Ups and Downs in the Global Market

Ups and Downs in the Global Market

Global design markets are facing headwinds from political turmoil,

falling oil prices and economic uncertainties by Peter Reina and Gary J. Tulacz

enr.com July 27/August 3, 2015  ENR  71

NU

MB

ER 6

9

PHOTO COUR

TESY OF KOHN PEDERSEN FO

X

ASSOCIA

TES

TAKING OFF Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates designed the master plan for the 7.6 million-sq-ft Midfield Terminal Complex at Abu Dhabi International Airport, (below). The terminal is scheduled to open in 2017.

The Top 225 International Design Firms

For large international design firms, the past year has been one of uncertainty. Lower oil prices, regional ten-sions in the Middle East and economic turbulence in Europe have undermined growing demands for infra-structure around the world. And the sharp drop in the Chinese stock market and the Greek debt crisis have given designers two more things to think about.

The impact of the uncertainty in the world market can be seen in the results of ENR’s Top 225 Interna-tional Design Firms survey. The Top 225 firms gener-ated $70.85 billion in design revenue in 2014 from proj-ects outside their home countries, down 1.1%, from $71.63 billion, in 2013. They also had $73.48 billion in revenue from domestic projects in 2014, up 1.6%, from $72.32 billion, in 2014. The total 2014 design revenue for the group was $144.34 billion, up 0.3%, from $143.95 billion, in 2013.

On the Top 225 International Design Firms list, firms are ranked based on design revenue from projects outside of their home countries, measuring their pres-ence in international commerce. The ENR Top 150 Global Design Firms list measures total worldwide de-sign revenue, regardless of where the projects are lo-cated.

On a regional basis, Canada saw one of the biggest drops in international design work for the Top 225, down 15.0% in 2014, as the oil price drop stalled some

of Canada’s oil-sands projects. The Latin American market also saw a significant decline, with international revenue falling 18.5% as the economies of Argentina and Brazil experienced slowdowns and the mining sec-tor in Chile was hit hard.

The Asian market, hit by a slowing in China and a market decline in Australia, fell 7.8%. The economic turmoil in the European Union, led by the Greek bail-out crisis, caused the Top 225 international designers’ revenue to fall 7.5% in Europe.

Surprisingly, the Middle East market rose 12.0% in 2014 for the Top 225, despite a drop in oil prices and some wariness about whether as this would impact re-gional investment. The U.S. as an international market surged 43.8% among the Top 225. Part of this rise can be attributed to Canada’s WSP acquiring U.S.-based Parsons Brinckerhoff and Australia’s GHD acquiring Conestoga-Rovers & Associates.

Bigger Is Better

Acquisitions have been a big story in the past year. AECOM now is No. 1 on the Top 225, after acquiring last year’s No. 3 firm, URS Corp. Another big move on the Top 225 is by China’s Power Construction Corp., which consolidated revenue from its operating units, including Hydrochina Corp., to rise to No. 30 from No. 126. Firms need to be large enough to straddle various economic cycles and invest in organic growth and technology. Uwe Krueger, CEO, WS Atkins plc.

72  ENR  July 27/August 3, 2015 enr.com

SOURCE: ENR. (Measured $ millions) Transportation $13,371.4 18.9% Buildings $11,795.9 16.6% Power $6,963.8 9.8% Telecom $346.7 Hazardous Waste $2,509.2 Manufacturing $1,257.7 Sewer / Waste $2,103.0 Water$3,479.1 Industrial $3,618.5 0.5% Other $3,176.3 4.5% 3.5% 4.9% 1.8% 3.0% 5.1%

Comparing the Past Decade’s International Design Revenue $52.62 2008 $42.99 2007 $_33.06 2006 $26.31 2005 $52.45 2009 $57.67 2010 $65.30 2011 (in $ billions) SOURCE: ENR. $71.49* 2012

* The 2012-2014 figures are revenue for the Top 200 International Design Firms. The expanded Top 225 list firms had a combined revenue of $70.85 billion $71.35*

2013

$70.57*

2014

In more acquisition news, ARCADIS grew to 28,000 from 15,000 staff in the past four years largely through several large acquisitions, says Neil McArthur, CEO of Netherlands-based ARCADIS NV. They include the U.K.’s engineering firm Hyder plc, with some 5,000 em-ployees, and large, Seattle-based architect Callison LLC. European firms are getting bigger. Most recently, the ongoing acquisition by Sweden’s Sweco AB of Netherlands-based Grontmij NV will create a new player with 14,500 employees. After a few years of bad results, Grontmij had “reached a strategic crossroad,” noted firm CEO Michiel Jaski in the acquisition’s an-nouncement this June. Between 2010 and last year, Grontmij’s net sales fell 20%, while its net margins dipped to 0.9% from 4.1%. In that period, staff fell by nearly a third.

Many international design firms say size does matter in the world market. “Firms need to be large enough to straddle various economic cycles and invest in organic growth and technology,” says Uwe Krueger, CEO of WS Atkins plc. With around 18,000 employees, he says, “we don’t feel disadvantaged.”

Atkins is leveraging its size with strategic relation-ships “by partnering with a select number of contrac-tors,” says Krueger. It started with France’s Vinci Group on the Doha, Qatar, metro. The firm also has an agree-ment with China Communications Construction Co.

Ltd., which is “predominantly geared to large projects in Africa,” according to Krueger.

Some design firms do not see these new megafirms as a direct threat. “Some of our competitors are being bought up by large conglomerates that are focused on large infrastructure and oil-and-gas projects,” says Con Murphy, sector director for Ireland’s PM Group. However, he says this situation has left room in the market for new design firms that provide neither the quality nor the expertise but offer lower prices, which affects pricing for everyone.

Many international designers continue to be wary of price pressure. “One key negative trend that is affecting the international design industry is price-driven selec-tion,” says Andy Goodwin, CEO of Australia’s SMEC. He says this undervalues the design input on a project and results in an inferior project outcome and higher costs over the long term through higher construction and maintenance costs.

But Murphy says many clients are slowly moving back to qualifications-based procurement after being burned by low-cost providers. “This is the continuous feedback we are receiving from those clients,” he says.

Market Turmoil

Global financial and political turmoil has many inter-national designers on edge. “Ongoing uncertainty with

of the Top 225 sent in surveys last year.

206

61.2

%

38.3

%

International Region Analysis

enr.com July 27/August 3, 2015  ENR  73

Africa $4,815.1 6.8% Latin America $4,410.3 6.2% Caribbean Islands $250.4 Canada $7,719.4 10.9% Europe $15,141.7 21.4% Asia and Australia $16,454.2 23.2% Arctic and Antarctic $22.9 0.0% United States $10,690.0 15.1% 0.4% Middle East $11,348.3 16.0% Number of Firms Reporting Profit-Loss Domestic Profits Domestic Loss International Profit International Loss 158 ₁₅₀ 29 31 Domestic Revenue International Revenue Total Revenue

Volume (in $ billions)

$73.48 $70.85 $144.34 91 29 58 104 Increase Decrease

Stayed the same SOURCE: ENR. (Measured in firms reporting) 39 73 Professional Domestic Staff Hiring Professional International Staff Hiring ENR0727-08032015_TL_IDF_Story_New.indd 73 7/27/15 6:36 PM

difficulties,” says David Prentice, CEO of New Zea-land’s Opus International

“Political instability in some regions of the world, as in the Gulf region and geopolitical tensions in Europe, are halting international growth,” says Stéphane Aubar-bier, executive vice president of Assystem Group. He says financing issues in developing countries and finan-cial debt in developed countries, espefinan-cially in Europe, could cause the delay or abandonment of major infra-structure projects.

