., Las Vegas, Nev.† E 51.3 0.0 8 0 0 7 1 0 7 0 0
183 173 BARGE WAGGONER SUMNER & CANNON INC., Nashville, Tenn. EA 51.0 0.1 33 14 0 3 6 1 20 5 0
184 222 CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS INC., Pittsburgh, Pa. E 51.0 0.0 19 7 2 0 25 43 0 4 0
185 213 MIDDOUGH CONSULTING, Cleveland, Ohio† EA 50.9 1.5 18 5 8 4 0 60 5 0 0
186 189 MARTIN ASSOCIATES GROUP INC., Los Angeles, Calif.† E 50.9 0.5 98 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
187 220 SMITH SECKMAN REID INC., Nashville, Tenn.† E 50.5 0.2 80 2 0 4 5 2 4 0 3
188 172 ELLERBE BECKET, Minneapolis, Minn.† AE 50.5 3.6 98 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
189 141 GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC, Chicago, Ill. E 50.2 0.0 0 0 0 22 78 0 0 0 0
190 181 EWINGCOLE, Philadelphia, Pa. AE 50.1 0.3 85 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
191 302 BRINDERSON, Westminster, Calif. EC 50.0 0.0 0 0 4 0 0 96 0 0 0
192 182 SASAKI ASSOCIATES INC., Watertown, Mass. A 50.0 7.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
193 234 OLSSON ASSOCIATES, Lincoln, Neb. E 50.0 0.0 57 0 2 12 4 0 14 2 0
194 198 HALFF ASSOCIATES INC., Dallas, Texas EA 49.9 0.0 7 1 0 28 25 0 26 7 0
195 223 WALTER P. MOORE, Houston, Texas E 49.1 0.6 86 0 0 2 0 0 12 0 0
196 216 WINK COS. LLC, Baton Rouge, La.† EA 49.0 0.0 7 0 10 0 2 77 3 0 0
197 210 AYRES ASSOCIATES, Eau Claire, Wis. EA 48.9 0.0 5 2 2 2 5 2 68 5 0
198 188 H.W. LOCHNER INC., Chicago, Ill.† E 48.9 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
199 185 WHITMAN REQUARDT AND ASSOCIATES LLP, Baltimore, Md. EA 48.8 0.0 19 0 0 17 19 1 40 0 0
200 193 MERRICK & CO., Aurora, Colo. EA 48.6 1.0 33 0 0 3 2 5 2 32 0

enr.com April 24, 2006 m ENR m 65

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 65 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM RIGHT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500

The Top 500 Design Firms

MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE)
RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE-
2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM.

201 204 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK & ASSOC., St. Paul, Minn.† EA 48.2 0.0 13 0 0 27 16 0 27 8 0
202 197 MULVANNYG2 ARCHITECTURE, Bellevue, Wash. A 47.9 6.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
203 249 SMALLWOOD REYNOLDS STEWART STEWART & ASSOC., Atlanta, Ga.† A 47.6 10.1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 167 FLAD & ASSOCIATES, Madison, Wis.† AE 47.5 2.1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
205 200 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC., Sacramento, Calif.† E 47.2 1.0 73 0 0 0 20 0 7 0 0
206 208 VANDERWEIL ENGINEERS, Boston, Mass.† E 47.0 0.9 79 0 11 0 0 5 0 0 5
207 235 EVANS MECHWART HAMBLETON & TILTON, Columbus, Ohio E 46.8 0.0 77 0 0 2 11 0 10 0 0
208 225 PAGESOUTHERLANDPAGE, Houston, Texas AE 46.7 8.7 97 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
209 233 CRB CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC., Kansas City, Mo. EA 46.6 5.5 1 2 0 0 0 96 0 0 0
210 217 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER INC., Waltham, Mass. E 46.5 0.7 78 2 1 3 1 4 9 0 2
211 202 BIRDSALL SERVICES GROUP INC., Sea Girt, N.J.† E 46.5 0.0 40 1 1 3 18 1 9 4 1
212 229 TLC ENGINEERING FOR ARCHITECTURE, Orlando, Fla. E 46.4 0.0 93 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0
213 276 PBK ARCHITECTS, Houston, Texas A 46.3 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
214 290 SCHENKELSHULTZ, Fort Wayne, Ind.† A 46.2 01.0 86 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0
215 212 GAI CONSULTANTS INC., Homestead, Pa. E 46.2 0.0 7 4 6 5 3 6 53 7 6
216 207 HANSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INC., Springfield, Ill.† EA 46.2 0.5 26 1 3 1 2 0 55 2 10
217 237 GEI CONSULTANTS INC., Winchester, Mass.† E 45.9 0.0 7 0 27 52 0 0 5 0 0
218 218 FREESE AND NICHOLS INC., Fort Worth, Texas EA 45.2 0.0 9 0 0 56 17 1 13 0 0
219 246 ALBERT-GARAUDY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Metairie, La. E 45.0 4.0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
220 199 C&S ENGINEERS INC., Syracuse, N.Y. EA 44.8 0.0 21 13 3 2 12 3 40 1 3
221 238 BSA LIFESTRUCTURES, Indianapolis, Ind.† AE 44.7 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 224 NTDSTICHLER ARCHITECTURE, San Diego, Calif. AE 44.4 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
223 203 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS, Chicago, Ill. EA 44.2 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
224 164 EA ENGINEERING SCIENCE AND TECH. INC., Hunt Valley, Md. ENV 43.8 0.0 0 0 6 2 21 1 8 55 0
225 253 NINYO & MOORE, San Diego, Calif. GE 43.5 1.0 18 2 3 14 11 1 18 17 1
226 261 PATRICK ENGINEERING INC., Lisle, Ill.† EA 43.1 0.0 7 0 56 1 5 0 27 0 1
227 296 T&M ASSOCIATES, Middletown, N.J.† E 43.0 1.0 19 0 0 6 18 13 39 5 0
228 284 BURY+PARTNERS-HOLDINGS INC., Austin, Texas† E 42.9 0.0 94 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0
229 221 BRAUN INTERTEC CORP., Minneapolis, Minn.† GE 42.8 0.5 57 1 4 4 11 5 15 2 2
230 227 SHEPLEY BULFINCH RICHARDSON AND ABBOTT, Boston, Mass. A 42.8 1.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
231 178 EINHORN YAFFEE PRESCOTT, Albany, N.Y. AE 42.7 4.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
232 239 STRAND ASSOCIATES INC., Madison, Wis. E 42.7 0.0 3 1 0 11 30 4 32 0 0
233 82 A. EPSTEIN AND SONS INTERNATIONAL INC., Chicago, Ill.† AE 42.0 4.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 175 KAPLAN MCLAUGHLIN DIAZ, San Francisco, Calif.† A 42.0 7.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
235 254 PERKOWITZ + RUTH ARCHITECTS, Long Beach, Calif.† A 42.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
236 186 CSA GROUP, San Juan, P.R. EA 41.6 0.6 16 0 4 49 0 3 24 0 3
237 260 DYER RIDDLE MILLS & PRECOURT INC., Orlando, Fla. E 41.4 0.0 0 0 0 1 1 0 40 0 0
238 168 HLW INTERNATIONAL LLP, New York, N.Y.† AE 41.3 3.9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
239 245 CRAWFORD, MURPHY & TILLY INC., Springfield, Ill. E 41.2 0.0 0 0 0 10 8 0 68 0 0
240 350 LS3P ASSOCIATES LTD., Charleston, S.C. A 41.1 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
241 ** CHONG PARTNERS ARCHITECTURE, San Francisco, Calif. A 40.9 0.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 321 PRO2SERVE PROFESSIONAL PROJ. SVCS., Oak Ridge, Tenn. AE 40.8 0.0 2 53 0 0 0 0 0 27 0
243 241 OTAK INC., Lake Oswego, Ore.† EA 40.7 0.9 2 0 0 0 13 0 35 0 0
244 205 MACKAY & SOMPS CIVIL ENGINEERS INC., Pleasanton, Calif. E 40.5 0.0 20 0 0 10 15 0 35 0 0
245 300 COOPER CARRY, Atlanta, Ga.† A 40.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
246 192 MAGUIRE GROUP INC., Foxborough, Mass. EAP 40.4 0.4 17 0 2 6 11 2 50 10 0
247 271 FUSS & O’NEILL INC., Manchester, Conn.† E 40.3 0.0 6 10 0 2 10 20 10 37 1
248 258 NEEL-SCHAFFER INC., Jackson, Miss.† EA 39.9 0.0 0 0 0 10 8 0 70 0 0
249 214 SHW GROUP LLP, Dallas, Texas† AE 39.9 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 211 FANNING/HOWEY ASSOCIATES INC., Celina, Ohio AE 39.7 0.0 96 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0

enr.com April 24, 2006 m ENR m 67

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 67 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM RIGHT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500

The Top 500 Design Firms

MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE)
RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE-
2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM.

