Texas-based Central Builders was established in 1989 and specializes in large-scale remodels, expansions and ground-up new construction of supermarkets and grocery distribution facilities. As the company expanded, on-time project delivery and profitability were increasingly threatened by disconnected workflows and data silos that delayed job-cost updates, required duplicate data entry and limited insight into project performance.

The company invested in a connected construction ecosystem that aligns project management, financial operations and reporting to ensure that all teams work from a single source of truth across projects. Time and again, this decision has proven to be critical to project success.

The Challenge: Building on a 30,000-Square-Foot Pond

Central Builders has completed well over $500 million in grocery store projects over the past five years. One was a new $10-million Sprouts grocery store built in 2025 in an unlikely place: directly on top of a 30,000-square-foot pond. The challenging location was only the beginning of the complexities that tested the company’s capabilities and illustrated the value of the investment in connected technology. Persistent rain, the coordination of more than 40 subcontractors and a simultaneous Sprouts project in North Texas left zero margin for error.

Before vertical construction could begin, crews had to demuck the site, excavate unstable material and rebuild the pad with engineered fill. Central Builders completed the site preparation 10 days ahead of schedule, an advantage that proved vital when the weather turned.

Moisture affected nearly every downstream activity. Dry weather windows opened and closed quickly, and sequencing often shifted by the hour. Coordinating crews, materials and inspections under these conditions required clear communication and real-time visibility into job progress and costs.

Despite environmental and logistical challenges, the Sprouts project reached key milestones ahead of schedule. Steel erection and decking were finished five days ahead of plan, and the project closed on time and on budget.

Connecting the Field and the Office

Central Builders relies on a cohesive technology ecosystem built largely around Trimble solutions to bring people, data and workflows together in a shared environment.

Field teams utilize Trimble ProjectSight to manage RFIs, submittals and drawing updates. “With ProjectSight, everyone has real-time access to the most current information,” says Shellie Gregg, financial controller for Central Builders. “Shared visibility reduces rework and keeps our teams aligned as schedules shift and as documents are updated or added.”

In the office, the Trimble Vista financial management solution serves as the system of record for accounting, payroll, job costing and subcontractor billing. With field updates flowing directly into financial reporting, manual data entry has decreased by 90%. “Job-cost data reflects exactly what is happening on the jobsite,” says Gregg. “Plus, visibility into field updates enables our teams to closely track performance and respond quickly when conditions change.”

Gregg credits improved job-costing visibility with increasing field-budget forecasting accuracy by more than 30%, helping project managers hit margin targets.

Driving Efficiency and Cash Flow

The investment in connected construction didn’t take long to pay off. “Within eight months, we realized a return on investment,” says Gregg. “Payroll savings, reduced administrative overhead and better, faster operational decision-making enabled by real-time data collectively transformed our business.” 

The impact of a connected construction approach is visible across Central Builders’ operations:

• More Timely Job Costing: Integrated project and financial management systems bridged the field-to-office divide, allowing managers to align job cost with actuals in near real time.
• Faster Financial Reporting Cycles: Live dashboards connected to project financial data shortened monthly close cycles from 12 days to five.
• Labor Transparency: With real-time visibility into labor through phase-level time tracking and automated burden calculations, teams can assess performance weekly and adjust forecasts before a project drifts off course.
• Streamlined Vendor Management: Automating compliance and shortening approval cycles with Trimble Pay has reduced subcontractor payment processing time from two weeks to less than five days, keeping vendors engaged and materials flowing to the site.

Predictability in an Unpredictable Environment

Technology adoption has not only improved workflows at Central Builders but also changed how people work across the company and how they feel about their jobs.

“In a fast-paced construction environment where job costing, documentation and approvals can grind morale into dust, connected technology has become the backbone of clarity, speed and sanity,” Gregg concludes.

Project managers now spend fewer hours reconciling numbers and more time directing work. Predictability has reduced burnout and improved morale. Late nights reconciling numbers or “guessing” when trades should be on site have decreased dramatically, and office staff report a 35% decrease in rework caused by outdated or missing documentation.

These outcomes at Central Builders demonstrate the power of connected construction workflows for responding quickly, sharing data across the organization and making decisions based on reliable information rather than assumptions.

SEE ALSO: POWERING PROFITABILITY WITH CONNECTED CONSTRUCTION WORKFLOWS

The post Building on Water:  How Central Builders Leveraged Connected Construction to Conquer a Complex Jobsite first appeared on Construction Executive.

In 2025, Buildcheck officially launched after raising $5.9 million in seed funding—with help from Uncork Capital, Peterson Ventures, XFund, and founders and senior executives at OpenAI, Opendoor, CBRE, Zillow and more.

Michalatos sat down with Construction Executive to discuss the rigorous creative and prototyping process for this product, how he expects the technology to evolve over the next decade, as well as many details in between.

What type of technology is Buildcheck?

Buildcheck is an AI-powered design review platform. We’ve trained computer vision models to read construction drawings—the language of construction—so we can catch coordination errors, missing scope and cross-discipline conflicts before they turn into RFIs, change orders or city comments. We work with real estate developers, general contractors and design firms, and our customers typically see a 10x to 40x return on what they spend with us.

What was the impetus for creating Buildcheck?

The impetus is personal. I grew up in a construction family in Vancouver—my father built single-family homes for decades—and I spent my own career on the owner, general contractor and design sides: Stantec, Honeywell, EllisDon on hospital design-builds and QuadReal on mixed-use development. Across every one of those roles, I kept seeing the same pattern: small inconsistencies scattered across hundreds of sheets that nobody caught until steel was going up or concrete was being poured. Globally, that’s a $200-billion problem. When I stepped back, it was obvious: Construction doesn’t run on contracts or emails, it runs on drawings. Until AI could actually read the lines on a sheet, it was going to stay peripheral to real construction risk. That’s what Buildcheck is built to solve.

