Adrian,
I have taken to using digital technology to be there when I am not there, dating back about 10 years now when it first became feasible. Somewhere in my files I have some photos from the Quarry where I used a digital red line to get some earthform skylines more rugged than had already been built and to mark which trees near a green I wanted saved and which I wanted removed.
That tech could be used more, since I usually remember what I want even more than the shapers and field guys. It is amazing what gets confused about ten minutes after said. Its best to mark stuff out in the field when you are there. If you want a tree saved, put a ribbon on it right then (and of course, make sure they know the system, so they don't cut it down wihen they see the ribbon!)
I even recall one case where they asked me where to put a cart bridge and to avoid a wet trek through the creek, I pointed from the bank to an obvious location. Within an hour, they had moved the bridge to another location since it wasn't actually marked, and in that location, it was visible, in play, etc.
So, yes, digital technology is about 90% there, but not all the way.
But, in the bigger discussion, I doubt that many posters truly understand how many decisions go into day to day building of a golf course. And many are made by others than the gca and even their associates. I have had cases where the construction company moved the bridge or path due to unstable soils and it was the right decision, even if I thought it was the wrong location from a pure design standpoint. Since they have some guarantees in their work, its hard to tell them they must build a bridge on unstable soils, nor is it wise since the bridge might fall in no matter who said it goes there.
Brent Wadsworth used to telll his foreman that it was their job to buld the course even better than the gca's plans, which didn't mean they were changing the design, but merely making it work as well as possible in a practical context. However, they also bring good stuff from one gca to the next. Of course, they all have some great (and a few not so great) shapers and I doubt that any one gca could stable any more talent in that dept. One example is filling the toes of slopes further out and making them fuller, despite whether the plans show it or not. Another from my experience was them moving catch basins slightly further away from tees or upsizing pipe based on their field knowledge of how much water shot through a particular area.
It may not matter what the construction contracts are all about, but it does matter that the construction people love golf courses and design, too. I usually feel as if LUI, Wadsworth, Mid America and a few others basically are at my call when they build my golf courses and its possible to attain synergy with a good contractor and the right people. I don't really need to own bulldozers to build a golf course!
And in general, using a big contractor pays dividends on a tough site or when unusual problems occur since they have seen them before. In short, you can never have too much experience on a construction site and relying only on perhaps the limited knowledge of the gca's field guys might be detrimental.