Forrest,

I had my blood pressure checked recently, and its the same as when I was 15 years old.  Obviously, I let the horror stories go a lot more easily than most.  And, I still have my hair!

While I have had preliminary jobs taken away in favor of a bigger name architect, it usually occurs when the project is sold or financed by someone else who always uses "X."  The Golden Rule - He who has the gold, rules - was in effect.

You and I have discussed losing public interview jobs, or would the correct term simply be, "Not winning?"  You and I were both involved in - the Palmer Silver Rock project and whatever they decided to call the El Paso Airport Job that went to Fazio.

We both saw Silver Rock coming, as it was rumored and in fact was, a Palmer Job from the start.  Our dissapointment was in the fact that with that so well known that the city decided to call 16 firms to the finals, presumably to make it look good.  However, we went in with our eyes wide open, and had a few nice days in Palm Springs.  I even got to meet Tommy N!

It seems like every gca finalist list has one architect that is on the list that seems out of place and we all wonder how HE got on there.......Usually, he doesn't get the project, but often he turns out to be what everyone considers to be a surprise winner, usually because of some friendship or other connection.

I feel I was a "victim" of that and was especially dissapointed in El Paso, but at least the suspense was over in a hurry.  You and I hadn't even left the airport bar before we knew the results.  I thought I had a real chance partnering with Lee Trevino, who is a near God in El Paso.  Even the other design teams were hanging around for his autograph and council was clearly impressed that he showed up for the interview.  It turned out that the engineer heading up the Fazio team had made campaign contributions to the councilman in the project district, whereas my engineer was simply a good young firm looking to expand their workload.  

Its those kind of things that turn into commissions in many cases, and they are hard to find out, especially when national golf course archiects descend on a town and rely on locals to fill them in on the political scene.  Talking to my guys, they felt they had the finger on the pulse, but I hitched to the wrong horse in that case.

Another dissapointment was a gca who got to re-interview for a project after we all had finished, claiming he was "flu ridden" and not himself.  The suspicion was that he had an inside source, found out what the real selection criteria was, and then went back in with a mulligan presentation tailored to the inside info to get the job.  Another biggie with a private plane got rescheduled to the last interview by claiming plane trouble, and other gca's suspected similar scenarios.

As TePaul has suggested, one gca touts that he has more ASGCA members in his organization than anyone else.  Frankly, while I admire his support and admiration of ASGCA, and feel the same, I don't think that helps him sell.

As to backstabbing, I would need a definition of that.  I have heard of other gca's dropping jabs at competitors, like "I wonder how that lawsuit against "X" is going." That would clearly qualify as a back stab.

On the other hand, you have to admit that the purpose of the interview is to "compare and contrast" the ability of the gca's to do well on your project. How would you classify it if one gca congratulated another on being particluarly busy overseas (if true) while noting that he avoids such work to provide better service to domestic clients, or that he limits his workload?  

I generally avoid any comments on other gca's competing, preferring to tout my own qualifications,  If asked,  I compliment the committee on their hard work in coming up with a worthy finalist list.  

Could you turn this into a book?  Hell, when I bought your "Hazards" I thought it was about this very subject of selling yourself as a golf course architect!

Forrest,

I thing you are making this stuff up, converting a LEGEND into a TRAIL of tears. Steve Kay tried to pass the same non-story on to me while we were sitting together, with me drinking a MANHATTAN while we watched Tiger WOODS. Ken Kavanaugh has also mentioned to me on at least SEVEN occasions, though I was on the way to the Grand CANYONS, so I was little distracted.  

Scott,

it's an enigma to me.

I have it on pretty good authority that any time I get a project, other gca's think it's underhanded.  At least, they know for sure I didn't get it on talent.

I guess with all the backstabbing going on in EVERY project, it would be hard to develop a golf architecture version of "CLUE" since it would always be an architect, with a knife.  I guess the room could be in question......but it would never be Mr. Mustard with a lead pipe.

Jeff — Those are all good points. Including the nice mention about you still having hair. Of course, you are beginning to be able to count them as I can!  

I suspect a lot of stories cannot be told here. I have a rich letter in my possession that is an outright assualt against my design abilities. It was written by a duo of designers many years ago — more than 20 — in which they take great pride in ripping apart a course design of mine and calling my client a bafoon if he were to actually allow me to build this monster of a course. Their angle was to get the assignment away from me. In fairness, I suspect some people at my client's office had solicited their input...but I still felt it was against the professional ethics, wherever they may be held or etched onto a large stone.

One story that is worth relating involved the new Ridge Creek GC in Dinuba, CA. We interviewed for that work and were selected by the City's review panel. It was exciting news and we set about to prepare a contract and schedule a meeting to review specifics and how the project would be managed, etc.  

Before our first meeting we prepared an agenda about contracting matters, project management, the public approval process, etc.  At the first meeting several representatives of the City showed up and the discussions seemed off target. Our team was confused, but we held to the agenda and set goals for getting things coordinated so we could begin.

Two days later the City Manager called me and said, "Well, following our second interview we have selected John Fought." Of course, I questioned what he meant by a second interview...no second interview was ever mentioned — and our team was there to begin work, not be interviewed.

Something obviously went wrong. While I am glad to see John get the work — I am sure he will do a great job — it was a huge blow to us and resulted in a very poor year. Keep in mind that, as a small office, when we spend time going after a project it involves considerable resources...not to mention time.

Now, I am not in any way linking any back-stabbing by John. He is not that kind of guy and is very talented. Certainly he is qualified. But in this case it was an awful process...and one that breaks the barrier for terribly handled selection and communication. The essence of my plea to the City of Dinuba was this: If they felt we had undergone a "second interview" then the public process simply had not been served...none of my team had been at a meeting to be interviewed or show capabilities or to follow-up on our already stellar presentation...we simply came prepared to begin and were following an agenda that had been submitted in advance.

