AECOM's $144.5M in school work leads BD+C's 2026 K-12 engineering ranking

AECOM booked $144.5 million in K-12 school facility revenue in 2025, enough to top Building Design+Construction's Top 90 K-12 School Engineering Firms list for the second year in a row. CMTA followed at $104.5 million and Jacobs at $97.1 million, according to the ranking compiled by BD+C editorial director David Barista and published Sept. 4.

The engineering list is one of three K-12 rankings inside BD+C's 2026 Giants 400 Report, the 50th edition of the survey. American School & University, BD+C's sister publication, reported Sept. 8 that PBK again leads the K-12 architecture ranking and CORE Construction again leads the K-12 construction ranking, both repeating their 2025 finishes.

For a district facilities director heading into a bond cycle, or a business development lead at a regional firm wondering how big the national players' school practices really are, the three lists are the closest thing to a public market map of who builds American schools at scale.

Stable at the top, shuffled underneath

PBK tops the architecture list, according to American School & University. MOREgroup, DLR Group and VLK come next, then Stantec and Wold Architects and Engineers. Perkins Eastman sits seventh, with Corgan, HMC Architects and Pfluger Architects rounding out the ten. MOREgroup is the mover, climbing past both VLK and DLR Group compared with last year's order.

On the engineering side, AECOM held first in both 2025 and 2026 while CMTA and Jacobs traded second and third place, American School & University reported. The rest of the top nine, in order: WSP, Salas O'Brien, IMEG, GFT, NV5 Global and STV.

Construction follows the same pattern. CORE Construction leads. Pogue Construction takes second and Gilbane Building Company third. Joeris General Contractors and Bartlett Cocke General Contractors come after them, followed by Balfour Beatty US and Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, according to American School & University. CORE also ranked first in 2025, when Gilbane and Pogue occupied the next two positions.

Three categories, three repeat winners, with the changes happening below the top spot. That consistency suggests the largest K-12 practices are well entrenched, at least at the revenue scale BD+C measures. It also means a district that shortlisted from these lists two years ago would recognize nearly every name today.

Where the engineering dollars sit

The engineering table is the only one of the three K-12 lists where the source material includes dollar figures. AECOM reported $144.5 million in 2025 K-12 school facility revenue, CMTA $104.5 million and Jacobs $97.1 million, according to BD+C. Fourth-place WSP reported $46.6 million, followed by Salas O'Brien at $42.4 million, IMEG at $38.4 million, GFT at $36.9 million, NV5 Global at $31.3 million and STV at $27.3 million.

Below the top three, the field flattens quickly. RTM Engineering Consultants ($24.5 million), Kimley-Horn ($22.8 million), CHA Consulting ($18.5 million), EXP ($16.9 million), KPFF Consulting Engineers ($16.8 million), ISG ($16.2 million), McKinstry ($15.5 million), Langan ($15 million) and Dewberry ($13.3 million) fill ranks 10 through 18, per BD+C. From Henderson Engineers at No. 20 ($9.5 million) onward, every firm reported under $10 million in K-12 revenue.

The published table also runs well past its title. BD+C lists 98 entries, including a tie at No. 70 between Bala Consulting Engineers and Dunham Associates, each reporting exactly $1 million, and the smallest entries come in at four and five figures. Read plainly, K-12 is a core practice for a handful of engineering firms and a far smaller line of business for dozens more, judging by the revenue BD+C reports.

That distinction matters when a district or its program manager is scoring qualifications. Revenue scale is a rough proxy for how much school work a firm can staff at once. It says nothing about fee levels, project count, schedule record or client satisfaction, none of which BD+C reports, so the list works as a screen for market presence rather than a verdict on capability.

How the numbers are collected

The BD+C rankings are based on gross revenue, counting only work done by each firm's U.S. and Canadian operations, American School & University reports. In the K-12 category, that revenue covers public, private, charter and military schools. BD+C tracks it in three separate lists: one for architecture and architecture/engineering firms, a second for engineering and engineering/architecture firms, and a third for contractors and construction management firms.

Nearly 600 firms submitted data for the 2026 report, which contains 137 rankings across 25 building sectors and specialty categories, per American School & University. The 2026 lists reflect 2025 revenue, as the column header on BD+C's engineering table makes explicit.

Districts are building into very different conditions

American School & University framed the rankings against a K-12 facilities market that is pulling in more than one direction. Some regions are adding capacity to keep up with enrollment growth, others are working through aging buildings and modernization backlogs, and others are managing excess space, the publication reported.

Which list matters most depends on which of those conditions a district is in. A district adding seats is most likely to be evaluating the architecture and construction lists, where PBK and CORE Construction lead. A district whose buildings are structurally sound but mechanically tired is more likely to be looking at the engineering firms American School & University describes as handling building systems and infrastructure, the list AECOM, CMTA and Jacobs lead.

For districts with excess space, the rankings offer less. Consolidation decisions turn on enrollment forecasts and building condition assessments, and none of the three lists speaks to that work directly.

American School & University said it plans to follow the rankings with further reporting on those market conditions. The Giants 400 itself is annual, so the next read on whether AECOM, PBK and CORE Construction hold their positions, or whether the second- and third-place shuffling reaches the top, comes with the 2027 edition and the 2026 revenue it will capture.