251 248 GREENBERGFARROW, Atlanta, Ga. AE 39.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

252 262 JCJ ARCHITECTURE, Hartford, Conn.† A 39.2 0.2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
253 279 NTH CONSULTANTS LTD., Detroit, Mich. E 39.0 0.0 24 14 8 4 36 0 10 0 0
254 311 EYP MISSION CRITICAL FACILITIES, New York, N.Y. EA 39.0 7.0 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 74
255 438 OPUS GROUP, Minnetonka, Minn.† AE 39.0 0.2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
256 274 AMBITECH ENGINEERING CORP., Downers Grove, Ill. EA 38.9 0.0 0 6 0 0 0 83 0 0 0
257 298 MCKIM & CREED PA, Wilmington, N.C. E 38.6 0.0 18 2 9 11 25 0 15 0 0
258 289 PATE ENGINEERS INC., Houston, Texas E 38.5 0.0 0 0 0 7 17 0 22 0 0
259 294 BELT COLLINS, Honolulu, Hawaii L 38.4 26.3 86 0 2 3 3 0 5 2 0
260 252 BUCHART-HORN INC./BASCO ASSOCIATES, York, Pa.† EA 38.3 4.3 20 1 0 12 29 2 30 0 2
261 273 PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES, Chantilly, Va. E 38.1 0.0 45 0 4 16 9 1 10 1 6
262 256 FISHBECK THOMPSON CARR & HUBER, Grand Rapids, Mich. EA 38.1 0.0 35 0 0 10 11 8 21 14 0
263 243 DURRANT, Dubuque, Iowa† AE 38.0 4.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 267 SWANKE HAYDEN CONNELL ARCHITECTS, New York, N.Y.† A 38.0 18.8 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
265 250 BOSWELL ENGINEERING, South Hackensack, N.J.† E 37.9 0.0 0 0 0 2 9 0 87 1 1
266 265 ENSAFE INC., Memphis, Tenn.† ENV 37.9 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 21 0
267 160 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS, Monrovia, Calif.† GE 37.5 0.0 29 1 2 8 10 1 9 41 0
268 ** BBG-BBGM, New York, N.Y.† A 37.0 9.3 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
269 244 PGAL, Houston, Texas AE 37.0 0.0 57 0 0 0 1 0 43 0 0
270 292 MS CONSULTANTS INC., Columbus, Ohio EA 37.0 0.0 19 0 0 9 11 0 57 0 0
271 257 BROWN & GAY ENGINEERS INC., Houston, Texas E 36.9 0.0 0 0 0 17 35 0 48 0 0
272 281 TMAD TAYLOR & GAINES, Pasadena, Calif. E 36.7 0.2 85 0 1 2 1 0 9 0 2
273 314 LEIGHTON GROUP INC., Irvine, Calif.† GE 36.6 0.0 70 0 3 5 8 0 11 3 0
274 303 ELKUS MANFREDI ARCHITECTS, Boston, Mass. A 36.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
275 404 JMA ARCHITECTURE STUDIOS, Las Vegas, Nev. A 36.3 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
276 285 EDSA, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.† ALP 36.3 20.1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
277 269 FENTRESS BRADBURN ARCHITECTS, Denver, Colo. A 36.2 0.0 65 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0
278 266 MEAD & HUNT INC., Madison, Wis. EA 36.2 0.0 10 0 3 9 3 1 70 0 0
279 295 SHANNON & WILSON INC., Seattle, Wash. E 36.1 0.3 9 7 2 11 10 7 40 8 1
280 277 TAIT & ASSOCIATES INC., Santa Ana, Calif.† AE 36.1 0.0 52 10 0 5 5 11 5 10 2
281 358 WALDEMAR S. NELSON AND CO. INC., New Orleans, La. EA 36.1 15.8 2 0 5 1 1 78 6 4 0
282 293 SCHIRMER ENGINEERING CORP., Deerfield, Ill. E 36.1 0.8 76 9 0 0 0 4 4 1 6
283 263 LJA ENGINEERING & SURVEYING INC., Houston, Texas E 36.0 0.0 0 0 0 30 40 0 30 0 0
284 458 DAVIS BRODY BOND LLP, New York, N.Y. A 35.9 1.0 97 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
285 264 JONES, EDMUNDS & ASSOCIATES INC., Gainesville, Fla.† E 35.9 0.0 9 0 3 29 24 0 19 1 0
286 286 NADEL ARCHITECTS INC., Los Angeles, Calif. A 35.8 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
287 326 CLARK-NEXSEN PC, Norfolk, Va. AE 35.7 1.6 80 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 8
288 282 FROEHLING & ROBERTSON INC., Richmond, Va.† E 35.6 0.8 50 4 5 6 5 0 15 10 5
289 301 SCHNABEL ENGINEERING INC., Glen Allen, Va.† GE 35.6 1.0 55 0 0 20 1 0 14 8 0
290 324 BOWMAN CONSULTING, Chantilly, Va.† E 35.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
291 242 OWP/P, Chicago, Ill.† AE 35.5 0.2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
292 318 CPH ENGINEERS INC., Sanford, Fla. A 35.1 1.7 59 0 0 15 19 0 8 0 0
293 270 REMINGTON & VERNICK ENGINEERS INC., Haddonfield, N.J.† E 35.0 0.0 20 8 0 24 31 0 12 1 0
294 331 CUNINGHAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE PA, Minneapolis, Minn. A 35.0 1.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
295 342 RABA-KISTNER CONSULTANTS INC., San Antonio, Texas† E 35.0 1.0 43 0 0 3 3 0 43 9 0
296 341 ALBERT KAHN ASSOCIATES INC., Detroit, Mich.† AE 34.9 1.5 78 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
297 ** MANHARD CONSULTING LTD., Vernon Hills, Ill. E 34.9 0.0 93 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 0
298 343 SWCA INC., Phoenix, Ariz. ENV 34.9 0.0 4 0 6 14 0 17 9 0 3
299 307 TRO/THE RITCHIE ORGANIZATION, Newton, Mass. AE 34.8 0.9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300 299 GEOENGINEERS INC., Redmond, Wash. E 34.7 1.4 23 0 6 11 0 15 25 14 0

68 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 68 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500

The Top 500 Design Firms The Top 500 Design Firms
MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE) MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE)
RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE- RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE-
2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM. 2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM.