Global economic turmoil has “led to the overall un-certainty in countries where IBI has a presence, includ-ing Greece and China,” says Trevor McIntyre, global director for IBI Group. This uncertainty makes it dif-ficult to define stable markets and ensure business suc-cess in these environments, he says.

The financial uncertainty also has made bidding a challenge. “As an international company, fluctuation in currency and changes in global economy are always a concern,” says Park Seung Woo, CEO of Korea’s Dohwa Engineering Co. Ltd. He says the weakening of the Japanese yen has made it harder to compete finan-cially with Japanese firms.

Park also says the European Central Bank’s (ECB) monetary policy may affect payments made in euros. “With the quantitative easing by the ECB caused by the fear of deflation in the eurozone, clients may choose to delay the payment in euros. This would lower our prof-its while increasing the price competitiveness of

Euro-mark’s COWI Group, reports another good year, with orders in the transportation and infrastructure sectors “booming.” COWI has “very healthy growth in areas we want to invest in,” says Søbye, citing Scandinavia, the U.K. and COWI North America, as well as tunnels, bridges and marine markets.

With sales up some 25% and margins up by around 17%, business is “reasonably” good, says Keith Howells, chairman of the U.K.’s Mott MacDonald Groups. “The water sector is good in the U.K. and North America and could be better in other regions, especially Asia,” he notes. Transportation is busy globally, “with lots of peo-ple wanting to do metros,” he says.

“The energy markets over the past three years have been very strong,” says McArthur of ARCADIS, citing the Middle East and Asia. The firm has “a very strong position in Brazil,” he adds.

Mott grew to about 16,800 staff after last fall’s acqui-sition of Bentley Ltd., an 800-person contractor in the water sector that Mott often partnered with. With Bent-ley, “we have the potential to double the business in the next five years just in the water sector,” says Howells.

Søbye agrees that, with 6,400 staff, COWI is mod-estly sized by global standards. “Where we can make a difference [is] where we are best in class,” he says. “The big groups really want to … have us on their teams.”

In Europe, the U.K. is “as busy as it has been for some years,” says Howells. Eastern Europe is increas-ingly a resource base, rather than a source of work, for

Creation of the Asian

Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund, with $100 billion and $40 billion [respectively], is already starting to impact the development of the whole region. Yan Li, Vice President, CCDI Group.

74  ENR  July 27/August 3, 2015 enr.com

HOW THE TOP INTERNATIONAL DESIGN FIRMS SHARED THE 2014 MARKET

DESIGNER

NATIONALITY FIRMS# OF

INT’L REVENUE MIDDLE EAST ASIA AFRICA EUROPE UNITED STATES CANADA LAT. AMER / CARIB.

$ MIL. % $ MIL. % $ MIL. % $ MIL. % $ MIL. % $ MIL. % $ MIL. % $ MIL. %

AMERICAN 80 22,445.7 31.7 2,841.1 25.0 6,592.6 40.1 807.3 16.8 5,543.1 36.6 NA NA 5,246.7 68.0 1,414.9 30.4 CANADIAN 6 7,105.2 10.0 434.0 3.8 1,423.1 8.6 373.1 7.7 1,556.8 10.3 2,803.2 26.2 NA NA 515.1 11.1 EUROPEAN 54 24,577.1 34.7 4,087.3 36.0 4,310.0 26.2 1,630.5 33.9 6,888.0 45.5 4,917.3 46.0 709.9 9.2 2,034.1 43.6 BRITISH 7 6,668.6 9.4 1,171.6 10.3 1,730.2 10.5 428.6 8.9 635.0 4.2 2,265.6 21.2 227.2 2.9 210.5 4.5 GERMAN 6 826.2 1.2 206.4 1.8 135.0 0.8 120.8 2.5 215.7 1.4 124.1 1.2 0.3 0.0 24.0 0.5 FRENCH 9 2,695.1 3.8 457.6 4.0 566.8 3.4 298.4 6.2 702.7 4.6 334.1 3.1 120.6 1.6 214.9 4.6 DUTCH 4 7,201.0 10.2 631.0 5.6 1,311.4 8.0 300.3 6.2 2,190.8 14.5 2,043.0 19.1 102.0 1.3 622.5 13.4 ITALIAN 5 609.7 0.9 258.0 2.3 81.2 0.5 35.7 0.7 62.2 0.4 7.9 0.1 93.7 1.2 71.0 1.5 SPANISH 9 2,200.2 3.1 834.1 7.3 179.0 1.1 178.1 3.7 217.3 1.4 65.4 0.6 107.1 1.4 619.3 13.3 OTHER EUROPEAN 14 4,376.2 6.2 528.6 4.7 306.5 1.9 268.7 5.6 2,864.3 18.9 77.2 0.7 59.0 0.8 271.9 5.8 AUSTRALIAN 7 6,642.6 9.4 430.1 3.8 899.2 5.5 608.2 12.6 773.2 5.1 2,064.6 19.3 1,566.6 20.3 300.7 6.5 JAPANESE 12 734.4 1.0 77.0 0.7 400.9 2.4 116.6 2.4 16.4 0.1 72.0 0.7 7.0 0.1 44.5 1.0 CHINESE 23 2,913.3 4.1 430.8 3.8 1,541.4 9.4 611.4 12.7 61.1 0.4 123.1 1.2 5.2 0.1 140.4 3.0 KOREAN 12 1,363.9 1.9 369.9 3.3 693.9 4.2 153.6 3.2 15.9 0.1 23.4 0.2 9.8 0.1 97.4 2.1 ALL OTHERS 31 5,047.2 7.1 2,678.2 23.6 593.2 3.6 514.4 10.7 287.2 1.9 686.5 6.4 174.1 2.3 113.6 2.4 ALL FIRMS 225 70,829.4 100.0 11,348.3 100.0 16,454.2 100.0 4,815.1 100.0 15,141.7 100.0 10,690.0 100.0 7,719.4 100.0 4,660.7 100.0

SOURCE: ENR. NOTE: EXCLUDING $22.85 MILLION FROM ANTARCTIC/ARCTIC OR UNALLOCATED

Mott. “We have been winding down in central and East-ern Europe and, at the same time, growing our business in transportation,” adds Søbye.

Hyundai Engineering Co. of Korea is finding the greatest opportunities in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. “There is high demand in adopt-ing international technologies in the Russian and CIS region as international technologies have been applied for oil-and-gas, refinery and petrochemical plants,” says Kim Wee-chul, CEO.

Scandinavia remains “extremely good,” with major infrastructure investment plans for the next 10 to 15 years, says Søbye. The U.K. and North America are “picking up rapidly in the sectors we are in,” he says. Cowi is currently planning to expand into the U.S. high-ways market.

North America is “a good market across the board,” says McArthur. Howells reports “decent growth” there. Atkins has restructured its U.S. business, reducing the number of profit centers and creating a single Technical

enr.com July 27/August 3, 2015  ENR  75

1

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $15,012.0 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $22,230.6 Mil.

2015 2014 1 1 WORLEYPARSONS 2 3 FUGRO NV 3 2 FLUOR CORP. 4 4 TECHNIP 5 6 TECNICAS REUNIDAS 6 7 JACOBS 7 8 KBR 8 9 BECHTEL 9 5 AMEC PLC 10 10 CB&I

4

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $3,452.4 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $6,963.8 Mil.

2015 2014

1 1 POWER CONSTRUCTION CORP. OF CHINA 2 3 AECOM

3 ** TRACTEBEL ENGINEERING 4 8 WSP|PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5 2 WORLEYPARSONS

6 2 CHINA CHENGDA ENG'G CO. LTD. 7 5 AMEC PLC

8 4 PÖYRY

9 ** HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CO. LTD. 10 6 SNC-LAVALIN INTERNATIONAL INC.

8

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $1,176.8 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $2,103.0 Mil.

