[Patrick_Mucci]

Contractors are often asked to modify plans or implement work order changes after they've been awarded a contract, based on bid specifications.

These changes are usually very expensive, and a profit center for the contractor because the work is not put out to bid, like the intitial project.

Should architects, after they've rendered their Master plan, charge for similar work order changes, initiated by, or forced upon them by a committee,  green chairman, Board or club President, in an effort to discourage outside, or political influences which can taint their creative work ?

Do these changes dilute the architect's creative abilities ?
Does the modified product, the result of membership influence, impede the architect's ability to get future work ?

[Joel_Stewart]

Pat:
Are you assuming that the architect is always right and the club (who hired the architect) doesn't have any input?

Your idea doesn't seem to allow much flexability at arriving at the best solution.  What would have happened at Boca Rio if you had no input?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

From one of my agreements:

When certain Project conditions beyond the Golf Course Architect’s control and substantially require more work by the Golf Course Architect Supplemental Services shall automatically result. The Owner and Golf Course Architect shall negotiate appropriate adjustments in scope, schedule, and compensation for such Supplemental Services.
 
Supplemental Services shall be deemed to occur when:

•   The information contained in Article I of this Agreement changes substantially during the project, requiring more work by the Golf Course Architect.
•   The Golf Course Architect must revise previously approved Drawings, Specifications or other documents to accomplish changes not initiated by the Golf Course Architect.
•   Project conditions require more meetings, site visits, consultations with or presentations by the Golf Course Architect or its consultants to the Owner or its consultants, or Permitting Phase services above those limits enumerated in this Agreement.



That answers the first part of your excellent question, and I think most of us have similar clauses.  However, I am reluctant to use this contractual power, and use it as a last resort, usually building in a little fee for anticipated changes, and only requesting extras when it gets into really big - or repetitive - changes.

As consultive entities, architects need a real personal relationship with the client.  One function is to negotiate with the contractor on all fiscal matters.  Hard to be credible in this position if you are also always fighting the client for extra money.....

I also imagine that getting the reputation of lowballing architectural fees and going for contract ammendments probably gets around for architects, and is an impediment to doing it, and to securing future work.  And, in this market, I have lost several jobs to architects who did exactly that.  So, in tough times, I see more of it lately.

Does it dilute my creative ability?  Not sure.  Certainly, at some clubs, I finish the master plan process quite sure that I have studied EVERY possible option for improvement, and that is never a bad thing for creativity.....

[Bill_McBride]

Pat, change orders are not always more profitable than the base bid contract sum.  I am a general contractor and often do public bid projects.  Most of those contracts have a lump sum bid number for the scope of work in the construction plans and documents.  Depending on the size of the project, we might have a mark up including general conditons, overhead and profit of 15-18%.  The contracts we enter into with the public entity will limit the amount of mark up on change orders to 5% if we subcontract the work and 10% if we do the work with our own forces.  I guess this discourages change orders for the sake of padding the job.  Direct costs must be iddentified in order for this to work, and typically that is required.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Uoel,

Are you assuming that the architect is always right and the club (who hired the architect) doesn't have any input?
I think your unfamilarity with the process is the foundation of your question.  The imput occurs at the beginning of the process, not at the conclusion of the process.

Club's usually lay out their goals, their objectives up front.
The architect then creates a master plan based upon their direction and imput.  The time to inform the architect what the club wants is at the begining of the process, not after he's rendered his master plan.[/color]

Your idea doesn't seem to allow much flexability at arriving at the best solution.  What would have happened at Boca Rio if you had no input?

Again, you're misinformed or misguided.
Boca Rio provided the imput up front.
That allowed the architect to create a master plan and the  bid specs associated with that master plan.

Governmental Agencies/Authorities were responsible for substantive changes to the Master Plan and bid specs.

The architect and the club were on the same page with respect to the intent of the work from the very begining and throughout the project.
The scope of the work expanded and was altered as dictated by governmental agencies/authorities.
But, that's beyond the architect's and the club's control.[/color]

Bill McBride,

You're not going to equate public work with private work, are you ?

Work order changes are one of the most, if not the most, profitable areas for GC's due to the lack of competitive bids, and the necessity and timing of the change and work.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat,

A lot of new golf courses are built on unit-price contracts, so that change orders are not bid independently.  If you add more bunkers or more drainage pipe they are just paid for at a pre-agreed price [per sq ft or per linear ft] upon which the bid was based.

The only time for a contractor to make big $ is when you add features that were not originally contemplated in the design ... rock walls around ponds, waterfall features, etc.  When owners suggest these on the fly, they pay through the nose for them.

How that would apply to consulting work at clubs, I cannot see.  Jeff Brauer is right that most consulting work is based on a personal relationship between architect and green chairman, and constantly renegotiating fees would not help the relationship.  A few architects I've heard of billed their consulting on a percentage of the construction contract; I think that's entirely wrong as it gives them an incentive to make changes.  Architects are entirely capable of falling in love with their own ideas without adding money to the equation.

I would love to have a club which trusted me enough to cede all design control to me ... at some clubs, believe it or not, I have been talking about the same proposed restoration topics for 15 years or more.    But it's a trust-building exercise, and as you know, that takes time.  Unfortunately, that's why I have less time for it nowadays.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

My question was not posed in the context of a new course, but an existing golf course.
At new courses memberships are not yet formed, let alone committees.
New courses seem to be created by an individual or small group of individuals with one man in charge.

As you also know, from personal experience, committee members rotate in and out, especially over periods of time.  The committee you're working with at the outset, including the Board and President may be long gone 4-6 years into your consulting relationship with the club.  Hence, the direction that you may receive at the inception of your relationship may differ from the direction you receive several years into your relationship, and if you've begun to formulate a Master Plan, it's not inconceivable that when you finally present it, the committee's or club's goals have changed.  

I'm sure you're familiar with the changing political tides that some clubs experience every two years or so.

Continuity in vision and management seems to work much better when you have one boss, one contact, not 12 committeemen or 300 members to satisfy.

I suspect that you enjoy, and get more creative work done quicker, working for the likes of Mike Keiser and Mike Pascucci then you do dealing with politically correct committees that rotate every two years.

But, I'm just guessing  

[Bill_McBride]

My point, Mr Mucci, is that the profitablility of change orders can be determined by how the contract is written.  There is no reason for change orders to be a license to steal.  Here in the Florida panhandle there is a tendency for some contractors to low ball and seek change orders.  As a result, we have instituted a policy with our prospective clients that we will limit the mark up on any change orders.  In an area such as yours where unscrupulous and corrupt behavior is not prevalent  , such policy is probably unnecessary.  Maybe more clients should demand such contractual language.  Just a thought.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill McBride,

If unscrupulous or corrupt contractors don't exist in the Florida Panhandle why did you feel the necessity to limit the mark up on change orders ?

By the way, I've dealt with Florida General Contractors and Sub-contractors, so I have a little experience in that area.

Your last point is a good one, and generally two signatures may be required to institute a work order change from the club, in order to discourage or minimize these changes.

However, my thread was in the context of the club, vis a vis a committee, inserting changes to satisfy the whims of various membership factions, to the dismay of the architect.

It's amazing what happens to utilization when you have to pay for it.

[Bill_McBride]

This takes you around to the point that a golf club is best run by a benevolent tyrant, hopefully one who can keep a contractor under control in terms of cost.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()