ENR Top Owners Sourcebook - 2006 This annual issue is a detailed analysis and ranking of the 425 private companies based on their construction spending in the previous year. ENR’s Top Owners Sourcebook advises readers about issues concerning construction programs of top U.S. owners-- privately-owned firms, non-profit institutions and government agencies. The main story, "The Top Owners," is about large owners who are pressing the industry to put developing technology and project delivery advances together in an effort to rethink the way construction programs are conceived, designed and built. Separate tables list the top owners by industry segment. This “Sourcebook” issue of ENR, along with the other ENR survey issues, has a long shelf-live and, therefore, are used as a reference tool throughout the industry.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ENR Top Owners Sourcebook - 2006
This annual issue is a detailed analysis and ranking of the 425 private companies based on their construction spending in the previous year. ENR’s Top Owners Sourcebook advises readers about issues concerning construction programs of top U.S. owners--privately-owned firms, non-profit institutions and government agencies. The main story, "The Top Owners," is about large owners who are pressing the industry to put developing technology and project delivery advances together in an effort to rethink the way construction programs are conceived, designed and built.
Separate tables list the top owners by industry segment. This “Sourcebook” issue of ENR, along with the other ENR survey issues, has a long shelf-live and, therefore, are used as a reference tool throughout the industry.
FIL
LUST
RATI
ON
BYN
ANCY
SOUL
LIAR
DFO
REN
R
see a lot of local programs, but no comprehensive approach.Owners are not always getting their preferred contractors sim-ply because the contractors don’t have the capacity to do thework.” He worries that this may force some of the large, multi-national owners to look abroad to locate their projects.
“The basic challenges have not changed,” says Tom Weise,corporate director of facilities, materials and services at IntelCorp. “We are still struggling to make sure that good labor isavailable at the right place at the right time. And that’s a globalproblem, not just here in the U.S.” He argues that this is anissue that must be addressed now. “As the baby boomers retire,there could be catastrophic consequences if we fail,” he says.“Construction prices will go through the roof.”
Many large owners have not experienced critical shortagesof personnel on their projects, but are worried. “Our projectshave not been experiencing major shortages in the trades, butthere are many owners that have,” says Joseph Gionfriddo,global construction manager for Procter & Gamble, and chairof the lean construction committee for Construction UsersRoundtable and member of the globalization committee for theConstruction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas. Neither hasJohnson & Johnson had shortages in the trades, says William P.Tibbitt, J&J’s executive director of worldwide engineering andreal estate. “But we have seen shortages of experienced, com-petent managers on the contractors’ side,” he says.
Many owners are unhappy with the industry’s inability tocome up with a coordinated approach to recruiting people intothe industry. And some say that owners shouldn’t have to solvethe industry’s problems. “Coming to owners for leadership onfinding the next generation of construction workers is like Gen-eral Motors going to the consumers and asking them for adviceon solving the problem of rising steel prices,” says Sizemore.
gether to rethink the way con-struction programs are conceived,
designed and built.As part of its overview of the
owners, ENR is once again present-ing its Top 425 Owners list (see page
12). This list ranks publicly held com-panies based on the construction-in-
progress figures for 2005 they suppliedin federal financial filings to the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission ascompiled by Standard & Poor’s, a divi-sion of The McGraw-Hill Cos. Howev-er, many companies do not separate outtheir construction spending from otherelements of their capital expenditures. Sothis year, for the first time, ENR has pub-lished a ranking of 200 publicly held cor-
porations ranked on their overall capitalexpenditures reported to the SEC and
compiled by Standard and Poor’s (see pp. 9-10).
Recruiting To LeadProbably the biggest issue of
immediate concern to large corpo-rate owners is the lack of personnel
to do their projects. “It’s sad to say, butwork force development, which the industry has
talked about for years, is now a major problem in the industry,”says Greg Sizemore, executive vice president of the Construc-tion Users Roundtable, a Cincinnati-based owners group. “We
For years, large owners have been campaigning for their constructionservice providers to come up with new methods to deliver projectsfaster, cheaper, safer and more efficiently. The industry has respond-ed in fits and starts, providing technological advances and projectdelivery enhancements. But now, large owners are pressing the indus-try to put developing technology and project delivery advances to-
Cover StoryBy Gary J. Tulacz
ENR
6 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com
However, large owners are attempting to get involved in theissue. One owner initiative that many hope to bear fruit is theCURT Tripartite Initiative, a program to stimulate discussionbetween owners, contractors and labor unions. “We hope,working through the contractors and the unions, to increase thelevel and availability of training in the industry,” says RicardoAparicio, contract manager of GE’s corporate properties andservice operations and president of CURT. “One of the thingsbeing considered is the need for creative approaches to recruit-ment and training,” adds Sizemore. For example, he asks whetheran apprentice always needs to spend a whole day at work andthen go to training classes at night. “These are things we arethinking about,” he says.
Going Where the Workers AreFor some big owners, one answer to local worker shortages maysimply be to consider relocating the work, if not the project,where labor availability is less of a concern. “Much of the engi-neering on a project can be done anywhere. You can get equip-ment from abroad. And, with modularization, process con-struction can be done almost anywhere,” says Gionfriddo. Hesays that large owners increasingly are exploring and using off-shore sites to fabricate and preassemble process elements thatused to be done at the jobsite. “Owners are simply going wherethe skilled labor is available,” he says.
Many of the large process-oriented companies, particularlyin the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, already are usingmodular construction and more may be following that lead.“We’ve seen several companies successfully using modulariza-tion and we are now investigating it ourselves,” says Tibbitt ofJohnson & Johnson.
For many large owners, the construction industry seemsfragmented and uncoordinated, resulting in a product that is theresult of a sequence of disjointed operations. “Everyone saysthey have a process that works, but deep down, those process-es work only within their particular silos,” says Weise. “The bigproblem is to get people to look beyond their own silos andassess the flow the construction process as a whole.”
But the advent of new technologies and some evolving atti-tudes in the industry have some owners see progress. “We arebeginning to see a shift in the paradigm from project deliveryto asset delivery,” says Aparicio. He points out that, from anowner’s perspective, a construction job is not the delivery of aproject but the delivery of an asset to serve a specific functionand all parties to the project should be focused on that end. “Weneed a greater integration of teams and collaboration among theparties to avoid a ‘not-my-job’ attitude in the industry,” he says.
Evidence of the need for a more comprehensive, collabora-tive approach was shown in a survey on owners’ use of programmanagement in delivering capital programs conducted by FMI,a Raleigh, N.C.-based management consultant, and Construc-tion Management Association of America, McLean, Va., re-
ENR
enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 7
Top Firms with Construction in Progress(in $ millions)
Electronic and Other Electric Products
1 INTEL CORP. 2,897.0
2 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES 1,121.1
3 CORNING INC. 1,061.0
4 EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. 303.0
5 MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC. 235.8
6 SPANSION INC. 153.0
7 FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INC. 130.0
8 HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY INC. 113.9
9 INT’L RECTIFIER CORP. 112.2
10 AMKOR TECHNOLOGY INC. 103.4
Paper and Allied Products
1 KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP. 391.3
2 3M CO. 331.0
3 MEADWESTVACO CORP. 181.0
4 SMURFIT-STONE CONTAINER CORP. 169.0
5 AVERY DENNISON CORP. 113.5
6 SONOCO PRODUCTS CO. 68.9
7 SEALED AIR CORP. 66.7
8 TEMPLE-INLAND INC. 62.0
9 BUCKEYE TECHNOLOGIES INC. 43.5
10 GREIF INC. 38.2
Food and Allied Products
1 PEPSICO INC. 1,066.0
2 KRAFT FOODS INC. 651.0
3 TYSON FOODS INC. 407.0
4 ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS INC. 403.1
5 COCA-COLA CO. 306.0
6 COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES INC. 301.0
7 ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO. 299.0
8 MOLSON COORS BREWING CO. 266.5
9 GENERAL MILLS INC. 252.0
10 KELLOGG CO. 237.3
Primary Metal Industries
1 ALCOA INC. 2,066.0
2 CENTURY ALUMINUM CO. 358.7
3 WHEELING PITTSBURGH CORP. 145.0
4 AK STEEL HOLDING CORP. 102.8
5 HARSCO CORP. 91.2
6 OLIN CORP. 62.2
7 PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP. 46.6
8 MAVERICK TUBE CORP. 46.5
9 OREGON STEEL MILLS INC. 43.9
10 QUANEX CORP. 30.7
Health Services
1 HCA INC. 949.0
2 TENET HEALTHCARE CORP. 360.0
3 TRIAD HOSPITALS INC. 226.3
4 UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES 191.7
5 HEALTH MANAGEMENT ASSOC 152.5
6 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC. 98.9
7 LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS INC. 78.4
8 MANOR CARE INC. 56.6
9 KINDRED HEALTHCARE INC. 50.8
10 HEALTHSOUTH CORP. 44.5
Retail Stores
1 TARGET CORP. 1158.0
2 HOME DEPOT INC. 843.0
3 KROGER CO. 511.0
4 KOHL’S CORP. 185.2
5 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP. 180.6
6 AUTOZONE INC. 155.3
7 LIMITED BRANDS INC. 150.0
8 CARMAX INC. 124.4
9 DILLARDS INC. 92.3
10 NORDSTROM INC. 84.5
Industrial Equipment and Machinery
1 CATERPILLAR INC. 696.0
2 DEERE & CO. 276.0
3 AMERICAN STANDARD COS. INC. 208.8
4 CUMMINS INC. 137.0
5 DIEBOLD INC. 113.0
6 EMC CORP. 108.5
7 ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS 92.9
8 APPLIED MATERIALS INC. 85.9
9 XEROX CORP. 83.0
10 TECUMSEH PRODUCTS CO. 78.2
Transportation Equipment
1 GENERAL MOTORS CORP. 4,099.0
2 FORD MOTOR CO. 2,736.0
3 BOEING CO. 1,174.0
4 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. 433.0
5 DELPHI CORP. 245.0
6 VISTEON CORP. 200.0
7 GOODRICH CORP. 178.9
8 BORGWARNER INC. 141.6
9 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. 137.0
10 HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC. 113.5
Chemicals and Allied Products
1 JOHNSON & JOHNSON 2,504.0
2 PFIZER INC. 2,244.0
3 LILLY (ELI) & CO. 2,070.6
4 WYETH 1,516.0
5 DOW CHEMICAL 1,342.0
6 DU PONT (E I) DE NEMOURS 1,082.0
7 MERCK & CO. 1,015.5
8 GENENTECH INC. 964.5
9 AMGEN INC. 958.0
10 ABBOTT LABORATORIES 920.6
Electric, Gas and Sanitary Products
1 AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER 2,217.0
2 ENTERGY CORP. 1,524.1
3 AES CORP. (THE) 1,441.0
4 PUBLIC SERVICE ENTRP GRP INC. 1,428.0
5 SOUTHERN CO. 1,367.0
6 CALPINE CORP. 1,111.2
7 EL PASO CORP. 1,100.0
8 EDISON INTERNATIONAL 956.0
9 DOMINION RESOURCES INC. 954.0
10 DUKE ENERGY CORP. 946.0
ENR
8 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com
technology not as a toy or novelty, but as a way to change theprocess to make it more efficient,” he says.
