MEP Giants 2010

In 2010, engineering firms focus on energy-efficiency initiatives this year, while investing heavily in the continued development of their in-house engineers.

10/18/2010


Download the official 2010 MEP Giants poster in PDF form by clicking on the image to the right.

Over the past three years, Consulting-Specifying Engineer (CSE) has spent considerable time surveying and analyzing its mechanical, electrical, plumbing (MEP) and fire protection firms to create MEP Giants data. These efforts have not been in vain—we asked participating firms the same questions each year, so we now have three years of data available to analyze and identify trends in the marketplace.

From June to September, engineering firms responded to a request for information from the CSE staff. Not all firms were willing and able to participate in this year’s MEP Giants survey. Our results and data are based on the companies who responded to the survey, and they provide a snapshot of the industry as a whole.

The 2010 MEP Giants amassed $3.24 billion in MEP design revenue—not a number to sneeze at in today’s economy. The total company revenue for the MEP Giants firms amounted to $17.42 billion during the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Table 1 shows the top 10 MEP Giants firms based on MEP design revenue, which is how CSE MEP Giants are officially ranked. The complete table of rankings is available at www.csemag.com/giants

Table 1: Top 10 MEP Giants based on MEP design revenue

 

Firm name

 

Ownership type: (public, private, employee owned)

 

Total gross revenue for fiscal year ($ million)

 

Total MEP design revenue ($ million)

 

URS Corp.

 

Public

 

 $  9,249.00

 

 $  780.00

 

Burns & McDonnell

 

Employee-owned

 

 $  1,097.00

 

 $  592.00

 

Parsons Brinckerhoff

 

Public

 

 $  2,069.92

 

 $  145.00

 

Stantec Inc.

 

Public

 

 $  1,337.48

 

 $  144.20

 

HDR Architecture Inc.

 

Employee-owned

 

 $      344.70

 

 $  127.50

 

Syska Hennessy Group

 

Employee-owned

 

 $        93.30

 

 $     93.30

 

SSOE Group

 

Private

 

 $      125.38

 

 $     87.77

 

Affiliated Engineers Inc. (Private)

 

Private

 

 $        86.74

 

 $     76.88

 

The Benham Companies LLC (Benham)

 

Private

 

 $      275.65

 

 $     60.64

 

Henderson Engineers

Private

$ 57.20

$ 54.20

This year’s MEP Giants list is 19 firms smaller than last year’s list; part of the reason for the list’s contraction is the continued mergers and acquisitions activity in the engineering and construction market. Twenty-one percent of this year’s MEP Giants firms were involved in some type of mergers and acquisitions activity during the 2009-2010 fiscal year, and that number does not appear likely to shrink anytime soon.

Diversity among the Giants

When filling out the MEP Giants survey, participating engineering firms must quantify what percentage of their revenue is attributable to what type of project; project types include new construction, renovation/retrofit, maintenance/repair/operation, or commissioning. CSE then catalogued the data by totaling the number of firms in each percentage breakdown. When comparing the 2009 MEP Giants data on distribution of revenue across project types, several interesting trends appeared:

  • 67% have 31% to 75% of revenue coming from new construction (up 2% from 2009 and up 15% from 2008)
  • 59% have 31% to 75% of revenue coming from retrofits/renovations (up 6% from 2009 and up 5% from 2008)
  • 55% are involved in maintenance/repair/operations (MRO) (down 2% from 2009, but up 22% from 2008)
  • 71% are involved in commissioning (up 10% from 2009 and 29% from 2008).

In last year’s article, we talked about how this year’s new construction market would continue to struggle, as evidenced by the slight 2% rise in revenue associated with new construction projects. Seventy-nine percent of the 2010 MEP Giants indicated that the economy’s impact on the construction market was the biggest corporate challenge faced during the previous fiscal year.

Green projects and LEED

During the troubled economic times of 2008 and 2009, the inflated construction market needed to refocus on making buildings and their systems last longer, perform more efficiently, and provide greater return on investment. The 2010 MEP Giants numbers support this trend demonstrated by the 6% increase in retrofits/renovations and the 10% increase in commissioning projects. As the new construction market continues the glacial climb out of the historic depths of the previous few years, the silver lining during the return to normalcy might be engineers rededicating themselves to improving the vast amount of existing buildings that perform inefficiently.

Even with 19 fewer firms than last year, the 2010 MEP Giants submitted more projects for U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED certification. The 2010 Giants submitted 1,499 projects for LEED certification and 231 projects for the U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR Buildings Label. The number of projects submitted for the EPA Energy Star Buildings Label continues to fall from year to year, begging the question: “What is the future of the EPA ENERGY STAR Buildings Label program?”

Employment

The increased focus on energy efficiency and sustainable building practices fuels engineering firms’ desire to hire or train engineers well-versed in environmental engineering and green building technologies. According to the National Employment Matrix developed by the

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), roughly 1.6 million engineers hold jobs in the United States. The second-fastest-growing engineering title according to the BLS is environmental engineering, with a projected 31% increase in the level of employment by 2018.

