Ben,
My post is not BS, not contradictory, and only my experience, perhaps not clearly worded. But, thanks for not calling me a prostitute, so I got that going for me!
In my experience, which starts in 1977, the one predominant theme in muni work was their belief that they were supposed to be as open as possible to any consultant or contractor. Over time, they got bad results, budgets got tight, their civic responsibility grew, etc. I am sure they talked at Urban League, their lawyers, etc. Over time (while still no one single answer or position) more of them began implementing "pre-qualifications" for both design and construction much more often.
Mike is clearly mistaken when he thinks any govt organization owes him, any start up consultant, etc. anything. Their only responsibility is to get what is best for their citizens. And, for the record, I missed Mike's conversion for a card carrying Republican to snowflake liberal, and for that I apologize.
Again, no standard policy. Some cities still bid on fee, others on only qualifications, and some don't believe they need a RFQ process for consultants at all, and often pick the one they truly want without competition.
And, when it comes to contractors, I have successfully convinced cities (most, not all) that membership in the GCBAA is a good cutoff for minimum qualifications. You could make them all fill out voluminous pre-qual forms (and some do) to accomplish about the same minimums for qualifications, but to what end? Basically, their full membership in that group does the same thing, similar to ASGCA. And I have recommended that, gotten calls from my eminently qualified non GCBAA friends and explained to them that there was a benefit to the city to set some standard, even it if didn't work out personally for them.
And yes, maybe its discrimination, but what is the selection process if not discriminating between your best match and all the others? If you have ever gone through 100 resumes you know the basic process is to cull it quick based on mistakes, professionalism, etc. Some city managers, who are busy, think, "Well there are 300 golf architects in the world, if I can whack 2/3 of them out by requiring ASGCA, that is a good use of my time. Surely, there is someone among those 100 ASGCA firms who will suit my needs."
Mike,
No one in the effen world thinks we are a sanctioning body. Except you.
While you continually use this site to harp on perhaps a dozen occasions this decade where a muni RFQ has requested ASGCA as one of several minimum qualifications, there have been many more RFQ that limit competition for other reasons.
Some require a minimum of five courses, or similar, shutting out the new guys in the biz.
Some require or prefer local consultants over out of town, limiting changes of out of state consultants.
Some require a registered landscape architect or engineer over golf experience.
Some require high and/or special E and O insurance.
Some require CAD drawings.
Most have about 10-20 pages of city generated conditions (no collusion, no bribes, etc.) that frankly, shouldn't be a problem to meet. A few put in some real doozy insurance requirements or other considerations that should make the average consultant firm run away fast.
More and more, some require things like BIM, LEED and SITES certification.
And, we have all seen those limit competition, and worse, we have seen all of those (including the ASGCA suggestion, be subsequently ignored! After all of those qualifications, if a napkin guy seemed interested, the CAD thing would go out the window. We have seen the ASGCA, LA, etc. all be ignored. Most times, a "non-qualified" firm politely submitted the form, and convinced them that despite missing one key component, it was not that important, and they realize it and select them, or short list them anyway.
At any game table in Vegas, there are minimums, or a "price of admission." Most jobs require some kind of college degree. In design, while they vary, there is an entrance fee to play in the muni market, and it includes many, if not all of the items I mention above. So, I maintain my ASGCA membership, my LA license, my insurance, and my CAD skills (albeit, as you know, in Vectorworks rather than ACAD) to meet those requirements. I consider it the price of admission. Some don't, and their chances at muni work are less than those of other firms devoted to it. Frankly, I think most of us would avoid the muni market if we could. A lot more work to design a golf course, but also, more likely to get paid a decent fee, and actually get paid, as opposed to some borderline crook developers I am sure we have all seen.
And lastly, if you want to be mad, just be mad at me. 20 years ago, ASGCA saw a need for a RFQ guideline, because many golf design RFQ were seemingly written as if to buy new AC units for city hall. I volunteered to write it. I put in the ASGCA member as a potential qualification.
We put it out as a public service. I am sure we have approximately the same number of RFQ since then (including many of the same) and many use the ASGCA in part or whole. Whenever I see it copied verbatim, I tend to think its not much better than the old AC type documents, since they assigned someone who knows too little to put time in it. On balance, I think it has helped GCA everywhere in getting a fairer shot at submitting. It has helped us all, because instead of filling out unique RFQ for every city, more use the basic qualifications, and we can standardize our basic stuff without spending weeks on special RFQ submittals. Overall, I would say it has served its industry wide purpose, which is the main goal of ASGCA, despite what you may think.
If I was going to pee and moan for ten years on this site, I might devote some time to those other "prices of admission" that hold all architects back far more than the ASGCA thing. Again, the fact that you have designed dozens of courses and gotten fairly wealthy without the membership just proves that it hasn't hurt you. And the fact that some associates of ASGCA members go on their own, and then flounder proves my theory that it really doesn't affect business.
I asked Art Hills long ago his secret for getting so much work. His answer - "Do good work and the rest follows most of the time."
As far as I can tell, the best predictor of who is getting the jobs is the guy who puts in the most work in his marketing, proposals and presentations to convince a potential client that he is the right man (sorry, or woman) for their particular job. There is an art to it, and most of us don't master that as well as we should, and thus, don't get as many projects as we "should."
Short version, I am going all Ben Cowan on you and calling BS. Yeah, you say its the principle of the thing, but it rarely ever is........not to mention, every profession has a professional society, with its well considered minimums to join. I disagree with you in saying that you can meet the minimums and not get in. You can blame me, as I also helped engineer the membership process back in the 1980's to get applicants more widespread review, and avoid folks voting for someone just because an influential member wanted them in.
If you meet the minimums, get good references, do well in the interviews and course reviews, you get in. We aren't perfect, or 100% consistent, by any means, but we are human, and never claim to be perfect.
And, now, to prove I am just telling it like it is, and in no way angry at anyone, I will close with a smiley face......or six