301 380 WARE MALCOMB, Irvine, Calif. A 34.7 0.0 92 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 351 ** ENGLAND-THIMS & MILLER INC., Jacksonville, Fla.† E 30.1 0.0 82 0 0 0 1 0 18 0 0
302 329 MCDONOUGH ASSOCIATES INC., Chicago, Ill. EA 34.6 0.0 3 0 0 9 5 0 80 0 0 352 387 BL COS. INC., Meriden, Conn.† EA 30.1 0.0 64 0 10 0 0 0 10 14 2
303 403 V3 COS. LTD., Woodridge, Ill.† E 34.5 0.0 39 1 0 2 1 0 26 3 0 353 287 URBITRAN GROUP, New York, N.Y.† EA 30.1 0.0 18 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 0
304 316 WESTON & SAMPSON ENGINEERS INC., Peabody, Mass.† E 34.3 0.0 0 0 0 29 55 0 6 6 0 354 431 MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES INC., Seattle, Wash. E 30.1 0.1 92 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0
305 327 GRAEF ANHALT SCHLOEMER & ASSOC. INC., Milwaukee, Wis. E 34.2 0.0 38 13 1 8 3 2 35 0 0 355 366 AKRF INC., New York, N.Y. ENV 30.0 0.0 38 0 13 2 5 2 23 17 0
306 251 HARDESTY & HANOVER LLP, New York, N.Y. E 34.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 356 397 CHIANG, PATEL & YERBY INC., Dallas, Texas† E 30.0 0.5 0 0 0 39 7 0 52 0 0
307 236 GOULD EVANS, Kansas City, Mo. A 34.1 0.0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 357 348 BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF CORP., Kansas City, Mo. EA 29.9 0.0 17 0 0 5 4 0 66 0 0
308 333 LOIEDERMAN SOLTESZ ASSOCIATES INC., Rockville, Md. E 34.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358 313 HOWARD R. GREEN CO., Cedar Rapids, Iowa EA 29.8 0.0 12 0 0 37 7 0 38 0 0
309 439 WDG ARCHITECTURE, Washington, D.C.† A 33.8 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 359 393 HALL & FOREMAN INC., Irvine, Calif. E 29.7 0.0 90 0 0 2 2 0 6 0 0
310 280 NILES BOLTON ASSOCIATES INC., Atlanta, Ga.† A 33.4 1.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 378 CTA ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS, Billings, Mont. AE 29.6 0.3 97 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0
311 305 BOLTON & MENK INC., Mankato, Minn. E 33.3 0.0 0 0 0 20 14 0 29 0 0 361 335 SOLOMON CORDWELL BUENZ, Chicago, Ill. A 29.5 0.1 97 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
312 268 ERDMAN, ANTHONY AND ASSOCIATES INC., Rochester, N.Y. E 33.2 0.0 14 1 0 1 1 7 74 0 2 362 368 HUBBELL, ROTH & CLARK INC., Bloomfield Hills, Mich. E 29.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 70 0 20 5 0
313 332 HARRIS GROUP INC., Seattle, Wash. EA 33.0 1.0 0 19 16 0 5 54 2 0 0 363 464 PEI COBB FREED & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS, New York, N.Y.† A 29.1 7.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
314 382 SEBESTA BLOMBERG, Roseville, Minn. E 32.9 0.5 58 36 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 364 376 KEITH AND SCHNARS PA, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. E 29.0 0.0 17 0 0 0 17 0 48 0 0
315 408 TKDA, St. Paul, Minn. EA 32.8 0.0 15 0 0 0 6 0 58 0 0 365 330 DAVIS & FLOYD INC., Greenwood, S.C. EA 29.0 0.0 9 1 0 2 13 2 56 5 0
316 353 GEOCON, San Diego, Calif.† GE 32.8 0.0 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 366 346 KISINGER CAMPO & ASSOCIATES CORP., Tampa, Fla.† E 28.8 0.2 0 0 0 1 1 0 34 0 0
317 283 THE RJA GROUP INC., Chicago, Ill.† E 32.8 0.7 86 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 1 367 ** QUAD KNOPF INC., Visalia, Calif. EAP 28.8 0.0 18 0 0 7 3 4 7 0 0
318 297 DUFRESNE-HENRY INC., N. Springfield, Vt. E 32.7 0.0 6 0 1 20 25 0 34 0 0 368 339 WALLACE ROBERTS & TODD LLC, Philadelphia, Pa. A 28.7 0.5 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
319 383 M-E ENGINEERS INC., Wheat Ridge, Colo.† E 32.6 5.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 369 272 RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS PC, New York, N.Y. A 28.6 7.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
320 367 URBAN ENGINEERS INC., Philadelphia, Pa.† E 32.4 0.0 8 0 0 0 0 5 85 2 0 370 317 PROJECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS, San Diego, Calif. E 28.5 0.0 74 0 6 3 3 0 10 0 1
321 304 ORBITAL ENGINEERING INC., Pittsburgh, Pa. E 32.3 0.0 2 3 13 0 0 77 2 0 0 371 433 BRPH COS. INC., Melbourne, Fla.† AE 28.5 0.0 93 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
322 322 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Eureka, Calif. E 32.2 2.0 29 0 3 2 27 1 7 27 0 372 ** CO ARCHITECTS, Los Angeles, Calif. A 28.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
323 328 TIMMONS GROUP, Richmond, Va. E 32.2 0.0 75 0 0 3 2 0 4 0 2 373 319 EI ASSOCIATES, Cedar Knolls, N.J. AE 28.5 0.0 70 11 0 0 0 18 0 0 2
324 349 ULTEIG ENGINEERS INC., Fargo, N.D. E 32.2 0.0 16 0 31 5 7 0 25 0 5 374 354 MARK THOMAS & CO. INC., San Jose, Calif. E 28.3 0.0 4 0 0 4 7 0 86 0 0
325 384 BERMELLO AJAMIL AND PARTNERS INC., Miami, Fla. AE 32.0 3.2 54 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 375 360 BALLINGER, Philadelphia, Pa. AE 28.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
326 396 WHR ARCHITECTS INC., Houston, Texas† A 32.0 0.0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 376 320 FARNSWORTH GROUP INC., Bloomington, Ill. EA 28.0 0.0 66 0 0 10 10 5 9 0 0
327 325 MBH ARCHITECTS, Alameda, Calif. A 31.7 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 377 427 RBB ARCHITECTS INC., Los Angeles, Calif. A 27.9 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
328 309 KARLSBERGER COS., Columbus, Ohio† A 31.7 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 378 344 MORRIS ARCHITECTS, Houston, Texas A 27.7 0.4 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
329 372 MORRISON-MAIERLE INC., Helena, Mont.† E 31.7 0.0 30 0 0 20 5 0 28 0 0 379 356 BARTLETT AND WEST ENGINEERS INC., Topeka, Kan. E 27.7 0.0 5 0 0 35 11 0 50 0 0
330 315 MASER CONSULTING PA, Red Bank, N.J. E 31.5 0.0 61 0 0 3 6 0 15 5 0 380 437 R.W. ARMSTRONG & ASSOCIATES INC., Indianapolis, Ind. E 27.6 5.3 19 0 0 0 9 0 71 0 0
331 275 VOA ASSOCIATES INC., Chicago, Ill. ALP 31.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 381 365 BOHANNAN HUSTON INC., Albuquerque, N.M. E 27.5 0.0 24 0 1 17 3 0 23 0 0
332 370 BERGMANN ASSOCIATES INC., Rochester, N.Y. EA 31.5 0.0 33 12 0 0 2 0 53 1 0 382 310 HPA INC., New York, N.Y. E 27.4 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
333 373 THE SCHNEIDER CORP., Indianapolis, Ind. EA 31.3 0.0 12 0 0 0 16 0 6 0 0 383 359 POGGEMEYER DESIGN GROUP INC., Bowling Green, Ohio† EAP 27.3 0.0 16 2 1 14 14 5 31 0 0
334 291 FAY SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE, Burlington, Mass. E 31.3 0.0 15 0 0 19 26 0 41 0 0 384 401 J-U-B ENGINEERS INC., Boise, Idaho E 27.2 0.0 6 0 0 26 26 0 35 0 0
335 338 BEYER BLINDER BELLE ARCHITECTS & PLNRS., New York, N.Y. A 31.3 0.1 91 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 385 441 KKE ARCHITECTS INC., Minneapolis, Minn. A 27.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
336 ** GLOBAL PERFORMANCE, Greenville, S.C.† EC 31.2 0.0 0 3 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 386 453 LOONEY RICKS KISS ARCHITECTS INC., Memphis, Tenn. A 27.1 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
337 337 AMERICAN CONSULTING INC., Indianapolis, Ind. EA 31.2 0.0 23 7 0 5 14 0 51 0 1 387 371 EARTH SYSTEMS INC., San Luis Obispo, Calif.† GE 27.1 0.0 74 3 1 2 2 0 8 8 1
338 ** CLARK GROUP, Bethesda, Md.† EC 31.0 0.0 87 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 388 364 HERBERT ROWLAND & GRUBIC INC., Harrisburg, Pa. E 27.0 0.0 40 0 0 15 15 0 30 0 0
339 259 R.D. ZANDE & ASSOCIATES INC., Columbus, Ohio† E 31.0 0.0 0 0 0 1 20 0 17 0 0 389 357 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DESIGN INC., Chicago, Ill. E 26.9 0.2 98 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
340 340 BKF ENGINEERS, Redwood City, Calif. E 30.8 0.0 71 0 0 0 5 2 22 0 0 390 391 PAYETTE, Boston, Mass. A 26.9 1.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
341 414 RNL, Denver, Colo.† AE 30.8 5.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 391 411 CEI ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC., Bentonville, Ark. E 26.8 0.0 93 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0
342 255 ALFRED BENESCH & CO., Chicago, Ill. E 30.8 0.0 0 0 0 2 2 0 97 0 0 392 410 THE S/L/A/M COLLABORATIVE INC., Glastonbury, Conn.† AE 26.8 0.6 93 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
343 323 APEX ENVIRONMENTAL INC., Rockville, Md. ENV 30.8 0.0 20 0 0 20 5 15 20 20 0 393 451 HULL & ASSOCIATES INC., Dublin, Ohio E 26.7 0.0 0 0 1 0 9 14 0 38 0
344 362 KJWW ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, Rock Island, Ill. E 30.8 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 394 352 BERGER/ABAM ENGINEERS INC., Federal Way, Wash.† E 26.7 2.4 11 1 0 1 0 6 80 0 0
345 278 O’NEAL INC., Greenville, S.C.† EC 30.6 0.0 5 26 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 395 423 MARSHALL MILLER & ASSOCIATES INC., Bluefield, Va. E 26.6 0.7 1 8 4 0 6 24 0 14 0
346 355 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC., Plymouth, Minn. E 30.6 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 396 351 BAXTER & WOODMAN INC., Crystal Lake, Ill.† E 26.4 0.0 0 0 0 11 23 0 24 1 4
347 306 GEORGE BUTLER ASSOCIATES INC., Lenexa, Kan. EA 30.5 0.0 22 2 1 1 16 11 30 2 6 397 413 ASTORINO, Pittsburgh, Pa. AE 26.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
348 209 POLSHEK PARTNERSHIP ARCHITECTS LLP, New York, N.Y. A 30.4 0.2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 398 361 DELON HAMPTON & ASSOC., Washington, D.C. E 26.0 0.0 22 0 0 7 20 0 50 0 0
349 312 THE RBA GROUP, Morristown, N.J. EA 30.4 0.0 26 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 399 345 ODELL ASSOCIATES INC., Charlotte, N.C.† AE 26.0 0.3 96 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
350 420 KADRMAS, LEE & JACKSON INC., Bismarck, N.D.† E 30.2 0.0 0 0 0 5 9 0 53 2 11 400 386 TAYLOR WISEMAN & TAYLOR, Mt. Laurel, N.J. E 25.8 0.0 10 1 0 0 0 14 19 0 0