2015 2014

1 1 MWH GLOBAL 2 3 AECOM 3 2 CH2M HILL

4 9 DAR AL-HANDASAH CONSULTANTS 5 ** SWECO AB

6 5 MOTT MACDONALD GROUP LTD. 7 6 PARSONS

8 ** GHD PTY. LTD. 9 9 STANTEC INC. 10 ** COWI A/S

2

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $7,118.8 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $13,371.4 Mil.

2015 2014 1 1 AECOM

2 ** WSP|PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 3 2 DAR AL-HANDASAH CONSULTANTS 4 3 CH2M HILL

5 7 ATKINS

6 5 MOTT MACDONALD GROUP LTD. 7 4 EGIS

8 6 JACOBS 9 9 ARUP 10 ** ARCADIS NV

5

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $2,564.3 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $3,618.5 Mil.

2015 2014 1 3 JACOBS 2 2 HATCH GROUP 3 9 FLUOR CORP. 4 1 BECHTEL 5 5 WORLEYPARSONS 6 4 AECOM 7 6 ARCADIS NV 8 7 PÖYRY 9 ** GOLDER ASSOCIATES

10 4 SNC-LAVALIN INTERNATIONAL INC.

7

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $2,263.1 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $2,509.2 Mil.

2015 2014 1 1 ARCADIS NV 2 3 AECOM 3 ** GHD PTY. LTD. 4 4 CH2M HILL 5 ** JACOBS 6 6 PARSONS 7 10 CDM SMITH 8 5 GOLDER ASSOCIATES 9 9 STANTEC INC. 10 8 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS

3

RANK Top 10 Revenue: _{Sector’s Revenue:} $6,436.1 Mil._{$11,795.9 Mil.}

2015 2014

1 2 DAR AL-HANDASAH CONSULTANTS 2 3 ARCADIS NV

3 1 AECOM

4 4 WSP|PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 5 5 ARUP

6 ** OZTURK HOLDING CO. 7 7 RAMBOLL GROUP A/S 8 4 STANTEC INC. 9 6 FUGRO NV 10 ** ATKINS

6

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $1,956.5 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $3,479.1 Mil.

2015 2014 1 2 AECOM 2 1 ARCADIS NV 3 6 TETRA TECH INC. 4 3 MWH GLOBAL 5 5 CH2M HILL 6 10 BLACK & VEATCH 7 ** GOLDER ASSOCIATES 8 7 MOTT MACDONALD GROUP LTD. 9 1 STANTEC INC.

10 ** SWECO AB

9

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $972.2 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $1 257.7 Mil.

2015 2014

1 7 ARCADIS NV 2 2 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. 3 1 M+W GROUP 4 7 AECOM 5 4 CH2M HILL 6 3 JACOBS 7 5 GOLDER ASSOCIATES 8 ** SWECO AB

9 7 SAMOO ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS 10 9 ARUP

Professional Organization with some 1,800 staff in var-ious offices. There are also five market-based units cov-ering the business lines, such as transportation and public-private partnerships.

However, international firms are finding the U.S. a tough market to crack. “North America … is very chal-lenging for foreign consulting companies to penetrate due to stiff competition from the big local players,” says Masahiko Mori, director at the international division of Japan’s Chodai Co. But he says infrastructure work in

the U.S. shows much potential. “We would be interested to partner up with other companies in future projects,” he says.

Asia Shows Renewed Promise

For many international design firms, Asia has been slow, but it is beginning to show new promise. COWI is now looking to expand in Southeast Asia. The firm will be aided by last year’s acquisition of the U.K.-based tun-neling design firm Donaldson Associates Ltd., which

2014 2011 2012 2013

SOURCE: ENR.

$16.45 $16.83 $18.01 $17.85 Asia Stalls (in $ billions)

2014 2011 2012 2013

Increase Decrease Stayed the same

Number of Firms Reporting Total Backlog

SOURCE: ENR.

116

36 41

For expanded content on the ENR Top Lists, see ENR.com/ toplists.

On the

Web

76  ENR  July 27/August 3, 2015 enr.com

7

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $1,962.0 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $4,815.1 Mil.

2015 2014

1 ** POWER CONSTRUCTION CORP. OF CHINA 2 1 WORLEYPARSONS

3 3 MOTT MACDONALD GROUP LTD. 4 2 AURECON

5 6 DAR AL-HANDASAH CONSULTANTS 6 ** FUGRO NV

7 4 KBR

8 8 HATCH GROUP

9 5 SNC-LAVALIN INTERNATIONAL INC. 10 ** AECOM

4

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $5,520.0 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $7,719.4 Mil.

2015 2014

1 1 WORLEYPARSONS 2 3 FLUOR CORP. 3 4 AECOM 4 5 TETRA TECH INC. 5 6 BECHTEL 6 7 JACOBS 7 8 CH2M HILL 8 ** EXP US SERVICES INC. 9 ** GHD PTY. LTD.

10 9 MOTT MACDONALD GROUP LTD.

5

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $8,354.2 Mil

Sector’s Revenue: $10,690.0 Mil.

2015 2014 1 1 ARCADIS NV 2 ** AMEC PLC 3 ** WSP|PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 4 2 WORLEYPARSONS 5 3 STANTEC INC. 6 4 CARDNO LTD. 7 6 FUGRO NV

8 5 DAR AL-HANDASAH CONSULTANTS 9 7 ATKINS

10 ** GHD PTY. LTD.

6

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $2,201.5 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $4,660.7 Mil.

2015 2014

1 3 ARCADIS NV

2 1 SNC-LAVALIN INTERNATIONAL INC. 3 6 TECNICAS REUNIDAS 4 4 BECHTEL 5 2 FLUOR CORP. 6 8 FUGRO NV 7 ** CH2M HILL 8 5 WORLEYPARSONS 9 ** AMEC PLC 10 ** AYESA

1

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $7,015.1 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $16,454.2 Mil.

2015 2014 1 1 AECOM 2 4 FUGRO NV 3 2 JACOBS 4 3 FLUOR CORP. 5 ** WSP|PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 6 6 ARUP 7 7 BECHTEL 8 8 HATCH GROUP 9 ** KBR 10 ** CB&I

2

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $9,307.3 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $15,141.7 Mil.

2015 2014 1 9 AECOM 2 1 JACOBS 3 3 WSP|PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF 4 2 FUGRO NV 5 5 ARCADIS NV 6 4 RAMBOLL GROUP A/S 7 ** WORLEYPARSONS 8 ** SWECO AB 9 10 CH2M HILL 10 6 FLUOR CORP.

3

RANK Top 10 Revenue: $4,712.7 Mil.

Sector’s Revenue: $11,348.3 Mil.

2015 2014

1 1 DAR AL-HANDASAH CONSULTANTS 2 2 TECNICAS REUNIDAS

3 6 AECOM 4 8 ATKINS 5 7 KHATIB & ALAMI 6 ** FUGRO NV 7 10 PARSONS 8 3 FLUOR CORP. 9 ** PETROFAC LTD. 10 4 WORLEYPARSONS ENR0727-08032015_TL_IDF_Story_New.indd 76 7/27/15 6:37 PM

Success in India depends on whether the client sees us bringing added value. It is impossible to compete with local companies unless the client believes we are bringing this value. Con Murphy, Sector Director, PM Group

enr.com July 27/August 3, 2015  ENR  77

PHOTO COUR

TESY OF PERKINS+WILL

Perkins+Will, a subsidiary of Dar Al Handasah (No. 8),designed the 480,000-sq-ft Shanghai Natural History Museum, which includes a theater and a 30-meter-tall atrium. It opened in April 2015.

Natural History in a Spiral

China continues to disappoint international firms. “The most challenging country is China, where it is really difficult for international consulting engineering companies to compete in the local market,” says Good-win. SMEC now has developed key partnerships with Chinese companies and currently is working with them to deliver significant infrastructure projects around the world, he says.

