[Jeff_Mingay]

I'm looking for a reaction...

Say you're sitting Green committee chair who's just hired a golf course design firm to devise a restorative-based plan for your classic course.

They've already been paid some $40,000 to tell you 1) the bunkers need to be rebuilt, and a few others restored. 2) A number of trees should be taken down. 3) Several green surfaces expanded and a number of fairway mowing patterns adjusted accordingly.

Oh yeah, and 4) a few tees should be redone, principally to improve drainage.

But now, in order to proceed, they've advised some $200,000 worth of architectural drawings are required. [Remember, this isn't a new course construction project. It's rebuilding 50-60 bunkers and, say, 18 tees; taking down some trees; expanding some green surfaces; and adjusting some fairway mowing patterns.]

How do you react as Green committee chair?

[Chris_Clouser]

I'd say, "Great, now you can do the rest of the work for free after you have those drawings, correct?"

 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
In order for me to react I need to know how much you think the job should be worth. Is there any industry standards relative to fees for this type of work?

[A_Clay_Man]

I've wanted to know more about how this architecture business works.

Jeff, you have not painted a pretty picture for this one case and i assume most projects and individuals are all different, so there is really no such thing as a norm?

[woof]

Jeff:  If I catch your drift, your reaction is that you are shocked at the potential cost of the construction documents.  As an architect, I will give you my reaction.  I believe perhaps you are performing classic client analysis whereby you are trying to separate the value of the product from the value of the service.  You have engaged the design firm because they provide a service you or your committee can't provide:  golf course design.  You are benefiting from the firm's sum total of experience in the field, presumably developed over many years and many projects.  Experience which can actually be applied to your project.  This has a value beyond the actual production cost of the documentation.

As for the documentation, if you figure an average weighted billing rate of $100/hr, the cost of $200,000 would support 2000 hours of work.  At an average of about 60 hours per sheet, this would give a set of drawings in the neighborhood of 30 sheets.  At three bunkers per sheet, and two tees per sheet, we are up to 29 sheets, plus some miscellaneous details, the reshaped greens, and the tree removal program.  Also, who is running the bid process for a construction firm, and who is obtaining permits?  The cost, at least to me, does not seem all that out of line.

[RJ_Daley]

If you are really not messing with surface flow-water course management nor drainage off site due to regrading, and you do not need local authority permitting for the scope of the work you are doing, I say the green chairman already over paid 40K for the advise.  To add insult to injury of the club's coffers and pay another 200K for drawings of stuff that can predominantly be done on the fly and in the field by the super is outrageous.  Of course I can see the need for drawings for sighting new bunkers or relocating old ones, and some drawings for remodelling existing.  But, 200K?  Does irrigation upgrade or build-out get include in that?  How good is the current "as built"?  Is it digitally saved and can it be used for the new drawings?  I can think of a lot of AutoCadd and other CAD technitions that would love to do drawings for alot less... If the super is at all experienced and competent, I think he could work with a local CAD tech and surveyor to upgrade a good as-built.  I can't believe there are not design/build GCAs (some who check in on this site) that wouldn't do it for a whole lot less.  I think the desire for detailed drawings of bunker work varies from shaper/operator to operator.  Unless the project you describe above Jeff involves much more than stated above, it seems over the top.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
This is where I feel it is best to carry a 2x4 to meetings like that. It comes in very handy.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
Are you really looking for an answer or just making a point
Mark

[RJ_Daley]

I'm trying to resolve my statement with the self identified architect, Mr Woof's.  Perhaps we need to go back and redefine the project.  

Jeff speaks of a "restorative-based plan for your classic course".  Does this mean a complete set of drawings to; (a)replace an old 'as-built'; (b) do a long range plan and provide a set of drawings that doesn't even currently exist in any form; (c) give members an idea of scope of work; (d) provide working guidance for constructors to follow an absentee architects design?

AS for these items: "2) A number of trees should be taken down. 3) Several green surfaces expanded and a number of fairway mowing patterns adjusted accordingly.
Other than a probable need to move or relocate some sprinkler heads requiring digging trenches to build out the lines to nearby relocated head placements, how many drawings would one need?  If a tree falls at the edge of a fairway does it need a drawing?  If a fairway edge is mowed differently and still gets the needed irrigation coverage, does it need a drawing.  What is the going rate for "drawings" done with an orange spray can?

