We also put in a proposal, although it fell under the "rule no. 2" section of my business practice. (Rule 1 is don't go after jobs you can't get, and rule 2 is "Twice a year.....break rule number one.) With only moderate name recognition, no work in the area, and only the Quarry in Minnesota as a similar reclamation project, I felt that I was a weak candidate. On the other hand, I got a $300 airfare to Seattle, the Bears were playing the SeaHawks the day before, and I did a little sightseeing in a town I had never visited, so for $500 or so, I got a chance to combine business with pleasure, so why not?
As noted, most public work requires fairly open access and even competition for design work, even if they may really have someone in mind. The head guy is a real golf nut, which is why I think (no real knowlege, mind you) Mickelson got in. Harbottle, Jones and Cupp have good work there, and are logical choices, and someone may have played one of Hurdzan Fry great courses. So, I thought the final five made a lot of sense, compared to some RFQ results, where there is always a "Huh?" finalist none of us in the biz can figure out.
They recieved 56 proposals, and DQ'd 12 right off the bat for some technical non-compliance, leaving 44 of us fighting for the top 5 spots, not a great average. They are paying the top 5 a small fee for a design competition, so they are going about this right, from an architects perspective.
However, an "interesting" trend in RFQ processes is the 30 page, narrowly targeted and very specific proposal requirements. Most owners seem to have figured out that getting 200 page company profiles that say nothing about what you would do for them is not giving them the information they need to make a decision. The net result to interested architects is that we need to spend a week or so thinking about just what we propose for the project that we don't have.
They usually also require these be in a set order, so that they could compare the 44 proposals side by side if necessary. We can't use any "boilerplate" materials now. And, I suspect if my proposal to Pierce County somehow slipped through with an inadvertant reference to "greens mix in Texas" or some other term, ias a result of a non complete search and replace function, t would be dismissed immediately.
While its easier than it used to be to show design proposals using photoshop, etc., its still a lot of very specific work.
As to the site, it was full of potential for both shot values and scenery, as noted in the press release. I'll bet one reason I got booted was that I gently mentioned that I felt the contours and acreage made the site more suitable for a great 18 that a mediocre 27, espcecially given that they wanted to preserve some of the native vegetation areas, and that tournament courses need room for spectators, et al. They also had some multi-use ideas, including trails through the course that sound fine until some kid gets boinked on his head while riding a bike through the course.
Well, they asked for our honest opinions and proposals, and they got it, although I am learning over time to get the job first, and then tell the truth.....