Who is Buildcheck’s main type of client within construction?

Primarily general contractors and real estate developers, with a growing number of architecture and engineering firms using us as an internal QA/QC layer. Our customers include EllisDon, AvalonBay, Novo Construction, Dempsey Construction and many more.

The common thread is that they’re all managing design risk—not just building. That’s a bigger group than it used to be. Public infrastructure is increasingly delivered through design-build and alliance contracts, which push design responsibility onto contractors. Mid-market developers are engaging general contractors earlier through preconstruction services or GMP structures. Architects are carrying more professional liability exposure on bigger, more complex drawing sets. All of them share the same underlying need: find the coordination gaps before they get priced into a change order.

We tend to fit best with firms that have already decided design coordination is a bottleneck. They usually know exactly where it hurts; our job is to show them that AI can now do something about it.

Do you work with clients outside of construction?

No, and that’s intentional. Computer vision on construction drawings is a uniquely hard problem—drawings aren’t standardized, symbol sets vary by firm and discipline, and layering conventions shift project to project. Training a model that genuinely understands an MEP sheet versus a structural sheet or civil sheet takes years of labeled data and domain expertise. That depth is the moat, and it only comes from staying focused.

That said, the underlying technology could apply to other drawing-heavy industries—shipbuilding, aerospace manufacturing and certain industrial engineering verticals. For now, the opportunity in construction alone is enormous. The global design-error problem is $200 billion annually and nobody has solved it. We’d rather be the best in the world at one thing than average at several.

Do you still run into problems with designers/companies hesitant to use AI for preconstruction? How do you create buy-in/convince them to get onboard in the first place?

Yes, and I think that skepticism is healthy. There’s a lot of AI-washing in construction tech right now and buyers are right to demand proof.

For our clients, a demo is the starting point, but the real conversation begins when we run their drawings through Buildcheck. In most cases, we come back with dozens to hundreds of flagged issues that their experienced team hadn’t caught. If that first project lands, a companywide rollout tends to follow naturally. We also invite any prospective customers to talk to current customers and hear directly from them, not us.

The other piece is framing. We aren’t replacing labor; we’re enabling your people to do more. Your senior reviewers still make the judgment calls. We just compress the hours of repetitive pattern-matching work—the missing power, the mismatched fire ratings, the clashing service connections—so your people can spend their time on the decisions that actually require expertise. When buyers understand that, the skepticism usually shifts from “will this work?” to “how fast can we roll it out?”

Does this type of tech only apply to the preconstruction process?

Preconstruction is where we start because that’s where the ROI is most obvious. Catching a coordination issue on a sheet costs almost nothing to fix; catching it in the field can cost six figures and weeks of schedule. Front-end planning research from the Construction Industry Institute has consistently shown returns of roughly 10:1 on investment in document quality before construction.

But computer vision on drawings unlocks workflows across the entire project lifecycle, such as shop drawing cross-checks against the IFC set, change-order quantification, automated takeoffs and, eventually, as-built verification. The same underlying models that detect errors today can drive proactive design improvement tomorrow—through real-time coordination feedback as drawings and design optimization evolve.

The long-term vision is that drawings stop being static PDFs and start being structured, machine-readable artifacts. Once that happens, everything downstream—estimating, procurement, coordination, closeout—gets meaningfully faster.

What was the development/prototyping process like for getting this product out the door?

Our process was and continues to be rigorous and disciplined. We’ve spent over three years building proprietary models trained specifically for construction drawings, but also building the user experience around it. Neither of these can be vibecoded because the domain expertise and customer feedback loops take time to establish.

Two things shaped the process. First, we chose quality at every step—from labeling the data and fine-tuning the models to having construction experts verify every AI output before it reaches the customer. Second, our earliest customers did more to shape the user experience than any internal plan ever could have. General contractors and developers willing to give us feedback are how we figured out what reviewers actually want to see first, how to surface severity and how the interface should mirror the way their teams already work.

How has this type of technology evolved since Buildcheck’s inception? Where do you see it going by the next decade?

When we started, most construction AI was optical character recognition, chatbots layered over contract text or basic clash detection inside a BIM model. Useful, but peripheral to the core risk. The shift over the last two years has been toward specialized vision models that can actually interpret 2D drawings—the medium construction still overwhelmingly runs on.

Looking out ten years, I’d expect three things. First, error detection becomes table stakes—every major project will run through automated review the same way it runs through code check today. Second, the tooling moves from reactive to proactive: Rather than flagging problems after a set is issued, AI will provide real-time coordination feedback inside the design-authoring tools as drawings evolve. Third, we’ll start to see genuine design optimization—AI that suggests smaller duct runs, more efficient structural layouts and value engineering moves grounded in both code and constructability.

Is there fear that this type of AI will ‘take people’s jobs’?

It comes up and it deserves an answer. AI isn’t going to replace most construction jobs—it won’t sequence concrete pours, negotiate a subcontract or lead a toolbox talk. Leadership and judgment in construction remain deeply human. And besides, there is a huge backlog of work for the entire industry. We want to do more and technology enables that; we can’t afford to lose people.

What AI removes is the repetitive, pattern-based review work that consumes hours: hunting missing dimensions across 400 sheets, cross-referencing fire ratings, chasing broken callouts. Given the industry’s labor gap and flat productivity, the real risk isn’t AI taking jobs. It’s the industry being unable to deliver enough projects, affordably, because we can’t scale human expertise fast enough. AI is a leverage tool for the people already here.

How has this tech saved money, time, safety, productivity?

