Moving Forward By Looking Back

Thirteen years ago, the editors of Consulting-Specifying Engineer asked me to elaborate on the challenges facing consulting engineers in the decade ahead.

In 1990, the 101st Congress passed a resolution designating 1991 the "Year of the Infrastructure." I reflected on that and said, "While it is essential that we rehabilitate our nation’s infrastructure in order to restore our competitiveness in the world economic order, I believe the 1990s will be regarded as the environmental decade."

My goal at the time was to investigate how the consulting engineer’s design of buildings can be sensitive to both the indoor and the outdoor environment. The article attempted to show that solutions require both the innovative thinking of engineers and support from all parties involved in creating and using buildings.

At that time, I felt that consulting engineers had to face the issues of how building systems affect both internal and external environments. I looked specifically at the following:

• Societal and legislative trends including the impact of legislation and litigation.

• Indoor environment and air quality including a definition of IAQ, the breadth of the IAQ problem and how to prevent it.

• External environmental issues, with a focus on CFCs and the ozone layer, the reduction of CFC use and possible CFC substitutes.

How building systems affect both the internal and external environments will continue to be the central issue for consulting engineers. And moving forward, the challenges that engineers will face fall into the following overarching categories: sustainability, reliability, security and liability.

Sustainability

Over the last decade, the focus on how buildings interact with both the internal and external environments has been referred to as "sustainable design," a more holistic approach than earlier solutions. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program seek to capture the myriad factors that go into making a building more environmentally friendly.

As the USGBC states: "LEED provides a complete framework for assessing building performance and meeting sustainability goals. Based on well-founded scientific standards, LEED emphasizes state-of-the-art-strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. LEED recognizes achievements and promotes expertise in green building through a comprehensive system offering project certification, professional accreditation, training and practical resources."

Additionally, the USGBC states that LEED was created to establish a common standard of measurement for green building; promote integrated, whole-building design practices; recognize environmental leadership in the building industry; stimulate green competition; raise consumer awareness about green building; and transform the building market.

It is clear that USGBC and its LEED certification program are having an impact on the building community (see "A/E Firms Going Green," p. 42). The 2nd annual USGBC International Green Building Conference & Expo in November of 2003 drew more than 4,000 participants.

The organization is exerting an influence on government as well. For example, on June 10, 2004, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley announced that all newly constructed public buildings in his city would be LEED-certified in order to conserve energy, reduce costs and ensure healthier indoor environments.

Sustainability is certainly becoming a standard for new projects. But there is another concern of equal importance to clients. Along with the desire for ideal environments, they want utmost reliability in critical infrastructure.

During the past decade, our economy has become more and more reliant on virtually instantaneous data and information. How many of us can go a day—much less a few hours—without our e-mail? The term "critical facilities" has grown to encompass almost all facilities that house people.

Reliability

The August 2003 blackout on the East Coast showed us all how fragile and vulnerable our electrical systems are—and how costly disruptions can be. This event, and an increased legal and legislative awareness, have lead many owners and consulting engineers to focus greatly on the reliability of facilities.

At Syska Hennessy, we developed a tool that we call the Critical Facilities Balance Sheet. We use it to assess the ability of our clients’ facilities to provide a high level of reliability. It was developed as a result their need to better understand the reliability of their facilities, as there has been ever-increasing pressure on them to avoid operations outages.

Security

The issues discussed so far, sustainability and reliability, are both concerns that affect the welfare and security of a facility and its occupants. This leads us to another major challenge ahead for consulting engineers: life safety.

The events of Sept. 11, 2001, along with the anthrax scare that immediately followed, have put the issue of security front and center in the minds of building occupants. Protecting air and water resources has become a major priority for local governments and utilities and has gained greater prominence with private owners and clients.

Multiple resources have been devoted to understanding potential threats and the steps necessary to provide adequate protection for all facilities. The National Security Agency has doubled the amount spent on security projects between 2000 and 2003. In fiscal 2003, NSA executed about 43,000 contracts and 21,000 purchase orders. In fact, the level of federal spending on homeland security highlights the magnitude of the issue, with spending included in the 2003 Homeland Security bill only a fraction of the money being spent on security by the economy as a whole.