CURT, the Associated General Contractors, Arlington, Va.,and the American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C., areattempting to answer these questions. The organizations onOct. 11 announced that they have formed a new strategy groupnamed 3xPT to work toward an industry process transforma-tion. The group will attempt to show through practical exam-ples how to best use new technologies to maximize productivi-ty through early planning and collaboration. 3xPT plans to helpdefine roles and responsibilities in the process through modelcontracts, promote collaboration and early contributions ofexpertise from all participants in the construction process anddefine protocols for sharing digital information (see story, p. 66).
Tibbitt, the owner rep on 3xPT, says technology will allowmanagers to change some basic processes to make projects moreefficient. This would mean a blurring of roles for many partic-ipants, as contractors and subs would be introduced sooner andhave a more input on design and management issues. “It alsoforces the owner to lead, and to share information widelyamong all participants in the process,” Tibbitt says.
For the industry, the opportunities for an integrated con-struction process hold out great promise, but it will take morethan a snap of the fingers to make it work. “The software is nowat the point where it can effect change,” says John Tocci, pres-ident of Tocci Building Corp., Woburn, Mass., and AGC rep-
resentative of CURT’s 3xPT committee.“Just think of how much owners could savein nondiscretionary change orders througheliminating design conflicts at the start.”
But he points out that major impedi-ments to wider adoption of a collaborativeand technological approach to projectmanagement include owner concerns overliability, and risk avoidance and shifting.“There are elements of risk and overheadcosts to the process,” says Tocci. “Theopportunity for reward is so great thatowners should be willing to bear some ofthe risk during the transition, to create alitigation-free zone. If owners want this,they should bear a portion of the costs andthey shouldn’t kill us if we fall off the newbicycle we are learning to ride.”
The transition in construction from tra-ditional, narrowly tailored roles and re-sponsibilities, to a broader, more integrat-ed approach where lines are blurred, willnot be easy. “We changed our processes toreflect the new technologies available inthe industry,” says Weise of Intel. “But wefound that changing behaviors may the thehardest thing we did.” �
leased Oct. 18. The survey covered 171 owners doing $64.6 bil-lion in projects. It showed that owners increasingly are lookingto program management to provide a more comprehensive ap-proach to managing the construction process. The surveyshowed 85% of the owners used some form of program man-agement to deliver their capital programs. “This confirms ourbelief that the use of program management is growing as own-ers realize that they don’t have the internal resources needed tomanage programs effectively,” says CMAA Executive DirectorBruce D’Agostino.
Part of this push toward program management is theincreasing need by owners for a more collaborative or integrat-ed approach toward executing projects. “The survey showedthat owners that treated their construction program as a singleprogram managed by a single service provider, rather than as aseries of projects to be managed independently, saved money,”says Mark Bridgers, senior consultant for FMI. This shows thatcollaboration and concentration in management lowers pro-gram costs, he says. And new technologies are helping to pushthe industry toward this more integrated management ap-proach, says Bridgers.
Blurring the RolesAparicio agrees that the development of new technologies isproviding the industry with an opportunity to break through thesilos in the industry. “The question is how do we integrate this
Cover Story
U.S. Dept. of Commerce Construction Put-in-Place$ billions (current dollars)
PERCENT CHG.TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 2005 2006 2007 05-06 06-07
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION 1,143.5 1,167.5 1,170.9 +2.1 +0.3
RESIDENTIAL 650.5 604.8 561.3 –7.0 –7.2
Lodging 13.1 19.7 22.6 +50.0 +14.7
Office 47.7 54.9 61.4 +15.1 +11.8
Commercial 73.7 81.8 90.0 +11.0 +10.0
Health Care 36.6 41.4 46.7 +13.1 +12.8
Educational 78.6 84.1 88.3 +7.0 +5.0
Religious 7.8 8.2 8.5 +5.1 +3.7
Public Safety 10.0 11.1 12.0 11.0 +8.1
Amusement and Recreation 18.5 22.6 25.5 22.2 +12.8
Transportation 26.9 30.1 31.0 +11.9 +3.0
Communication 13.4 15.1 16.7 12.7 +10.6
Power 37.0 41.1 43.9 +11.1 +6.8
Highway and Street 65.7 76.2 81.5 +16.0 +7.0
Sewerage and Waste Disposal 16.5 19.8 19.2 +20.0 –3.0
Water Supply 11.4 12.8 12.8 +12.3 0.0
Conservation and Development 5.0 5.7 5.4 +14.0 –5.3
Manufacturing 31.1 38.3 44.0 23.2 +14.9
SOURCE: U.S. DEPT. OF COMMERCEEFIGURES FOR 2007 ARE ESTIMATED. FEDERAL INDUSTRIAL INCLUDES WEAPONS R&D AND PRODUCTION, ATOMIC WASTE ISOLATION AND REPRO-CESSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP; CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDES ELECTRIC POWER DAMS.
ENR
enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 9
The Top Capital Spenders
1 GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Detroit, Mich. 3700 23,675.0
2 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., New York, N.Y. 4800 15,324.0
94 HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT INC., Las Vegas, Nev. 7900 1,159.5
95 INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO., Stamford, Conn. 2600 1,155.0
96 THE AES CORP., Arlington, Va. 4900 1,143.0
97 ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS INC., Saint Louis, Mo. 2000 1,136.7
98 CSX CORP., Jacksonville, Fla. 4000 1,136.0
99 JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP., Forest Hills, N.Y. 4500 1,124.0
100 TXU CORP., Dallas, Texas 4900 1,104.0
CAPITALEXPENDITURES
FIRM TYPE 2005-06†
RANK* FIRM (SIC CODE**) ($ MIL.)
CAPITALEXPENDITURES
FIRM TYPE 2005-06†
RANK* FIRM (SIC CODE**) ($ MIL.)
Companies are ranked here by capital expenditures—funds used for additions to the company’s property, plant and equipment. They include expenditures for capital leas-es, increases in funds for construction, reclassification of inventory to property, plant and equipment. They do not include capital expenditures of discontinued operations,changes resulting from foreign currency fluctuations, decreases in funds for construction presented as a use of funds, or property, plant and equipment of acquired firms.
* = Based on data supplied by Standard & Poor’s, a unit of the McGraw-Hill Cos.; ** = For SIC Codes explanations, see page 13; †= Covers June 2005-May 2006 (Continued on page 10)
189 SEARS HOLDINGS CORP., Hoffman Estates, Ill. 5300 546.0
190 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. INC., Phoenix, Ariz. 4200 544.4
191 MORGAN STANLEY, New York, N.Y. 6200 540.0
192 KEYSPAN CORP., Brooklyn, N.Y. 4900 539.5
193 SARA LEE CORP., Chicago, Ill. 2000 538.0
194 J.C. PENNEY CO., Plano, Texas 5300 535.0
195 CONSOLIDATED ENERGY INC., Pittsburgh, Pa. 1200 523.5
196 EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Saint Louis, Mo. 3600 518.0
197 BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING INC., Chicago, Ill. 8000 515.1
198 PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO., Houston, Texas 1300 514.9
199 MDU RESOURCES GROUP INC., Bismarck, N.D. 4900 510.9
200 SYSCO CORP., Houston, Texas 5100 390.2
CAPITALEXPENDITURES
FIRM TYPE 2005-06†
RANK* FIRM (SIC CODE**) ($ MIL.)
CAPITALEXPENDITURES
FIRM TYPE 2005-06†
RANK* FIRM (SIC CODE**) ($ MIL.)
* = Based on data supplied by Standard & Poor’s, a unit of the McGraw-Hill Cos.; ** = For SIC Codes explanations, see page 13; †= Covers June 2005-May 2006
T
ENR
en
r.com
N
ovem
ber
27,2
006
�EN
RSO
URCE
BO
OK
�13
How
To
Use
The
Tabl
es�
K E
Y TO
COM
PAN
Y TY
PE U
SIN
G TH
E U.
S.DE
PT.O
F CO
MM
ERCE
’S S
TAN
DARD
INDU
S-T R
IAL
CLAS
SIFI
CATI
ON C
ODES
(SIC
):10
00=M
etal
min
ing;
120
0=Co
al m
inin
g; 1
300=
Oil
and
gas
extra
ctio
n; 1
400=
Nonm
etal
lic m
iner
als,
exce
pt f
uel;
1 500
=Gen
eral
bui
ldin
gco
nstru
ctio
n; 1
600=
Heav
y co
nstru
ctio
n,ex
cept
bui
ldin
g; 2
000=
Food
and
kin
dred
pro
d-uc
ts; 2
100=
Toba
cco
prod
ucts
; 220
0=Te
xtile
mill
pro
duct
s; 2
300=
Appa
rel a
nd o
ther
tex-
tile
prod
ucts
; 240
0=Lu
mbe
r and
woo
d pr
oduc
ts; 2
500=
Furn
iture
and
fixt
ures
; 260
0=Pa
-pe
r and
allie
d pr
oduc
ts; 2
700=
Prin
ting
and
publ
ishin
g; 2
800=
Chem
ical
s an
d al
lied
prod
-uc
ts; 2
900=
Petro
leum
and
coa
l pro
duct
s; 3
000=
Rubb
er a
nd m
iscel
lane
ous
plas
tics
prod
-uc
ts; 3
200=
Ston
e,cl
ay,a
nd g
lass
pro
duct
s; 3
300=
Prim
ary
met
al in
dust
ries;
340
0=Fa
b-ric
ated
met
al p
rodu
cts;
350
0=In
dust
rial
mac
hine
ry a
nd e
quip
men
t; 36
00=E
lect
roni
can
d ot
her e
lect
ric e
quip
men
t; 37
00=T
rans
porta
tion
equi
pmen
t; 38
00=I
nstru
men
ts a
ndre
late
d pr
oduc
ts;
4000
=Rai
lroad
tra
nspo
rtatio
n; 4
200=
Truc
king
and
war
ehou
sing
;44
00=W
ater
tran
spor
tatio
n; 4
500=
Tran
spor
tatio
n by
air;
460
0=Pi
pelin
es,e
xcep
t nat
ural
gas;
470
0=Tr
ansp
orta
tion
serv
ices
; 480
0=Co
mm
unic
atio
ns; 4
900=
Elec
tric,
gas,
and
san-
itary
ser
vices
; 50
00=W
hole
sale
tra
de-d
urab
le
good
s;
5100
=Who
lesa
le
trade
-non
-du
rabl
e go
ods;
520
0=Bu
ildin
g m
ater
ials
and
gar
den
supp
lies;
5300
=Gen
eral
mer
chan
-di
se
stor
es;
5400
=Fo
od
stor
es;
5500
=Au
tom
otiv
e de
aler
s an
d se
rvic
e st
atio
ns;
5600
=App
arel
and
acc
esso
ry s
tore
s; 5
700=
Furn
iture
and
hom
e fu
rnis
hing
sto
res;
5800
=Eat
ing
and
drin
king
pla
ces;
590
0=M
isce
llane
ous
reta
il; 6
100=
Nond
epos
itory
inst
itutio
ns;
6200
=Sec
uriti
es a
nd c
omm
oditi
es d
eale
rs a
nd b
roke
rs;
6300
=Ins
uran
ceca
rrie
rs; 6
500=
Real
est
ate;
700
0=Ho
tel a
nd o
ther
lodg
ing
plac
es; 7
200=
Pers
onal
ser
-vi
ces;
730
0=Bu
sine
ss s
ervi
ces;
750
0=Au
to r
epai
r,se
rvic
es a
nd p
arki
ng; 7
800=
Mot
ion
pict
ures
; 790
0=Am
usem
ent a
nd re
crea
tion
serv
ices
; 800
0=He
alth
ser
vice
s; 8
200=
Edu-
catio
nal s
ervi
ces;
830
0=So
cial
ser
vice
s; 8
700=
Engi
neer
ing
and
man
agem
ent s
ervi
ces;
9900
=Non
clas
sifia
ble
esta
blis
hmen
ts.