Money and time are the easiest to quantify. Design errors and coordination gaps drive an estimated $200 billion in global overages annually. On individual projects, we regularly see six-figure savings and multi-week schedule protection—on one 230-unit multifamily project, over $500,000 in cost avoidance and 27 days of schedule saved. Under conservative assumptions, customers see 10-40x ROI.

Safety is the most underappreciated. The highest-severity inconsistencies we catch are life-safety issues—mismatched fire ratings between disciplines, undersized electrical feeds to fire pumps and missing sprinkler branches. Finding those in the documents, before installation, is meaningfully better than catching them at commissioning.

Do you believe this type of technology is gaining momentum within the industry? Is it helping give AI a friendlier reputation within construction?

Yes, clearly. Recent industry surveys show up to 64% of construction organizations experimenting with AI. Two years ago, the first meeting was about, “Does this work on drawings at all?”

Today it’s about which vendor, what pilot structure, what rollout. That’s a meaningful shift.Construction is actually one of the better industries for AI to land in, because it’s pragmatic. Professionals don’t care about hype—they care about dollars saved, days saved and risk reduced. When they see AI flag a real issue on a real drawing set, skepticism fades quickly. The caveat: Overpromising vendors can set the category back. The industry has a long memory for broken tech promises.

Anything else?

Don’t conflate AI with LLMs. A lot of construction buyers assume ChatGPT-style tools are what AI looks like. Those models are excellent at text—contracts, specs, RFIs—but construction’s highest-value problems are visual: drawings, models, site conditions. The vendors solving those problems are doing specialized computer vision work that looks very different from a chatbot wrapper. When you’re evaluating AI tools, the first question to ask is what the models were actually trained on.

SEE ALSO: SIX AI SOLUTIONS DRIVING PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY IN CONSTRUCTION OFFICES

The post A New Vision for AI: Construction Design-Review Platform Lends Extra Eye to Image Analysis first appeared on Construction Executive.

According to data published in the Beck Group’s latest construction cost report, nonresidential construction costs increased about 5% last year, which falls within the range of normal cost escalation. In 2026, construction cost inputs are expected to trend close to last year’s level, pending no major hiccups, such as a prolonged Middle East conflict.

Expectations of another year of stable construction costs, along with potentially lower interest rates and reduced inflationary pressures, helped buoy AEC firms’ hopes of improved business conditions later this year.   

The report lists input costs for markets in Atlanta, Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth, Denver, South and West Florida, and Raleigh. It presents construction costs for healthcare, higher education, hospitality, office, multifamily, faith-based, parking and site work.    

Tariff Impacts Overblown

Many AEC firms feared significantly higher prices for imported construction materials when the Trump administration unleashed an unprecedented flurry of global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and other statutes in the first quarter of 2025. The IEEPA tariffs had their greatest impact on metal products, such as aluminum, steel and copper.

But a Supreme Court decision in February ruled that the tariffs were deemed illegal. That led the administration to impose a 15% tariff increase under a different statute to replace the invalidated tariffs.   

Surging demand for data centers and mission-critical infrastructure projects contributed to higher prices for metal products. But prices for other construction materials were largely capped by slower activity in nonresidential projects.

Significant construction cost escalation failed to materialize for various reasons. That included the administration successfully negotiating lower tariffs with some countries and no new 2025 tariffs following the initial round that year.

Other contributing factors included AEC firms implementing cost-containment strategies, such as negotiating supplier deals or purchasing materials from countries with lower tariffs. Some AEC firms’ workflow models, such as Beck’s highly collaborative design-build model, also proved valuable in stabilizing project costs.

Demand for Skilled Trades Heats Up in Cooling Labor Market  

Additionally, input costs remained affected by the ongoing shortage of construction workers. That trend is exacerbated by a proliferation of data center and other large-scale construction projects, which are siphoning skilled workers from other projects by offering higher pay and other attractive incentives.  

However, overall demand for construction labor has cooled amid fewer commercial projects, particularly in the office and multifamily segments. Higher borrowing costs have made it difficult for owners and developers to pencil in these projects profitably. But steady demand exists for healthcare and educational projects, which are typically funded with public investments.      

Costs are also impacted by building codes and regulations, building designs and other factors. Those costs generally gradually rise over time and are in addition to material and labor costs.

Firms still face headwinds that could push construction costs above anticipated levels this year. More costly tariffs and other event risks could potentially lead to supply disruptions, material scarcity and higher energy costs.

Regional Cost Disparities

In the breakdown of building costs in Beck’s markets, there are significant differences across regions and industry sectors. Size, location, project type and complexity, labor wages and material prices are among the mix of factors influencing construction costs.

South Florida had the highest input costs in Beck’s operating regions. West Florida, Denver and Atlanta were also at the high end of costs, while Raleigh, Austin and Dallas/Forth Worth were on the lower end.  

The report shows significant cost differences across several building categories in Beck’s markets.

Below are examples of building costs in Beck’s markets. The building sectors listed below reflect the lowest (generally Dallas/Foth Worth) and highest (generally South Florida) construction costs in the firm’s markets. 

• Healthcare–In Beck’s seven markets, the cost of building an acute care hospital ranges from a low of between $705 to $832 per square foot to a high between $795 and $938 per square foot. Costs for a core-and-shell medical office building (without tenant improvements) range from $225 to $265 per square foot to $292 to $345 per square foot. Many industry veterans may recall that the cost to build complex healthcare facilities, such as hospitals, ranged from $500 to $600 per square foot. Those costs are now approaching $1,000 per square foot, reflecting technical requirements and long-term escalation.

