Earth Support Corp

The bidding marketMassachusetts

Who designs it, who pays for it

1,119 engineering and architecture firms are named on 3,873 Massachusetts construction projects, and about one job in four (25%) carries ground work — shoring, sheeting, soil nails or other excavation support. Which designers draw those jobs, which owners put them out to bid, and how they buy.
  • Snapshot · as of Jun 29, 2026
  • 3,873 records
  • Massachusetts construction projects
  • 1 source · method

Projects with ground work

25%

974 of 3,873 projects — the baseline every firm below is measured against

Design firms named

1,119

281 on 5+ projects · 143 on 10+

Listings naming a geotech engineer

7.6%

296 of 3,873 projects

MassDOT bids with ground work

46%

134 of 289 bid-stage jobs · 16% of all public ground work

Data as of Jun 29, 2026.

01 · Ground work

Who designs the dirt-heavy jobs

For every firm named on at least 20 projects, the share of its jobs that carry earth-retention scope. The civil firms behind bridge, road and water-line work sit well above the 25% average. The big geotechnical names mostly sit near it — they are named on many building jobs too.

GZA GeoEnvironmental, GHD, TEC Inc and Egis are the most frequent designers of ground-work jobs

Share of each firm's projects with earth-retention scope · firms named on 20+ projects · sorted by the shrunk estimate
  • Civil
  • Geotechnical
  • Structural, architecture & other
  • Shrunk estimate
  • Raw share
  • 90% interval
  1. GZA GeoEnvironmental33
  2. GHD23
  3. TEC Inc30
  4. Egis28
  5. Stantec87
  6. Foth Infrastructure & Environment22
  7. Environmental Partners69
  8. Tighe & Bond117
  9. VHB106
  10. Weston & Sampson215
  11. GEI Consultants28
  12. BETA Group55
  13. Woodard & Curran141
  14. BSC Group34
  15. Pare Corp36
  16. Copley Wolff Design Group23
  17. SAR Engineering55
  18. CDM Smith68
  19. Kleinfelder50
  20. WSP44
  21. AECOM41
  22. Howard/Stein-Hudson32
  23. Jacobs33
  24. GPI20
  25. Wright-Pierce104
n = 69 firms · 3,873 projectsSource: MA public bid resultsCSV
▸ Show the numbers
FirmDisciplineProjectsGround workRawShrunk90% interval
GZA GeoEnvironmentalGeotechnical332576%57%45%–68%
GHDCivil231461%44%32%–57%
TEC IncCivil301757%44%33%–56%
EgisCivil281657%44%32%–56%
StantecCivil874147%43%35%–51%
Foth Infrastructure & EnvironmentCivil221255%41%28%–53%
Environmental PartnersCivil693145%40%32%–49%
Tighe & BondCivil1175043%40%33%–47%
VHBCivil1064442%39%32%–46%
Weston & SampsonCivil2158640%39%34%–44%
GEI ConsultantsCivil281346%38%26%–49%
BETA GroupCivil552342%37%28%–47%
Woodard & CurranCivil1415539%37%31%–44%
BSC GroupCivil341544%37%27%–48%
Pare CorpCivil361542%36%26%–46%
Copley Wolff Design GroupLandscape231043%35%24%–47%
SAR EngineeringMEP552036%33%25%–43%
CDM SmithCivil682435%33%25%–41%
KleinfelderCivil501836%33%24%–42%
WSPMEP441636%33%24%–43%
AECOMCivil411537%33%23%–43%
Howard/Stein-HudsonCivil321134%31%21%–42%
JacobsCivil331133%30%20%–41%
GPICivil20735%30%19%–42%
Wright-PierceCivil1043231%30%23%–37%
Elkus ManfrediArchitecture23730%28%17%–40%
Tata & HowardCivil27830%28%18%–39%
Simpson Gumpertz & HegerStructural31929%28%18%–38%
ArcadisCivil29828%27%17%–37%
Fuss & O'NeillCivil481327%27%18%–36%
Haley & AldrichGeotechnical30827%26%17%–37%
BohlerCivil29724%25%15%–35%
Irrigation ConsultingConsultant21524%24%14%–36%
McPhail AssociatesGeotechnical591424%24%17%–32%
Lin AssociatesStructural29621%23%13%–33%
Lahlaf GeotechnicalGeotechnical25520%22%13%–33%
CHA ConsultingCivil491020%22%14%–30%
RW Sullivan EngineeringMEP22418%21%12%–33%
Griffith & VaryMEP22418%21%12%–32%
Ray Dunetz Landscape ArchitectureLandscape25416%20%11%–31%
GCG AssociatesCivil661218%20%13%–27%
CBA Landscape ArchitectsLandscape21314%20%10%–30%
STVArchitecture23313%19%10%–29%
Beals & ThomasCivil25312%18%9%–28%
Nitsch EngineeringCivil1242016%17%12%–23%
Odeh EngineersStructural21210%17%9%–28%
Code Red ConsultantsConsultant27311%17%9%–27%
Souza True & PartnersStructural27311%17%9%–27%
Haley WardCivil2329%16%8%–26%
RSE AssociatesStructural2428%16%8%–26%
SOCOTECArchitecture2628%15%8%–25%
NV5MEP2015%15%7%–25%
Roome & GuarracinoStructural2115%15%7%–25%
Kalin AssociatesConsultant3738%14%7%–22%
Gale AssociatesCivil2314%14%6%–24%
BLW EngineersMEP60610%14%8%–21%
Hastings ConsultingConsultant2414%14%6%–23%
Samiotes ConsultantsCivil3226%14%7%–22%
Engineers Design GroupStructural4137%13%7%–21%
Allen & Major AssociatesCivil2000%13%5%–22%
Consulting Engineering ServicesMEP2913%12%6%–21%
Warner LarsonLandscape2200%12%5%–21%
A.M. Fogarty & AssociatesConsultant2200%12%5%–21%
Miller Dyer SpearsArchitecture2300%12%5%–21%
Lim ConsultantsStructural3313%11%5%–19%
Universal Environmental ConsultantsEnvironmental4225%11%6%–19%
PM & CConsultant3813%10%5%–18%
GGD Consulting EngineersMEP10688%10%6%–15%
Architectural EngineersMEP2900%10%4%–18%