� BU
ILDI
NG
VALU
E AD
DED=
Expe
nditu
res
for b
uild
ing
cons
truct
ion
and
build
ing
acqu
i-si
tions
min
us re
tirem
ents
.
� B
UILD
ING
INVE
NTO
RY=
Fisc
al y
ear-
end
bala
nce
of th
e co
st o
f bui
ldin
gs o
wne
d by
the
com
pany
on
owne
d or
leas
ed la
nd.
� N
M=
Not m
eani
ngfu
l.
� N
A=No
t ava
ilabl
e.
� SO
URCE
=St
anda
rd &
Poo
r’s,a
div
isio
n of
The
McG
raw
-Hill
Com
pani
es.
ENR
12�
ENR
SOUR
CEB
OO
K�
Nov
embe
r 27
,200
6 e
nr.
com
The T
op
Ow
ners
CONS
T. IN
PRO
GRES
SBL
DG. V
ALUE
ADD
EDTO
TAL
BLDG
.IN
VENT
ORY
FIRM
TYP
E20
05%
CHG
.20
05%
CHG
.20
05%
CHG
.RA
NKFIR
M(S
IC C
ODE)
($ M
IL.)
VS. 2
004
($ M
IL.)
VS. 2
004
($ M
IL.)
VS. 2
004
31HC
A IN
C.,N
ash
ville
, Te
nn
.80
0094
9.0
+40
82-8
28,
063
+1
32DU
KE E
NER
GY C
ORP.
,Ch
arlo
tte,
N.C
.49
0094
6.0
+32
-6,2
32-8
8240
,574
-13
33FP
L GR
OUP
INC.
,Ju
no
Bea
ch,
Fla
.49
0094
5.0
-37
1,63
1+1
333
,351
+5
34AB
BOTT
LAB
ORAT
ORIE
S,A
bb
ott
Par
k, I
ll.28
0092
0.6
-413
6N
M2,
655
+5
35FI
RSTE
NER
GY C
ORP.
,Akr
on
, O
hio
4900
897.
0+3
289
8+7
323
,790
+4
36HO
ME
DEPO
T IN
C.,A
tlan
ta,
Ga.
5200
843.
0-4
01,
731
+23
14,0
56+1
4
37EX
ELON
COR
P.,C
hic
ago
, Ill
.49
0084
0.0
+42
1,14
2+1
29,8
53+4
38PR
OGRE
SS E
NER
GY I
NC.
,Ral
eig
h,
N.C
.49
0081
3.0
+289
8+5
124
,044
+4
39XC
EL E
NER
GY I
NC.
,Min
nea
po
lis,
Min
n.
4900
783.
5+9
-251
-130
24,0
54-1
40CO
NSO
LIDA
TED
EDIS
ON I
NC.
,New
Yo
rk,
N.Y
.49
0077
1.0
-43
1,11
0+1
20,5
66+6
41SI
ERRA
PAC
IFIC
RES
OURC
ES,R
eno
, N
ev.
4900
765.
0+8
855
7+3
47,
567
+8
42SC
HERI
NG-
PLOU
GH,K
enilw
ort
h,
N.J
.28
0076
1.0
-640
-79
3,23
8+1
43PG
&E
CORP
.,S
an F
ran
cisc
o,
Cal
if.
4900
738.
0+6
41,
521
+18
32,0
30+5
44ST
ATIO
N C
ASIN
OS I
NC.
,Las
Veg
as,
Nev
.79
0072
9.9
+202
82+8
21,
028
+9
45AI
R PR
ODUC
TS &
CHE
MIC
ALS
INC.
,Alle
nto
wn
, P
a.28
0070
0.4
+74
38N
M82
8+5
46CA
TERP
ILLA
R IN
C.,P
eori
a, I
ll.35
0069
6.0
+19
106
+28
3,19
5+3
47BA
XTER
IN
TERN
ATIO
NAL
IN
C.,D
eerfi
eld
, Ill
.38
0068
2.0
+5-7
6-1
681,
594
-5
48KR
AFT
FOOD
S IN
C.,N
ort
hfie
ld,
Ill.
2000
651.
0+1
6-9
53,
551
+0
49M
GM M
IRAG
E,L
as V
egas
, N
ev.
7900
607.
4+1
033,
367
+683
7,59
5+8
0
50N
ORTH
EAST
UTI
LITI
ES,S
pri
ng
field
, M
ass.
4900
600.
4+5
772
1+2
68,
969
+9
51W
ISCO
NSI
N E
NER
GY C
ORP.
,Milw
auke
e, W
is.
4900
596.
6-1
619
+2,8
609,
759
+7
52HA
RRAH
S EN
TERT
AIN
MEN
T IN
C.,L
as V
egas
, N
ev.
7900
585.
3+1
893,
782
+1,0
507,
571
+100
53BR
ISTO
L-M
YERS
SQU
IBB
CO.,
New
Yo
rk,
N.Y
.28
0057
0.0
+263
-89
4,56
0+1
54W
EYER
HAEU
SER
CO.,
Fed
eral
Way
, W
ash
.24
0053
3.0
+98
-21
-112
3,13
9-1
55TX
U CO
RP.,
Dal
las,
Tex
as49
0052
6.0
+20
1,15
2N
M29
,054
+4
56CM
S EN
ERGY
COR
P.,J
acks
on
, M
ich
.49
0052
0.0
+41
-1,7
83-1
6012
,968
-12
57KR
OGER
CO.
,Cin
cin
nat
i, O
hio
5400
511.
0-6
NA
NA
NA
NA
58N
EW Y
ORK
TIM
ES C
O.,N
ew Y
ork
, N
.Y.
2700
504.
8+4
3-9
5-6
0173
6-1
1
59EC
HOST
AR C
OMM
UNIC
ATIO
NS
CORP
.,E
ng
lew
oo
d,
Co
lo.
4800
491.
7+8
04
-69
163
+2
60JO
HNSO
N C
ONTR
OLS
INC.
,Milw
auke
e, W
is.
2500
479.
4+2
271
-35
1,78
4+4
The
Top
Owne
rs
The
ran
king
s bel
ow a
re b
ased
on
cons
truc
tion
in p
rogr
ess,
the
capi
taliz
ed a
mou
nt f
or p
lant
and
str
uctu
res
cons
truc
tion
not
com
plet
ed d
urin
g th
e ye
ar.
The
inf
orm
atio
n is
com
pile
d by
Stan
dard
&Po
or’s
from
the
late
st a
vaila
ble
audi
ted
resu
lts fr
om
10-K
and
cor
pora
te a
nnua
l rep
orts
. How
ever
, man
y co
rpor
a-
tions
’ filin
gs d
o no
t bre
ak o
ut c
onst
ruct
ion
from
oth
er c
apita
l
expe
nditu
res,
and
they
are
abs
ent f
rom
this
list
. To
fill t
his g
ap,
EN
R fo
r the
firs
t tim
e is
pub
lishi
ng a
sepa
rate
rank
ing
of fi
rms
by th
eir
repo
rted
cap
ital e
xpen
ditu
res.
The
Top
Owne
rsCO
NST.
IN P
ROGR
ESS
BLDG
. VAL
UE A
DDED
TOTA
L BL
DG.
INVE
NTOR
YFIR
M T
YPE
2005
% C
HG.
2005
% C
HG.
2005
% C
HG.
RANK
FIRM
(SIC
COD
E)($
MIL.
)VS
. 200
4($
MIL.
)VS
. 200
4($
MIL.
)VS
. 200
4
1GE
NER
AL M
OTOR
S CO
RP.,
Det
roit
, M
ich
.37
004,
099.
0+8
NA
NA
NA
NA
2IN
TEL
CORP
.,S
anta
Cla
ra,
Cal
if.
3600
2,89
7.0
+45
NA
NA
NA
NA
3FO
RD M
OTOR
CO.
,Dea
rbo
rn,
Mic
h.
3700
2,73
6.0
+31
NA
NA
NA
NA
4JO
HNSO
N &
JOH
NSO
N,N
ew B
run
swic
k, N
.J.
2800
2,50
4.0
+40
-32
-105
5,87
5-1
5PF
IZER
IN
C.,N
ew Y
ork
, N
.Y.
2800
2,24
4.0
-6-3
6-1
089,
735
+0
6AM
ERIC
AN E
LECT
RIC
POW
ER,C
olu
mb
us,
Oh
io49
002,
217.
0+9
11,
835
+46
39,1
21+5
7EL
I LI
LLY
& C
O.,I
nd
ian
apo
lis,
Ind
.28
002,
070.
6-3
11,
015
+133
4,58
5+2
8
8AL
COA
INC.
,New
Yo
rk,
N.Y
.33
002,
066.
0+6
912
6-6
66,
303
+2
9VE
RIZO
N C
OMM
UNIC
ATIO
NS
INC.
,New
Yo
rk,
N.Y
.48
001,
651.
0+0
641
+33
16,8
00+4
10EN
TERG
Y CO
RP.,
Clin
ton
, M
iss.
4900
1,52
4.1
+27
372
-59
32,2
08+1
11W
YETH
,Mad
iso
n,
N.J
.28
001,
516.
0-5
81,
862
+272
6,49
3+4
0
12AL
TRIA
GRO
UP I
NC.
,New
Yo
rk,
N.Y
.21
001,
489.
0+1
862
-86
7,42
8+1
13TH
E AE
S CO
RP.,
Arl
ing
ton
, Va
.49
001,
441.
