With the funding for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) pretty much dwindling away, Giants firms that perform work for the Pentagon and the military branches can expect fairly significant cuts in project spending in the next year or so.
The proposed military construction budget for FY2013 is $11.2 billion, down 24% from the previous fiscal year. Election-year politics could also have a chilling effect on spending, adding to the uncertainty.
Nonetheless, the military remains a huge consumer of design and construction services. DoD’s portfolio of 300,000 buildings totaling 2.2 billion sf is six times larger than the General Services Administration’s. With energy costs running at $4 billion a year, the Pentagon is taking aggressive steps to cut operating costs for its facilities.
These efforts include pilot programs for net-zero energy, water, and waste in military facilities, as well as improved living facilities for bachelor personnel and military families. Construction of VA hospitals and long-term care facilities likely will also be ramped up. +
TOP 25 MILITARY SECTOR ARCHITECTURE FIRMS
| Rank | Company | 2011 Military Revenue ($) |
| 1 | HDR Architecture | $99,700,000 |
| 2 | Heery International | $43,475,000 |
| 3 | RTKL Associates | $17,173,273 |
| 4 | Leo A Daly | $14,753,871 |
| 5 | RSP Architects | $11,000,000 |
| 6 | VOA Associates | $9,590,331 |
| 7 | LS3P Associates | $9,224,882 |
| 8 | Sherlock, Smith & Adams | $8,830,000 |
| 9 | HOK | $8,749,412 |
| 10 | Gensler | $7,500,000 |
| 11 | EwingCole | $7,000,000 |
| 12 | Reynolds, Smith and Hills | $6,300,000 |
| 13 | HNTB Architecture | $6,059,352 |
| 14 | Flad Architects | $6,000,000 |
| 15 | ZGF Architects | $5,137,746 |
| 16 | EYP Architecture & Engineering | $4,764,411 |
| 17 | Tetra Tech Architects & Engineers | $4,525,000 |
| 18 | KZF Design Inc. | $3,913,026 |
| 19 | PGAL | $3,607,900 |
| 20 | CTA Architects Engineers | $3,003,900 |
| 21 | Fentress Architects | $2,909,000 |
| 22 | RNL | $2,793,000 |
| 23 | Rosser International | $2,592,113 |
| 24 | Cooper Carry | $2,140,420 |
| 25 | Hammel, Green and Abrahamson | $2,031,000 |
TOP 25 MILITARY SECTOR ENGINEERING FIRMS
| Rank | Company | 2011 Military Revenue ($) |
| 1 | Fluor Corp. | 2,123,247,000 |
| 2 | URS Corp. | 431,776,114 |
| 3 | Science Applications International Corp. | 97,512,998 |
| 4 | Jacobs | 91,000,000 |
| 5 | Michael Baker Jr., Inc. | 69,450,000 |
| 6 | Burns & McDonnell | 54,856,212 |
| 7 | Atkins North America | 48,350,538 |
| 8 | Clark Nexsen | 41,000,000 |
| 9 | Allen & Shariff | 38,323,273 |
| 10 | STV | 15,475,000 |
| 11 | Eaton Energy Solutions | 12,169,598 |
| 12 | Dewberry | 11,401,250 |
| 13 | BRPH | 10,500,000 |
| 14 | Parsons Brinckerhoff | 8,592,246 |
| 15 | Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon | 8,000,000 |
| 16 | Guernsey | 6,467,256 |
| 17 | Smith Seckman Reid | 6,400,000 |
| 18 | KCI Technologies | 5,795,000 |
| 19 | Newcomb & Boyd | 4,696,144 |
| 20 | KPFF Consulting Engineers | 4,000,000 |
| 21 | H&A Architects & Engineers | 3,906,402 |
| 22 | Rolf Jensen & Associates | 3,000,000 |
| 23 | Coffman Engineers | 2,800,000 |
| 24 | TLC Engineering for Architecture | 2,748,782 |
| 25 | Simpson Gumpertz & Heger | 2,604,000 |
TOP 25 MILITARY SECTOR CONSTRUCTION FIRMS
| Rank | Company | 2011 Military Revenue ($) |
| 1 | Clark Group | 1,090,166,857 |
| 2 | Balfour Beatty US | 790,265,417 |
| 3 | Gilbane Building | 552,002,000 |
| 4 | BL Harbert International | 547,000,000 |
| 5 | Lend Lease | 515,594,471 |
| 6 | URS Corp. | 431,776,114 |
| 7 | Hensel Phelps Construction | 381,090,000 |
| 8 | Walsh Group, The | 371,979,780 |
| 9 | Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., The | 346,805,961 |
| 10 | Tutor Perini Corp. | 292,764,000 |
| 11 | Hunt Companies | 263,617,817 |
| 12 | Mortenson | 262,560,000 |
| 13 | JE Dunn Construction | 245,661,074 |
| 14 | Weitz Co., The | 227,710,000 |
| 15 | Turner Corporation, The | 227,184,376 |
| 16 | Manhattan Construction Group | 214,768,000 |
| 17 | Sundt Construction | 172,519,845 |
| 18 | Walbridge | 134,300,000 |
| 19 | Yates Co., Inc., The | 133,900,000 |
| 20 | CORE Construction | 117,844,700 |
| 21 | Coakley & Williams Construction, Inc. | 103,386,324 |
| 22 | Haskell | 94,752,188 |
| 23 | Jacobs | 91,000,000 |
| 24 | Suffolk Construction | 85,766,599 |
| 25 | McCarthy Holdings | 70,000,000 |
Related Stories
| Oct 27, 2011
ASSA Abloy, MAXXESS Systems announce U.S. Aperio integration
Aperio will integrate with MAXXESS's eAXxess and Efusion Event Management Software packages.
| Oct 26, 2011
Metl-Span selected for re-roof project
School remained in session during the renovation and it was important to minimize the disruption as much as possible.
| Oct 26, 2011
Shawmut Design and Construction awarded Tag Heuer build in Aventura, Fla.
New store features 1,200 sf fit out at Aventura Mall.
| Oct 25, 2011
HKS Science & Technology practice formed
Specializing in the planning and design of highly technical building types, HKS’s Science & Technology practice offers the broadest range of services available to the academic and biomedical research, biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device community, including laboratory programming, planning and design, strategic science planning and laboratory equipment planning.
| Oct 25, 2011
Universal teams up with Earthbound Corp. to provide streamlined commercial framing solutions
The primary market for the Intact Structural Frame is light commercial buildings that are typically designed with concrete masonry walls, steel joists and steel decks.
| Oct 25, 2011
Ritner Steel CEO elected to AISC Board
Freund will begin serving on the AISC board of directors, assisting with the organization's planning and leadership in the steel construction industry.
| Oct 25, 2011
Commitment to green building practices pays off
The study, conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, built on a good indication of the potential for increased productivity and performance pilot research completed two years ago, with similarly impressive results.
| Oct 25, 2011
DOE issues report on financing solar photovoltaic systems for K-12 schools
The report examines the two primary types of ownership models used to obtain solar installations. This analysis can help school administrators across the country select the best option for deploying solar technologies in their school districts.