70 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com enr.com April 24, 2006 m ENR m 71

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 70 / Version: #3 ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 71 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95 Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM RIGHT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500

The Top 500 Design Firms

MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE)
RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE-
2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM.

401 461 KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES INC., Clovis, Calif.† E 25.8 0.0 77 4 1 1 1 2 6 8 1
402 381 SHIVE-HATTERY INC., Cedar Rapids, Iowa EA 25.8 0.0 64 0 0 1 1 6 11 1 5
403 394 SOIL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS INC., Plymouth, Mich. E 25.7 0.5 49 3 3 3 5 4 17 15 0
404 415 RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR & ASSOCIATES, Pleasanton, Calif. E 25.6 0.0 95 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
405 375 CTL/THOMPSON INC., Denver, Colo.† GE 25.5 0.1 88 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0
406 374 ON-BOARD ENGINEERING CORP., East Windsor, N.J.† EC 25.5 0.0 14 0 3 0 0 69 14 0 0
407 429 RDG PLANNING & DESIGN, Des Moines, Iowa† AP 25.5 0.0 84 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
408 406 CENTURY ENGINEERING INC., Towson, Md. E 25.4 0.0 33 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0
409 399 WIGHT & CO., Darien, Ill. AE 25.4 0.0 79 0 0 0 0 0 11 2 8
410 ** CUBELLIS ASSOCIATES INC., Boston, Mass.† AE 25.4 0.6 99 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
411 412 PARKHILL SMITH & COOPER INC., Lubbock, Texas EA 25.1 0.0 41 0 0 23 13 0 19 0 0
412 395 TIGHE & BOND INC., Westfield, Mass. E 25.0 0.0 0 0 0 28 41 0 10 21 0
413 ** FXFOWLE ARCHITECTS PC, New York, N.Y. A 25.0 0.0 96 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
414 388 MCG ARCHITECTURE, Pasadena, Calif. A 25.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
415 419 TSOI/KOBUS & ASSOCIATES INC., Cambridge, Mass. A 25.0 0.0 26 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0
416 405 CHAS. H. SELLS INC., Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. E 24.9 0.0 18 0 0 1 7 0 73 0 0
417 407 GRW ENGINEERS INC., Lexington, Ky.† EA 24.8 0.0 5 3 0 31 45 0 16 0 0
418 400 H2M GRP./HOLZMACHER MCLENDON & MURRELL, Melville, N.Y.† EA 24.8 0.0 22 0 0 27 9 0 9 33 0
419 363 C.H. GUERNSEY & CO., Oklahoma City, Okla. EA 24.5 0.0 47 0 45 1 1 3 2 0 0
420 392 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS PA, Wichita, Kan. E 24.5 0.0 31 12 0 7 10 0 23 0 0
421 ** LORD, AECK & SARGENT, Atlanta, Ga. A 24.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
422 398 MCMAHON GROUP, Neenah, Wis.† AE 24.1 0.0 25 0 1 25 22 17 9 2 0
423 ** NORTHWEST ARCHITECTURAL CO. PS, Seattle, Wash.† AE 24.1 0.0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424 ** NODARSE & ASSOCIATES INC., Winter Park, Fla. GE 24.0 0.0 44 0 0 12 6 0 36 0 2
425 377 DANNENBAUM ENGINEERING CORP., Houston, Texas E 24.0 0.0 0 0 0 11 24 0 31 0 0
426 481 SMITH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC., McHenry, Ill. E 23.9 0.0 38 0 0 12 13 0 38 0 0
427 417 HIGHLAND ASSOC. LTD. ARCH. ENG’G INTR. DES., Clarks Summit, Pa. AE 23.8 0.0 97 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
428 409 HAKS ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS PC, New York, N.Y. E 23.7 0.0 9 0 0 3 2 0 84 0 0
429 418 DOWL ENGINEERS, Anchorage, Alaska E 23.6 0.0 42 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0
430 385 TECTONIC ENG’G & SURVEYING CONSULTANTS, Mountainville, N.Y. E 23.6 0.0 28 0 4 11 2 0 32 0 23
431 445 MUESER RUTLEDGE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, New York, N.Y. GE 23.6 0.5 29 5 0 4 7 2 29 0 0
432 479 GEOTEK INC., Las Vegas, Nev. GE 23.5 0.0 75 0 2 0 2 0 5 15 1
433 379 DEKKER/PERICH/SABATINI LTD., Albuquerque, N.M.† A 23.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
434 428 STEARNS & WHELER LLC, Cazenovia, N.Y.† E 23.5 0.0 0 0 0 6 82 4 0 0 0
435 369 H+L ARCHITECTURE, Denver, Colo. A 23.3 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 460 STUDIOS ARCHITECTURE, San Francisco, Calif. A 23.3 2.7 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
437 435 BSW INTERNATIONAL INC., Tulsa, Okla. AE 23.3 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
438 449 FKP ARCHITECTS INC., Houston, Texas† A 23.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
439 465 GPD GROUP, Akron, Ohio AE 23.0 0.0 35 0 10 0 0 0 26 0 25
440 496 FAGEN INC., Granite Falls, Minn. EC 23.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
441 ** VITETTA ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS, Philadelphia, Pa. AE 23.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
442 499 W.H. LINDER & ASSOCIATES INC., Metairie, La. E 22.8 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0
443 440 SMMA/SYMMES MAINI & MCKEE ASSOCS., Cambridge, Mass. AE 22.7 0.0 99 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
444 477 BOWYER SINGLETON & ASSOCIATES INC., Orlando, Fla. E 22.5 0.0 10 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0
445 ** THE MANNIK & SMITH GROUP INC., Maumee, Ohio GE 22.5 0.0 31 0 0 7 4 0 53 4 0
446 497 GLATTING JACKSON KERCHER ANGLIN LOPEZ RINEHART, Orlando, Fla. PL 22.3 0.6 78 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0
447 ** QK4, Louisville, Ky. EA 22.3 0.0 1 0 0 0 7 0 91 0 0
448 454 KIRKHAM MICHAEL, Omaha, Neb. E 22.2 0.0 8 0 0 3 8 0 58 0 0
449 ** CARRIER JOHNSON, San Diego, Calif. A 22.0 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
450 422 USKH INC., Anchorage, Alaska AE 21.9 0.0 53 0 0 3 6 0 38 0 0