02 · Directory

The designer directory

Every firm named on 10 or more projects — 143 of them. Search a name or a project type, filter by discipline, and sort any column. GW = ground work; “GW share” is the shrunk share from the chart above.

Weston & Sampson is named on more Massachusetts projects than any other designer

Projects a firm is named on in any design role, the median job, and how often those jobs carry ground work.

143 of 143 rows

Design firms named on 10 or more Massachusetts projects
Weston & Sampson21539%
Woodard & Curran14137%
Nitsch Engineering12417%
Tighe & Bond11740%
VHB10639%
GGD Consulting Engineers10610%
Wright-Pierce10430%
Stantec8743%
Environmental Partners6940%
CDM Smith6833%
GCG Associates6620%
BLW Engineers6014%
McPhail Associates5924%
SAR Engineering5533%
BETA Group5537%
Page 1 / 10
n = 143 firms on 10+ projects · 1,119 firms named in allSource: MA public bid resultsCSV

Public work and private work hire different designers

Firms named most often as civil engineer or architect, by who owns the project.

Public · civil

  1. 1Weston & Sampson187
  2. 2Woodard & Curran136
  3. 3Tighe & Bond112
  4. 4Wright-Pierce102
  5. 5Nitsch Engineering92
  6. 6Environmental Partners66

Private · civil

  1. 1VHB50
  2. 2Nitsch Engineering27
  3. 3Bohler23
  4. 4Howard/Stein-Hudson11

Public · architect

  1. 1Weston & Sampson40
  2. 2Wright-Pierce26
  3. 3Miller Dyer Spears22
  4. 4Kleinfelder19
  5. 5Kaestle Boos18
  6. 6The Galante Architecture Studio16