I smelled a rat in their process. Unfortunately, the stinch is still lingering...

(So, that's one story...someone else needs to go now...)

Forrest, I am lucky. I haven't even started to count grey hairs yet.......

Sorry to hear about that process, but as we all know, Californian are just plain goofy.......  It does raise an interesting point in that so many people do not want to tell us the bad news that we didn't get the Project, when in fact, we take that kind of news very well.  As noted in my above post, we lose (or don't win) projects at an average clip that rivals the correct weather predictions by local weather channels.

For them to put you through another air fare from AZ, and lead you on by (presumably) accepting your meeting agenda and contract preparation work by phone, fax, or email, suggests they should at least compensate you for that.  It does remind me of a small remodel job we thought we had.  Same scenario and we were instructed to prepared contracts, etc. only to hear through the Grapevine that the Owner had gone that far in the process with at least one, and probably TWO other firms, and eventually started work with another firm.  

I usually write upbeat letters to a club after being rejected, but in that one, I semi-politely suggested that their actions were unethical, and that while I was letting it drop, I was aware of several contractors (but no architects) have sued over "loss of opportunity" under similar circumstances.

As I write this, I can think of a few other deals that have shades of unethical behavior on the part of the client, including one who called me to tell me the "Great News" that he had enlisted Arnie to co-design a course with me after I had done all the routings, etc.  I failed to see how that news was great, and backed out of the deal, leaving Arnie to do the work.

GCA...A Ruthless Business....?

Forrest,

No it's not. The ASGCA is remarkably civil when you think about it. I talk to at least 10 architects on a monthly basis. Even Tom Doak turned out to be friendly. It's competitive, but so is any business.

Their is a difference between new projects, full scale renovations, sympathetic renovations and restorative work. It’s from one extreme to the other as you go through each category. The competitors are fierce in the first and recommend each other in the last. I have more terrific stories of my competition than bad ones.

Adam,
I think Silver Rock presents itself exactly as it is: They got what they deserved. But honestly, while it's not the greatest course in the world, it certainly isn't the worst and for residents, talking with a few of them, they love the place. They think it's affordable.

As far as what could have been, well, I learned a lot on that one, much thanks to Forrest & Dr. Mike Hurdzan whom I'll say both made a pretty decent presentation. Forrest is really good at doing this stuff, and is entertaining as well but the fact is that the project was Palmer's all along, even though they interviewed 35+/- firms who supposedly had as good of a chance (ha ha) as Palmer in getting it.

The entire process means despite what many already knew or suspected, that the City or local government has to go thru those interviews, even though they know who they want and in this case covent.

Jeff, No worries, I got the joke and a smiley face was not needed.

Gotta go now, your momma has some biscuits and gravy waiting for me! (Yes, that was a "Momma" joke as in "Don't you be talkin' bout' my Momma!")

Now that's underhanded!

Ian — Maybe the post title would be better as a question.

Do not take my post as meaning that I detest or abhor the business. I think it is the greatest adventure in the world.

But...there are awful stories. And, compared to how many projects there are, it is a surprisingly large percentage that are subject to ruthless tales.

I will bet that 1 out of 20        projects in our business have some sordid story that might be told. And, while it is not all about ethics, the 1 in 20 are likely to involve underhanded politics — and, certainly NOT just by design professionals!

Forrest,

I fully realize there is a lot of underhanded things that go on. I find it interesting that almost all the work that has been brought up is public.

But you must also have situations where a project has literally walked itself through the front door ready to go. And even once in a blue moon ended up with a project someone else began.

There was a recent situation where three architects (in the frozen tundra) were all up for the same project. The owner was leaning one way when one of the other two architects halved his fee (seriously halved!) to take the job in the last minute. Its crappy, but that's business isn't it.

Forrest:  I would imagine the number is significantly more than 1 in 20, or I would only have one or two stories to tell.  I'll share just one, because it worked out okay in the end.

When Julian Robertson loved Pacific Dunes and hired us to design Cape Kidnappers, he did so at the expense of David Harman, who had designed Kauri Cliffs to great acclaim, and who certainly felt like he was in position to get the other job.  Julian asked me if it was alright for David to stay on in a "project management" role (which was really his background), but he did not tell David about my involvement until I made my first visit to see the site.

After we did our preliminary routings, Bruce Hepner and I went back to New Zealand to walk through it with Julian and so Bruce could get started on some clearing work, and we found to our dismay that David Harman had staked out his own routing for the course and that we were going to compare the two!

I thought I did a pretty good job of handling that situation professionally and justifying our decisions.  We asked Julian what it was he didn't like about our plan, took that feedback, and made some adjustments, and Julian was happy to work with us from there.  I found out afterward that he used to choose stock investments for his hedge fund the same way -- to pit two smart guys against one another and listen to them fight out the pros and cons -- but I certainly didn't expect that's what I had signed up for.

I was sorry to hear when David Harman passed away a couple of winters ago from cancer, because we had never really patched that up between us.  I understood where he was coming from, thinking the job should have been his from the start, but he certainly shouldn't have handled it the way he did.

As Jeff mentioned, there are always projects where the client who's hired you doesn't have the money to make it work, and the second investor wants to go a different direction ... those hurt, but that's business.  The management companies who insist on a marketable name are more offensive to me, especially when they insist on paying a name pro more than the guy who is actually doing all the work.

Tom D. — It is unfortunate that things did not get fully patched. But, I suspect that David probably knew you meant no harm and were simply placed in an awkward position. I supose awkward is an understatement.  

And, I agree...1 in 20 was kind. Call it new math!