72 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 72 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500

The Top 500 Design Firms

MARKETS (% OF 2005 REVENUE)
RANK TYPE OF 2005 REVENUE GEN. WATER SEWER/ INDUS./ HAZ. TELE-
2006 2005 FIRM FIRM TOTAL INTERNATIONAL BLDG. MFG. POWER SUPPLY WASTE PETRO. TRANSP. WASTE COMM.

451 416 EPPSTEIN UHEN ARCHITECTS INC., Milwaukee, Wis. A 21.8 0.0 99 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
452 474 FEHR & PEERS, Walnut Creek, Calif. E 21.7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
453 450 THE HASKELL CO., Jacksonville, Fla. EC 21.7 0.2 33 22 0 7 5 24 10 0 0
454 459 DEGENKOLB ENGINEERS, San Francisco, Calif. E 21.7 0.5 94 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
455 456 CASCO DIVERSIFIED, St. Louis, Mo.† AE 21.6 0.5 99 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
456 ** BHDP ARCHITECTURE, Cincinnati, Ohio A 21.5 0.0 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
457 ** H.F. LENZ CO., Johnstown, Pa. E 21.3 0.0 71 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 24
458 491 DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES INC., Blacksburg, Va. E 21.2 0.0 3 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 1
459 ** GRG INC., Maitland, Fla. E 21.2 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
460 ** THE CHAZEN COS., Poughkeepsie, N.Y.† E 21.1 0.0 54 2 3 14 10 4 6 6 3
461 483 FRCH DESIGN WORLDWIDE, Cincinnati, Ohio AO 21.1 1.9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
462 390 MODJESKI AND MASTERS INC., Harrisburg, Pa. E 20.9 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
463 488 LANGDON WILSON ARCH. PLNG. INT’RS, Los Angeles, Calif. A 20.9 6.1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
464 334 MARNELL CORRAO ASSOC., Las Vegas, Nev.† A 20.8 0.2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
465 447 TMP ASSOCIATES INC., Bloomfield Hills, Mich. AE 20.8 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
466 442 AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Lexington, Ky.† E 20.8 0.0 0 0 0 2 0 0 98 0 0
467 480 H.C. NUTTING CO., Cincinnati, Ohio E 20.7 0.1 47 14 4 6 1 8 19 1 0
468 389 STEFFIAN BRADLEY ARCHITECTS, Boston, Mass.† A 20.6 4.5 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
469 484 GARVER ENGINEERS, Little Rock, Ark. E 20.6 0.0 8 0 1 12 15 3 58 0 0
470 ** C.H. FENSTERMAKER & ASSOCIATES INC., Lafayette, La. ENV 20.6 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0
471 495 R.A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES INC., Brookfield, Wis.† E 20.6 0.0 85 0 0 2 1 0 12 0 0
472 432 FRU-CON ENGINEERING INC., Ballwin, Mo. EA 20.4 0.0 3 2 12 0 4 79 0 0 0
473 467 URBAHN ARCHITECTS, New York, N.Y. A 20.2 0.2 77 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0
474 ** COFFMAN ENGINEERS INC., Seattle, Wash.† E 20.2 0.2 73 2 3 1 0 12 2 0 5
475 436 FLETCHER-THOMPSON, Shelton, Conn.† AE 20.1 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
476 ** CRITERIUM ENGINEERS, Portland, Maine E 20.1 0.1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
477 498 HOLE MONTES INC., Naples, Fla. E 20.0 0.0 0 0 0 3 6 0 41 0 0
478 471 ORCHARD, HILTZ & MCCLIMENT INC., Livonia, Mich.† E 20.0 0.0 21 0 0 21 21 0 36 0 0
479 ** SPARLING, Seattle, Wash. E 20.0 0.0 92 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 5
480 ** HUSSEY, GAY, BELL & DE YOUNG - A BELL CO., Savannah, Ga.† EA 19.9 0.7 14 5 0 13 20 0 18 4 0
481 426 LICHTENSTEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Paramus, N.J. E 19.9 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
482 493 TRIAD ENGINEERING INC., St. Albans, W.Va. E 19.8 0.0 33 10 0 5 5 15 32 0 0
483 ** MATRIX DESIGN GROUP INC., Colorado Springs, Colo.† E 19.8 0.0 3 0 0 20 18 0 26 8 1
484 ** SAI CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC., Pittsburgh, Pa. E 19.7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0
485 ** RETTEW ASSOCIATES INC., Lancaster, Pa.† E 19.6 0.0 66 8 0 3 6 0 12 0 5
486 ** THE LAWRENCE GROUP, St. Louis, Mo.† A 19.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
487 ** CLC ASSOCIATES, Greenwood Village, Colo. EA 19.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
488 473 WESTLAKE REED LESKOSKY, Cleveland, Ohio† AE 19.5 0.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
489 ** C&I ENGINEERING, Louisville, Ky. E 19.5 0.0 0 0 3 0 0 97 0 0 0
490 430 MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS, Raleigh, N.C. E 19.4 0.0 1 0 0 4 0 0 93 0 0
491 462 WHITNEY BAILEY COX & MAGNANI LLC, Baltimore, Md. EA 19.4 0.0 45 16 0 1 2 0 35 0 0
492 455 B.P. BARBER & ASSOCIATES INC., Columbia, S.C. E 19.4 0.0 0 0 0 26 42 0 2 0 0
493 ** W.K. DICKSON & CO. INC., Charlotte, N.C. E 19.3 0.0 13 0 0 10 9 0 22 0 3
494 448 LJB INC., Dayton, Ohio† EA 19.3 0.0 35 20 0 9 0 0 35 0 0
495 446 BRYAN A. STIRRAT & ASSOCIATES, Diamond Bar, Calif.† ENV 19.2 0.0 7 0 0 0 71 0 13 8 0
496 ** CMA ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS LLP, Guaynabo, P.R. EA 19.2 19.2 35 9 3 3 2 15 24 0 0
497 ** TRC WORLD ENGINEERING INC., Brentwood, Tenn.† E 19.1 0.0 92 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0
498 ** MOODY NOLAN INC., Columbus, Ohio AE 19.0 0.0 95 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
499 468 SEGA INC., Stilwell, Kan. EC 19.0 0.0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
500 476 DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS, North Haven, Conn. E 18.9 1.4 59 0 0 3 7 0 12 5 6