0+5
711
-99
22,3
88+0
14PU
BLIC
SER
VICE
EN
TERP
RISE
GRO
UP I
NC.
,New
ark,
N.J
.49
001,
428.
0-2
5-2
25-1
1318
,896
-1
15SO
UTHE
RN C
O.,A
tlan
ta,
Ga.
4900
1,36
7.0
-18
1,89
5+2
945
,207
+4
16DO
W C
HEM
ICAL
,Mid
lan
d,
Mic
h.
2800
1,34
2.0
+33
-123
-328
3,33
9-4
17BO
EIN
G CO
.,C
hic
ago
, Ill
.37
001,
174.
0+2
5-3
90-1
779,
287
-4
18TA
RGET
COR
P.,M
inn
eap
olis
, M
inn
.53
001,
158.
0+2
01,
656
NM
14,1
74+1
3
19AD
VAN
CED
MIC
RO D
EVIC
ES,S
un
nyv
ale,
Cal
if.
3600
1,12
1.1
+90
-1,4
35-8
761,
028
-58
20CA
LPIN
E CO
RP.,
San
Jo
se,
Cal
if.
4900
1,11
1.2
-74
-6,7
67-9
0315
,992
-30
21EL
PAS
O CO
RP.,
Ho
ust
on
, Te
xas
4900
1,10
0.0
+38
127
NM
37,1
00+0
22E.
I.DU
PON
T DE
NEM
OURS
,Wilm
ing
ton
, D
el.
2800
1,08
2.0
+15
157
NM
3,92
2+4
23PE
PSIC
O IN
C.,P
urc
has
e, N
.Y.
2000
1,06
6.0
+46
131
-16
3,73
6+4
24CO
RNIN
G IN
C.,C
orn
ing
, N
.Y.
3600
1,06
1.0
+20
56N
M1,
999
+3
25M
ERCK
& C
O.,W
hit
eho
use
Sta
tio
n,
N.J
.28
001,
015.
5-3
860
5-2
99,
480
+7
26GE
NEN
TECH
IN
C.,S
ou
th S
an F
ran
cisc
o,
Cal
if.
2800
964.
5+2
0358
0+5
41,
399
+71
27AM
GEN
IN
C.,T
ho
usa
nd
Oak
s, C
alif
.28
0095
8.0
-26
389
+24
2,48
5+1
9
28LA
S VE
GAS
SAN
DS C
ORP.
,Las
Veg
as,
Nev
.79
0095
7.8
+200
215
+975
1,45
4+1
7
29ED
ISON
IN
TERN
ATIO
NAL
,Ro
sem
ead
, C
alif
.49
0095
6.0
+21
1,25
1+2
419
,232
+7
30DO
MIN
ION
RES
OURC
ES I
NC.
,Ric
hm
on
d,
Va.
4900
954.
0+4
23,
400
+119
42,0
63+9
ENR
14 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com
The Top OwnersCONST. IN PROGRESS BLDG. VALUE ADDED TOTAL BLDG. INVENTORY
FIRM TYPE 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG. 2005 % CHG.RANK FIRM (SIC CODE) ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004 ($ MIL.) VS. 2004
61 ALLTEL CORP., Little Rock, Ark. 4800 475.4 +23 77 -6 1,211 +7
distribution networks are changing.” In addition to ports in LosAngeles and San Diego, there is “big demand for distributioncenters” at ports in New York; New Jersey; Norfolk, Va.; and Jack-sonville, Fla., Rizzo says.
New warehouse and distribution center technologies, suchas greater reliance on automation and rack systems, and chang-ing warehouse specifications, are driving the need for construc-tion throughout the distribution sector. “A lot of companies areconsolidating their distribution facilities,” Rizzo says. “They willtake 50 buildings and consolidate them down to 30. They wantmuch larger warehouses than in the past. In 1999, the averagewarehouse we built was about 150,000 sq ft, now it’s 325,000 sqft. Warehouse heights used to be about 28 ft, now they are 32ft.”
“The distribution market is totally changing and has gottenvery sophisticated,” says Jim Heller, president and CEO of Min-neapolis-based developer Opus North. “The trend is to buildbigger, automated, more efficient buildings. Intermodal facili-ties have gotten to be a big trend.”
Many other developers’ capital outlays reflect the growingdemand for increasingly massive distribution facilities. RichardGatto, executive vice president at Chicago-based office andindustrial developer The Alter Group, points to projects suchas a 580,000-sq-ft warehouse building being planned for the162-acre Buckeye Logistics Center, Phoenix, and the develop-ment of the 590,000-sq-ft Calabash II distribution center,Fontana, Calif., as examples of the trend for bigger warehous-es. Gatto says the Inland Empire, located about 40 miles east ofLos Angeles, will continue to be a hot spot for distributionfacilities development because of its pivotal location in a trans-
Industrial, Office Markets Are StrongAs Residential, Retail Prospects DimDevelopers rush to fill demand in changing distribution sector
With development in some sectors beginning to cool,an increasingly globalized manufacturing market isstoking demand for construction of new warehous-es and office buildings as supply and distribution
chains evolve, developers say. Construction starts in warehouses, office buildings and man-
ufacturing facilities are expected to remain strong throughoutthe next year, while construction starts in the retail and residen-tial sectors will drop significantly, according to McGraw-HillConstruction Analytics. Developers attribute the cool down inresidential and retail markets to a glut of available space, as evi-denced by rising vacancy rates in many parts of the country. Andwhile demand this year for new retail space has driven an esti-mated $1 billion increase in construction over last year, devel-opers expect demand for new retail space to retreat next year.
Warehouse construction is one of the most active marketsfor developers, as global distribution redefines supply chainsand changes the way products are shipped around the world. Asmanufacturers increasingly are lured abroad, particularly toAsia, by promises of cheap labor and lower construction andoperating costs, ports on the West Coast, in turn, are seeing agrowing volume of products arriving from across the PacificOcean. The deluge of imported goods coming through ports inLos Angeles and San Diego is driving demand for distributionfacilities and warehouses both at the ports and at major transportintersections further inland. The same market dynamics areunfolding at ports on the East Coast.
In planning future developments, “One strategy is to focuson ports,” says Jack Rizzo, managing director of global develop-ment at Denver-based Prologis. “As manufacturers go overseas,
DevelopersBy Tom Nicholson
21
22
23
24
25
Retail Construction Starts
SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS
$ Bil.
2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected
SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS
9
10
11
12
13
Warehouse Construction Starts $ Bil.
2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected
SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS
15
20
25
30
35
Office Construction Starts $ Bil.
2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected
ENR
32 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com
lenges such as materials cost volatility and a labor shortage broughton by the rapidly expanding construction market. When thecost of construction fluctuates during a project, “contrators haveto absorb that,” says Khourie. “It used to be we could start con-struction before design work was complete. That way, we couldget to market faster. But there has been a huge construction costincrease in the last two years, and to eliminate [cost] surprises,we now wait until the design is finished before we start con-struction.”
Developers note that the “green” building trend is steadilymoving toward becoming a mainstream practice, and they aregrappling to integrate sustainable designs and building meth-ods, and the additional construction costs associated with them,into their operations and profit margins “There is a growingmovement for green building,” says Gatto. “But the jury is stillout on whether clients will pay higher rents for environmental-ly friendly buildings. It’s a pretty hard sell to corporate Ameri-ca to ask them to pay higher upfront costs to build green,” hesays. �
portation corridor within reach of Los Angeles’ seaport.It is not only manufacturers from abroad driving develop-
ment. With about 10 million sq ft of office and industrial devel-opment in the pipeline, Rizzo says Prologis is filling a void leftby lagging business from the domestic automobile market thisyear by focusing on development projects elsewhere in thedomestic manufacturing and distribution sectors.
“The auto market is down,” Rizzo says. “In the past, we didseveral projects for Ford and General Motors, but there havebeen no requests for construction from them in the last 12 to18 months.” But manufacturers of drugs, and food and bever-age products are clamoring for new facilities, he says. Prologishas development projects for Coors, in Denver, and Kellogg’s,in Chicago, both under way and being planned.
Shifting SectorAlong with active manufacturing markets is a burgeoning needfor office space, many developers say. At Dallas-based develop-er Trammel Crow Co., about $2.7 billion of development is invarious stages of planning and design, says Matt Khourie, thefirm’s central region president for development and investment.“We are very active in all commercial sectors, but most of ourfuture work is heavily weighted to offices, it’s the most activesector,” he says. “This is the largest amount of activity we haveseen in 10 years.” Trammell Crow has six planned office proj-ects located in the Southwest that will begin in the next sixmonths, Khourie says. The skyrocketing office market “is abyproduct of activity of the other commercial sectors,” he says.“Vacancy rates are down [and] there is a need for new productin that market.”
After several years of slowed growth, the office market hasremerged as a hot sector, particularly in the Southwest.“Phoenix is one the biggest drivers for office work because ofthe big population and job growth there,” Gatto says. “I can’tpoint to any other city so active.” The Alter Group has fiveoffice projects currently under way in Phoenix, with plans forfuture development throughout the region. “We expect it toremain an active region for another five to seven years,” he says.
But amid the boom, developers are having to react to chal-
Developers
SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS
6
8
10
12
14
Manufacturing Construction Starts $ Bil.
2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected
SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS
240
260
280
300
320
Single-Family Construction Starts $ Bil.
2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected
SOURCE: MCGRAW-HILL CONSTRUCTION ANALYTICS
64
66
68
70
72
Multi-Family Construction Starts $ Bil.
2005 2006 2007Estimated Projected
ENR
Despite Soaring Materials Costs,The Industry Remains Optimistic Public-private partnerships and other innovations plug funding gaps
state, other projects are in jeopardy. Costs are rising, fuel taxrevenue is flat and state legislators are not finding new solutions.Ekern says that during reviews of the state’s six-year plan, offi-cials are scrambling to find ways to preserve the projects on itslists. “We’re buffering for which projects we will have to elim-inate from the program,” he says.
Given the current environment, Ekern says the future out-look looks bleak for many states. “From a professional stand-point and living within this business for 40 years, I don’t recalla time when the threat has been as real as it is now in terms ofwhat we’ll be able to deliver to the public,” he says.
Texas is another state that has greatly expanded its financingalternatives to get projects done. The state is eyeing multiplepublic private partnerships (PPPs), including several in the Dal-las-Fort Worth area. This spring, the state expects to select adeveloper on a major project on SH 121 in Denton and Collincounties. Also in 2007, TxDOT expects to sign with privateinvestors on the SH 161 project and the Interstate 635/LBJFreeway project, both in Dallas County.
Beyond PPPs, the state has been able to improve its high-way funding in recent years, increasing its lettings from $4.5 bil-lion in 2005 to $5.4 billion in 2006. But much of that increasewas due to inflation, according to Amadeo Saenz, assistant exec-utive director of engineering operations at TxDOT. In 2007,lettings will drop to $5 billion as costs begin to level, he says.