Private · architect

  1. 1Elkus Manfredi22
  2. 2CBT Architects18
  3. 3Stantec17
  4. 4The Architectural Team17
  5. 5SGA13
  6. 6Embarc11
n = 3,132 public, 741 private projectsSource: MA public bid results
▸ Show the numbers
ListFirmProjects
Public · civilWeston & Sampson187
Public · civilWoodard & Curran136
Public · civilTighe & Bond112
Public · civilWright-Pierce102
Public · civilNitsch Engineering92
Public · civilEnvironmental Partners66
Private · civilVHB50
Private · civilNitsch Engineering27
Private · civilBohler23
Private · civilHoward/Stein-Hudson11
Public · architectWeston & Sampson40
Public · architectWright-Pierce26
Public · architectMiller Dyer Spears22
Public · architectKleinfelder19
Public · architectKaestle Boos18
Public · architectThe Galante Architecture Studio16
Private · architectElkus Manfredi22
Private · architectCBT Architects18
Private · architectStantec17
Private · architectThe Architectural Team17
Private · architectSGA13
Private · architectEmbarc11

03 · Geotechnical

Only one listing in 13 names a geotechnical engineer

Geotechnical engineers are usually hired early by the owner or the lead designer, and most bid listings never name them — including 889 of the 974 jobs flagged for ground work. When one is named, the job is usually much bigger.

7.6% of projects name a geotech — and those jobs are 3.8× larger

Each square is 1% of projects; gold = a geotechnical engineer is named on the listing. Bars compare median value and ground-work share.

Median project value

Geotech named
$5.7M
Not named
$1.5M

Share with ground work

Geotech named
29%
Not named
25%

Only 85 of the 974 ground-work jobs name their geotechnical engineer on the listing.

n = 3,873 projects · 296 name a geotechSource: MA public bid results
▸ Show the numbers
MeasureGeotech namedNot named
Median project value$5.7M$1.5M
Share with ground work29%25%

McPhail Associates is the most-named geotechnical firm, on 55 projects

Projects naming each firm as geotechnical engineer, split by owner · firms on 10+ projects.
  • Public owner
  • Private owner
  1. McPhail Associates
    3322
    55
  2. Weston & Sampson
    28
    29
  3. Haley & Aldrich
    1711
    28
  4. Lahlaf Geotechnical
    24
    25
  5. GZA GeoEnvironmental
    14
    15
  6. S.W. Cole Engineering
    11
    11
  7. Nobis Group
    10
    10
  8. O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun
    10
    10
n = 296 projects naming a geotechSource: MA public bid resultsCSV
▸ Show the numbers
FirmPublicPrivateTotalMedian job
McPhail Associates332255$12M
Weston & Sampson28129$5.8M
Haley & Aldrich171128$13.6M
Lahlaf Geotechnical24125$13.3M
GZA GeoEnvironmental14115$979K
S.W. Cole Engineering11011$3.1M
Nobis Group10010$14.1M
O'Reilly, Talbot & Okun10010$5.8M

04 · Owners

Who pays: the public owners

612 public bodies put work out to bid in these records; 72 of them had 10 or more projects at bid stage. MassDOT dwarfs the rest: 289 bids and 134 jobs with ground work — 16% of all public ground-work jobs in these records. The MBTA bids far less often, but its median job is $21.3M.

State agencies' jobs carry ground work 3.3× as often as private owners'

Bid-stage projects by owner type: count, median estimated value, and the share with ground work, bridges or water & sewer scope.
Bid-stage projects by owner type
Owner typeBidsMedian jobGW share
State agency378$3.4M44%
Authority or district461$1.1M22%
City or town1,854$994K29%
School district88$1.7M11%
University or college138$905K7%
Federal30$1M13%
Other public82$984K17%
Private613$7M13%

Cities and towns bid the most jobs (1,854, median $994K), and 51% of them are water and sewer work. Private owners bid fewer, bigger jobs (median $7M); universities’ listings rarely involve ground work (7%).