74 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 74 / Version: #3
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500 Directory

Where To Find the Top 500 Where To Find the Top 500
FIRM RANK FIRM RANK FIRM RANK FIRM RANK FIRM RANK FIRM RANK FIRM RANK FIRM RANK

A Boyle Engineering Corp. 155 D C.H. Fenstermaker & Associates Halff Associates Inc. 194 Kling 127 MulvannyG2 Architecture 202 Q
Braun Intertec Corp. 229 Inc. 470 Hall & Foreman Inc. 359 Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC 106 Mustang Engineering 34
ABB Lummus Global 21 Leo A Daly 65 Qk4 447
BBG-BBGM 268 Fentress Bradburn Architects 277 Hammel Green and Abrahamson KPFF Consulting Engineers 135 MWH 12
AECOM Technology Corp. 2 Dannenbaum Engineering Corp. 425 QORE Property Sciences 180
Brinderson 191 Fishbeck Thompson Carr & Inc. 146 Krazan & Associates Inc. 401
AEPCO Inc. 141 Davis & Floyd Inc. 365 Quad Knopf Inc. 367
Brown and Caldwell 48 Huber 262 Delon Hampton & Assoc. 398 N
Affiliated Engineers Inc. 167 Davis Brody Bond LLP 284
Brown & Gay Engineers Inc. 271 FKP Architects Inc. 438 HPA Inc. 382 L Nadel Architects Inc. 286 R
Aker Kvaerner 36 Day & Zimmermann Group 111
BRPH Cos. Inc. 371 Flack + Kurtz 181 Hanson Professional Services Inc. 216 Langan Engineering and Environmental Neel-Schaffer Inc. 248 Raba-Kistner Consultants Inc. 295
Albert-Garaudy Consulting Degenkolb Engineers 454
BSA LifeStructures 221 Flad & Associates 204 Hardesty & Hanover LLP 306 Services 90 Waldemar S. Nelson and Co. Inc. 281 The RBA Group 349
Engineers 219 Dekker/Perich/Sabatini Ltd. 433
BSW International Inc. 437 Fletcher-Thompson 475 Harley Ellis Devereaux 144 Langdon Wilson Arch. Plng. Int’rs 463 Niles Bolton Associates Inc. 310 RBB Architects Inc. 377
AKRF Inc. 355 Delta Environmental Consultants
Buchart-Horn Inc./BASCO Fluor Corp. 4 Harris Group Inc. 313 The Lawrence Group 486 Ninyo & Moore 225 RBF Consulting 70
Ambitech Engineering Corp. 256 Inc. 79
Associates 260 Foster Wheeler Ltd. 18 The Haskell Co. 453 Leighton Group Inc. 273 Nodarse & Associates Inc. 424 RDG Planning & Design 407
AMEC Americas 11 Dewberry 49
Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corp. 357 Foth & Van Dyke 158 Hatch Mott MacDonald 69 H.F. Lenz Co. 457 Nolte Associates Inc. 205 Remington & Vernick Engineers Inc. 293
American Consulting Engineers 466 W.K. Dickson & Co. Inc. 493
Burgess & Niple Inc. 115 FxFowle Architects PC 413 Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern LFR Inc. 117 Northwest Architectural Co. PS 423 The RETEC Group 148
American Consulting Inc. 337 Diversified Technology
The Burke Group 147 FRCH Design Worldwide 461 Inc. 114 Lichtenstein Consulting Engineers 481 NTDSTICHLER Architecture 222 Rettew Associates Inc. 485
Apex Environmental Inc. 343 Consultants 500
Burns & McDonnell 35 Freese and Nichols Inc. 218 Hazen and Sawyer PC 81 T.Y. Lin International 83 NTH Consultants Ltd. 253 Reynolds, Smith and Hills Inc. 93
ARCADIS 20 DLR Group 131
Burns and Roe 61 Froehling & Robertson Inc. 288 HDR 17 W. H. Linder & Associates Inc. 442 H.C. Nutting Co. 467 The RJA Group Inc. 317
R.W. Armstrong & Associates Inc. 380 DLZ Corp. 104
Burt Hill 170 Fru-Con Engineering Inc. 472 Heery International Inc. 74 LJA Engineering & Surveying Inc. 283 RMT Inc. 99
Arquitectonica 157 DOWL Engineers 429
Bury+Partners-Holdings Inc. 228 Fugro Inc. 42 Herbert Rowland & Grubic Inc. 388 LJB Inc. 494 O RNL 341
Arup 80 Draper Aden Associates Inc. 458
George Butler Associates Inc. 347 Fuss & O’Neill Inc. 247 Hussey, Gay, Bell & De Young - A H.W. Lochner Inc. 198 RTKL Associates Inc. 63
ASCG Inc. 97 Dufresne-Henry Inc. 318 O’Brien & Gere 110
Bell Co. 480 Loiederman Soltesz Associates Inc. 308 Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates 404
Astorino 397 Durrant 263 Odell Associates Inc. 399
C G Highland Associates Ltd. Architecture Looney Ricks Kiss Architects Inc. 386
ATC Group Services Inc. 60 Dyer Riddle Mills & Precourt Inc. 237 Olsson Associates 193 Rummel Klepper & Kahl LLP 113
C&I Engineering 489 GAI Consultants Inc. 215 Engineering Interior Design 427 Lord, Aeck & Sargent 421
Atwell-Hicks 154 On-Board Engineering Corp. 406
C&S Engineers Inc. 220 E Gannett Fleming 46 Hillier Architecture 153 The LPA Group Inc. 152 S
Austin Industries 52 O’Neal Inc. 345
Callison 82 Garver Engineers 469 HKS Inc. 53 LS3P Associates Ltd. 240
Ayres Associates 197 EA Engineering Science and Opus Group 255 S&B Holdings Ltd. and Affiliates 55
Cannon Design 87 GEI Consultants Inc. 217 HLW International LLP 238
Tech. Inc. 224 Orbital Engineering Inc. 321 S&ME Inc. 124
B Carollo Engineers PC 77 General Physics Corp. 64 HMC Architects 149 M
Earth Systems Inc. 387 Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment Inc. 478 The S/L/A/M Collaborative Inc. 392
Michael Baker Corp. 37 Carrier Johnson 449 Gensler 27 HNTB Cos. 25
Earth Tech Inc. 13 M+W Zander US Operations Inc. 179 Otak Inc. 243 SAI Consulting Engineers Inc. 484
Ballinger 375 Carter & Burgess Inc. 31 Geocon 316 HOK 28
Ecology & Environment Inc. 101 MacKay & Somps Civil Engineers OWP/P 291 Sargent & Lundy LLC 41
B.P. Barber & Associates Inc. 492 CASCO Diversified 455 GeoEngineers Inc. 300 Hole Montes Inc. 477
ECS 95 Inc. 244 Sasaki Associates Inc. 192
Barge Waggoner Sumner & CDI Business Solutions 19 Geomatrix Consultants Inc. 116 Hubbell, Roth & Clark Inc. 362
EDAW 67 MACTEC Inc. 29 P SchenkelShultz 214
Cannon Inc. 183 CDM 23 GeoSyntec Consultants 92 Huitt-Zollars Inc. 150
EDSA 276 Magnusson Klemencic Associates PageSoutherlandPage 208 Schirmer Engineering Corp. 282
Barr Engineering Co. 174 CEI Engineering Associates Inc. 391 GeoTek Inc. 432 Hull & Associates Inc. 393
Edwards and Kelcey Inc. 71 Inc. 354 Schnabel Engineering Inc. 289
Ghafari Associates LLC 107 Pape-Dawson Engineers Inc. 175
Bartlett and West Engineers Inc. 379 Century Engineering Inc. 408 EI Associates 373 Maguire Group Inc. 246 The Schneider Corp. 333
Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin J Parametrix 164