“China has significant challenges, and it is a difficult market to understand. The accelerated growth and pro-pensity of master plans for new cities has stopped, and investment patterns are moving outside of China,” says McIntyre of IBI.

However, there is promise for the regional market with the new trade and infrastructure initiatives in the offing, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty backed by the Obama administration. “Trade agreements, such as the ambitious TPP, are helping to enhance trade and investment between countries and [creating] opportunities in the international design mar-ket,” says Greg Lowe, CEO of New Zealand’s Beca Group Ltd.

With the launch of the China-backed Asian Infra-structure Investment Bank in October 2014, “we expect more large-scale infrastructure projects funded by mul-tilateral development banks [MDBs], including urban planning, railroads and industrial plants. More funding from MDBs would allow projects to take place in more regions,” says Park of Dohwa Engineering.

China’s recent “One Belt, One Road” initiative to fund transportation and maritime projects has had a major positive impact. The initiative covers most of Eurasia and part of Africa. This initiative targets an un-derdeveloped area that connects East Asia to the euro-zone. Infrastructure improvement will be a prime focus, says Yan Li, vice president of China’s CCDI Group. “Creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund, with $100 billion and $40 bil-lion [respectively], is already starting to impact the de-velopment of the whole region,” he says.

Singapore is still active, and there’s “a bit of resur-gence” in the Philippines, while Indonesia is disap-pointingly quiet, says Howells. Mott recently signed a strategic partnership with China Petroleum Engineer-ing Co. Ltd., which is tryEngineer-ing to expand internationally, says Howells.

Working mainly on transportation, Mott’s Australian business has been little affected by falling commodity prices, says Howells. Mott also remains busy in Pakistan, though “it’s not easy to get money out,” he observes. And, after three poor years in India, the market in that country is “much slower than we thought,” he says.

Nevertheless, many designers believe India has huge potential. “I think India is full of the greatest opportuni-ties for businesses in the international design market at the moment. There is so much pent-up demand for infrastructure of any kind. I believe being able to under-stand the local situations is the key to be successful there,” says Yuichiro Motomura, CEO of Japan’s PADECO Co. Ltd.

But for many international designers, India remains a challenge. “India has endured a lot of uncertainty com-ing up to recent elections, which has affected investment in projects across sectors, such as the automotive indus-try as well as the usually robust pharmaceutical and food sectors,” says Murphy of PM Group.

Murphy also notes that India has its own strong stable of designers to compete against. “Success in India de-pends on whether the client sees us bringing added value. It is impossible to compete with local companies unless the client believes we are bringing this value,” he says.

The Middle East continues to offer “the same old mix of opportunities and risks,” says Howells. Mott is cool about Saudi Arabia, which the firm perceives as risky due to regional tensions and low oil prices. In the Middle East, “we go in with first-rate contractors,” adds Søbye. He sees opportunities in Qatar and also in Saudi Arabia.

Some firms remain optimistic about the Middle East. Despite falling oil prices, the Gulf region, particularly in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, is show-ing a diversification of markets, says McIntyre of IBI

Companies are ranked according to revenue for design services performed in 2014 in $ millions (*). Those with subsid-iaries are indicated by (†). For information on subsidiaries and where each firm worked outside of the U.S., see www.enr. com. **Firms not ranked last year. Some markets may not add up to 100% due to omission 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 engineer; L-landscape architect; P-planner; O-other. Other combinations possible. Firms classified themselves.

General Building includes commercial buildings, offices, stores, educational facilities, government buildings, hospitals, medical facilities, hotels, apartments, housing, etc.

Manufacturing includes auto, elec-tronic assembly, textile plants, etc.

Power comprises thermal and hydro-electric powerplants, waste-to-energy plants, transmission lines, substations, cogeneration plants, etc.

Water Supply includes dams, reser-voirs, transmission pipelines, distribution mains, irrigation canals, desalination and potability treatment plants, pumping stations, etc.

Sewage/Solid Waste includes sanitary and storm sewers, treatment plants, pumping plants, incinerators, industrial waste facilities, etc.

Industrial Process includes pulp and paper mills, steel mills, non-ferrous metal

refineries, pharmaceutical plants, chemical plants, food and other process-ing plants, etc.

Petroleum comprises refineries, petrochemical plants, offshore facilities, pipelines, etc.

Transportation includes airports, bridges, roads, canals, locks, dredging, marine facilities, piers, railroads, tunnels, etc. Hazardous Waste includes chemical and nuclear-waste treatment, asbestos and lead abatement, etc.

Telecommunications includes transmission lines and cabling, towers and antennae, data centers, etc.

How To Read the Tables

Keeping It Local

For international designers, local competition and local workers and material-use policies are becoming a bigger concern. “Localization constraints also have become stronger,” says Aubarbier of Assystem. “We believe that international expertise must be coupled with the capac-ity to deliver locally.”

Policies that favor local companies are arising in some of the most promising markets. In Indonesia, “the shift of policy emphasis toward domestic aspects seems to be negatively affecting the participation of interna-tional design firms,” says Motomura of PADECO Co. Financing patterns also have been evolving, particu-larly in developing countries. “Although [Japan’s] Of-ficial Development Assistance [ODA] projects have, until now, been an important part of our work, some developing countries, which used to be significant re-cipients of Japanese ODA, have seen their economies grow rapidly,” says Mori of Chodai.

Thus, these developing countries are less interested in financing projects with ODA than before and are increasingly looking to other means of funding, such as public-private partnerships and private financing initia-tives, Mori says. “Such developing countries have also developed their technological capabilities and can now-adays design and construct many projects that, in the past, would have required foreign assistance.”

The answer for many international designers is sim-ply being local in a global market. For example, Dohwa Engineering has been opening local offices and hiring local experienced experts. “Local offices have been working to keep good relations with the local contrac-tors, while the head office provides training and produc-tion of proposal documents,” says Park. n

Companies | By Debra K. Rubin

Richard Wankmuller, newly named CEO of Australia-based Cardno Ltd.

(No. 35 on ENR’s Top 150 Global Design Firms list) is an American who formerly headed North American operations for GHD Pty., also based Down Under, and had lived there for five years. He takes over the $1.1 billion-firm as it faces challenges in business

results, to be announced on Aug. 18, and in changing markets in Australia and elsewhere.

What are the continuing risks in Australia’s economy? Are there potential

market opportunities, as well? Australia remains a challenging and uneven market. The slowdown in capital expenditures in the resource sector has obviously had a significant impact in many key states. This situation has been further aggravated by recent delays and some cancellations of planned infrastruc-ture upgrades due to changes in state governments and infrastructure policies. Even so, New South Wales is moving forward on some very impressive infrastructure upgrades. This [new work] has created a shortage of top people in some areas while fueling business uncertainty in others. It’s disappointing, as it creates turmoil in our industry. We hope some delayed work will be brought back to the market. Other hopeful signs relate to the need for LNG projects to continue, such as the North Rankin gas-compression project off the western coast.

What is the outlook for Cardno in North America?

We are well positioned to benefit from the integration activities of last year and expect to see gains in efficiencies and capabilities. We have adjusted regional staffing levels in response to the wind-down of our monitoring and remediation

of the Gulf of Mexico oil-spill impacts. We have also adjusted to the dramatic drop in oil prices and begun to retool services, so they are less dependent on new investments. Recent wins are starting to replace cancelled work. In the interim, this will remain challenging, but we expect to see an improvement.