• Hospitality–Construction costs for a five-star hotel range from a low of $594,392 to $701,338 per key to a high of $990,654 to $1.168 million per key. The cost of a four-star hotel ranges from $235,945 to $278,397 per key to $499,093 to $588,892 per key.
• Higher Education–Building costs for general classroom and office buildings range from a low of $403 to $476 per square foot to a high of $621 to $733 per square foot. The projects’ renovation costs range from $355 to $418 per square foot to $433 to $511 per square foot.
• Multifamily–Input costs for a rental high-rise project range from a low of $330,956 to $390,503 per square foot to a high of $623,130 to $735,246 per square foot.
• Office–Input costs for a seven-plus-story, core-and-shell office building (without interior finishes and parking facilities) range from a low of $237 to $279 per square foot to a high of between $326 and $385 per square foot. The cost of constructing office buildings is approaching $300 per square foot nationwide, up from the historically lower end of $200 per square foot. The office market has undergone structural changes since the pandemic, with many older or underutilized buildings being used or planned for residential or mixed-use projects. There is a general lack of interest in speculative, ground-up office buildings due to higher borrowing costs and concerns over their profitability in the current environment.
• Faith-Based–Worship space construction costs range from a low of $424 to $500 per square foot to a high of $659 to $778 per square foot. Renovation costs for this building type range from $189 to $223 per square foot to $231 to $272 per square foot.
• Parking–Construction costs for a precast parking structure range from $18,672 to $41,420. For an above-grade podium parking structure, the cost to build this facility ranges from $43,179 to $84,824.
• Sitework–For work on urban sites less than five acres, costs range from $1.45 million to $2.32 million. For non-urban sites between 5-15 acres, the cost ranges from $911,808 to $1.45 million; for non-urban sites larger than 15 acres, the cost ranges from $561,674 to $896,639.

Barring any unforeseen bearish events in 2026, construction cost inputs are expected to mirror cost escalation in 2025. This year also marks a period of guarded optimism among AEC firms, following a turbulent year. Beck will publish an update on nonresidential construction costs in the markets listed above later this year, providing a snapshot of how building costs are transforming a dynamic built environment.    

SEE ALSO:

The post Construction Costs Should Stabilize for 2026 Despite Persistent Global Pressures first appeared on Construction Executive.

On June 26, 2026, JGM announced the addition of three accomplished industry leaders to its executive team. The appointments of Brian M. Jones PMP as vice president of business development; Amy DePaoli as director of marketing; and Garrick Weaver SPHR SHRM-SCP as director of talent acquisition and workforce development reflect the company’s commitment to building the infrastructure needed to become a nationally recognized force in industrial construction.

Jones joins JGM with more than 20 years of experience driving revenue expansion and market positioning across the industrial engineering, procurement and construction sectors. A strategic growth leader with a hands-on technical foundation, he brings a rare combination of full-cycle capture planning, competitive intelligence and deep client relationship management having served key markets in pulp and paper, refining, chemicals, metals and power.

DePaoli brings more than two decades of marketing leadership experience spanning logistics, food and beverage, retail and consumer brands. She has a demonstrated history of building marketing functions from the ground up, driving measurable growth, and establishing compelling brand identities for companies navigating rapid expansion.

A Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) and SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP), Weaver is a trusted HR leader with extensive experience building scalable hiring pipelines, designing workforce development programs and cultivating high-performance cultures across complex, multisite organizations including manufacturing, utilities and professional services.

Sebastien Roussotte Announced as New Achilles CEO

On June 30, 2026, Achilles announced the appointment of Sebastien Roussotte as chief executive officer, effective immediately. He succeeds interim CEO Craig Rodgerson, who will return to his role as chairman of the Achilles board.

S&B Receives Gold Safety Excellence Award From Industry Business Roundtable 

On July 07, 2026, S&B received a Gold Safety Excellence Award in the General Contractor Extra Large category from the Industry Business Roundtable for its work on the ExxonMobil Baytown Olefins Plant2X Expansion Project. The team was recognized at an industry event in May.  The award recognizes S&B’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of safety performance while delivering complex projects in the Texas Gulf Coast region. Presented as part of the 2025–2026 Safety Excellence Awards program, the recognition highlights organizations that demonstrate exceptional safety leadership, continuous improvement and a strong culture of workplace safety.

Wesco Announces Alex Piwoschuk as U.S. Central Leader for Construction

On July 9, 2026, Wesco International announced that Alex Piwoschuk has joined the company as vice president of sales for U.S. Construction in the Central region. This role will be instrumental in developing the strategic direction to deliver industry-leading construction services and expertise to help manage customers’ most complex and demanding projects.

New Edge Contractors Expands Leadership Team to Support Continued Growth

On July 10, 2026, New Edge Contractors expanded its leadership team to strengthen the organizational capacity behind continued growth across its two disciplines: construction management and resource management. The transition formalizes the executive responsibilities of co-founders Mike Clay and John Wiegand. Clay has assumed the role of chief executive officer, providing enterprise leadership, long-term strategic direction and accountability for the company’s organizational growth. Wiegand has assumed the role of chief development officer, leading development strategy, client relationships, market expansion and new business opportunities.

Skanska USA Building Establishes Digital Transformation and Solutions Team to Expand the Use of AI Across the Business

On July 14, 2026, Skanska announced the formation of its digital transformation and solutions team, a move to scale AI and technology to continue enhancing project delivery. The group unites Skanska’s data solutions, emerging tech and AI capabilities to turn project knowledge into practical tools that support project teams and broader business priorities. Durham-based executive Will Senner has been appointed senior vice president, digital transformation and solutions to lead the team.