Baxter & Woodman Inc. 396 CH2M HILL Cos. 5 Einhorn Yaffee Prescott 231 Malcolm Pirnie Inc. 39 Schoor DePalma Inc. 88
Lopez Rinehart 446 Parkhill Smith & Cooper Inc. 411
BE&K Inc. 47 The Chazen Cos. 460 Elkus Manfredi Architects 274 Jacobs 3 Manhard Consulting Ltd. 297 SCS Engineers 120
Global Performance 336 Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc. 10
Bechtel 7 Chiang, Patel & Yerby Inc. 356 Ellerbe Becket 188 JCJ Architecture 252 The Mannik & Smith Group Inc. 445 Sebesta Blomberg 314
Golder Associates Inc. 75 Parsons 9
R.W. Beck Inc. 130 Chong Partners Architecture 241 Enercon Services Inc. 169 JMA Architecture Studios 275 Marnell Corrao Assoc. 464 Sega Inc. 499
Gould Evans 307 Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson 156 Pate Engineers Inc. 258
Belt Collins 259 Civil & Environmental Consultants England-Thims & Miller Inc. 351 Martin Associates Group Inc. 186 Chas. H. Sells Inc. 416
GPD Group 439 Jones & Stokes Associates Inc. 171 Patrick Engineering Inc. 226
Alfred Benesch & Co. 342 Inc. 184 ENGlobal Corp. 45 Maser Consulting PA 330 Shannon & Wilson Inc. 279
Graef Anhalt Schloemer & Jones, Edmunds & Associates Inc. 285 Patton Harris Rust & Associates 261
The Benham Cos. LLC 89 Clark Group 338 EnSafe Inc. 266 Matrix Design Group Inc. 483 The Shaw Group Inc. 16
Assoc. Inc. 305 Jordan, Jones & Goulding 128 Paulus, Sokolowski & Sartor LLC 119
The Louis Berger Group 14 Clark-Nexsen PC 287 ENVIRON 66 MBH Architects 327 Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and
Granite Construction Inc. 138 J-U-B Engineers Inc. 384 Payette 390
BERGER/ABAM Engineers Inc. 394 CLC Associates 487 Environmental Systems Design McCormick Taylor 177 Abbott 230
Greeley and Hansen LLC 189 PBK Architects 213
Bergmann Associates Inc. 332 Clough Harbour & Associates LLP 105 Inc. 389 McDonough Associates Inc. 302 Shive-Hattery Inc. 402
Howard R. Green Co. 358 K PBS&J 22
Bermello Ajamil and Partners Inc. 325 CMA Architects & Engineers LLP 496 Eppstein Uhen Architects Inc. 451 MCG Architecture 414 Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. 108
CO Architects 372 GreenbergFarrow 251 Pei Cobb Freed & Partners
Bureau Veritas 40 A. Epstein and Sons International Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Inc. 350 McKim & Creed PA 257 SHW Group LLP 249
Coffman Engineers Inc. 474 Greenhorne & O’Mara 126 Architects 363
Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Inc. 233 Albert Kahn Associates Inc. 296 McMahon Group 422 Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. 210
Planners 335 Converse Consultants 267 Greenman-Pedersen Inc. 96 Pennoni Associates Inc. 137
Erdman, Anthony and Associates Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz 234 M-E Engineers Inc. 319 Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP 51
BHDP Architecture 456 Cooper Carry 245 Gresham, Smith and Partners 103 Perkins+Will 62
Inc. 312 Karlsberger Cos. 328 Mead & Hunt Inc. 278 Smallwood Reynolds Stewart
Bibb and Associates Inc. 178 Corgan Associates 151 GRG Inc. 459 Perkins Eastman 102
ERM Holdings Ltd. 24 KBR 6 Merrick & Co. 200 Stewart & Assoc. 203
Birdsall Services Group Inc. 211 Corrpro Cos. Inc. 86 GRW Engineers Inc. 417 Perkowitz + Ruth Architects 235
David Evans and Associates Inc. 78 KCI Technologies Inc. 85 Middough Consulting 185 Smith Engineering Consultants Inc. 426
BKF Engineers 340 CPH Engineers Inc. 292 C. H. Guernsey & Co. 419 PGAL 269
Evans Mechwart Hambleton & Keith and Schnars PA 364 Marshall Miller & Associates Inc. 395 Smith Seckman Reid Inc. 187
BL Cos. Inc. 352 Conestoga-Rovers & Assoc. 59 Gulf Interstate Engineering Co. 165 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 121 Modjeski and Masters Inc. 462 Poggemeyer Design Group Inc. 383
Tilton 207 R.A. Smith & Associates Inc. 471
Black & Veatch 15 Crawford, Murphy & Tilly Inc. 239 EwingCole 190 GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. 161 L. Robert Kimball & Associates Moffatt & Nichol 134 Polshek Partnership Architects LLP 348 Wilbur Smith Associates 72
Bohannan Huston Inc. 381 CRB Consulting Engineers Inc. 209 EYP Mission Critical Facilities 254 Inc. 163 Moody Nolan Inc. 498 POWER Engineers Inc. 94 SmithGroup Inc. 73
Bolton & Menk Inc. 311 Criterium Engineers 476 HI Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. 33 Walter P. Moore 195 Pro2Serve Professional Project SMMA/Symmes Maini & McKee
Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & CSA Group 236 F H+L Architecture 435 Kirkham Michael 448 Morris Architects 378 Services 242 Associates 443
Associates 201 CTA Architects Engineers 360 Fagen Inc. 440 H2M Grp./Holzmacher McLendon Kisinger Campo & Associates Morrison-Maierle Inc. 329 Professional Engineering Soil and Materials Engineers Inc. 403
Boswell Engineering 265 CTL/Thompson Inc. 405 Fanning/Howey Associates Inc. 250 & Murrell 418 Corp. 366 MS Consultants Inc. 270 Consultants PA 420 Solomon Cordwell Buenz 361
Bowman Consulting 290 Cubellis Associates Inc. 410 Farnsworth Group Inc. 376 HAKS Engineers and Land KJWW Engineering Consultants 344 Mueser Rutledge Consulting Professional Service Indus. (PSI) 54 Sparling 479
Bowyer Singleton & Associates CUH2A 118 Fay Spofford & Thorndike 334 Surveyors PC 428 KKE Architects Inc. 385 Engineers 431 Project Design Consultants 370 SRF Consulting Group Inc. 346
Inc. 444 Cuningham Group Architecture PA 294 Fehr & Peers 452 Haley & Aldrich Inc. 123 The Kleinfelder Group Inc. 43 Mulkey Engineers & Consultants 490 Psomas 91 SSOE Inc. 139

76 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com enr.com April 24, 2006 m ENR m 77

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2005/ PAGE: 76 / Version: #3 ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2006/ PAGE: 77 / Version: #2
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95 Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM RIGHT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
 Ä