What is helping Cardno to find success in the international design market? We applied our big-data manage-ment techniques—developed during our oil-spill work—to our work on the Inpex LNG project in Darwin. Likewise, we’ve leveraged our construction-materials testing expertise—developed on LNG projects in Queensland—and applied [it] to projects in Texas. Cardno also just unveiled a biodiversity mapping tool to help the U.S. energy industry identify endangered-species habitats. Cardno has been developing truly innovative solutions that are also environmentally and socially responsible. This combination is right at the heart of what many clients are looking for. n

Yank CEO Returns Down Under

WANKMULLER

78 n ENR n July 27/August 3, 2015 enr.com

enr.com July 27/August 3, 2015  ENR  79

GENERAL BUILDING MANUF POWER WATER SUPPL SEWER INDUS. TRANSPOR HAZARDOUS W TELECOM

IN

$ MIL TOTAL REV.% OF FIRM

TYPE FIRM

RANK 2015 2014

1 4 AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif., U.S.A. EA 4,991.7 48 22 2 11 8 3 14 32 7 0

2 1 WORLEYPARSONS, North Sydney, NSW, Australia† _{EC 3,945.2 83 1 0 8 1 1 84 2 0 0}

3 6 ARCADIS NV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands† _{E 3,561.0 89 34 6 2 10 2 5 11 31 0}

4 5 FUGRO NV, Leidschendam, The Netherlands† _{GE 3,002.0 88 9 0 3 2 0 78 3 0 2}

5 2 JACOBS, Pasadena, Calif., U.S.A. EAC 2,915.3 49 9 2 6 3 2 55 17 3 1

6 14 WSP|PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF, Montreal, Quebec, Canada† _{E 2,908.1 81 30 0 13 1 1 3 46 1 0}

7 3 FLUOR CORP., Irving, Texas, U.S.A.† _{EC 2,674.0 67 0 1 1 0 0 97 0 1 0}

8 8 DAR AL-HANDASAH CONSULTANTS (SHAIR AND PARTNERS), Cairo, Egypt† _{EA 2,373.0 100 51 0 3 3 4 5 32 0 1}

9 7 AMEC PLC, Knutsford, Cheshire, U.K.† EC 1,950.6 47 5 0 15 1 1 49 5 2 0

10 11 CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colo., U.S.A.† _{EAC 1,517.2 43 8 5 1 13 10 18 37 8 0}

11 12 TECHNIP, Paris, France† _{EC 1,431.9 99 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

12 10 SNC-LAVALIN INT’L INC., Montreal, Quebec, Canada† _{EC 1,429.5 49 9 0 14 1 0 41 13 0 0}

13 9 BECHTEL, San Francisco, Calif., U.S.A.† _{EC 1,428.0 65 2 0 4 0 0 87 7 0 0}

14 13 MOTT MACDONALD GROUP LTD., Croydon, Surrey, U.K.† _{E 1,427.3 69 11 0 9 8 7 20 36 1 0}

15 17 TECNICAS REUNIDAS, Madrid, Spain† _{EC 1,316.1 96 0 0 3 2 0 95 0 0 0}

16 18 ARUP, London, U.K.† _{E 1,130.3 71 41 3 2 2 2 6 40 2 2}

17 15 KBR, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.† EC 1,112.0 73 0 0 4 3 0 89 5 0 0

18 20 ATKINS, Epsom, Surrey, U.K.† _{EA 1,105.4 44 25 1 11 8 0 6 47 0 0}

19 24 STANTEC INC., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada† _{EAL 1,055.8 47 27 0 6 10 7 14 28 3 0}

20 19 HATCH GROUP, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada† _{EC 1,003.9 67 0 0 4 4 6 71 15 0 0}

21 21 RAMBOLL GROUP A/S, Copenhagen S, Denmark† _{E 973.7 66 37 0 6 8 4 9 28 2 0}

22 23 CB&I, The Woodlands, Texas, U.S.A.† _{EC 856.6 32 0 0 6 0 0 93 0 0 0}

23 27 WOOD GROUP MUSTANG INC., Houston, Texas, U.S.A. EC 836.5 54 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 24 26 CARDNO LTD., Fortitude Valley, Queensland, Australia† _{E 776.5 68 3 0 0 8 0 11 16 0 0}

25 54 GHD PTY. LTD., Sydney, NSW, Australia† _{EA/ENV 766.8 61 16 0 2 6 10 6 9 47 1}

26 33 HYUNDAI ENGINEERING CO. LTD., Seoul, S. Korea EC 750.9 92 1 0 30 0 4 65 0 0 0

27 25 TETRA TECH INC., Pasadena, Calif., U.S.A.† _{E 711.0 30 0 3 21 32 8 29 4 4 0}

28 36 SWECO AB, Stockholm, Sweden† _{E 700.0 64 14 7 14 14 14 7 21 0 3}

29 32 PETROFAC LTD., Jersey, Channel Islands, U.K.† _{EC 636.6 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

30 126 POWER CONSTRUCTION CORP. OF CHINA, Beijing, China† _{EAC 594.4 11 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0}

31 31 POYRY, Vantaa, Finland† _{E 590.0 78 3 0 41 1 4 28 13 0 1}

32 28 GOLDER ASSOCIATES, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada† _{E 588.0 55 0 10 11 20 7 25 10 7 0}

33 30 COWI A/S, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark† _{E 575.1 66 27 0 0 7 12 0 45 1 0}

34 34 EGIS, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Yvelines, France† _{E 549.4 53 3 0 2 5 1 1 89 0 0}

35 35 MWH GLOBAL, Broomfield, Colo., U.S.A.† _{EC 541.9 61 5 0 6 38 44 0 6 0 0}

36 42 TRACTEBEL ENGINEERING, Brussels, Belgium† _{E 509.8 65 9 1 73 0 0 5 7 4 0}

37 55 CHINA CHENGDA ENG’G CO. LTD., Chengdu, Sichuan, China EC 485.6 41 0 0 62 0 0 11 0 0 0 38 40 ROYAL HASKONINGDHV, Amersfoort, The Netherlands E 459.0 53 4 1 7 15 8 13 50 2 1

39 ** OZTURK HOLDING CO., Istanbul, Turkey EC 449.0 98 85 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0

40 37 AURECON, Melbourne, VIC, Australia E 424.7 51 33 2 5 3 0 11 20 0 4

41 44 PARSONS, Pasadena, Calif., U.S.A.† _{EC 421.4 26 3 0 0 2 21 3 56 15 0}

42 45 MAIRE TECNIMONT, Milan, Italy† _{EC 418.7 89 0 0 5 0 0 95 1 0 0}

43 47 KHATIB & ALAMI, Beirut, Lebanon† _{EA 390.1 96 44 0 3 16 6 4 20 0 0}

44 39 BLACK & VEATCH, Overland Park, Kan., U.S.A.† _{EC 374.9 30 1 0 50 33 8 7 0 0 1}

45 48 SYSTRA, Paris, France† _{E 349.1 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0}

46 41 AF, Stockholm, Sweden† _{E 340.4 27 10 2 54 0 0 15 19 0 0}

47 50 LOUIS BERGER, Morristown, N.J., U.S.A.† _{EAP 326.1 50 0 0 15 13 2 9 50 0 0}

48 ** EXP US SERVICES INC., Chicago, Ill., U.S.A. E 300.0 41 24 3 3 0 0 7 27 0 0

49 51 M+W GROUP, Stuttgart, Germany E 297.9 91 0 59 18 0 0 18 0 0 5

50 52 CHINA COMMUNICATIONS CONSTRUCTION GRP. LTD., Beijing, China† _{EAC 297.4 8 1 0 1 1 0 1 96 0 0}

51 57 SMEC, Melbourne, VIC, Australia† _{E 288.8 66 0 0 25 8 0 0 62 0 0}

80  ENR  July 27/August 3, 2015 enr.com

GENERAL BUILDING MANUF WATER SUPPL TRANSPOR ACTURING SEWER / W HAZARDOUS W POWER INDUS. / PETROLEUM TELECOM IN

$ MIL TOTAL REV.% OF FIRM TYPE FIRM RANK 2015 2014 2014 INT'L REVENUE

52 56 LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD., Mumbai, Maharashtra, India† _{EC 271.5 82 0 70 4 0 0 26 0 0 0}