Indiana is reaping the benefits of the 75-year lease of theIndiana Toll Road this spring. Indiana received $3.8 billion inthe deal with the Spanish-Australian partnership of Cintra Mac-quarie. The money is fueling the state’s new Major Moves pro-gram, which calls for more than 200 new construction projectsand 200 preservation projects through 2015.
Among the work generated by Major Moves is the recently-awarded $175-million Super 70 project, which will reconstruct75 lane miles of I-70 near Indianapolis. Other mega projects tobe let include $1 billion of work on three sections of U.S. 31between Indianapolis and South Bend. The state also recentlyscrapped its plans to seek a private developer for its $2-billionI-69 project from Evansville to Indianapolis and will insteadlook to incorporate the project into its Major Moves program.
Florida is doing its part to wean itself of dependence on fed-eral funding. The state program received a shot in the arm in2005, when the state legislature increased transportation fund-ing by $800 million annually. That was a big step forward, butrevenue recently retreated. Lowell Clary, assistant secretary of
On paper, it has been a banner year for transportation.Estimates suggest that 2006 saw record lettings by dol-lar value from states’ departments of transportation—and another record year could follow in 2007. But the
healthy flow of funds for projects this year belies the dilemmafaced by state and local authorities as they look to get projectsmoving in the future amid rising costs for construction.
According to estimates from the American Road & Trans-portation Builders Association, Washington, D.C., the value ofconstruction work performed on transportation projects in2006 hit $105 billion, a 15% increase over 2005. If currentappropriations make it through Congress, the industry couldsee another 10% growth in 2007.
But materials costs are a big contributor to those rising con-tract values. ARTBA estimates that nearly half of the 2006increase can be attributed to escalations in costs, meaning realgrowth was actually only 7.5%.
The recent spike in funding comes as funds from the high-way authorization bill, SAFETEA-LU, are starting to flow throughthe pipeline. But as transportation authorities begin to look atthe next authorization bill, the picture appears less promising.Without increases in the fuel tax or other methods, the revenuestream coming into the federal Highway Trust Fund will not beenough to support the program past 2009, says Matt Jeanneret,spokesman for ARTBA “Since it’s not sufficient, [Congress] eitherneeds to cut investment levels or try to find other ways to bol-ster revenue in the future,” he says.
Grappling with OptionsVirginia is among the states grappling with both current andfuture funding concerns. The state has been at the forefront ofefforts to expand its financing alternatives, particularly throughpublic-private partnerships. “The governor’s view and my viewis that in the 21st century, the Dept. of Transportation has tohave all the tools available to get projects done,” says VirginiaTransportation Secretary David Ekern.
In October, VDOT entered into an interim agreement withFluor-Transurban to create 28 miles of high-occupancy toll(HOT) lanes on I-95 and I-395. The state also is reviewing pro-posals for its U.S. Route 460 corridor project, which would cre-ate a 55-mile, four-lane, divided, limited-access highway fromI-295 in Prince George County to the Suffolk Bypass.
But while private investors are taking on mega projects in the
By Bruce Buckley
Highway/Transit
$1 - $4 bil.$900 mil. to $999 mil.$700 mil. - $899 mil.$500 mil. - $699 mil.$300 mil. - $499 mil.$100 mil. - $299 mil.% = percent change from 2006
R.I.$203 mil. 1.4%
Maine$190 mil.
1.8%
N.H.$169 mil. 0.8% Mass.
$613 mil. 0.8%
Vt.$175 mil.
1.8%
Conn.$496 mil. 0.8%
Washington D.C.$152 mil. 1.5%
Del.$159 mil. 5.4%
N.J.$943 mil. 5.1%
Md.$584 mil. 5.1%
N.Y.$1.68 bil.
0.8%
Pa.$1.65 bil.
0.8%Ohio$1.33 bil.
8.7%Ill.
$1.27 bil. 11.5%
Ga.$1.27 bil.
4.9%
Fla.$8.68 bil
33.2%
Fla.$8.68 bil
33.2%
Fla.
33.2%
Fla.$1.74 bil.
5.2%
Fla.$1.74 bil.
5.2%
Texas$2.90 bil.
5.2%
Calif.$3.46 bil.
6.8% Va.$947 mil.
6.7%
N.C.$1.03 bil.
6.6%
W.Va.$407 mil.
5.4%
S.C.$584 mil.
5.0%
Ky.$637 mil.
5.4%
Tenn.$798 mil.
4.9%
Ala.$733 mil.
5.4%
Ind.$904 mil.
8.5%
Mich.$1.14 bil.
7.5%
Wis.$717 mil.
5.4%
Miss.$452 mil.
5.4%La.$584 mil.
5.4%
Ark.$480 mil.
30.3%
Mo.$868 mil.
5.4%
Iowa$411 mil.
3.8%
Minn.$629 mil.
16.7%
N.D.$236 mil.
5.4%
S.D.$262 mil.
5.4%
Kan.$382 mil.
0.8%
Colo.$500 mil.
8.9%
Okla.$559 mil.
4.7%
Neb.$280 mil.
5.4%
Wyo.$251 mil.
5.4%
Mont.$358 mil.
5.4%
Idaho$279 mil.
5.4%
Wash.$627 mil.
5.7%
Ore.$446 mil.
5.4%
Nev.$261 mil.
5.4% Utah$283 mil.
5.4%
Ariz.$654 mil.
5.6%N.M.
$355 mil. 5.4%
Hawaii$169 mil.
0.8%
Alaska$429 mil.
5.4%
SOURCE: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Projected 2007 Federal Highway Funding
Public TransitWhile California’s highway program is getting a boost, so is thepublic transportation sector. Proposition 1B provides $4 billionfor public transit. And California is not alone. ARTBA Presi-dent William Millar says he is encouraged by the response totransit issues on the state and federal levels. In keeping withrecent trends, voters approved many ballot initiatives to fundpublic projects. “This continues a trend over the last severalyears where voters are approving raising state and local moneyfor public transportation at a rate of over 70%,” he says.
Action in the nation’s capital has been positive as well. Mil-lar notes the push by the Federal Transit Administration on sev-eral full-funding grant agreements for major projects this year,including nearly 40% of the $6.3-billion East Side Access proj-ect in New York City, 80% of the $435-million expansion of the
finance and administration at FDOT, says the state this summersaw gas consumption drop for the first time, eating into its fueltax revenue. Drivers also are buying lighter vehicles, whichmeans weight-based vehicle registration fees are dropping.
While FDOT sorts through its state funding, it also is look-ing at PPPs to handle major projects. The state is working onits first design-build-operate-and-maintain contract on the$1.2-billion Port of Miami Tunnel project. It also is pursuing aPPP on the $469-million I-75 project in Collier and Lee coun-ties. Looking farther into the future, the state has been study-ing potential new corridors this year, including redeveloping I-4 as well as new greenfield projects.
While many states are experimenting with PPPs, Californiacontinues to keep its business in-house. The California Dept.of Transportation received a big boost in November when vot-ers approved $19.9 billion in transportation funding underProposition 1B. “Voters realize that they aren’t getting to workon time, commutes are taking longer and our infrastructure isaging,” says Randall Iwasaki, chief deputy director of Caltrans.The state is trying out new revenue tools, but is not looking forconcession deals, Iwasaki says. The state has enabling legislationfor three HOT lane demonstration projects around the state,but those will remain under state control, he says.
ENR
enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 37
Fair Share. States will see a rise in federal transportation allocations next year, but it’s partly a reflection of rising construction costs.MAP
BY
NAN
CY S
OUL
LIAR
D F
OR
ENR
“[Congress] either needs to cutinvestment levels or try to findother ways to bolster revenue.”— MATT JEANNERET, AMERICAN ROAD & TRANSPORTATION
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
North Shore LRT Connector near Pittsburgh and $700 millionfor the 21-mile Northwest/Southwest Connector in Dallas. “Itwould appear that the committee chairs understand the impor-tance of infrastructure funding generally,” he says.
Millar says he also hopes to see increased funding for home-land security upgrades on transit projects. While billions of dol-lars have been spent on airline security since Sept. 11, 2001,public transit has been significantly less. In the fall, Congressapproved additional funding for transit security, raising the lev-el from $150 million to $175 million, Millar notes.
Transit work is so hot in the New York City area thatobservers question if there will be enough contractors to han-dle it. The city’s Metropolitan Transit Authority is preparing tokick off three major projects in the near future, including thenew $16 billion 8.1-mile Second Avenue subway line, the $2 bil-lion extension of the No. 7 subway line and the East Side Accessproject for the Long Island Railroad. “We’re seeing an unprece-dented amount of construction in terms of contracts recentlyawarded and the anticipated awards in 2007,” says Ronnie Hakim,general counsel of MTA’s Capital Construction Co.
Even as contractors line up for MTA work, other majortransit projects lie on the horizon such as New Jersey Transit’s$7.2-billion 8-mile Trans-Hudson Express Tunnel that wouldextend under the Hudson River and provide New Jersey andNew York City with another rail link.
MTA Capital Construction President Mysore Nagaraja haslaunched a rigorous industry outreach to make sure the workforce is in place to execute the work. MTA has even brought ininternational firms, inking a deal with the Spanish firm Draga-dos for tunneling work on the East Side Access project. “Bring-ing in additional resources to team with the local contractorswill be key to meeting all of our contract needs,” Hakim says.
Freight work also is receiving significant federal attention.The Dept. of Homeland Security is looking at ways to reroutepotentially-hazardous rail freight outside of major cities, includ-ing a study under way to create a new route around Washing-ton, D.C.
In September, Norfolk Southern, the Federal HighwayAdministration, Virginia, West Virginia and Ohio partnered forthe new Heartland Corridor. The $251-million project wouldinclude raising clearances in 28 tunnels to accommodate dou-ble-stack cargo containers. “It was critical to have federalfunds,” says Robin Chapman, spokesman for Norfolk Southern.“We couldn’t have justified doing this on our own. There’sgrowing recognition in the public sector that PPPs can getthings done that otherwise couldn’t get done.” �
ENR
38 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com
Highway/Transit
“Voters realize that they aren’tgetting to work on time...andour infrastructure is aging.”
— RANDALL IWASAKI, CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA
DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
ENR
enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 41
placed within a new terminal, and how efficiently they can runoperations alongside other terminal activities.
As part of a $3.1-billion capital development program, SteveWareham, director of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Air-port, “deputized” airport foremen with electrician, plumbingand carpenter expertise to act as quality assurance inspectors onprojects, rather than hiring an outside inspection firm. “I don’thave a hard figure for what we saved in dollars, but we saved theneed for extra staffing,” he says.