n = 3,644 bid-stage projectsSource: MA public bid resultsCSV

MassDOT put 134 ground-work jobs out to bid — 7× the next public owner

Bid-stage projects with earth-retention scope, by public owner · top 10 of the owners with 10+ bids.
  1. MassDOTof 289 bids
    134
  2. Town of Barnstableof 51 bids
    18
  3. MA DCRof 47 bids
    18
  4. MWRAof 36 bids
    14
  5. MBTAof 32 bids
    13
  6. Town of Chathamof 19 bids
    11
  7. City of Somervilleof 13 bids
    10
  8. Town of Plymouthof 27 bids
    9
  9. City of Worcesterof 25 bids
    9
  10. Town of Lexingtonof 25 bids
    9
n = 829 public ground-work jobsSource: MA public bid resultsCSV
▸ Show the numbers
OwnerGround-work jobsBidsGW share
MassDOT13428946%
Town of Barnstable185135%
MA DCR184738%
MWRA143639%
MBTA133241%
Town of Chatham111958%
City of Somerville101377%
Town of Plymouth92733%
City of Worcester92536%
Town of Lexington92536%

MassDOT put 289 projects out to bid — 46% of them with ground work

Public owners with 10+ bid-stage projects. Search by name or type; sort any column.

72 of 72 rows

Public owners with 10 or more bid-stage projects
MassDOT28946%
City of Boston924%
University of Massachusetts524%
Town of Barnstable5135%
MA DCR4738%
City of Cambridge398%
MWRA3639%
Massport359%
City of Quincy3324%
MBTA3241%
Town of Plymouth2733%
City of Newton2612%
Page 1 / 6
n = 72 owners · 2,998 public bid-stage projectsSource: MA public bid resultsCSV

05 · Project types

Where the ground work is

Ground work follows water. Three bridge jobs in four carry a cofferdam, sheeting or other excavation support, and water and sewer work sits well above average; school and civic building jobs rarely carry any.

74% of bridge jobs carry ground work — against 4% of school jobs

Share of projects in each category with earth-retention scope · categories with 30+ projects · a project can sit in more than one.
  1. Bridgesn=381
    74%
  2. Water & sewern=1,337
    35%
  3. Parking garagesn=92
    29%
  4. Roadsn=582
    25%
  5. Officen=188
    22%
  6. Hotelsn=37
    22%
  7. Transit & other transportn=61
    20%
  8. Industrialn=158
    20%
  9. Retailn=349
    19%
  10. Federaln=34
    18%
  11. Multifamily housingn=351
    17%
  12. Parks & recreationn=335
    16%
  13. Single-familyn=55
    11%
  14. Civic buildingsn=114
    5%
  15. Schools & educationn=377
    4%

Water and sewer is the biggest pool by count: 470 ground-work jobs out of 1,337, more than bridges (281) because there are so many more of them.

n = 3,873 projectsSource: MA public bid resultsCSV
▸ Show the numbers
CategoryProjectsWith ground workShare
Bridges38128173.8%
Water & sewer1,33747035.2%
Parking garages922729.3%
Roads58214424.7%
Office1884121.8%
Hotels37821.6%
Transit & other transport611219.7%
Industrial1583119.6%
Retail3496518.6%
Federal34617.6%
Multifamily housing3515916.8%
Parks & recreation3355215.5%
Single-family55610.9%
Civic buildings11465.3%
Schools & education377143.7%

06 · Procurement

How owners buy

The contracting method on the listing decides who can bid. Municipal work is mostly open to any general contractor; state agencies pre-qualify far more; private owners rarely say.

