No offense to all you pros out there, but isn't this an almost textbook example of why archies(collective) have such a bad rep?
In every industry there are bad apples, indivduals who intentionally conceive to deceive. They shouldn't taint everyone, but they do and then peoples reluctance to spill the beans, allows for further abuses.
With the lower costs of desktop publishing, why wouldn't someone balk at numbers such as these?
Adam,
I guess I didn't realizt that golf architects as a group were held in the same general esteem as, say ambulance chasing lawyers!
Years (maybe eons) ago, professional organizations had "fee charts." These have been struck down by courts as hindrances to competition. The charts usually featured a sliding scale - up to 15% for a construction project under 100K, gradually reducing to about 7% for typical projects, of $2 Million or more, and dropping further for larger budgets. This works because smaller, detail oriented projects require proportionally more time to do well than designing a new course! That is why the % fee is higher for small projects. ON larger budget projects, the line on the paper for, say a cart path, is the same amount of work whether they make it of asphalt or gold plate it. However, in other cases, larger budgets usually do result in more design time, but the fixed costs are set. The idea of using % of construction costs to estimate fees also works because it naturally accounts for inflation.
Most design professionals would love to get 7-10% on decent projects, and you would probably still find successful building architects, and engineers will charge that where they have complete plan, permitting and construction administration responsibility. In some cases, like drawing plans for repeat clients like huge developers who take on responsibilities on their own, the fee can be as low as 3%.
Each architect must propose a fee based on his scope of service. While outlawed years ago, nonetheless, many arhcitects still use these as one way to calculate a fee. (The other considerations are the amount of time I think I will spend on the project, my current overhead, which includes office, payroll, and errors and omissions insurance, the cost of selling a job, which is, as noted, often years of free meetings, etc., and what the market will bear, given my name recognition or special expertise for the job) to make proposals.
However, I can see the club's point of view, paying an additional 15% when you are doing a small project adds signifigantly to the present cost. It does make it difficult to retain an architect for smaller projects. Most of us are flexible to work out lesser service packages, but some architects (and not just name ones) have determined that it isn't worth our while to cut service scope, because a year from now, the club won't remember what it paid for your services, but they will remember if the project was done well and how often they saw you.
In essence, its a time business, and what happens it the clubs get your fee down, but expect the same service, and grumble when they don't get them. There are many clubs who keep jumping architects to find a cheaper alternative, ruining any continuity in their course for the sake of saving a few bucks. They often end up spending more correcting the mistakes of inexperience.
While I understand that many people don't understand the value of design, I do find it a bit odd that this group would! IIs Jeff M, since he's trying to get in the business, questioning whether an architect's time and expertise is worth something or if he is really just questioning the way the time is spent on plans versus field for this particular project? Or the architect his club selected?
Going back to Jeff M's example, I'll assume construction costs of 800K -$1M. Then I would expect most design proposals to be around 8-10%, or $65-100,000 if it was all done in one season, perhaps more if spread out. $200K would be 20-25%, which is higher than "normal." But, it may have included several other costs the architect added to the proposal for the convenience of the club, plus assuming a large legal responsibility, and the overhead it takes to run a business - that doesn't come cheap!
Is it worth it?
"Name" architect can often charge more, and I presume Jeff's club was aware in advance when they selected the architect that they were going to pay more than any typical rate. Many people will pay for a name brand. You can argue a lesser known architect with more time to devote would give them an equal product and better attention, but it is more a brand name world out there than a personal relationship world!
Sorry to go on so long, but I thought you might enjoy a professional perspective on how design professionals set fees.....