Swinerton Announces Leadership Promotions to Support Growth in Southern California Education and Healthcare Markets

On July 14, 2026, Swinerton Builders has promoted David Cramp and Brian Holley to vice president and division manager roles, strengthening the company’s leadership in two of Southern California’s most active construction sectors: education and healthcare. Cramp has been named vice president, division manager, K-14 Education–Southern California; Holley has been promoted to vice president, division manager, Healthcare–Southern California.

Branch Announces Key Executive Appointments to Strengthen Enterprise Growth

On July 14, 2026, Branch has announced key executive leadership appointments to strengthen long-term growth, business development, pursuit strategy and operational excellence. 

Brian Quinlan has been appointed executive vice president, strategic growth. In this new role, Quinlan will focus on where Branch should grow and help Branch create a roadmap the ensures our future.

Mike Colbert has been appointed executive vice president, enterprise pursuits. This role will serve as the accountable executive for all major pursuits. Colbert will oversee enterprise pursuit governance, estimating practices, pricing strategy, pipeline governance, win/loss analytics, and aligns preconstruction and operations. 

Brian Evans will take the lead of Branch Civil as executive vice president. Evans’ career in the heavy/highway construction industry spans over two decades. He has directly managed both state and federal highway projects in the Commonwealth of Virginia, with experience in both roadway and bridge construction.

Manhattan Construction Company Announces North Texas Leadership Appointments to Support Diverse, Complex Project Portfolio

On July 16, 2026, Manhattan Construction Company announced a series of leadership appointments and role confirmations in its Dallas-area regional office, strengthening the team responsible for delivering a growing portfolio of complex construction projects across North Texas. The leadership team’s new appointments include Travis Porter as Dallas regional leader, Jason Dunnam as operations manager, Anthony Wright as general superintendent and Kevin Gass as project director. 

Porter was promoted to Manhattan Construction Company’s Dallas regional leader, recognizing his proven ability to lead people, projects and operations across one of the company’s most active and complex markets. Porter has more than 15 years of experience delivering high-profile construction work in North Texas. He has steadily taken on broader leadership responsibility since joining Manhattan in 2010, starting as an intern on the George W. Bush Presidential Center project on the Southern Methodist University campus. He is a graduate of Texas A&M University with a degree in construction science.

Dunnam joined Manhattan as operations manager for the Dallas regional office. Dunnam brings more than 25 years of commercial construction experience and previously served as vice president of construction at EMJ Corporation, where he led operational strategy for large, multidisciplinary teams.

Wright was promoted to general superintendent and brings more than 25 years of experience managing field operations for large, technically complex projects. His background includes professional sports facilities, commercial developments and mixed-use projects.

Gass was promoted to project director and will provide strategic oversight and leadership for project teams across the Dallas region. Gass holds a degree in civil engineering from Virginia Tech and has more than 35 years of industry experience, representing more than $5.4 billion in completed construction work.

Sims Crane & Equipment Names Mike Kuffermann as Chief Operating Officer

On July 21, 2026, Sims Crane announced the appointment of Florida native Mike Kuffermann as chief operating officer. Kuffermann brings more than 17 years of experience with Sims Crane and represents a second-generation family legacy within the organization. He began his career as an apprentice and has advanced through service operations, dispatch, outside sales and executive leadership, most recently serving as chief sales officer. The appointment reflects both his proven track record of performance and the company’s continued focus on operational excellence.

ABC Supply Interiors Opens Location in Tupelo, Mississippi

On July 22, 2026, ABC Supply Interiors, formerly L&W Supply Corporation, opened a new location at 3406 West Main Street in Tupelo, marking its second location in Mississippi. The location is managed by Andy Witt, who was promoted to branch manager in March 2026. Witt brings more than 21 years of industry experience, including 10 years with ABC Supply Interiors.

Skanska U.S. Building Operations Selects Brian Urban as Executive Vice President-General Manager for California

On July 27, 2026, Skanska announced the appointment of Brian Urban as executive vice president and general manager for its Skanska USA Building operations in California, effective immediately. In this role, Urban will oversee project operations in the state, with a focus on strengthening customer and partner relationships, growing the business and continuing to build Skanska’s reputation across the region. Urban joins a well-established local leadership team with deep roots in the San Francisco Bay Area market. The team’s relationships with clients, partners, subcontractors and community stakeholders, built over many years, remain fully in place. Urban will work closely with local leadership to continue the office’s momentum and build on the trust Skanska has established across the region.

SEE ALSO: NEW NAMES AND FACES: JUNE 2026

The post New Names and Faces: July 2026        first appeared on Construction Executive.

Construction spending continues to contract, and momentum is particularly scarce outside of the data center segment. Headwinds like materials price escalation and high borrowing costs remain stiff, yet backlog and consumer confidence are both healthy heading into the second half of 2026. 

Private Nonresidential Construction Spending Continues to Slide

Construction spending in the private nonresidential segment shrank for the seventh straight month in May and is down nearly 7% over the past year. Much of that weakness is due to waning CHIPS Act incentivized megaprojects, yet there is an utter lack of momentum outside of the surging data center segment. Public nonresidential activity has held up better and rose at a healthy pace in May.

Construction Employment Grew in June

Construction industry employment added 11,000 jobs in June, all of which were in the nonresidential segment. Employment in the residential segment contracted. This growth, fueled by data centers and public construction, will likely persist over the coming months as activity in those segments continues to expand.

The industry’s unemployment rate is up 1.3 percentage points over the last year, indicating that worker availability has improved across certain occupations.

Contractor Backlog and Confidence Stable

ABC’s Construction Backlog Indicator fell to 8.8 months in June but is still above year-ago levels. That annual growth has been fueled entirely by the Middle States and South regions; backlog is down over the past 12 months in the Northeast and West. Contractor confidence, meanwhile, remains elevated, with contractors on net expecting greater sales, hiring and profit margins over the next six months.