Sam Sleiman, director of capital programs at Boston’s LoganAirport, said new legislation had to be passed to allow the air-port to do CM at-risk projects. He suggests a federal bill thatcould give airports regulatory power, overriding municipalrestrictions on issues like project delivery methods. Charlie Is-dell, director of Philadelphia International Airport, noted thatU.S. Airways built a new 800,000-sq-ft terminal in 2003 usingdesign-build, and didn’t have to comply with city regulations.
It all comes down to cutting costs and increasing efficiency.“Money is the number one concern,” said Ali Dib, director offacilities and infrastructure management at Wayne County Air-port Authority, which operates Detroit International Airport.“Our facilities were built pre-9/11; our infrastructure is aging.There’s the technology challenge. How do we keep up? Webuilt a new terminal six years ago; it was state of the art. Nowit is not.”
As a result, long-range planning and flexibility is a necessityfor new capital programs. “We’re short-sighted. We built fortoday, but not for 40 years hence,” said Alan Stevens, projectexecutive with Turner Construction, New York City. “Flexibil-ity is needed, but it costs money.”
Money MattersSo where will the money come from? The federal 2007 budgetprovides $13.7 billion for airports from a combination of trustfund and general fund revenue. That includes $2.8 billion forAirport Improvement Program (AIP) grants—a $765-millionreduction from the previous budget. Nobody has a certainanswer beyond “wait and see,” but everyone knows continuingsecurity-related work will require more money than ever. “Weknow it can be a hard sell,” said Bob Cammaroto, chief of com-mercial airports for the Transportation Security Administra-tion. “We know [airports] are in a tough position.” He notesthat a planned next-generation transportation system, with a2025 goal, will likely involve Internet-centric operations, satel-
Airport Consultants and BuildersKey on Better Communication Early involvement in planning projects is needed more than ever
The more aviation construction issues change, the morethey stay the same. Airport officials are flying into anuncertain future where fundamental issues of construc-tion, congestion, security, safety and technology are
constant but their parameters are ever-changing. “Every fiveyears is like a new era in the business,” says Angela Gittens, vicepresident for airport business with HNTB Corp., Kansas City.
Airports are taking a wait-and-see approach on security andfunding. Cargo security requirements are still pending, and every-one is waiting to see what happens to aviation funding next yearunder the new Democrat-controlled Congress. What airportofficials can start doing now is to take a systematic, big-pictureapproach and look to alternative methods in building both rev-enue and infrastructure with maximum efficiency and mini-mum costs.
Almost 30 aviation experts — airport officials, vendors, con-sultants and contractors—discussed these issues with editors ofENR and Aviation Week in an Oct. 5 roundtable. “We consis-tently heard that there was a need for improved communica-tion” across disciplines and administrative responsibilities, saysWilliam Fife, corporate vice president with the New York Cityoffice of DMJM+Harris, who moderated the roundtable. “Itwas clear that often people pay lip service to communication.”
Steven Pressler, executive vice president with Skanska USABuilding Inc., told airport owners that it was critical to “involveconstruction professionals as early in the [design and construc-tion] process as possible.” Skanska prefers contracting methodslike CM at-risk or design-build, because “what we find is thatthe methods are fairer to the contractor,” he said. The methodalso emphasizes client-contractor relationships rather than theproject itself, he added.
Skanska currently has two CM at-risk jobs, including a $50-million contract to build an in-line screening baggage system atRhode Island’s T.F. Green Airport and a $20-million system inFort Lauderdale. Engineers anticipate that a major portion ofupcoming work will be in retrofits of terminals for security andtechnology needs, including in-line baggage screening, com-mon-use facilities and systems integration.
Early involvement must extend to vendors and suppliers,too. “Consultants often don’t involve vendors in airport design,”said Joseph DiDomizio, COO of the Hudson Group. “I’d sug-gest that if your goal is to enhance revenue, then involve theconcessionaires in design and development.” Doing so will en-sure maximum revenue based on how services and stores are
AirportsBy Aileen Cho
ENR
42 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com
Plavin. He suggests airports should not fear passing on addi-tional infrastructure costs to the users.
Utilizing the private sector for alternative sources of revenueis one option. For example, Ricky Smith, director of ClevelandHopkins International Airport, said the airport plans to contractout taxicab service to a single provider by year’s end. At Detroit’sairport, officials received seven proposals from advertisers tosponsor segments of the airport. Airports are looking for extrafunds anywhere they can find them. �
lite-based systems and tracking of aircraft. All these will affectairport configurations.
Aviation officials hope that Congress next year will vote onlegislation that would allow them to raise passenger facilitycharges beyond its current cap of $4.50. “U.S. airports want totake a page from Canada’s book and are asking why there is acap on PFCs,” said David Plavin, former president of AirportsCouncil International-North America.
Raising PFCs also raises the issue of airline relationships.For example, “We would not have been able to build new gatesfor new carriers if U.S. Airways had had control of our PFCmoney,” Isdell said. A new $1-billion terminal design unveiledby Sacramento International Airport in mid-November willdepend heavily on increased user fees.
Relationships with municipalities pose challenges as well.For example, bids for airport work were set for summer letting,but are still on hold while local governments review whetherthey meet Disadvantage Business Enterprise requirements, saidIsdell. The longer the wait, the harder it is for a contractor tohold to its original bid price, adds Turner’s Stevens. He point-ed out that escalation in construction materials alone can meana at least a 12% increase in contract costs a year.
Despite all the competing stakeholder interests and uncer-tainties, the bottom line depends on airports acting like busi-nesses, roundtable members concurred. Grants will never beenough. “We’ve got to focus on the private sector role,” said
*Based on FY2005 spending reported to the Federal Aviatin Administration.
ROADWAYS,RAIL AND
RANK AIRPORT AIRFIELD TERMINAL PARKING TRANSIT OTHER TOTAL
SPENDING IN $ MILLIONS
Water/Wastewater
Water Services. One plan is to raise the 151-ft-high earthfill dam’sheight by 40 ft and build a raw-water pipeline, VanderPlaat says.Another option is to raise the dam height by 25 ft and expandcapacity of the Willamette River water treatment plant.
Those options will be compared to a “no-action” alternativein a draft environmental impact statement to be submitted inearly 2007, says VanderPlaat. The Bureau of Reclamation andlocal water suppliers will select a plan by late 2007. Final designof the selected option is expected to continue into 2009. Con-struction would begin in 2010 or 2011, and take about four yearsto finish.
In other regions, water suppliers see groundwater pumpingand desalination as the answer to rising demand. In California,the Santa Cruz Water Dept. is about to start building a $4-mil-lion, 72,000-gallon-per-day desalination pilot plant that couldlead to construction of a full-scale, $40-million plant as soon as2009. In Monterey County, Calif., water supplier AmericanWater is seeking state approval for a 200,000-gallon per day de-salination pilot plant. Desalination is not just a California phe-nomenon. Officials in Brockton, Mass. plan to build in 2007 a$60-million plant to treat brackish tidal water from the TauntonRiver.
In Arizona, the city of Prescott and the town of Prescott Val-ley expect to meet growing water needs by pumping up to 17million gallons per day of groundwater from beneath a 4,600-acre ranch that the municipalities purchased. Water will be dis-tributed via a planned 30-mile pipeline with 36-in. and 30-in.-dia pipe. Construction of the $170-million project is expectedto begin in 2007 for completion by 2009. In Maryland, a newstate law is providing more than $55 million annually for en-hanced nutrient removal technologies to be added to 66 large,publicly owned wastewater treatment plants by 2011, says JulyOberg, spokeswoman for the Maryland Dept. of the Environ-ment. Aimed at reducing contaminents in the Chesapeake Bay,the plants will reduce release of nitrogen to less than 3 mil-ligrams per liter, and phosphorus to less than 0.3 milligrams perliter.
Population growth has four North Carolina towns jointlyplanning a new wastewater treatment plant. The $250-million,24-mgd first phase of the project planned by the towns of Apex,Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville will be completed by 2011,while a planned $120-million, 14-mgd expansion is scheduledto be built by 2030.
Population Growth Drives Rising TideOf Water and Wastewater Projects Utility owners look to alternative supply methods in some regions
Population growth, stricter environmental rules andcrumbling infrastructure are leading public and privateentities to plan, design and build scores of major water-supply and wastewater-treatment facilities. Unlike some
other market segments where projects often are delayed or stretchedout due to budget concerns, water and wastewater project own-ers typically have been able to secure most, if not all, of thefunding they need to undertake critical projects in a timely fash-ion.
Some of the greatest needs of water and wastewater author-ities and companies are in the fastest-growing parts of the U.S.In east-central Florida, for example, six water suppliers and twowater management districts are developing plans for a signifi-cant expansion of the Taylor Creek Reservoir in Osceola andOrange counties, southeast of Orlando. The project, now in thepreliminary design and permitting stage, calls for increasing dai-ly water withdrawals from an existing reservoir serving the cityof Cocoa from the current 10 million gallons per day tobetween 25 million to 40 million gallons per day.
Malissa Dillon, project manager at the St. John’s RiverWater Management District (SJRWMD)—one of the projectparticipants—says the increase would be accomplished bydiverting water from the nearby St. John’s River during periodsof moderate and high flow into the reservoir. In addition todiversion facilities such as a water pipeline and pumping stationto deliver the river water to the reservoir, the project willinclude one or more conventional surface-water treatmentplants, as well as new and upgraded pipelines to transmit thetreated water to the participating water suppliers. Those sup-pliers include the city of Titusville, Orange County, OrlandoUtilities Commission, Tohopekaliga Water Authority and EastCentral Florida Services. The South Florida Water Manage-ment District also is involved.
The project will begin in 2010, be completed by 2013 andcost between $133 million and $215 million, Dillon says. It isthe largest of several dozen projects under development in theregion. “Most involve the use of reclaimed water or brackishwater,” Dillon says.
Another area where population growth is pressuring watersupply is Oregon’s Tualatin Valley. Water suppliers there aremulling plans to raise the height of Scoggins Dam at HaggLake, a major reservoir in the region, says Tom VanderPlaat,project manager at Hillsboro, Ore.-based water supplier Clean
By Housley Carr
ENR
44 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com
ENR
enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 45
New York City has many water and wastewater projectseither in the pipeline or under way. Large projects now underway include the Third Water Tunnel megaproject and upgradesto the 310-mgd Newtown Creek wastewater treatment plant inBrooklyn, and a planned $1.1-billion subterranean water-filtra-tion plant to be built beneath Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx.
The Third Water Tunnel project is the largest capital con-struction project in New York City history. The tunnel is beingbored in bedrock 250 ft to 800 ft below the surface. Beginningin Yonkers, north of the Bronx, the tunnel will eventually con-nect to Queens when complete in 2020. �
ENR
enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 49
Internet access, overhead digital projection technology and“smart slate” capability.
SDUSD currently has 161 schools and 132,000 students andis in the process of revising its long-range facilities master plan,says Umstot. While the final numbers are not in, the districtmost likely would need $2.5 billion to $3 billion to address itspresent needs, he says.