But while security has become a key issue with facility owners and the public, I offer a word of caution here. Before building system designers take any concrete action to prepare a facility for emergencies, it’s important to remember that any approach must be reasonable in terms of feasibility and cost. People may point out that with the current state of our technology, we can build structures to withstand just about anything a terrorist can do. However, the problems with this strategy are the high cost of building these structures and the unappealing environments they offer.

The challenges discussed so far are all about keeping people and businesses healthy and content. But these aren’t the only issues to be faced by the 21st century consulting engineer.

Legislation and litigation

Thirteen years ago, I highlighted two examples of legislation that had an impact on consulting engineers: California’s Proposition 65 and the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) of 1986. I also looked at how litigation can shape engineering design practice and pointed to how IAQ litigation had been sensitizing members of the building community who might become potential defendants.

Today, that trend continues unabated. In fact, in many respects it has increased. Recent legislation and litigation have reinforced the notion that the focus on the environment, reliability and security will not decline. In fact, they have come to be regarded as fundamental social issues. We will see a heightened awareness of possible dangers and increasing attention to the ethical and moral responsibility of the engineer to take care for the environment. The public will insist on environmentally safe and secure places to work, play and live.

For reasons of health, ethics, public relations and legal pressures, more building owners will have to deal responsibly with environmental, reliability and security hazards. Going forward, legislation and litigation will continue to play a large role in shaping these issues and how consulting engineers must address them. And this will occur in strange and often unintended ways.

For example, mission-critical operations and the facilities that house them have historically been the exclusive domain of IT personnel, facility managers and operating executives. This is no longer the case. Reliability, uptime, flexibility, security and controls related to such operations and facilities have now emerged as an overriding concern in the executive suites and board rooms of major organizations. In addition to the growing recognition that failures at these facilities may have profound repercussions far beyond the host organization, new regulations and a landmark court ruling have dramatically elevated the standards for executive office and board member involvement.

A well-publicized Delaware court decision is being trumpeted as an accompaniment to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002—the federal legislation intended to guard against corporate corruption and foster accountability—and industry-specific regulations, all of which are mean to regulate boardroom ethics. The Delaware court established a new standard for directors’ duties to actively monitor corporate operations. Setting aside the historical protection afforded by the standard of the "business judgment rule," the court found that directors were negligent because they relied upon management and corporate policies and procedures to control risks, rather than fulfilling a fiduciary duty to be active monitors of corporate operations. The court finding was that directors allowed a situation to develop and continue that exposed the corporation to risk and enormous legal liability. The assertion of this legal principle by a chancery court, applied in a jurisdiction generally viewed as most favorable to corporations, raises the bar for executive suite and director level knowledge, involvement and monitoring of the operations and facilities housing mission-critical activities.

Finally, raising the issue of mission-critical activities brings us back to the role of information technology in the life of a consulting engineer.

Information technology

Computing solutions and information technology have and will continue to have a profound impact on the way engineers carry out their jobs. Not only will they influence the way we communicate, but as the tools for exploring system options and more sophisticated modeling tools are developed, more effective and responsive design and systems can be created. The work of the International Alliance for Interoperability ( www.iai-na.org ) to develop a standard, universal framework to enable and encourage universal information sharing and interoperability throughout all phases of the building life cycle.

The development of computational tools, such as computational fluid dynamics modeling, has allowed engineers to explore new and innovative solutions to many problems that, in the past, were only solved by trial and error.

These tools and the way they impact both solutions and the way in which engineers interact with each other and their clients will only increase in the pace of change.

Looking backwards and forward

I’ve tried to look both back and ahead to gain some insight on what issues and challenges the consulting engineering will face in the years ahead. I think that while some of the issues have changed, my basic premises of 13 years ago still hold. Engineers will increasingly have to deal with environmental issues, both indoors and out.

To cover the entire range of issues facing us today would have been beyond the space available for this article. The issues I selected are representative of the complexity and interrelatedness of various aspects of our profession. They show that single solutions to the problems do not exist. They show that if the problems are to be solved, we must develop coordinated approaches to them. They must be viewed not in isolation, but in conjunction with the other issues.