In the 2008 MEP Giants article, CSE reported that there were 51,452 LEED Accredited Professionals (AP) in the United States and that year, the firms employed 4,042 of them. In 2010, according to the LEED Professional Directory on the Green Building Certification Institute’s website, which administers the LEED AP exam, there are 117,735 LEED APs in the United States. The more than 128% increase in the number of LEED APs in less than two years demonstrates the value energy-efficient building practices have in the construction marketplace. The number of LEED APs is a good indicator of a firm’s commitment to the green market because there are costs associated with preparing for and taking the LEED AP exam. However, the numbers alone do not tell the whole story about how green a firm is or how well a firm performs on green projects. Even though not every LEED AP is an engineer or vice versa, the rapid rise of LEED APs is a trend difficult to overlook.

The 2010 MEP Giants employ more than 26,000 engineers across the United States and Canada, including more than 3,200 engineers with LEED AP certification. Table 2 shows the top 10 mechanical, electrical, and plumbing employers from the 2010 Giants rankings.

Table 2: Top 10 MEP employers

 

Firm name

 

How many full-time engineers does your firm have on staff?

 

Mechanical engineers

 

Electrical engineers

 

Plumbing engineers

 

Fire protection engineers

 

Other engineers

 

How many engineers are LEED APs?

 

URS Corp.

 

           8,842

 

983

 

         1,309

 

364

 

              81

 

6105

 

           411

 

Parsons Brinckerhoff

 

           5,633

 

975

 

817

 

n/a

 

n/a

 

3841

 

112

 

Stantec Inc.

 

           2,215

 

227

 

281

 

97

 

5

 

1605

 

324

 

Burns & McDonnell

 

           1,192

 

265

 

385

 

0

 

0

 

542

 

149

 

STV Group Inc.

 

740

 

74

 

51

 

2

 

10

 

603

 

56

 

Gannett Fleming Inc.

 

667

 

20

 

53

 

2

 

2

 

607

 

18

 

Middough Inc.

 

447

 

121

 

59

 

19

 

3

 

245

 

6

 

POWER Engineers

 

430

 

65

 

219

 

0

 

0

 

146

 

n/a

 

The Benham Companies LLC (Benham)

 

385

 

89

 

56

 

n/a

 

6

 

234

 

29

 

Henderson Engineers Inc.

 

367

 

155

 

132

 

19

 

43

 

18

 

96

 

 

Mentoring and continuing education

The 2010 MEP Giants data show that engineering firms are investing in their in-house engineers and staff more than ever before. Investing time and money in the continued professional development of their engineers is an investment these firms are willing to make, but the investment rewards both the firm and the engineer. Individually, the engineer receives continued professional development in the form of certifications (PE LEED AP, RCDD, NTS, LC, etc.), along with paid membership to societies and associations within his or her field. Collectively, the firms are rewarded for this investment by increasing the amount and complexity of

projects they can perform because their engineers now have various levels of certification and specialties.

When asked, “What educational and mentoring program does your firm offer its engineering staff?” the 2010 MEP Giants responded as follows:

  • 95% offer informal internal mentoring (such as brown bag lunches)
  • 92% offer paid membership to societies               
  • 96% offer paid attendance to conferences/tradeshows
  • 92% allow their engineers to attend webcasts during business hours
  • 83% purchase e-learning courses/materials
  • 79% offer tuition reimbursement for college/university courses/degrees
  • 93% offer paid training and testing leading to professional certifications.

Fire protection firms

CSE asked the firms to identify the number of fire protection engineers that were currently at the firm. The results are summarized in Table 3, which shows the 10 firms with the largest number of fire protection engineers.

Table 3: Top 10 fire protection engineering firms

 

Firm name

 

Fire protection engineers

 

MEP Giants Rank

 

URS Corp.

 

81

 

1

 

Henderson Engineers Inc.

 

43

 

10

 

M/E Engineering P.C.

 

25

 

20

 

R. G. Vanderweil LLP

 

16

 

26

 

Environmental Systems Design Inc.

 

11

 

17

 

STV Group Inc.

 

10

 

25

 

RDK Engineers

 

9

 

27

 

EwingCole

 

8

 

29

 

PWI Engineering

 

8

 

67

 

The Benham Companies, LLC (Benham)

 

6

 

9

 

Commissioning services

CSE asked the firms to identify the percentage of their MEP design revenue that was attributable to commissioning (Cx) services or projects. CSE then ranked the top 10 firms based on the highest amount of revenue attributable to Cx services or project.

See Commissioning on the Rise.

Retrofit/renovation

CSE asked the firms to identify the percentage of their MEP design revenue that was attributable to retrofit/renovation projects. CSE then ranked the top 10 firms in Table 4 based on the highest amount of revenue attributable to retrofit/renovation projects.