But due to voter concern about taxes, SDUSD may well seekapproval to sell only about $1 billion in general obligation bondswhen the next school bond issue goes before voters, probablyin 2008, Umstot says. The lower amount means it will take con-
siderably longer than the district would like to complete schoolupgrades and other projects.
SDUSD now is close to completing a long list of projectsfunded by a $1.51-billion school construction bond issueapproved by district voters in 1998, and by some $325 millionin state support. “We’ve spent about $1 billion on school reno-vation work, $600 million on new schools and $200 million inongoing major repairs” over the past eight years, Umstot says.
All California school districts will benefit from the approvalof Proposition 1D by state voters in November. Proposition 1Dwill provide a total of $10.4 billion in state funding for educa-
Changing Technology, Demographics Steer Capital Spending for SchoolsK-12 schools focus on upgrades, while colleges prepare for influx
Demographic trends are leading school districts, even infaster-growing parts of the U.S., to shift an increasingshare of their capital spending toward upgrades andexpansions of existing elementary, middle and high
schools, and away from building entirely new facilities. At thesame time, colleges and universities continue to construct newdormitories, academic buildings, recreation space and sportsvenues in anticipation of still-higher enrollments in the nextdecade.
School-district officials and facilities-planning executives atinstitutions of higher learning indicate that spending on K-12and college and university buildings will remain at ornear historically high levels over the next several years,providing significant opportunities for architects, engi-neers, construction managers and contractors.
K-12 school construction has been on a roll since the1990s as millions of Generation Y students moved theirway through the educational system, and as suburbanand exurban areas flourished. Many larger districts found them-selves having to build one or more schools a year just to keeppace.
Student enrollment levels now are flattening out, but theneed for more flexible classroom space and technological andother improvements remains great, says David Umstot, inter-im chief facilities officer at the San Diego Unified School Dis-trict (SDUSD). “Most of our schools were built in the 1950sand 1960s,” Umstot says. Even with some expansions andimprovements in the intervening years, many need to beupgraded again to provide for 21st Century needs: wide-pipe
EducationBy Housley Carr
The Top 10 K-12 Construction Projects in Planning Phase
1 FRISCO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Frisco, Texas Multiple Projects 798.0
2 SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, San Francisco, Calif. Renovation/Addition 450.0
4 WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOLS, Reno, Nev. Multiple Projects 250.0 to 300.0
5 BIRMINGHAM CITY SCHOOLS, Birmingham, Ala. Renovation/Addition 283.0
6 BLUE VALLEY SCHOOLS, Overland Park, Kan. Renovation/Addition 280.0
7 RICHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, Columbia, S.C. Multiple Projects 277.0
8 CENTRAL LOS ANGELES NEW LEARNING CENTER, Los Angeles, Calif. K-12 School 270.0
9 HORRY COUNTY SCHOOLS, Abbeville, S.C. Multiple Projects 255.0
10 WINSTON SALEM/FORSYTH COUNTY SCHOOLS, Forsyth County, N.C. Renovation/Addition 250.0
*Based on construction value as reported by McGraw-Hill Construction Research and Analytics.
VALUERANK* PROJECT SCOPE ($ MIL.)
The need for more flexible classroomspace remains great.
— DAVID UMSTOT, INTERIM CHIEF FACILITIES OFFICER, SAN DIEGO
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
ENR
50 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com
Worrisome CostsThe cost of performing construction has now become thebiggest concern as school officials plan future projects. Volatil-ity of prices for construction materials is a wild card that schoolofficials around the country cannot afford to turn up midwayinto a project. Sleeper acknowledges that he is concerned aboutthe impact of rising costs of steel, concrete and other buildingmaterials on the Boulder district’s capital plan. “We are hearinghorror stories about material costs eating away at budgets” andschool districts being forced to scale back their constructionprograms, he says. As a result, the district has built into its bud-get an inflation factor based on material-cost increases over thepast few years.
Investing in CollegeWith an increasing part of Generation Y approaching collegeage, public and private colleges and universities are continuing,and in some cases expanding, capital-spending programs thathave invested tens of billions of dollars in new academic, resi-dential and other facilities since the turn of the century. In fast-growing Texas, for example, the 190,000-student University ofTexas (UT) system currently has nearly $4 billion “active” pro-jects, including 38 totaling $1.2 billion that are in the designstage and 56 totaling $2.8 billion that are either under con-struction or substantially completed.
UT plans to expand its enrollment to 230,000 students by2015. Administrators expect to continue adding new buildingsand expand or renovate existing facilities at a fast pace into theearly years of the next decade to accommodate the needs ofthose 40,000 new students and to expand UT’s science andtechnology programs, in particular.
According to UT’s 2006-11 capital improvement plan, about$2.3 billion of the $4.1 billion to be spent on capital projectsover the period will come from bond sales. The $1.8-billion bal-ance will come from institutional funds, including an estimated$604 million in gifts and $736 million from hospital revenue.
tional construction, including $7.3 billion to support local K-12 work and $3.1 billion for community colleges and publicfour-year colleges and universities.
K-12 school construction also got big election-day boosts inWake County, N.C., and Boulder, Colo. In Wake County, vot-ers approved a $970-million school construction bond issue,clearing the way for Wake County Public School System tobuild 17 new schools by 2011, fully renovate 13 existing schoolsand perform smaller projects at 100 other schools. The newmoney also will enable the district to purchase land and start de-sign of 13 new schools, scheduled to be opened in the 2011-13timeframe.
Wake County officials expect to add another 7,000 to 9,000students each of the next six years, says spokeswoman KristinFlenniken, adding that the recently approved bond sale is onlythe first part of a larger plan to spend more than $4 billion onschool construction over the next eight to 10 years. Additionalreferendums are likely every two years to provide that funding.
In Boulder, voters approved a $293-million school bondissue. Joe Sleeper, executive director for operations at the Boul-der Valley School District, says that the bond issue is by far thelargest ever in Boulder, and is designed to help the district catchup on needed improvements to existing schools.
“The number of students in the district is somewhat stag-nant,” says Sleeper, adding that the district needs improvedspace, not additional space. Boulder’s most recent school bondissue, in 1998, funded construction of three new schools, but thenewly approved bonds will pay mostly for projects to makeclassroom space in the district’s 55 schools more flexible, andprovide technology-related improvements such as installation ofCategory 6 cable fiber for streaming Internet and video-on-demand.
One stand-out project on Boulder’s list involves the replace-ment of a Depression-era middle school in the city’s downtownwith a new LEED-certified facility that will demonstrate thepotential for environmental sensitivity and energy efficiency.
Education
The Top 10 College and University Construction Projects in Planning Phase
1 INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA STUDENT HOUSING, Indiana, Pa. NA 250.0 to 400.0
2 CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO (MULTIPLE PROJECTS), San Francisco, Calif. NA 100.0 to 200.0
3 SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIV. CREATIVE ARTS BUILDING REPLACEMENT, San Francisco, Calif. NA 130.0
4 LOS ANGELES TRADE AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE SOUTH CAMPUS PROJECT, Los Angeles, Calif. 148 100.0
5 UCLA LIFE SCIENCE REPLACEMENT BUILDING PROJECT, Los Angeles, Calif. 175 93.0
6 UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA CANCER INSTITUTE, Norman, Okla. 137 92.0
7 UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE BUILDING, Austin, Texas 45 90.0
8 CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY GATES CENTER, Pittsburgh, Pa. 209 88.0
9 CENTRAL ARIZONA COLLEGE (MULTIPLE PROJECTS), Coolidge, Ariz. 137 87.9
10 IOWA STATE UNVERSITY CHEMISTRY FACILITIES, Ames, Iowa 155 87.5
*Based on construction value as reported by McGraw-Hill Construction Research and Analytics.NA=not available
SQ FT VALUERANK* PROJECT (THOUS.) ($ MIL.)
ENR
52 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � November 27, 2006 enr.com
approach allowed by the state,” says SDUSD’s Umstot. “Onmost projects, we still use the traditional design-bid-buildmethod, but on three new schools we have been using design-build,” because California permits its use on projects valued atmore than $10 million, he says.
Umstot also says the district uses “CM multi-prime,” underwhich the San Diego district selects a construction manager,
which then develops packages of work and bids that out. �
Major projects at UT’s best-known campus, in Austin, includea $151-million professional education and conference center, a$150-million art museum, a $99-million biomedical engineer-ing building and a $90-million residence hall.
The University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, is just start-ing one of its most ambitious projects ever: the $105-millionSouth Lawn project, a new academic complex that will be builtat the southern end of The Lawn, the school’s ThomasJefferson-designed center.
The South Lawn project, which will be paid for bya roughly 40/60 split of university funds and privatedonations, will involve the replacement of one of theuniversity’s largest classroom buildings with a newgroup of high-tech academic buildings whose architec-ture is more reflective of Jefferson’s classical design. The pro-ject also will include a football-field-size grassy area that will tra-verse a busy local road to connect the new complex with theoriginal Lawn.
Public institutions such as UVA are relying increasingly ondonations to support their capital-spending plans. In Septem-ber, the university publicly unveiled a $3-billion capital cam-paign—a record goal for a public college or university—afterquietly securing $1 billion in initial pledges. Much of the mon-ey raised will go toward building new facilities and renovatingexisting ones.
Private colleges and universities, whose capital programs inmany cases are even more dependent on gifts, have big plans oftheir own. Warren Jones, director of facilities planning atBrigham Young University in Salt Lake City, says BYU has“several major projects” in the planning and design stages,including a new, 200,000-sq-ft engineering building and a71,000-sq-ft addition to the university’s Marriott School ofManagement.
“Most of the funding [for BYU’s construction projects]comes from donors,” Jones says, adding that the university alsoreceives some funding from the Church of Jesus Christ of Lat-ter Day Saints.
Jerry Derloshon, spokesman for Pepperdine University, inMalibu, Calif., says the university’s “medium- and long-rangedreams” include enhancements to several existing facilities, plusnew student housing, a new recreation center, and an “eventscomplex” for basketball, volleyball and other sports. Plans forthe events complex are evolving, he says. The venue could seatup to 5,000 people and donors would provide the funding, headds.
In an effort to hold down costs, expedite construction andachieve other aims, facilities planning directors at most K-12school districts, colleges and universities say they have beenexperimenting with different approaches to contracting andproject delivery, including the use of construction managementfirms.
“We will consider using just about any [project-delivery]
Education
“We’re hearing horror stories” aboutconstruction materials costs.— JOE SLEEPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, BOULDER
VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, BOULDER, COLO.