Property owners and building managers must recognize the significance of the issues and must be ready to implement the steps necessary to solve them and to bear the additional costs associated with the fixes. If they are unwilling to do so, then legislative action will be required, or serious litigation consequences may result.

Therefore, consulting engineers will have to play a dual role in the resolution of environmental issues. They must turn their talents to finding integrated and innovative solutions to the problems and they must become politically active to ensure that the solutions are implemented.

A/E Firms Going Green

The number of A/E designers who have become LEED-accredited professionals continues to grow. The following is a sample of major engineering design firms with a large percentage of these professionals on staff:

Firm	Total Staff	LEED Professionals
Source: Building Design & Construction 2004 Giants Survey
HOK	1,650	155
HDR Architecture	695	57
SmithGroup	780	38
leo a daly	1,075	33
Flack + Kurtz	270	29
Einhorn Yaffee Prescott	350	28
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson	492	28
Syska Hennessy Group	545	26
RTKL	705	25
R.G. Vanderweil Engineers	282	24

2004 CSE Giants: An Introduction

There has been considerable movement of firms up and down our 2004 Giants Report—our annual ranking of U.S. engineering firms based on M/E design revenue. While it’s difficult to draw any clear conclusions from a comparison of this year’s ranking with last year’s, it suggests some major changes.

Many of the respondents reported mergers and acquisitions. While these are too numerous to list here, some of the major acquisitions affect the Report. For example, Boise-based Blue Chip Engineering, which was #94 last year, merged with Power Engineers, Hailey, Idaho. An even more interesting development was the acquisition by Paulus, Sokolowski and Sartor, LLC, Warren, N.J., of another long-time CSE Giant, Boston-based Bard, Rao + Athanas. Naturally, the acquisition has catapulted PS&S up the list, from #36 in 2003 to #7 this year. Finally, Lockwood Greene, Spartanburg, S.C. was acquired by engineering giant CH2M Hill, Denver, which last participated in our Giants ranking in 2001.

It should be mentioned that a number of design firms that have participated in the past chose to opt out this year for various reasons. Among the regular participants who are absent this year are: Heery International, Malcolm Pirnie, Burgess + Niple, Kling and Brinjac. If your feel that your firm should be on our Giants Report, please contact Scott Siddens atssiddens@reedbusiness.com.