53 53 AEDAS, Hong Kong, China A 268.2 98 90 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0

54 59 GENSLER, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. A 262.8 25 98 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

55 61 WL MEINHARDT GROUP PTY. LTD., Melbourne, VIC, Australia† _{E 261.8 93 48 5 3 9 10 1 22 0 2}

56 67 CDI CORP., Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.† _{EA 258.1 40 16 6 0 0 0 56 21 0 0}

57 ** SK ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION, Seoul, S. Korea† _{EC 257.5 72 0 0 8 0 0 91 0 0 0}

58 60 FICHTNER GMBH & CO. KG, Stuttgart, Germany† _{E 228.2 68 0 0 82 9 8 0 0 0 0}

59 74 NIPPON KOEI GROUP, Tokyo, Japan† _{E 227.1 34 0 0 11 16 10 1 43 0 2}

60 62 TYPSA, Madrid, Spain† _{EA 226.9 83 17 0 2 17 5 0 53 0 0}

61 70 SKIDMORE OWINGS & MERRILL LLP, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.† _{AE 212.2 60 98 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0}

62 72 CHINA NAT’L MACHINERY INDUSTRY CORP., Beijing, China† _{EAC 211.6 35 34 3 38 2 0 11 5 0 1}

63 80 OPUS INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS, Wellington, New Zealand† _{E 208.2 49 16 0 0 6 2 36 40 0 0}

64 58 ILF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Rum / Innsbruck, Tyrol, Austria† _{E 199.7 86 2 0 10 4 2 57 22 0 0}

65 46 AUSENCO LTD., South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia† _{E 191.9 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

66 68 IDOM, Bilbao, Spain† _{EA 187.0 75 14 8 24 1 3 19 27 1 3}

67 49 CHINA PETROLEUM ENGINEERING & CONST. (GROUP) CORP., Beijing, China† _{EC 186.0 59 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

68 66 TEBODIN, The Hague, The Netherlands E 179.0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

69 83 KOHN PEDERSEN FOX ASSOCIATES PC, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.† _{A 170.2 76 63 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0}

70 76 CHINA PETROLEUM ENGINEERING CO. LTD., Beijing, China† _{EC 169.6 49 0 0 2 0 4 94 0 0 0}

71 65 HDR, Omaha, Neb., U.S.A.† _{EA 161.8 9 70 0 3 1 4 1 12 0 0}

72 81 DORSCH GRUPPE, Offenbach am Main, Germany† _{E 161.8 94 5 3 13 19 16 4 25 0 2}

73 86 CHINA PETROLEUM PIPELINE ENG’G CORP., Langfang City, Hebei Prov., China EC 160.0 54 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

74 79 CDM SMITH, Boston, Mass., U.S.A.† _{EC 158.7 21 4 0 2 14 12 2 40 26 0}

75 113 CHINA RAILWAY GROUP LTD., Beijing, China† _{EC 157.0 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0}

76 82 ASSOCIATED CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Athens, Greece† _{EA 152.0 93 32 0 3 11 30 5 19 1 1}

77 92 MOUCHEL, Woking, Surrey, U.K.† _{E 150.2 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0}

78 89 AEGION CORP., Chesterfield, Mo., U.S.A.† _{EC 144.9 44 4 0 0 0 10 83 3 0 0}

79 84 ARTELIA, Lyon, France† _{E 142.7 31 22 0 5 19 3 25 23 1 0}

80 87 KEO INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS, Safat, Kuwait AEP 140.2 91 75 0 0 2 11 0 11 0 0

81 78 HOK, St. Louis, Mo., U.S.A. AE 138.0 33 91 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0

82 71 AYESA, Seville, Spain† _{E 134.4 67 4 0 3 26 6 14 46 0 1}

83 85 WOODS BAGOT, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.† _{A 132.0 84 91 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0}

84 73 KEPCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, S. Korea AE 127.7 29 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 77 BECA GROUP LTD., Auckland, New Zealand† _{EA 124.1 35 25 17 6 7 0 20 23 0 0}

86 88 CHIYODA CORP., Yokohama, Kanagawa Pref., Japan EC 123.4 75 0 0 6 0 0 87 0 0 0

87 ** IBI GROUP, Toronto, Ontario, Canada† _{AE 120.0 44 57 6 0 0 1 0 31 0 0}

88 97 SENER INGENIERIA Y SISTEMAS SA, Las Arenas, Vizcaya, Spain† _{EC 118.3 86 1 2 23 1 0 10 63 0 0}

89 91 ASSYSTEM, Dubai, U.A.E.† _{E 118.0 31 19 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0}

90 106 EHAF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Giza, Egypt E 115.0 87 57 0 0 0 0 7 36 0 0

91 90 MORRISON HERSHFIELD, Atlanta, Ga., U.S.A.† _{EA 112.8 81 37 0 2 1 4 2 41 0 9}

92 ** SSH, Manama, Bahrain AE 110.0 100 90 0 0 0 1 3 6 0 0

93 98 PM GROUP, Dublin, Ireland† _{EA 105.5 52 5 7 1 0 0 75 0 0 6}

94 99 SINOPEC ENGINEERING (GROUP) CO. LTD., Beijing, China† _{EC 100.5 9 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

95 95 ORIENTAL CONSULTANTS (ACKG LTD.), Tokyo, Japan† _{E 100.2 31 5 0 10 2 2 0 81 0 0}

96 146 CHINA POWER ENGINEERING CONSLTG. GROUP CO. LTD., Beijing, China† _{EC 98.1 10 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0}

97 ** NORR, Chicago, Ill., U.S.A.† _{AE 90.6 81 93 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0}

98 111 CHINA HUANQIU CONTRACTING & ENGINEERING CORP., Beijing, China† _{EC 89.3 11 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

99 93 PROGER SPA, Rome, Italy EA 88.9 88 71 0 0 0 0 27 2 0 0

100 ** SHANDONG KERUI PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT CO. LTD., Dongying, Shandong, China EC 86.8 89 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

101 105 JGC CORP., Yokohama, Japan† _{EC 86.0 70 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

102 100 VEPICA GRUPO INTERNACIONAL SL, Valencia, Venezuela† _{EC 84.9 100 1 0 0 0 0 99 0 0 0}

enr.com July 27/August 3, 2015  ENR  81

GENERAL BUILDING MANUF WATER SUPPL TRANSPOR ACTURING SEWER HAZARDOUS W POWER INDUS. / PETROLEUM TELECOM IN

$ MIL TOTAL REV.% OF FIRM

TYPE FIRM

RANK 2015 2014

103 114 CTCI CORP., Taipei, Taiwan† EC 82.4 43 0 0 1 0 0 96 1 0 0

104 164 ADRIAN SMITH + GORDON GILL ARCHITECTURE, Chicago, Ill., U.S.A.† _{A 77.2 95 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

105 123 ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS GROUP, Cairo, Egypt EA 76.2 77 78 0 1 15 0 3 4 0 0 106 110 INECO, INGENIERÍA Y ECONOMÍA DEL TRANSPORTE SA, Madrid, Spain E 75.7 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 107 107 SARGENT & LUNDY LLC, Chicago, Ill., U.S.A.† _{E 68.7 13 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0}

108 129 UNIVERSALPEGASUS INTERNATIONAL INC., Houston, Texas, U.S.A.† _{E 67.8 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100}