Changing Approaches to Health Care Prompt Owners To Rethink BuildingsPatient-focused perspective leads spate of expansions, upgrades
Emergency ExpansionAnother emerging trend is a focus on emergency room im-provements and expansions, health care experts say. “Emer-gency departments across the country are inadequate,” says St.Vincent’s Canniff. Studies have shown that the public’s use ofemergency rooms is increasing between 5 and 10% each year,with increasing numbers of people using the emergency roomas their primary health care provider. “That’s creating a huge in-crease in the need for space,” Canniff explains. St. Vincent’s willexpand its emergency department from 14,000 sq ft to approx-imately 40,000 sq ft. It will be equipped to handle a large vol-ume of patients should a natural disaster or terrorist event occur,Canniff says. In addition, hospital officials plan to build a 35,000-sq-ft ambulatory cancer center and a 620-car parking garage.Gilbane Building Company, Providence, R.I., will serve as con-struction manager on the $100-million project and is to beginsitework in spring 2007.
Improvements in technology and a trend that shows increas-ing reliance on chemotherapy treatments are driving significantexpansions of cancer centers at medical institutions. Canniffestimates that chemotherapy use regionally is expected to in-crease as much as 10% annually for the next few years. “We’rebuilding to allow for some of that capacity increase as well as toimprove the amount of technology we’re able to provide ourlocal population,” Canniff says.
St. Joseph’s Hospital in Orange, Calif., is planning to builda new 87,000-sq-ft cancer center and 131,000-sq-ft medical officebuilding, as well as a 1,083-car parking garage as part of a 30-year master plan to reshape its campus. The Newport Beach,Calif., office of McCarthy Building Companies Inc. is provid-ing design-build services and plans to break ground this year.Steve Gilbert, vice president of St. Joseph Hospital’s construc-tion division, says the center will have “better curb appeal andoffer easier access for our patients in an environment that real-ly focuses on mind, body, and spirit.”
McCarthy also has an approximately $650-million contractto replace the existing acute care hospital at St. Joseph’s and isplanning to complete Phase I of the project in June 2007.
Gilbert says St. Joseph’s embarked on the master plan toconform its buildings to tougher seismic requirements imple-mented in California in 1994. “Essentially, any hospital build-
Changing ideas about health care delivery is promptingowners of health care facilities to embark on ambitiousconstruction programs to create more patient-focusedbuildings. One major trend has been a shift to provide
more outpatient services.“Health care is switching from what everyone would say is
an inpatient model to an outpatient model,” says Michael Can-niff, project manager at St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Bridge-port, Conn., which is planning a 70,000 sq-ft renovation and a100,000-sq-ft expansion of its cam-pus as the first phase of a 10-year master plan.
Jeff Land, vice president of corporate real estate at San Fran-cisco-based Catholic Healthcare West, says, “Increasingly, ser-vices do not have to be provided at a hospital setting. They canbe provided more in a doctor’s office or an imaging center,surgery center, blood drawing station or laboratory services.”
Catholic Healthcare West, which operates in Arizona, Cal-ifornia and Nevada, has an average of 30 to 35 projects underway every year, with an annual total dollar volume in the hun-dreds of millions, Land says. “That number is fairly consistent[year to year] because all these projects are multiyear.” New orplanned projects include new medical office buildings and am-bulatory surgery center expansions. “In the health care indus-try, we’re certainly pushing more services like that out into thecommunity,” he says.
A number of projects planned by the U.S. Dept. of VeteransAffairs are outpatient facilities, says Bob Neary, VA acting chieffacilities management officer. “The VA system in general overthe past decade has been making a major transformation frominpatient care to outpatient care,” he says.
The outpatient facilities are part of a major VA initiative,called Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES),to restructure its health care facilities. The VA requested $307million for health care construction projects in its fiscal 2007budget request to Congress. The total program, first announcedin 2004, involves 36 projects for a total of nearly $3 billion.Approximately 15 of the 36 contracts have been awarded. TheVA plans to award another seven or eight in 2007, Neary says.Among the planned projects are three new hospitals, outpatientmedical centers, seismic upgrades and patient ward upgradesand expansions.
By Pam Hunter
Health Care
ENR
enr.com November 27, 2006 � ENR SOURCEBOOK � 55
But that program was geared toward commercial buildings, nothealth care facilities with specific needs, Ravanesi says.
“The Green Guide, in just the first few years that is has beenaround, has created a sea change,” Ravanesi says. “It’s really con-nected this whole credit structure to health.” The U.S. GreenBuilding Council plans to work with the Green Guide forHealth Care initiative to develop a new LEED for Health Careto be released sometime in mid 2007, Ravanesi says. �
ing that was built prior to 1973 is targeted [by the regulations],and St. Joseph’s Hospital is no exception,” he says.
The St. Joseph’s Health System also plans to break groundon a new acute care tower at Mission Hospital in Mission Viejoearly in 2007. McCarthy is the contractor on that project. Inaddition, St. Joseph’s has projects under way at hospitals inFullerton and Santa Rosa, Calif. Sacramento-Calif.-based Har-bison Mahoney Higgins Builders is the contractor on the San-ta Rosa Memorial Hospital expansion, begun in September2006, and San Francisco, Calif.-based Swinerton Builders is thecontractor on the St. Jude Medical Center project in Fullerton,begun in 2005.
A number of hospitals have shown interest in building green.Approximately 105 hospitals are in a pilot program that uses thenew Green Guide for Health Care as a tool, says Bill Ravanesi,Boston regional director for Health Care Without Harm, ahealth care consulting firm. A team of architects, builders andhealth care leaders developed the guide, first released in 2004,to allow health care institutions to apply the principles of greenbuilding to health care facilities.
Previously, health care institutions that wanted to buildgreen used the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design (LEED) program as a basis.
Health Care
The Top 25 Health Care Construction Projects in Planning Phase
1 MISSION BAY HOSPITAL COMPLEX, San Francisco, Calif. New 1,700 UCSF MEDICAL CENTER, San Francisco, Calif.
2 PALOMAR HOSPITAL, Escondido, Calif. New 1,000 PALOMAR POMERADO HEALTH SYSTEM, Poway, Calif.
3 LSU/VA MEDICAL CENTER, New Orleans, La. New 1,000 DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, New Orleans. La.
4 RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Chicago, Ill. Renovation 810 RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Chicago, Ill.
5 HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER, Hershey, Pa. Renovation 800 HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER, Hershey, Pa.
6 GREENBRIER SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITIES, Dallas, Texas New 800 SENIOR CARE DEVELOPMENT, North Branford, Conn.
7 SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL, San Francisco, Calif. New 650 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco, Calif.
8 KAISER SAN LEANDRA MEDICAL CENTER, San Leandro, Calif. New 600 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, Oakland, Calif.
9 SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER, San Francisco, Calif. New 534 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco, Calif.
10 KAISER OAKLAND HOSPITAL, Oakland, Calif. New 525 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, Oakland, Calif.
11 UMHHC C.S. MOTT CHILDREN’S & WOMEN’S HOSPITAL, Ann Arbor, Mich. New 523 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, Mich.
12 OSU MEDICAL CENTER SOUTH CAMPUS, Columbus, Ohio New 471 OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Columbus, Ohio
13 ROSEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER, Roseville, Calif. Renovation/New 467 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, Oakland, Calif.
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, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. does not guarantee the accuracy or complete-ness 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 bereproduced, transmitted, or distributed without the express written permission of McGraw-Hill. The user of this material may not commin-gle any portion of this material with any other information and shall not edit, modify, or alter any portion.
ENR Top Lists – 2006Top 500 Design Firms – April 24
Top 400 Contractors – May 22
Top 100 Construction Management For Fee, Top 100 Construction Management-at-Risk, Top 100 Design-Build Firms, Top 40 Program Management Firms – June 12
Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – July 3
Top 200 International Design Firms – July 24
Top 225 International Contractors – August 21/28
Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 16
ENR Sourcebooks – 2006Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 26Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 18Top Owners Sourcebook – November 13Global Construction Sourcebook – December 18
ENR Top Lists – 2005Top 500 (U.S.) Design Firms – April 18Top 400 (U.S.) Contractors – May 16Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, &
Program Managers – June 13Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – July 4Top 200 International Design Firms – July 25Top 225 International Contractors – August 22/29Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 17
ENR SOURCEBOOKS – 2005Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 20Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 19Top Owners Sourcebook – November 142005 Global Construction Sourcebook – December 12
ENR Top Lists – 2004Top 500 (U.S.) Design Firms – April 19Top 400 (U.S.) Contractors – May 17Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, &
Program Managers – June 14Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – July 5Top 200 International Design Firms – July 26Top 225 International Contractors – August 23Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 18
ENR SOURCEBOOKS – 2004Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 28Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 27Top Owners Sourcebook – November 82004 Global Construction Sourcebook – December 2004Construction Facts – December 2004
ENR Top Lists – 2003Top 500 Design Firms – April 21Top 400 Contractors – May 19Top 100 Construction Managers, Design-Builders, &
Program Managers – June 16Top 200 Environmental Engineering Firms – June 2Top 200 International Design Firms – July 28Top 225 International Contractors – August 25Top 600 Specialty Contractors – October 20
ENR SOURCEBOOKS – 2003Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook – June 2003Top 400 Contractors Sourcebook – September 2003Top Owners Sourcebook – November 10Construction Facts – November 20032003 Global Construction Sourcebook – January 5, 2004
ENR (Engineering News-Record), (ISSN 0891-9526). Publishedweekly except for one issue in January and one issue in August byThe McGraw-Hill Companies, 1221 Ave. of the Americas, New York,N.Y. 10020. Founder: James H. McGraw (1860-1948). Executive,
Howard Mager, Sr. VP., MH Construction; Nilo Ramos, Sr. Director, Finance. Where necessary, permission is granted by copyright ownerfor those registered with Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923, www.copyright.com, tophotocopy any article herein for personal or internal reference use only for the flat fee of $1.20 per copy for each article. ENRConstruction Economics, Top Rankings and Sourcebooks available for a fee in downloadable PDF format at www.ENR.com. Send pay-ment 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 inthe field of the publication: U.S. and possessions, $82 per year (single copies $5 in U.S.); Canada and Mexico, $89 per year; outsideNorth America, $195 per year. Please allow four to six weeks for shipment. Subscriber service: (877) 876-8208 or (515) 237-3681. Forsingle copies, (212) 904-4634. Send all correspondence, notices and subscription orders to Fulfillment Manager, ENR, P.O. Box 5730,Harlan, IA 51593. If possible, attach address label from a recent issue. Please contact customer service to change your name oraddress. If the postal authorities alert us that your magazine is undeliverable, we have no further obligation unless we receive acorrected address within two years. Please allow a month for change of address to take effect. Classified advertising: Send ads to ENR,Classified Advertising, Two Penn Plaza, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10121. Phone (212) 904-2815.
SERVING THE INDUSTRY SINCE 1874
Engineering News-Record
ENR’s Complete Top List and Sourcebook Series: Page images of all stories and data related to Top Lists and Sourcebooks published in ENR
Available at The McGraw-Hill Information Center (click here)