Associated General Contractors of Colorado

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
840187229
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3033882422
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,686,316
Expenses
$5,280,974
Assets
$4,654,111
Liabilities
$1,637,108

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

63 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JEFF BARRATT (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFF BARRATT (PRESIDENT): $267,614 total reported compensation
  • BRADLEY GRASSMAN (PROGRAM COOR): $128,397 total reported compensation
  • STEPHANIE GODWIN (MEMBERSHIP M): $119,416 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide members a competitive edge through excellence in advocacy, collaboration, leadership, networking, workforce development, and services.

What it reported doing in 2025

Advocacy: agc advocates for public and private policies that will benefit the construction industry and economy and against policies that will not benefit the construction industry and economy. Events: agc provides networking events to help construction firms meet and consider doing business together. Education: agc provides apprenticeship, education and training classes for the industry. Safety and storm water: agc provides safety and stormwater training classes and the osha chase safety partnership program and Colorado storm water excellence program. Workforce development: agc provides workforce recruitment, workforce development, pre-apprenticeship and leadership programs for high school students, adults, current industry employees and company owners & managers. Associates council: agc associate members organize networking events and programs to benefit agc members and the construction industry. Future leaders forum: agc provides a leadership development program for employees that are new to the industry.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 97
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.2%; rating input score 95; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.1%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 59 of 62 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $268K · 63 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $708K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.