109 104 ATLAS TEXAS CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING INC., Ankara, Turkey† _{EA 66.6 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

110 112 THE BABCOCK & WILCOX CO., Charlotte, N.C., U.S.A.† _{EC 66.2 47 0 0 98 0 0 2 0 0 0}

111 ** DPS ENGINEERING, Cork, Ireland E 65.0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

112 144 BURNS & MCDONNELL, Kansas City, Mo., U.S.A. EAC 62.2 6 26 0 69 0 0 0 5 0 0 113 103 ADPI INGENIERIE, Athis Mons Cedex, France† _{EA 61.7 78 1 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0}

114 108 ACCIONA INFRAESTRUCTURAS SA, Madrid, Spain† _{EC 61.0 68 7 0 28 11 3 0 42 0 0}

115 115 WATG | WIMBERLY INTERIORS, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. A 61.0 88 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 116 HOCHTIEF AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Essen, Germany† _{EC 60.0 42 18 0 11 1 5 5 57 1 0}

117 124 SETEC, Paris, France† _{E 57.4 17 10 1 5 2 1 0 80 0 0}

118 130 EMPRESARIOS AGRUPADOS, Madrid, Spain† _{EA 56.6 52 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 6 4}

119 119 SAMOO ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS, Seoul, S. Korea AE 56.4 28 27 72 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 120 118 H.P. GAUFF INGENIEURE GMBH & CO. KG -JBG, Frankfurt, Germany† _{E 55.3 64 0 0 0 24 7 0 65 0 4}

121 131 ENERGOPROJEKT HOLDING PLC, Belgrade, Serbia† _{E 54.6 72 0 0 87 13 0 0 0 0 0}

122 109 CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTORS GROUP, Athens, Greece† _{C 52.8 100 15 0 0 0 0 68 16 0 0}

123 ** SHANGHAI XIAN DAI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (GROUP) CO. LTD., Shanghai, China† _{AE 52.7 9 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

124 175 KLEINFELDER, San Diego, Calif., U.S.A.† _{EA 52.1 14 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 50 0}

125 122 NBBJ, Seattle, Wash., U.S.A.† _{A 52.0 32 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

126 135 GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS, Atlanta, Ga., U.S.A.† _{E 51.6 21 0 0 6 0 0 29 0 65 0}

127 158 POPULOUS, Kansas City, Mo., U.S.A.† _{A 48.0 39 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

128 137 ITALCONSULT, Rome, Italy E 47.2 95 18 0 0 7 4 0 71 0 0

129 128 ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT INC., Lancaster, N.Y., U.S.A.† _{ENV 46.4 36 0 1 37 4 4 35 5 2 4}

130 155 RCM TECHNOLOGIES INC., Pennsauken, N.J., U.S.A.† _{EA 46.0 46 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0}

131 120 SAFEGE, Nanterre, France† _{E 45.7 35 0 0 4 46 20 0 27 0 0}

132 ** STUDI INTERNATIONAL, Tunis, Tunisia† _{E 45.4 90 8 0 3 20 5 0 64 0 0}

133 148 CHINA INT’L WATER & ELECTRIC CORP., Beijing, China† _{EC 45.4 100 9 0 62 27 0 2 0 0 0}

134 140 PERKINS EASTMAN, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.† _{A 43.9 24 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

135 139 PAGE, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. AE 43.8 36 76 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

136 121 GEODATA SPA, Torino, Italy† _{E 43.8 90 0 0 5 14 6 0 71 0 0}

137 ** THE THIRD RAILWAY SURVEY AND DESIGN INST. GRP. CORP., Tianjin, China† _{EA 42.4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0}

138 141 THORNTON TOMASETTI INC., New York, N.Y., U.S.A. EA 42.3 25 96 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 139 152 STANLEY CONSULTANTS INC., Muscatine, Iowa, U.S.A. EA 41.8 23 22 0 17 1 14 0 47 0 0 140 132 THE LAUREN CORP., Irving, Texas, U.S.A.† _{EC 40.0 68 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

141 147 HKS INC., Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.† _{A 38.5 14 99 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0}

142 142 INGEROP, Courbevoie, France† _{E 38.5 15 29 15 0 2 0 0 54 0 0}

143 157 POSCO ENGINEERING CO., Incheon City, S. Korea† _{EC 37.1 45 0 0 8 0 4 85 3 0 0}

144 ** SHAKER GROUP, Cairo, Egypt† _{E 35.9 92 41 13 21 0 0 5 13 0 0}

145 127 CANNON DESIGN, Grand Island, N.Y., U.S.A. AE 35.3 19 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

146 174 DEWAN ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS, Dubai, U.A.E. EA 35.3 81 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 160 WALDEMAR S. NELSON AND CO. INC., New Orleans, La., U.S.A. EA 34.9 49 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0

148 192 KIEWIT CORP., Omaha, Neb., U.S.A.† _{EC 34.6 12 0 0 87 0 0 13 0 0 0}

149 150 CTI ENGINEERING CO. LTD., Tokyo, Japan† _{E 34.6 10 0 0 0 39 16 0 43 0 0}

150 133 STRUCTORIS LTD., Ankara, Turkey† _{E 34.4 95 50 0 0 0 0 9 41 0 0}

151 ** APG ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING GROUP, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E. AE 33.1 75 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

152 170 ARABTECH JARDANEH, Amman, Jordan† _{AE 33.1 80 79 0 0 5 3 1 8 0 0}

153 154 PADECO CO. LTD., Tokyo, Japan E 33.0 99 6 0 1 0 0 0 51 0 1

82  ENR  July 27/August 3, 2015 enr.com

GENERAL BUILDING MANUF WATER SUPPL TRANSPOR ACTURING SEWER / W HAZARDOUS W POWER INDUS. / PETROLEUM TELECOM IN

$ MIL TOTAL REV.% OF FIRM TYPE FIRM RANK 2015 2014 2014 INT'L REVENUE

154 171 CONSOLIDATED CONSULTANTS, Amman, Jordan AE 32.6 83 46 3 0 8 3 0 18 0 0

155 ** SUNJIN ENGINEERING & ARCHITECTURE, Seoul, S. Korea EA 31.1 36 91 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0

156 125 NJS CO. LTD., Tokyo, Japan† _{E 31.0 26 0 0 0 68 32 0 0 0 0}

157 162 PCG PROFABRIL CONSULPLANO GESTAO GROUP, Lisbon, Portugal† _{E 30.9 81 16 0 0 5 5 44 30 0 0}

158 169 CCDI GROUP, Shanghai, China AE 29.8 8 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

159 163 GHAFARI ASSOCIATES LLC, Dearborn, Mich., U.S.A.† _{EA 29.5 24 1 21 0 0 0 0 77 0 0}

160 159 WONG TUNG & PARTNERS LTD., Hong Kong, China† _{A 28.0 67 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

161 145 TTCL PUBLIC CO. LTD., Bangkok, Thailand† _{EC 27.3 53 0 0 0 38 0 62 0 0 0}

162 ** JAN DE NUL GROUP, Capellen, Luxembourg† _{EC 27.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0}

163 153 KAJIMA CORP., Tokyo, Japan† _{EC 26.3 16 13 59 1 0 1 20 0 0 0}

164 167 MOFFATT & NICHOL, Long Beach, Calif., U.S.A.† _{E 26.1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0}

165 166 TATA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD., Mumbai, Maharashtra, India† _{E 25.2 30 0 0 60 0 0 15 0 0 0}

166 ** YACHIYO ENGINEERING CO. LTD., Tokyo, Japan E 24.8 16 5 0 22 11 21 0 13 0 8

167 177 INTEGRAL GROUP, Oakland, Calif., U.S.A.† _{E 24.4 60 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

