The difference isn't confusing if you use the "know it in your gut" principal.......
Whether Pete Dye, Tom Doak, or Mike Young, there is nothing unethical about pursuing a design build approach (even if led by one of the major contractors, which is pretty typical, too) as long as the client understands what the arrangement is. Design build has been around a lot longer than RTJ, it goes back to Ross, maybe Old Tom Morris, who knows.
From the Hansen book, if all true (I wasn't there), it would seem RTJ providing multiple bidders, all of whom he secretly owned, was probably unethical and immoral, in that there was the undisclosed relationship. I think RTJ also had an interest in an irrigation company, too, but I think that was well known. (the old Buckner Binar System.....whether it is unethical to recommend what turned out to be a dud of a system is a complicated question, made more so by any ownership, but probably wouldn't be considered unethical. In those days of irrigation, it would be like expecting the Wright Bros. to have started with a 747 instead of a bi-plane)
I[/size]n more modern times, you might say Arnie has an interest in Toro, having done ads for them, but then, that was well known and a client probably understood he would recommend Toro irrigation. It would be interesting to know if Rainbird ever slipped into a Palmer job, but I suspect it did at some point.[/size]
Yes, some gca's don't do design build, because as a sub to the contractor, you often run into areas where you can't represent the owner (typical case - being asked to approve a cheaper greens mix for the contractor to make his bid price, even if out of normal spec, downsizing drainage designs, etc.)
And yes, presenting yourself as someone who takes a fee purely for design and as a third party contractor watchdog is a sales point, because using that design-bid-supervise method is appealing to some owners. After all, without a competitive bid (often required by cities, etc.) they never really know if they got the best price possible going to one source. On the other hand, anyone pursuing design build often touts cost savings of that method. (and it does happen)
That probably never worried Pete's clients, so there is no moral breach, unless you consider making a profit on construction a crime (some ultra liberals seem to think that, but that's another story....I have a FB friend, architect to boot who regularly advocates offing anyone who makes more than X per year.)
As to architects who can't get a course built without a certain crew, you could obviously say a lot of things, but it's really not unethical for a gca to request a limited number of independent bidders familiar with their work. You can make the case that it helps the owner.
And, basically, any architect who provide their own crews is basically in the same position as a design bid architect who requests contractors they are familiar with - they represent that they can't get the results they want without using their own crews, no?