Table 4: Top 10 firms based on retrofit/renovation project revenue

 

Firm name

 

Total gross revenue for fiscal year ($ million)

 

Total MEP design revenue ($ million)

 

Retrofit/renovation percentage

 

Retrofit/renovation ($ million)

 

URS Corp.

 

 $  9,249.00

 

 $  780.00

 

40%

 

 $  312.00

 

Burns & McDonnell

 

 $  1,097.00

 

 $  592.00

 

50%

 

 $  296.00

 

HDR Architecture Inc.

 

 $     344.70

 

 $  127.50

 

70%

 

 $    89.25

 

Syska Hennessy Group

 

 $        93.30

 

 $     93.30

 

50%

 

 $    46.65

 

Parsons Brinckerhoff

 

 $  2,069.92

 

 $  145.00

 

25%

 

 $    36.25

 

Henderson Engineers Inc.

 

 $        57.20

 

 $     54.20

 

55%

 

 $    29.81

 

KJWW Engineering Consultants

 

 $        48.53

 

 $     40.91

 

60%

 

 $    24.55

 

The Benham Companies LLC (Benham)

 

 $     275.65

 

 $     60.64

 

33%

 

 $    20.01

 

Cannon Design

 

 $     171.61

 

 $     53.00

 

35%

 

 $    18.55

 

Environmental Systems Design Inc.

 

 $        36.10

 

 $     36.10

 

48%

 

 $    17.33

 

Maintenance/repair/operation

CSE asked the firms to identify the percentage of their MEP design revenue that was attributable to maintenance/repair/operation projects. CSE then ranked the top 10 firms in Table 5 based on highest amount of revenue attributable to MRO services or projects.

Table 5: Top 10 firms based on maintenance/repair/operation project revenue

 

Firm name

 

Total gross revenue for fiscal year ($ million)

 

Total MEP design revenue ($ million)

 

MRO percentage

 

MRO revenue ($ million)

 

URS Corp.

 

 $  9,249.00

 

 $      780.00

 

20%

 

 $  156.00

 

Burns & McDonnell

 

 $  1,097.00

 

 $      592.00

 

10%

 

 $    59.20

 

Parsons Brinckerhoff

 

 $  2,069.92

 

 $      145.00

 

25%

 

 $    36.25

 

Optimation Technology Inc.

 

 $        32.00

 

 $        24.00

 

50%

 

 $    12.00

 

SSOE Group

 

 $     125.38

 

 $        87.77

 

10%

 

 $       8.78

 

The Benham Companies LLC (Benham)

 

 $     275.65

 

 $        60.64

 

11%

 

 $       6.67

 

X-nth

 

 $        51.93

 

 $        51.93

 

12%

 

 $       6.23

 

Syska Hennessy Group

 

 $        93.30

 

 $        93.30

 

50%

 

 $       4.67

 

Sebesta Blomberg

 

 $        32.11

 

 $        32.11

 

14%

 

 $       4.50

 

Middough Inc.

 

 $        95.00

 

 $        42.00

 

10%

 

 $       4.20

 

Source of clients

CSE asked the firms to identify the type of client or source of their work during the 2009-2010 fiscal years. The percentages of where the work comes from for the MEP Giants are broken down in Figure 1.

Software used

CSE asked the firms to indicate what types of software the firm used during the design and testing phase of any project. The percentages of use for software are displayed in Figure 2.

Conclusion and methodology

CSE interviewed several of the top 20 MEP Giants firms and asked their corporate leadership to provide some insight into next year. The interview topics included trends for 2011, internal growth at the firm, replacing veteran engineers, building types that will provide the most work in 2011, and how energy-efficiency codes will continue to shape the business.

See View From the Top


For more information on MEP Giants 2010 go to www.csemag.com/giants

Related MEP Giants 2010 articles:

[Commissioning on the Rise]

 

[Slow Recovery Slated]

[View From the Top]

[Consolidation Nation]

 



No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Engineering Leaders Under 40 program identifies and gives recognition to young engineers who...
The true cost of lubrication: Three keys to consider when evaluating oils; Plant Engineering Lubrication Guide; 11 ways to protect bearing assets; Is lubrication part of your KPIs?
Contract maintenance: 5 ways to keep things humming while keeping an eye on costs; Pneumatic systems; Energy monitoring; The sixth 'S' is safety
Transport your data: Supply chain information critical to operational excellence; High-voltage faults; Portable cooling; Safety automation isn't automatic
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Maintaining low data center PUE; Using eco mode in UPS systems; Commissioning electrical and power systems; Exploring dc power distribution alternatives
Synchronizing industrial Ethernet networks; Selecting protocol conversion gateways; Integrating HMIs with PLCs and PACs
Why manufacturers need to see energy in a different light: Current approaches to energy management yield quick savings, but leave plant managers searching for ways of improving on those early gains.

Annual Salary Survey

Participate in the 2013 Salary Survey

In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.

Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.

2012 Salary Survey Analysis

2012 Salary Survey Results

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.