Materials Prices Fall With Oil Prices

Construction input prices fell in June, largely due to the decline in oil prices, but remain nearly 8% higher than during the same month last year. Despite the decline, input price escalation will likely resume in the coming months due to renewed oil price pressures and ongoing increases in the price of tariff-affected inputs like iron, steel and copper.  

Looking Ahead

Surging data center activity is crowding out other forms of commercial investment. That, along with elevated materials and borrowing costs, has led to a dearth of momentum across most private nonresidential construction segments. That dynamic will remain firmly in place over the coming months, especially with oil prices once again rising and borrowing costs unlikely to decline in the near future.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Associated Builders and Contractors.

*The Construction Backlog Indicator measures the average months of work under contract for ABC members.

**The Construction Confidence Index is a diffusion index where values above 50 indicate expectations of expansion over the next six months, while values under 50 indicate expectations of contraction.

SEE ALSO: CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG INDICATOR SLIPS, CONTRACTORS REMAIN CONFIDENT IN JUNE

The post Construction Futures: July 2026 Economic Roundup first appeared on Construction Executive.

Overall construction input prices are 7.6% higher than one year ago, while nonresidential construction input prices are 7.4% higher. Prices decreased in 2 of the 3 energy subcategories last month. Crude petroleum prices declined 12.1%, and unprocessed energy materials fell 8.1%. Natural gas prices were up 16.6% in June.

“Aggregate construction input prices receded in June due to the steep decline in oil prices that occurred throughout the month,” said ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. “Despite that decline, however, ongoing materials price escalation is likely over the coming months. The conflict in Iran has resumed, triggering a roughly 15% rebound in oil prices, and tariff-affected commodities like iron, steel and copper continue to experience steep price increases.

“While contractors remain optimistic about their margins, according to ABC’s Construction Confidence Index, higher input costs will likely weigh on profitability during the second half of 2026,” said Basu.

SEE ALSO: UNDERSTANDING THE TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP IN CONSTRUCTION FLEETS

The post Construction Materials Costs Fall With Oil Prices in June first appeared on Construction Executive.

That’s where TCO—total cost of ownership—becomes critical. Understanding TCO gives construction fleets the clarity they need to make informed decisions about budgeting, replacement planning, maintenance strategy and job costing. Without it, fleets rely on assumptions and, in construction, assumptions are expensive.

What Total Cost of Ownership Really Means

TCO represents the full lifecycle cost of an asset from acquisition through disposal. While purchase price or lease cost is often the most visible expense, it is only one part of the equation. Financing, depreciation, preventive maintenance, unexpected repairs, parts and labor, fuel consumption, insurance, compliance requirements, downtime and eventual resale value all contribute to the true financial impact of assets.

In many cases, the majority of an asset’s cost accumulates after it enters service. An excavator that appears affordable upfront can quickly become one of the most expensive assets in the fleet if repair frequency rises or fuel efficiency declines. Without a comprehensive view of these costs over time, fleet leaders cannot accurately measure performance or profitability. Understanding TCO shifts the conversation from upfront pricing to long-term value.

Why TCO Is Essential for Construction Fleet Strategy

Construction fleets operate on tight margins and strict timelines, with equipment reliability and cost control directly influencing whether a project meets profitability targets. When fleet costs aren’t fully understood, even small inefficiencies across dozens or hundreds of assets can significantly erode margins.

One of the most immediate benefits of TCO visibility is improved budgeting and forecasting. When fleets can see how operating costs trend over time, they can anticipate major maintenance events and plan capital expenditures more accurately. Instead of reacting to surprise repair bills, leadership teams can prepare for predictable cost increases and make proactive investment decisions.

Replacement planning is another area where TCO insight is transformative. Many fleets still base replacement decisions primarily on age, OEM guidelines or intuition; however, two similar machines can have very different cost trajectories depending on jobsite conditions, utilization rates and service history. Tracking cost per hour or cost per mile over time reveals when operating expenses begin to accelerate, providing a clear financial signal that replacement may be the more cost-effective option.

Accurate TCO data also strengthens job costing. Construction companies rely on precise cost estimates when bidding projects. If vehicle and equipment expenses are underestimated, bids may appear competitive but ultimately reduce profitability. A detailed understanding of lifecycle costs allows fleets to assign realistic hourly equipment rates, allocate maintenance expenses accurately and improve the financial accuracy of future bids.

According to a 2026 fleet benchmark report, “most fleets accept high-mileage assets; when maintained properly, older assets can keep a TCO value comparable to that of a newer asset. When maintenance discipline fails, those same assets become expensive and disruptive, fast.”

TCO analysis supports smarter maintenance strategies to keep assets safely working longer. Construction environments are harsh, and equipment is constantly exposed to dirt, vibration, extreme weather and heavy loads. By analyzing maintenance history alongside overall asset costs, fleets can identify recurring failure patterns, compare preventive and reactive repair costs, and adjust service intervals based on actual performance data. This reduces downtime while controlling unnecessary maintenance spend.

Why Calculating TCO Is So Difficult

Despite its importance, calculating TCO remains challenging for many construction fleets. The issue is rarely a lack of awareness; rather, it’s a lack of consolidated data. In many organizations, cost information is scattered across spreadsheets, accounting systems, fuel card platforms, telematics providers, vendor invoices and paper work orders. “When data lives in disconnected systems, building a complete and accurate cost profile for each asset becomes time-consuming and prone to error,” explains John Byron, maintenance advisor at Fleetio. “Manual data entry introduces inconsistencies, asset naming conventions may not align across platforms, and maintenance documentation is often delayed or incomplete.”