Cities and towns open 70% of jobs to any GC; state agencies pre-qualify 33%

Contracting method on the listing, share of bid-stage projects by owner type · owner types with 30+ projects.
  • Open GC bid
  • Pre-qualified / invited GC
  • Prime-trade bid
  • Filed sub-bids
  • Negotiated or CM-at-risk
  • Not stated
  1. State agencyn=378
    46%33%13%
  2. Authority or districtn=461
    66%15%11%
  3. City or townn=1,854
    70%7%11%10%
  4. School districtn=88
    56%11%18%
  5. University or collegen=138
    55%15%17%11%
  6. Federaln=30
    63%27%7%
  7. Other publicn=82
    52%16%18%11%
  8. Privaten=613
    14%7%73%

73% of private listings don't state a method. Construction-manager-at-risk shows up on only 27 listings — those jobs are usually negotiated before they reach a plan room.

n = 3,644 bid-stage projectsSource: MA public bid resultsCSV
▸ Show the numbers
Owner typenOpen GC bidPre-qualified / invited GCPrime-trade bidFiled sub-bidsNegotiated or CM-at-riskNot stated
State agency37846%33%13%6%1%2%
Authority or district46166%5%15%11%2%2%
City or town1,85470%7%11%10%1%2%
School district8856%5%11%18%6%5%
University or college13855%1%15%17%1%11%
Federal3063%3%27%0%0%7%
Other public8252%16%18%11%0%2%
Private6132%14%0%5%7%73%

07 · Loyalty

Owners and their go-to engineers

Many towns keep returning to the same engineer. Each ribbon links a municipality to a lead designer it hired on five or more projects: wider means more projects, darker means a bigger share of the town’s work. Hover a town or a firm to isolate it.

Andover gave Woodard & Curran 12 of its 18 lead-designed projects

Municipal owners with 10+ projects naming a lead designer · pairs with 5+ projects · share = the designer’s share of that owner’s lead-designed projects.
OwnerLead designerWoodard & Curran designed 12 of Andover's 18 lead-designed projects (67%)CDM Smith designed 10 of Revere's 15 lead-designed projects (67%)Wright-Pierce designed 7 of Burlington's 11 lead-designed projects (64%)Tighe & Bond designed 7 of Westfield's 13 lead-designed projects (54%)Weston & Sampson designed 5 of Winchester's 10 lead-designed projects (50%)GHD designed 8 of Chatham's 17 lead-designed projects (47%)GCG Associates designed 8 of Tewksbury's 17 lead-designed projects (47%)Woodard & Curran designed 12 of Quincy's 26 lead-designed projects (46%)GCG Associates designed 5 of Waltham's 11 lead-designed projects (45%)Wright-Pierce designed 5 of Wellesley's 11 lead-designed projects (45%)Weston & Sampson designed 7 of Chatham's 17 lead-designed projects (41%)Woodard & Curran designed 5 of Westfield's 13 lead-designed projects (38%)BETA Group designed 5 of Needham's 13 lead-designed projects (38%)BETA Group designed 5 of Brookline's 15 lead-designed projects (33%)Nitsch Engineering designed 5 of Newton's 17 lead-designed projects (29%)Wright-Pierce designed 12 of Barnstable's 43 lead-designed projects (28%)CDM Smith designed 5 of New Bedford's 18 lead-designed projects (28%)Weston & Sampson designed 5 of Worcester's 21 lead-designed projects (24%)Kleinfelder designed 10 of Barnstable's 43 lead-designed projects (23%)Environmental Partners designed 5 of Lexington's 23 lead-designed projects (22%)Miller Dyer Spears designed 10 of Boston's 65 lead-designed projects (15%)Weston & Sampson designed 6 of Barnstable's 43 lead-designed projects (14%)Weston & Sampson designed 5 of Boston's 65 lead-designed projects (8%)CSS Architects designed 5 of Boston's 65 lead-designed projects (8%)Westfield 13Quincy 26Andover 18New Bedford 18Revere 15Waltham 11Tewksbury 17Burlington 11Wellesley 11Barnstable 43Chatham 17Worcester 21Winchester 10Brookline 15Needham 13Newton 17Lexington 23Boston 65Tighe & BondWoodard & CurranCDM SmithGCG AssociatesWright-PierceKleinfelderGHDWeston & SampsonBETA GroupNitsch EngineeringEnvironmental PartnersCSS ArchitectsMiller Dyer Spears
n = 24 owner–designer pairsSource: MA public bid resultsCSV
▸ Show the numbers
OwnerLead designerProjectsOwner totalShare
Town of AndoverWoodard & Curran121867%
City of RevereCDM Smith101567%
Town of BurlingtonWright-Pierce71164%
City of WestfieldTighe & Bond71354%
Town of WinchesterWeston & Sampson51050%
Town of ChathamGHD81747%
Town of TewksburyGCG Associates81747%
City of QuincyWoodard & Curran122646%
City of WalthamGCG Associates51145%
Town of WellesleyWright-Pierce51145%
Town of ChathamWeston & Sampson71741%
City of WestfieldWoodard & Curran51338%
Town of NeedhamBETA Group51338%
Town of BrooklineBETA Group51533%
City of NewtonNitsch Engineering51729%
Town of BarnstableWright-Pierce124328%
City of New BedfordCDM Smith51828%
City of WorcesterWeston & Sampson52124%
Town of BarnstableKleinfelder104323%
Town of LexingtonEnvironmental Partners52322%
City of BostonMiller Dyer Spears106515%
Town of BarnstableWeston & Sampson64314%
City of BostonWeston & Sampson5658%
City of BostonCSS Architects5658%
A pattern, not a verdict. Repeat hiring is normal for on-call and continuing-services contracts, which many towns award through qualifications-based selection. A long run with one firm says nothing on its own about price or quality.