Top 500 Directory

Where To Find the Top 500

FIRM RANK FIRM RANK FIRM RANK FIRM RANK

Stanley Consultants Inc. 68 Mark Thomas & Co. Inc. 374 Urbitran Group 353 Weidlinger Associates 172
Stantec Inc. 58 Thompson Ventulett Stainback & URS 1 Westlake Reed Leskosky 488
Stearns & Wheler LLC 434 Associates 168 USKH Inc. 450 Weston & Sampson Engineers Inc. 304
Steffian Bradley Architects 468 Thornton-Tomasetti Inc. 129 Utility Engineering Corp. 122 Weston Solutions Inc. 44
Bryan A. Stirrat & Associates 495 Tighe & Bond Inc. 412 Whitman Requardt and
V
Strand Associates Inc. 232 Timmons Group 323 Associates LLP 199
STS Consultants Ltd. 125 TLC Engineering for Architecture 212 V3 Cos. Ltd. 303 Whitney Bailey Cox & Magnani LLC 491
Studios Architecture 436 TMAD Taylor & Gaines 272 Vanderweil Engineers 206 Wight & Co. 409
STV Group Inc. 56 TMP Associates Inc. 465 VECO Corp. 26 The Willdan Group of Cos. 133
Swanke Hayden Connell TKDA 315 VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. 84 Wilson & Co., Engineers &
Architects 264 TransCore 57 Rafael Vinoly Architects PC 369 Architects 176
SWCA Inc. 298 TranSystems Corp. 76 VITETTA Architects & Engineers 441 WilsonMiller Inc. 145
Syska Hennessy Group Inc. 100 TRC Cos. Inc. 38 VOA Associates Inc. 331 Wimberly Allison Tong & Goo 140
TRC World Engineering Inc. 497 Volkert & Associates Inc. 132 Wink Cos. LLC 196
T Triad Engineering Inc. 482 Vollmer Associates LLP 112 Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engrs. 322
T&M Associates 227 TRO/The Ritchie Organization 299 WXY Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc. 136
Tait & Associates Inc. 280 Tsoi/Kobus & Associates Inc. 415 Wood Rodgers Inc. 160
Wade-Trim Group 166
Taylor Wiseman & Taylor 400 Woodard & Curran 143
Walker Parking Consultants 223
TBE Group Inc. 159 U G.C. Wallace Cos. 182
Woolpert Inc. 98
Tectonic Engineering & Surveying Ulteig Engineers Inc. 324 WorleyParsons Corp. 30
Wallace Roberts & Todd LLC 368
Consultants 430 Universal Engineering Sciences 173 R.D. Zande & Associates Inc. 339
Ware Malcomb 301
Teng Affiliated Cos. 162 Universal Ensco Inc. 142 Washington Group International 32
Terracon 50 Urbahn Architects 473 Z
WHR Architects Inc. 326
Tetra Tech Inc. 8 Urban Engineers Inc. 320 WDG Architecture 309 Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership 109

78 m ENR m April 24, 2006 enr.com

CYAN MAGENTA YELLOW BLACK

ENR • ISSUE: April 24, 2005/ PAGE: 78 / Version: #2
Day, Month 00, 2005 0:00:00 PM LEFT HAND PAGE 5 25 50 75 95
ENR’s Complete Top List and Sourcebook Series:
Lists and Sourcebooks published in ENR may be purchased on
enr.com

ENR TOP LISTS – 2006

Top 500 (U.S.) Design Firms – April 24

Top 400 (U.S.) Contractors – May 22
Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders & Program
Managers – June 12
Top 200 Environmental Firms – July 3
Top 200 International Design Firms – July 24
Top 200 International Contractors – August 21/28
Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 16
Top 425 Owners – November 13

ENR SOURCEBOOKS – 2006

The Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook - June 2006

The Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook - September 2006
The Global Construction Sourcebook - December 2006

°
ENR Top Lists — 2005
°
Top 500 (U.S.) Design Firms — April 18
Top 400 (U.S.) Contractors — May 16
Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, & Program
Managers — June 13
Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms — July 4
Top 200 International Design Firms — July 25
Top 225 International Contractors — August 22/29
Top 600 Specialty Contractors — October 17
°
ENR SOURCEBOOKS — 2005
°
Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook — June 20
Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook — September 19
Top Owners Sourcebook — November 14
Global Construction Sourcebook — December 12
°
ENR Top Lists — 2004
°
Top 500 (U.S.) Design Firms — April 19
Top 400 (U.S.) Contractors — May 17
Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, & Program
Managers — June 14
Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms — July 5
Top 200 International Design Firms — July 26
Top 225 International Contractors — August 23
Top 600 Specialty Contractors — October 18
°
ENR SOURCEBOOKS — 2004
°
Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook — June 28
Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook — September 27
Top Owners Sourcebook — November 8
Global Construction Sourcebook — December 2004
°
ENR Top Lists° — 2003
Top 500 Design Firms — April 21
Top 400 Contractors — May 19
Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, & Program
Managers — June 16
Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms — June 2
Top 200 International Design Firms — July 28
Top 225 International Contractors — August 25
Top 600 Specialty Contractors — October 20
°
ENR SOURCEBOOKS — 2003
°
Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook — June 2003
Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook — September 2003
Top Owners Sourcebook — November 10
Construction Facts — November 2003
Global Construction Sourcebook — January 5, 2004
 Copyright © 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
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 by our sources, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. does not guarantee the accuracy,
adequacy, or completeness of any information and is not responsible for any errors or omissions
or for the results obtained from use of such information.

This material is the property of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. ("McGraw-Hill") or is

licensed to McGraw-Hill. This material may not be reproduced, transmitted, or distributed without
the express written permission of McGraw-Hill. The user of this material may not commingle
any portion of this material with any other information and shall not edit, modify, or alter
any portion.

Engineering News-Record ENR (Engineering News-Record), (ISSN 0891-9526). Pub-
lished weekly except for one issue in January and one issue
in August by The McGraw-Hill Companies, 1221 Ave. of the
SERVING THE INDUSTRY SINCE 1874 Americas, New York, N.Y. 10020. Fo u n d e r : James H. M c G r aw
(1860-1948). Executive, editorial, circulation, advertising offices: Two Penn Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10121-2298.
Phone (212) 512-2000 . Po s t m a s t e r : Please send address changes to ENR/Engineering News-Record, Attention:
Fulfillment Manag e r, P.O. Box 518, Hightstown, N.J. 08520. Periodicals postage paid at New York, N.Y., and at additional
mailing offices. Canada Post Publication Mail Agreement No.40012501. Registered for GST as The McGraw-Hill
Companies. GST #R12307 5673. RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: DPGM Ltd., 2-7496 Bath Road,
Mississauga, ON L4T 1L2. Email: enrcustserv@cdsfullfillment.com. Copyright, printing and reprinting: Titles Engi-
neering News-Record (ENR) and CONSTRUCTION WEEK reg. ® in U.S. Patent Office. Copyright © 2006 by The McGraw-
Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Officers of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.: Harold W. M c G r aw III, Chairman,
President, and Chief Executive Officer; Robert J. Bahash, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Office r; Kenneth
M. Vittor, Executive Vice President and General Counsel; Frank D. Pe n g l a s e , Senior Vice President, Tr e a s u ry Operations.
McGraw-Hill Construction: Norbert W. Young, Jr., FAIA, President; Louis J. Finocchiaro, Vice President and CFO. Where
necessary, permission is granted by copyright owner for those registered with Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, w w w. c o p y r i g h t . c o m, to photocopy any article herein for personal or internal
reference use only for the flat fee of $1.20 per copy for each articl e . Send payment to CCC. ISSN 0891-9526/92. Copying
for other than personal or internal reference use without express permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies is
prohibited. Write the editor to request such permission. Printed in the USA. Subscription rates for individuals in the
field of the publication: U.S. and possessions, $82 per year (single copies $5 in U.S.); Canada and Mexico, $89 per
year; outside North America, $195 per year. Please allow four to six weeks for shipment. Subscriber service: (877) 876-
8208 or (515) 237-3681. For single copies, (212) 904-4634. Send all correspondence, notices and subscription orders to
Fulfillme nt Manager, ENR, P.O. Box 518, Hightstown, N.J. 08520. If possible, attach address label from a recent issue.
Please allow a month for change of address to take effect. Classified advertising: Send ads to ENR, Classified Ad-
vertising, Two Penn Plaza, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10121. Phone (212) 904-2815.