As fleets grow in size and complexity, these inefficiencies multiply. The result is a fragmented view of asset performance that makes reliable TCO analysis nearly impossible. Without centralized visibility, leaders are forced to rely on partial information and educated guesses.

How Digital Fleet Solutions Simplify TCO Tracking

Digital fleet maintenance and management solutions address the aforementioned challenges by consolidating asset data into a single system of record. Instead of managing separate tools and spreadsheets, fleets can automatically associate maintenance expenses, parts and labor costs, fuel transactions, inspections and downtime with the correct asset in real time.

This automation creates a continuously updated financial profile for every vehicle and piece of equipment. Digital work orders capture labor hours, service history and parts usage without relying on paper documentation, building a reliable maintenance record over time. With this level of visibility, fleets can analyze trends such as rising repair frequency, increasing parts costs or declining fuel efficiency before they escalate into larger problems.

Consolidated reporting also enables objective replacement planning. Rather than relying on subjective judgment, fleets can establish measurable thresholds, such as cost per hour exceeding a defined benchmark or maintenance spend reaching a certain percentage of asset value. These data-driven criteria help optimize capital allocation and improve long-term fleet health.

Turning Insight Into Financial Performance

Understanding TCO empowers action. With accurate data, construction fleets can refine PM schedules, identify training opportunities that reduce operator-related wear, negotiate more effectively with vendors and prioritize investment in equipment models that consistently deliver strong performance. Over time, these improvements extend asset life, reduce downtime, strengthen project margins and improve forecasting accuracy. Most importantly, they replace uncertainty with clarity.

Construction fleets operate in an environment where equipment performance directly impacts productivity and profitability. Relying on purchase price alone is no longer sufficient, but by embracing digital fleet solutions with built-in automation, construction companies can consolidate data and track operating costs with precision to uncover the trends that reveal the true financial story behind their equipment. Understanding TCO allows construction fleets to move beyond guesswork and take strategic control of their assets, improving both operational performance and bottom-line results.

SEE ALSO: FLEET SAFETY AS A BUSINESS STRATEGY FOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

The post Understanding Total Cost of Ownership in Construction Fleets first appeared on Construction Executive.

View ABC’s Construction Backlog Indicator and Construction Confidence Index for June. View the full Construction Backlog Indicator and Construction Confidence Index data series.

Only the Middle States region experienced backlog growth on a monthly basis in June. In the Northeast region, backlog contracted sharply in June and is down by over a month from a year ago. 

ABC’s Construction Confidence Index readings for sales and staffing levels increased in June, while the reading for profit margins inched lower. The readings for all three components remain above the threshold of 50, indicating expectations for growth over the next six months.

“While backlog declined in June, it’s still longer than any point from September 2023 to April 2026,” said ABC Chief Economist Anirban Basu. “This strength is the result of continued booming data center construction. The 13% of ABC members under contract to work on data centers have significantly higher backlog (11.0 months) than the 87% that are not (8.5 months). This trend is noticeable headwind for smaller contractors—just 8% of contractors with less than $100 million in annual revenues have data center work under contract, well below the 41% share of contractors with greater than $100 million in annual revenues.  

“The effect of rising input prices may be weighing on contractor profitability,” said Basu. “Contractor confidence regarding profit margins fell to a seven-month low in June, though expectations remain above the prevailing level from the second half of 2025.”

SEE ALSO: HOW CONTRACTORS ARE SHIFTING HEADCOUNT BUDGETS TO AGENT BUDGETS

The post ABC’s Construction Backlog Indicator Slips, Contractors Remain Confident in June first appeared on Construction Executive.

The distinction between scheduling and planning is subtle, but it may be one of the most important and misunderstood dynamics in modern construction. Companies believe they are planning because they are scheduling. In reality, they are often simply documenting work instead of directing it. Across the industry, schedules are frequently treated as proof of control. If a project has a detailed CPM schedule, the assumption is that it is well planned and under control. But that assumption rarely holds up in practice. Many construction organizations operate under a delivery model in which planning is treated as an administrative requirement rather than a management discipline. In fact, schedules are often created to satisfy three primary pressures:

• Contractual obligations
• Claims defensibility
• Executive reporting requirements

What they are not consistently used for is arguably more important: guiding decisions, aligning teams and anticipating risk in real time. This creates a dangerous illusion: Leadership believes it has visibility and control, while in reality, it is reacting to problems after they have already materialized.

A Backward-Looking Exercise

Scheduling, as commonly practiced, is largely a backward-looking exercise. Schedules are frequently built around contractual milestones, with logic designed to justify timelines rather than reflect how work will actually be executed. Updates tend to explain variance rather than prevent it. Over time, the schedule becomes less of a tool for managing work and more of a record of what has already gone wrong. The result is a static artifact, a document that describes the project but does not actively influence it. Field teams often recognize this disconnect immediately. Superintendents and project managers rely on informal, experience-based planning to actually run the job. The official schedule, meanwhile, exists in parallel, reviewed in meetings but rarely trusted as a real-time guide. At that point, the schedule becomes a reporting requirement rather than a source of truth.

Planning operates on an entirely different level. It is not about building a perfect schedule, nor is it confined to a single document or tool. Planning is an ongoing process of anticipating, adapting and aligning. It is how teams decide what to do next—and why. At its core, planning is about foresight. It doesn’t just ask where the project is today, but where it is heading and what, if anything, needs to change to stay on track. It connects field execution with leadership decision-making and ensures that adjustments happen early, not after problems are locked in. This is where the industry often falls short. It confuses the existence of a schedule with the presence of a plan.

