The way a 2nd or 3rd tier architect gets a job like that is called; "My wife's second cousin has a girlfriend whose father knows somebody very important in the city government's course selection process for a golf architect!"  

Like Kelly, I suspect that I am one below the lowest possible rating tier of architects rated on this site......  And, like Kelly, I know there are more talented architects than ever out there, whether they grace the pages of golf digest or not.  You have to get your start somewhere!

I also get my share of municipal jobs, although in retrospect, I can't really describe why.  In my case, when I get them, it is usually hard work, plus my reputation for delivering solid popular courses.....I don't know about others, but TEPaul is right - the adage of "Its not what you know, but who you know" plays in the selection process both public and private.

As to the project in question, I think you are confusing architecture with contracting, though. Generally, the architect is not responsible for the contractors actions in meeting the schedule.  For that matter, you may be confusing change orders with schedule.  Adding 10% to the job could add work, and hence time, to the schedule, but it might also be be a change of materials or specifications that shouldn't actually require extra time.

You should also remember that things are expensive in California, and that the 40MIL probably includes millions in land cost, more millions in permitting, and other things beyond simple golf course construction costs.

Like Kelly, I, too would be interested in hearing the name of the project and architect......I'm sure I could find out on my own, but if you are going to back hand someone by association, you may as well backhand them out in the open!  We (he/she) can take it - it comes with the territory!

$44 Million? They should get a minimum of 5 courses for that. Even in NORCAL.

Accountability in Municipal Gov't is like the road at GMGC, A thing of the past. Also, outdated, limited in function and a blemish on the collective.

TEPaul,

In truth, the deciding factor was probably the idea that you would help design the course, and insist on a "Turbo Boost" slot......

Actually, I do recall that they had the idea that they specifically did not want a talented local arhcitect, like Jim Blaukovitch or Kelly Moran to do the job, so they would have something different.  Thats a concept I love when working out of town, but hate in DFW, for obvious reasons.

They got my name after seeing a feature article in a 1994 Golf World on me as an "Up and coming" architect.  The project dragged on, although much of the committee remained intact.  Somwhere around 1996, they interviewed five or six of us.  My record and style in interviews must have impressed them somewhat, because that is a long way to go for a public course architect, but they narrowed it to two when the project was to be finalized.

There are usually a few key questions that determine which way it would go.  One was did they need extra land, which (on the advice of one of my supporters) I recommended fully.  As it turns out, they did not acquire the extra land, so I made the wrong call there!  I did have supporters even after the final interview, and it was a split vote.  It took a few weeks for them to argue it out.  (Often, we hear the next day or so)

In the end, the committee had played several Rick Jacobsen courses, and went to his annual golf tournaments, so they knew him and his courses better than me and mine.  Being from Texas, only a few went out of their way to see my courses, so they had a higher comfort level with him, and selected him for the right reasons.

So, in one real life case, that is how the architect is selected.  I can't complain about the process they used, even if I was dissapointed in the outcome.....

Although they have built a few dozen courses, they have no ranked courses.  Does this mean they are good or bad, no, but at some point an architects work has to be noted by someone!
 

Oh,no.  I think I better pass on this one.  Deep breaths, deep breaths, count to ten.

I found something interesting on the internet which may or may not be relevant, but the construction company appears to be Ferma Corp from Mountain View which I am not sure has any experience in building golf courses?

FERMA's is a full service engineering firm (I believe they were also involved in running the Mountain View disposal site near Shoreline Golf Course) and demolition, site grading, excavation.  From what I am told, they did all the site grading (2 years ago) and shaping but the hardscape, irrigation and drainage was done by someone else.

Mike

Planning for the new Pleasanton municipal course began in earnest in 1997 when the City sent out RFP's to most all golf architecture firms in California.  A citizen's committee was formed for the purpose of eliminating some of the firms and then to interview the three or four finalist firms to design what is now a 38 million dollar course (!).

To give some guidance to the proceedings, the citizen's committee hired local golf guru Sandy Tatum to shepherd them through things.  They interviewed the firm I was previously with, JMP and the other one or two (can't remember who they were).  JMP was chosen, and they have proven themselves with notable courses, though most of them are in Asia.

As Jeff noted, the probable run-up in costs were indeed associated with land acquisition and permitting which was complicated by my fair town's insistence on being somewhat "special" thus requiring a true country club for a day ambiance with all that it entails.  But, there were other factors at play here that have combined to create a real embarassment for the City Council (who just approved a further 4 million for change orders).

One of the factors was a promised dedicated access road that would bypass an existing semi-rural neighborhood.  This was promised to the existing land owners but as of now, the course will open without it.  Which leads to big factor number two, real estate.

A local development company was involved in a complicated land swap for an adjoining parcel that would include the promised access road.  After multiple machinations, this transaction did not go through as it was supposed to, although there will be several homesites alongside and within the golf course itself.

But all of this was dwarfed by unforseen issues relating to butterflies, red-legged frogs and wetlands that were not properly identified by the City beforehand.

Though this site is 2 miles from my house and I would, of course, have cherished the opportunity to work on it, the process in place did identify the other firm to do the work.  I can't fault the architecture selection process nor can I fault JMP for the enormous cost overruns.  Any design firm would likely have been caught in the middle of this morass.  They are a good firm and I'm sure the course will provide the City with what they wanted (eventually).  

The real lesson here is a cautionary tale to other municipalities who fancy themselves as more than they actually are.  Especially in an affluent area like this part of the Bay Area, politicoes who know nothing about golf simply want to keep up with or exceed in every way the other similar facilities around.  Perhaps this type of government largess can be identified in the future when another town decides that it too should have a gilded facility suitable for all outside functions and a course with all the expected CCFAD amenities.  

Pleasanton's problem it would seem to me is repeated often.  City governments' take on tasks with which they are not familar.  It is probably the City's first municipal golf course, or their first municipal course construction project in a long time.  Thus, they have learned a lot and could eliminate most costs the second time they do it.  Their education is paid by the taxpayers, so the the taxpayers are the losers here.  Others are making significant amounts at their expense.

All of the factors noted by Mr. Doak and others come into play.  However, the personality characteristics of the architect should not be underestimated.  Salesmanship, tact, and a good bedside manner go a long ways.   I know an architect who lost a very important municipal job on a fantastic site at least in part because he joked about the sexuality of one of the key "advisors" to the decision makers, and his comments were passed on to this individual.   I am also acquainted with a couple of architects who go way out of their way to be friendly and helpful to course superintendents and club staff, and they get numerous leads and job recommendations as a result.  Of course, as Tom Weiskopf so often demonstrates, a pleasant, positive personality may not be a requirement at the highest level of the industry.    

How often does an architect get a job by overpromising what he (or, of course, she) can deliver?

One of the architects here has told me of a job he lost when he told the developers it couldn't be ready this spring (I believe it was).

The guy who got the job promised it would be ready this spring.

It wasn't ready this spring. It's not ready this fall.

Will this "winning" architect pay any price for this?

Thanks for this discussion.  Very interesting.

I grew up in the SF Bay Area.  I know Pleasanton fairly well.  More a suburb of San Jose, it has been growing rapidly.  Naturally a very beautiful place.  Steep but rounded hills of golden grasses dotted with oaks, with shady oak valleys inbetween.  There are some places you could have built a really nice valley course.

Just curious where it was, and whether steep terrain may have contributed to the high price.

Tom Doak,

Doesn't a site that doesn't get you enthusiastic challenge your talents more ?

And, isn't there a delicate line to walk between candor and diplomacy.  Afterall, that client may come into a premier site at some point in the future, a site that stirs your enthusiasm.