168 213 GETINSA-PAYMA SL, Madrid, Spain E 24.3 62 0 0 0 6 3 0 91 0 0

169 165 DOHWA ENGINEERING CO. LTD., Seoul, S. Korea EC 24.0 12 0 0 7 5 4 0 79 0 0 170 217 IPS - INTEGRATED PROJECT SERVICES INC., Blue Bell, Pa., U.S.A.† _{EA 23.4 28 0 2 0 0 0 98 0 0 0}

171 ** POWER ENGINEERS INC., Meridian, Idaho, U.S.A.† _{EA 23.4 7 0 0 94 0 0 6 0 0 0}

172 168 CES CONSULTING ENGINEERS SALZGITTER GMBH, Braunschweig, Germany† _{E 23.0 100 14 0 0 51 33 0 2 0 0}

173 136 SHENYANG YUANDA ALUMINUM INDUS. ENG’G CO. LTD., Shenyang, Liaoning, China EC 22.9 82 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 151 GULF INTERSTATE ENGINEERING CO., Houston, Texas, U.S.A.† _{EA 22.8 9 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

175 ** SURBANA INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS PTE. LTD., Singapore AE 22.6 26 85 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 176 172 TEMELSU INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES INC., Ankara, Turkey E 22.6 56 0 0 2 50 6 0 33 0 0

177 ** CHODAI CO. LTD., Tokyo, Japan E 22.2 11 5 0 3 0 2 0 80 0 0

178 181 PUNJ LLOYD LTD, Gurgaon, Haryana, India† _{E 22.0 88 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

179 190 ZGF ARCHITECTS LLP, Portland, Ore., U.S.A. A 21.7 16 94 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

180 202 KOREA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CORP., Seoul, S. Korea E 20.3 11 0 0 6 51 0 0 38 0 0

181 ** TVSDESIGN, Atlanta, Ga., U.S.A.† _{A 20.1 52 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

182 178 KUNHWA ENGINEERING & CONSULTING CO. LTD., Seoul, S. Korea E 20.1 15 0 0 4 12 15 0 39 0 0 183 ** VALODE & PISTRE ARCHITECTS, Paris, France A 18.8 42 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

184 187 KAYSON, Tehran, Iran† _{EC 18.2 86 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

185 188 SHELADIA ASSOCIATES INC., Rockville, Md., U.S.A. EA 18.1 85 0 0 1 20 0 0 80 0 0 186 215 MERRICK & CO., Greenwood Village, Colo., U.S.A.† _{EA 18.0 19 29 0 27 0 0 4 0 5 0}

187 194 GOETTSCH PARTNERS INC., Chicago, Ill., U.S.A. A 17.5 59 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

188 ** STEELMAN PARTNERS, Las Vegas, Nev., U.S.A. A 17.2 39 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

189 ** CHINA ALUMINUM INT’L ENGINEERING CO. LTD., Beijing, China† _{EC 16.9 7 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

190 198 THE JERDE PARTNERSHIP INC., Venice, Calif., U.S.A.† _{A 16.8 93 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

191 201 RIZZO ASSOCIATES INC., Pittsburgh, Pa., U.S.A.† _{E 16.8 54 0 0 67 33 0 0 0 0 0}

192 176 HANKINS AND ANDERSON INC., Glen Allen, Va., U.S.A. EA 16.0 61 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 193 75 CHINA RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION CORP. LTD., Beijing, China† _{EC 16.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0}

194 143 MG2 (FORMERLY MULVANNYG2), Seattle, Wash., U.S.A. A 15.9 28 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 195 206 GANNETT FLEMING, Harrisburg, Pa., U.S.A.† _{EA 15.5 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 89 0 0}

196 183 YOOSHIN ENGINEERING CORP., Seoul, S. Korea E 15.2 12 0 0 12 5 6 0 66 0 0

197 208 DIA HOLDING FZCO, Istanbul, Turkey EC 15.0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

198 179 ROBERT A.M. STERN ARCHITECTS LLP (RAMSA), New York, N.Y., U.S.A. A 14.9 24 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 173 SUMITOMO MITSUI CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., Tokyo, Japan† _{A 14.6 87 28 51 0 0 0 22 0 0 0}

200 225 WD PARTNERS, Dublin, Ohio, U.S.A. AE 14.1 31 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

201 ** AMBITECH ENGINEERING CORP., Downers Grove, Ill., U.S.A. EC 13.3 11 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

202 186 SAMAN CORP., Seoul, S. Korea† _{E 13.2 15 0 0 59 6 2 0 25 0 0}

203 189 CHA CONSULTING INC., Albany, N.Y., U.S.A.† _{EA 12.8 6 62 0 38 0 1 0 0 0 0}

204 219 YUKSEL PROJE ULUSLARARASI AS, Ankara, Turkey† _{EAC 12.7 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 0}

GENERAL BUILDING MANUF POWER WATER SUPPL SEWER INDUS. TRANSPOR HAZARDOUS W TELECOM

IN

$ MIL TOTAL REV.% OF FIRM

TYPE FIRM

RANK 2015 2014

205 221 AMG AL AMAR CONSULTING GROUP SA, Cairo, Egypt EA 12.5 69 78 5 3 5 5 0 2 0 1 206 207 LANGAN ENG’G AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC., Elmwood Park, N.J., U.S.A. E 12.5 6 39 3 1 9 9 12 4 21 2 207 211 REBEL DESIGN+GROUP, Marina Del Rey, Calif., U.S.A. A 12.2 66 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 208 218 YOST GRUBE HALL ARCHITECTURE, Portland, Ore., U.S.A. AP 12.2 89 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

209 182 STELLAR, Jacksonville, Fla., U.S.A. EA 12.2 24 20 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0

210 ** ECC, Burlingame, Calif., U.S.A.† _{EC 11.4 33 89 0 0 0 9 0 2 0 0}

211 224 SB ARCHITECTS, San Francisco, Calif., U.S.A. A 11.4 64 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 204 SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER INC., Waltham, Mass., U.S.A. E 11.4 10 18 18 47 4 0 3 7 0 0 213 214 NIHON SUIDO CONSULTANTS CO. LTD., Tokyo, Japan E 11.2 9 0 0 0 45 55 0 0 0 0

214 ** 3TI PROGETTI, Rome, Italy E 11.1 40 10 0 0 9 0 0 81 0 0

215 209 SSOE GROUP, Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.† _{E 11.1 8 0 55 0 0 0 45 0 0 0}

216 ** PYUNGHWA ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD., Anyang, Kyunggi-do, S. Korea E 11.0 27 0 0 4 2 12 0 82 0 0

217 220 DLZ, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.† _{EA 11.0 11 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0}

218 ** CHINA CONSTRUCTION ENG’G DESIGN GRP. CO. LTD., Beijing, China† _{AE 10.8 1 72 0 0 20 5 0 3 0 0}

219 223 STUDIOS ARCHITECTURE, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. A 10.5 20 92 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 220 ** SUMMA TURIZM YATIRMCILIGI AS, Ankara, Turkey† _{A 10.3 100 78 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0}

221 ** CHINA METALLURGICAL GROUP CORP., Beijing, China† _{EA 10.1 2 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0}

222 180 ENGLOBAL U.S. INC., Houston, Texas, U.S.A.† _{EC 10.0 15 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0}

223 ** JBA CONSULTING ENGINEERS, Las Vegas, Nev., U.S.A.† _{E 10.0 29 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0}

224 222 MIDDOUGH INC., Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. EA 10.0 10 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

225 ** YANTAI INTERNATIONAL ECO. & TECHN. COOP. GRP. CO. LTD., Yantai, China EC 10.0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

enr.com July 27/August 3, 2015  ENR  83

PROUDLY

WELCOMES

TO ITS CONSTRUCTION

PUBLISHING FAMILY.