One of the biggest drivers of this confusion is the industry’s reliance on tools as a proxy for capability. There is a persistent belief that if a project uses a sophisticated scheduling platform, it must also be well planned. But tools do not create planning maturity. This mindset has led to a fundamental misdiagnosis: Organizations equate tool compliance with operational control. In practice, this produces a familiar pattern. Plans look detailed but prove fragile. Planners spend more time maintaining data than influencing outcomes. And the gap between what the schedule says and what the project is really doing widens. Technology can support planning, but it cannot replace it. When organizations prioritize outputs over decision-making, they end up with highly detailed schedules that offer very little practical value.

Another key difference between scheduling and planning lies in ownership. In many organizations, the schedule is owned by the scheduler. Once it is created or updated, it is handed off to others or simply filed away until the next reporting cycle.

Shared Accountability Is Key

Planning requires something entirely different: shared accountability. It requires that operations teams take ownership of execution against the plan, that planners are empowered to challenge sequencing and assumptions, and that field teams are actively involved in shaping the plan from the beginning. Without this alignment, the plan becomes disconnected from reality. In lower-maturity environments, this disconnect shows up quickly. Planners are often overridden to maintain optics and field teams revert to their own methods. Trust erodes and the schedule becomes irrelevant to day-to-day operations. In higher-maturity environments, planning is collaborative. It is built with the field, not for it, and it becomes a common language across the entire project.

Even when schedules are technically sound, they are often underutilized. In many projects, the schedule is present in meetings but absent from decisions. Teams review it, but they don’t rely on it. Changes are analyzed after impacts occur, rather than modeled in advance. Forecasts are produced, but rarely challenged or improved. This reflects a deeper issue: The plan is not embedded in how the project is actually run.

True planning maturity requires that the plan becomes central to decision-making. It informs weekly coordination, guides resource allocation and provides a framework for evaluating trade-offs before they become problems. Without that integration, the schedule remains passive, something to report on rather than something to act on.

Technology, while essential, can sometimes reinforce the problem. Many scheduling systems are designed around compliance, structure and defensibility. These are necessary, but they can also introduce rigidity that conflicts with real-world execution. Teams often find themselves balancing two competing realities:

• Maintaining a clean, defensible CPM schedule
• Highlighting the messy, fast-changing conditions of the jobsite

When tools cannot accommodate both, workarounds emerge. Shadow systems develop. Teams duplicate effort just to keep the schedule aligned with reality. Instead of enabling planning, technology becomes something to manage around. The goal should not be to abandon these tools, but to ensure they support the way projects actually operate. When technology aligns with execution, it enhances planning. When it doesn’t, it widens the gap.

Why This Matters Now

The stakes are rising. Construction projects are becoming more complex, timelines are compressing and margins are tighter than ever. At the same time, experienced talent is leaving the industry, taking institutional knowledge with it. In this environment, the difference between scheduling and planning is no longer academic; it is operational.

Organizations that rely on schedules alone will continue to operate reactively, identifying risks only after they have already impacted the project. Those that embrace planning as a discipline will be better positioned to anticipate challenges, align teams and make informed decisions under pressure.

Closing the gap between scheduling and planning does not require new terminology or wholesale system changes; it requires a shift in mindset. Organizations need to move beyond asking whether they have a schedule and start asking whether that schedule is actually being used to run the job. That means elevating planning to a leadership function, integrating it into daily operations and measuring success not by the existence of a schedule but by the quality of decisions it enables.

Construction projects do not fail because they lack schedules. They fail because those schedules are mistaken for plans.

SEE ALSO: DISTRIBUTION CENTER, SERVED HOT: LE CREUSET’S NEW LOCATION

The post Construction Scheduling vs. Planning: The Industry’s Most Costly Confusion first appeared on Construction Executive.

POLLS

QUOTES

The AI spending boom is driving disproportionate amount of this growth. (7:56)

The wealthy have gotten wealthier and they spend a lot on services, so it’s no surprise when you break up that consumer spending contribution of growth then services will be head of the class. (25:07)

Construction had jobs at more than twice or roughly twice the rate of the balance of the country. (29:50)

One of the things we want as an industry is for more of our young people—particularly the most ambitious people—to enter the construction trades. (32:32)

I think the industry should really market this kind of statistic [speaking on the fact that those who enrolled in construction trades certificate programs earn roughly $50k more than those who didn’t enroll]. (33:57)

People love Texas [on the 2025 U-Haul Growth Index state rankings]. (36:36)

These states [top southern states in the U-Haul ranking] are associated with really dynamic metropolitan areas. (36:54)

California is exporting people like crazy. (37:47)

Architects are less busy this month than they were last month; last month was abysmal[…]and they have been getting less busy month by month by month. Design work is in retreat. (47:53)

The federal reserve said the U.S. economy will grow 2.2% this year—that’s not bad. (58:05)

This is between 20-45%, 2-3x the norm [on recession probability in 2026]. (59:08)

QUESTIONS

Questions ranged from the war in Iran’s impact on oil prices to the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act one year after it was passed to what happens if data center spending wasn’t supporting the construction economy to the national debt to the state of small public works general contractors and more.

OVERALL TAKEAWAYS

Overall, Basu notes:

• Inflation poised to stage a comeback—tariffs/immigration/war
• Interest rates will be higher for longer
• Many consumers now exhausted financially and circumstances could worsen
• Are asset prices overextended?
• Forecast is for growth in 2026 but there are risks including rising interest rates and falling asset prices

SEE ALSO: ‘WE NEED TO LOWER INTEREST RATES’: ANIRBAN BASU ON 2026 Q1 CONSTRUCTION ECONOMY

The post ‘People Love Texas’: Anirban Basu Shares New Data in 2026 Mid-Year Economic Forecast first appeared on Construction Executive.