Where these numbers come from

Method, sources & caveats

Together the 3,873 projects carry $69.9B in estimated value; the 3,644 at bid stage or later carry $35.1B once 24 megaprojects over $250M are set aside.

A design firm is any company named on a project’s design team as civil, geotechnical, structural, environmental or MEP engineer, architect, landscape architect or consultant. 1,386 listed names (branch offices, spelling variants) collapse to 1,119 firms. A firm’s main role is the one it is listed under most. The lead designer for the loyalty chart is the firm flagged as lead, or else the first civil engineer or architect.

Only firms and public agencies are named. No person, contact, project title, address or per-project figure is published, and every published group covers at least 10 projects (firm-to-owner pairs: owner with 10+ projects, pair with 5+).

  • Massachusetts only. Built from 3,972 public project records compiled June 24–29, 2026; 99 filed-sub-bid postings of projects already listed as GC bids were merged, leaving 3,873 projects.
  • Owner and contracting-method figures use the 3,644 projects at bid stage or later (conceptual and design-stage listings dropped). Designer figures use all 3,873 projects.
  • “Ground work” (earth retention) is a language-model reading of each project's scope notes — sheeting, shoring, cofferdams, soil nails, caissons, underpinning, rock excavation support. It is a screening flag, not a quantity takeoff, and will miss scope that the listing never describes.
  • Design firm names were normalized (branch offices, suffixes and spelling variants merged; Louis Berger and Parsons Brinckerhoff kept under the names they were listed with). Public agencies listed as their own designer are excluded from firm counts.
  • Shrunk rates pull each firm's raw share toward the 25.1% average by 20 projects' worth of weight, so a firm with few jobs cannot top the chart by luck. The bars are 90% credible intervals.
  • Dollar figures are listed estimates. Sums exclude the 24 bid-stage megaprojects over $250M so a handful of jobs do not swamp the totals; medians include them. Medians are rounded to three significant figures.
  • A firm's count is the number of projects it is named on, in any design role. A named firm is not necessarily the engineer of record for the excavation.
  • Listing years skew to 2021–22 because of how the records were collected, so no year-over-year trends are shown.

Groups with fewer than 10 records are suppressed so no single project or firm can be singled out.

Data as of
Jun 29, 2026
Generated
Sep 11, 2026
Records
3,873
Refresh
Frozen snapshot
  • Massachusetts public bid results and project recordsPublic recordProject-level records are not redistributed; only firm, owner and category aggregates with at least 10 projects are shown.

Published by Earth Support Corp as a public resource. Regional statistics for planning and curiosity. They are not an engineering report, a bid recommendation or a statement about any particular site, firm or project. Spot an error? Tell us and we will correct it. Full method: methodology.

CallStart Quote