2004 Giants Report

Ranking	Company	Type of Firm	Total Revenue (millions $U.S.)	2003 M/E Design Revenue	2004 M/E Design Revenue
* Previous ranking; — Did not participate in 2003
1	URS Corporation, San Francisco	dc	3,187.00	577.50 (1)*	494.23
2	Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, Mo.	ae	417.00	172.25 (3)	186.20
3	Lockwood Greene, Spartanburg, S.C.	ae	548.20	149.11 (4)	137.16
4	Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc., New York	ae	1,286.00	98.81 (5)	98.81
5	Carter & Burgess, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas	ae	328.30	74.12 (6)	77.75
6	Syska Hennessy Group, Inc., New York	ae	103.20	47.25 (10)	73.20
7	Paulus, Sokolowski, and Sartor, LLC, Warren, N.J.	ae	76.20	19.50 (36)	59.44
8	R. W. Beck, Inc., Seattle	ce	71.47	60.65 (7)	57.18
9	Power Engineers, Inc., Hailey, Idaho	ce	69.67	40.70 (12)	57.13
10	Affiliated Engineers, Inc., Madison, Wis.	ce	55.40	45.20 (11)	47.40
11	R.G. Vanderweil Engineers, Boston	ce	41.30	48.22 (9)	41.30
12	Leo A Daly, Omaha	ae	171.00	31.20 (20)	41.04
13	Cosentini Associates, New York	ae	43.50	53.50 (8)	40.00
14	Stanley Consultants, Inc., Muscatine, Iowa	dc	96.62	30.61 (21)	37.64
15	The Benham Companies, Inc., Oklahoma City (formerly Atkins Americas)	ae	99.90	38.01 (14)	35.34
16	Smith Seckman Reid, Inc., Nashville	ce	39.40	30.03 (22)	32.34
17	Flack + Kurtz Inc., New York	ce	33.70	36.10 (15)	30.36
18	SmithGroup, Detroit	ae	125.90	39.24 (13)	30.22
19	TLC Engineering for Architecture, Orlando, Fla.	ce	34.00	26.35 (26)	29.92
20	SSOE, Inc., Toledo, Ohio	ae	54.00	32.19 (19)	29.70
21	STV Group, Inc., Douglassville, Pa.	ae	224.38	27.15 (24)	28.15
22	Wink Incorporated, New Orleans	ae	35.30	19.09 (38)	27.53
23	Environmental Systems Design, Inc., Chicago	ce	27.00	25.00 (29)	27.00
24	The RJA Group, Inc., Chicago	ce	30.00	32.43 (18)	27.00
25	Clark, Richardson & Biskup, Kansas City, Mo.	ce	42.80	—	26.75
26	Sebesta Blomberg & Associates, Inc., Roseville, Minn.	ce	28.31	25.16 (28)	26.71
27	The Austin Company, Cleveland	dc	451.00	23.35 (31)	26.23
28	Merrick & Company, Aurora, Colo.	ae	63.40	24.40 (30)	24.40
29	Henderson Engineers, Inc., Lenexa, Ks.	ce	24.40	19.31 (37)	23.79
30	CUH2A, Princeton, N.J.	ae	51.30	21.84 (34)	21.55
31	Cannon Design, Buffalo, N.Y.	ae	82.91	17.91 (39)	20.84
32	M-E Engineers, Inc., Wheat Ridge, Colo.	ce	18.80	17.46 (41)	18.80
33	EYP Mission Critical Facilities, New York	ae	25.00	25.50 (27)	18.75
34	Newcomb & Boyd, Atlanta	ae	20.29	—	18.51
35	Einhorn Yaffee Prescott, Albany, N.Y.	ae	51.35	20.65 (35)	17.97
36	Joseph R. Loring & Associates, New York	ce	17.80	16.00 (46)	17.80
37	Clive Samuels and Associates, Inc., Princeton, N.J.	ce	17.60	11.50 (63)	17.60
38	Barge Waggoner Sumner and Cannon, Inc., Nashville	ae	49.46	14.70 (50)	17.31
39	KJWW Engineering Consultants, PC, Rock Island, Ill.	ce	19.08	22.40 (33)	17.17
40	Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates, Butler, Pa.	ae	44.00	13.49 (55)	16.87
41	HDR Architecture, Inc., Omaha	ae	98.80	—	16.38
42	Wick Fisher White Engineers, Philadelphia	ce	15.84	15.84 (47)	15.84
43	A. Epstein and Sons International, Inc., Chicago	ae	97.00	12.00 (62)	15.75
44	EwingCole, Philadelphia	ae	43.00	12.78 (59)	15.71
45	HarleyEllis, Southfield, Mich.	ae	64.00	15.60 (49)	15.50
46	Raymond Professional Group, Inc., Chicago	ae	24.00	23.01 (32)	15.18
47	W.H. Linder & Assocs., Metairie, La.	ce	21.60	12.61 (61)	15.00
48	Ross & Baruzzini, Inc., Webster Groves, Mo.	ae	16.41	16.80 (43)	14.77
49	Robert Derector Associates, New York	ce	16.50	17.50 (40)	14.03
50	Michaud Cooley Erickson, Minneapolis	ce	14.00	14.00 (51)	14.00
51	H.F. Lenz Company, Johnstown, Pa.	ce	17.01	13.99 (52)	13.54
52	Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, Roanoke, Va.	ae	56.33	11.16 (66)	13.52
53	Teng & Associates, Inc., Chicago	ae	78.30	13.13 (56)	13.31
54	GRG Consulting Engineers, Inc., Maitland, Fla.	ce	13.25	9.75 (73)	12.72
55	Heapy Engineering LLC, Dayton, Ohio	ce	13.00	13.10 (57)	12.60
56	Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc., Minneapolis	ae	64.30	13.86 (53)	12.50
57	Peter Basso Associates, Inc., Troy, Mich.	ce	12.46	12.74 (60)	12.46
58	Mazzetti & Associates, Inc., San Francisco	ce	13.50	—	12.42
59	Interface Engineering, Portland, Ore.	ce	12.00	11.13 (67)	12.00
60	GHT Limited, Arlington, Va.	ce	11.70	10.70 (68)	11.70
61	M/E Engineering, P.C.. Rochester, N.Y.	ce	11.57	10.14 (71)	11.57
62	MKK Consulting Engineers, Inc., Englewood, Colo.	ce	11.50	13.85 (54)	11.50
63	James Posey Associates, Inc., Baltimore	ae	11.10	9.60 (74)	11.10
64	KTA Group, Inc., Herndon, Va.	ce	11.40	9.22 (75)	10.83
65	Richard D. Kimball Company, Inc., Andover, Mass.	ce	14.60	—	10.63
66	Dewberry, Fairfax, Va.	ae	177.70	189.00 (2)	10.60
67	Bridgers & Paxton Consulting Engineers, Inc., Albuquerque	ce	11.35	9.93 (72)	10.37
68	RobsonWoese, Inc., Syracuse, N.Y.	ce	12.75	10.18 (70)	10.20
69	Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, St. Louis	ae	200.00	5.25 (99)	10.00
70	Lilker Associates Consulting Engineers, New York	ce	9.80	9.10 (77)	9.80
71	PWI Engineering, Philadelphia	ce	10.00	—	9.70
72	RTKL Associates, Inc., Baltimore	ae	115.00	7.35 (85)	9.60
73	The RMH Group, Inc., Lakewood, Colo.	ce	14.27	8.43 (79)	9.40
74	PageSoutherlandPage, Houston	ae	37.21	—	9.30
75	Symmes Maini & McKee Associates, Cambridge, Mass.	ae	18.90	—	9.14
76	Clark-Nexsen Architecture & Engineering, Norfolk, Va.	ae	26.12	8.96 (78)	8.88
77	Morris, Johnson & Associates, Inc., Eatontown, N.J.	ce	8.81	8.35 (80)	8.81
78	Fanning/Howey Associates, Celina, Ohio	ae	42.99	10.47 (69)	8.72
79	Albert Kahn Associates, Inc., Detroit	ae	32.50	11.41 (64)	8.52
80	The Durrant Group, Dubuque, Iowa	ae	26.00	11.34 (65)	7.54
81	Spectrum Engineers, Salt Lake City	ce	7.60	6.14 (91)	7.50
82	DiClemente Siegel Design Inc., Southfield, Mich.	ae	9.23	5.34 (98)	7.47
83	Gage-Babcock and Associates, Chantilly, Va.	ce	7.40	—	7.40
84	P2S Engineering, Inc., Long Beach, Calif.	ce	7.65	7.65 (81)	7.36
85	Lizardos Engineering Associates, P.C., Mineola, N.Y.	ce	9.80	6.50 (88)	7.00
86	Jordan & Skala Engineers, Inc., Norcross, Ga.	ce	7.68	6.90 (87)	6.73
87	Bala Consulting Engineers, Inc., Wynnewood, Pa.	ce	8.40	6.70 (88)	6.72
88	Kamm Consulting, Inc., Deerfield Beach, Fla.	ce	7.04	5.75 (96)	6.69
89	WD Partners, Columbus, Ohio	ae	44.00	—	6.60
90	Wiley & Wilson, Lynchburg, Va.	ae	11.90	7.48 (83)	6.55
91	William Tao & Assocs., St. Louis	ce	6.73	5.87 (95)	6.44
92	Goetting & Associates, Inc., San Antonio, Texas	ce	6.10	6.10 (92)	5.90
93	Korda/Nemeth Engineering, Inc., Columbus, Ohio	ce	10.84	9.21 (76)	5.82
94	Optimation Technology, Rush, N.Y.	ce	6.80	6.30 (89)	5.80
95	Ellerbe Becket, Minneapolis	ae	75.00	15.69 (48)	5.78
96	DBR Engineering Consultants, Houston, Texas	ce	5.54	5.66 (97)	5.43
97	O’Dea, Lynch, Abbattista, Hawthorne, N.Y.	ce	6.00	4.92 (100)	5.40
98	The Schemmer Associates Inc., Omaha	ae	9.29	—	4.60
99	Arnold & O’Sheridan, Inc., Madison, Wis.	ae	11.06	6.21 (90)	4.43
100	P2RS Group, Inc., Albuquerque	ce	4.50	—	4.05

2004 Giants Report

A. Epstein and Sons International, Inc.	43
Affiliated Engineers, Inc.	10
Albert Kahn Associates, Inc.	79
Arnold & O’Sheridan, Inc.	99
Austin Company, The	27
Bala Consulting Engineers, Inc.	87
Barge Waggoner Sumner and Cannon, Inc.	38
Benham Companies, Inc., The	15
Bridgers & Paxton Consulting Engineers, Inc.	67
Burns & McDonnell	2
Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates	40
Cannon Design	31
Carter & Burgess, Inc.	5
Clark, Richardson & Biskup	25
Clark-Nexsen Architecture & Engineering	76
Clive Samuels and Associates, Inc.	37
Cosentini Associates	13
CUH2A	30
DBR Engineering Consultants	96
Dewberry	66
DiClemente Siegel Design Inc.	82
Durrant Group, The	80
Einhorn Yaffee Prescott	35
Ellerbe Becket	95
Environmental Systems Design, Inc.	23
EwingCole	44
EYP Mission Critical Facilities	33
Fanning/Howey Associates	78
Flack + Kurtz Inc.	17
Gage-Babcock and Associates	83
GHT Limited	60
Goetting & Associates, Inc.	92
GRG Consulting Engineers, Inc.	54
H.F. Lenz Company	51
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.	56
HarleyEllis	45
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern	52
HDR Architecture, Inc.	41
Heapy Engineering LLC	55
Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum	69
Henderson Engineers, Inc.	29
Interface Engineering	59
James Posey Associates, Inc.	63
Jordan & Skala Engineers, Inc.	86
Joseph R. Loring & Associates	36
Kamm Consulting, Inc.	88
KJWW Engineering Consultants, PC	39
Korda/Nemeth Engineering, Inc.	93
KTA Group, Inc.	64
Leo A Daly	12
Lilker Associates Consulting Engineers	70
Lizardos Engineering Associates, P.C.	85
Lockwood Greene	3
M/E Engineering, P.C.	61
Mazzetti & Associates, Inc.	58
M-E Engineers, Inc.	32
Merrick & Company	28
Michaud Cooley Erickson	50
MKK Consulting Engineers, Inc.	62
Morris, Johnson & Associates, Inc.	77
Newcomb & Boyd	34
O’Dea, Lynch, Abbattista	97
Optimation Technology	94
P2RS Group, Inc.	100
P2S Engineering, Inc.	84
PageSoutherlandPage	74
Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc.	4
Paulus, Sokolowski, and Sartor, LLC	7
Peter Basso Associates, Inc.	57
Power Engineers, Inc.	9
PWI Engineering	71
R. W. Beck, Inc.	8
R.G. Vanderweil Engineers	11
Raymond Professional Group, Inc.	46
Richard D. Kimball Company, Inc.	65
RJA Group, Inc., The	24
RMH Group, Inc., The	73
Robert Derector Associates	49
RobsonWoese, Inc.	68
Ross & Baruzzini, Inc.	48
RTKL Associates, Inc.	72
Schemmer Associates Inc., The	98
Sebesta Blomberg & Associates, Inc.	26
Smith Seckman Reid, Inc.	16
SmithGroup	18
Spectrum Engineers	81
SSOE, Inc.	20
Stanley Consultants, Inc.	14
STV Group, Inc.	21
Symmes Maini & McKee Associates	75
Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.	6
Teng & Associates, Inc.	53
TLC Engineering for Architecture	19
URS Corporation	1
W.H. Linder & Assocs.	47
WD Partners	89
Wick Fisher White Engineers	42
Wiley & Wilson	90
William Tao & Assocs.	91
Wink Incorporated	22

Do you have experience and expertise with the topics mentioned in this content? You should consider contributing to our WTWH Media editorial team and getting the recognition you and your company deserve. Click here to start this process.