As for bunkers, we need to know how many are going to be re-sighted in new locations or are they going to be cored out in their places with new subsurface bases and drainage lines and edges rebuilt.  New ones with proper surround grading and land excavation could at least need some degree of working documentation defining the scope and method of construction.  But, for whom and why are detailed drawings needed for restoration or cleaning out poorly draining ones.  

As for tees: "
4) a few tees should be redone, principally to improve drainage"  If one is not sighting completely new teeing grounds with raised pads and graded surrounds and new irrigation line extentions, why do you need new drawings?  I have seen several tee projects done by the super and a local excavator where the sod is removed, the tee pad is cored out, the new drainage lines installed, gravel placed, and rootzone replaced and regraded-leveled, reset the sprinkler head, and then sodded and ready for play in a couple of weeks.  No detailed drawings...

Mr Woof, 2000 hours is one man's work for a year!  Are you woofing me?

[cary lichtenstein]

Why don't you get an architect/shaper to do the shaping in the field instead of on paper? You may get more for your money, a much more creative job, and pay a hell of a lot less.

Otherwise, you might have a nice bunch of drawings, but when it's all over, you could be very dissappointed in that not much was done.

Since it appears that you have lost confidence in the architect, now is the best time to find someone else. Consider the $40,000 well spent, and find someone that will creatively turn you and your committee on.

[woof]

To RJ Daley:  Obviously what is missing from the original posting is a formal definition of scope.  I assumed  a very rigid scope while you are proposing one a bit more relaxed.  So it is difficult to say how long the project should take to document and how detailed it should be.  Nonetheless, $200,000 will allow about 2000 hours, to include overhead and profit.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I have been the guy on the other end of the question, albeit it with slightly lower numbers for both master plan and CD's.

On smaller projects, many clubs find it tough to shell out for full fare drawings.  Naturally, the club is going to question the cost of construction documents, and many times they decide to wing it without the architect, going only on his/her master plan.

Don't ask me how I know this

I suppose the value of the construction documents would depend on a few things.  Could you save the architects fee through lower prices via competitive bid, careful evaluation of the contractors work beyond your ability to monitor, or the cost of just one or a few mistakes by his greater involvement?  In many cases, it is a worthwhile gamble for a club to simply pay a premium to a well known contractor and hope for the best, with more limited role of the golf course architect.

Then, there is the question of whether you need documentation for authorities, ie an architect verifying that ADA regulations have been met, for instance, or that flood plain storage is acheived.  The large fee is really for the architect to take control of the project on the club's behalf.  You don't say it, but I assume the fee also includes bids and construction evaluation and administration.

From the sounds of your case, it sounds like you(they?) may be best off negotiating with the architect for some service limitations, wing it a bit more, and take more responsibility for many items, but keep him involved.  Rarely do contractors, or even superintendents have the broad perspective necessary to make snap field decisions, and its worth having an architect in some capacity.

Of course, I have seen clubs do this, and it turns out that instead of one person in charge, there are several, which is worse than none at all!  

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

I see the fee question hard to answer.  What are you "getting"...hopefully more than some drawings.  I would hope for 200k you receive many items.  Including detailed site visits pre-design/planning, site visits druing construction and post construction/grow-in.  Also the prep of specs and selection of contractors/shapers and policing of materials selected and used and the installation there of etc etc etc.

As for just hiring a survey crew for the greenskeeper?  A fresh view away from the daily view that is seen every day is vital.  The ability to not have the committee riding the super causing fear of losing his job if each persons motive is not accomplished...priceless.

I beleive the fee is not high but I also dont know the scope of work.

[cary lichtenstein]

Jeff: Is the scope of your plan an exact restoration, or do you want to do more? I don't know your home course, but if you are going to spend the money to restore it, then perhaps you and your committee should have an architect that you admire and respect, really look it over without over directing him.

Maybe what you are looking for more than what you say?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff: Is the scope of your plan an exact restoration, or do you want to do more? .....Maybe what you are looking for more than what you say?

Its not hard to imagine that an architect doing an "exact restoration" would spend substantially more time on site and in planning than one given carte blanche to blow out a course and start over.  You couldn't ask for more difficult task than an exact restoration at a well known club, given the politics and sensitivities of the thing.  Much of the fee may be allocated by the architect for inevitable redos, emergency meetings, etc.

If the club wants an exact restroration, they should be willing to pay someone to oversee it carefully, assuming they don't have a superintendent who is also very sensitive - and savvy about contract issues with contractors.

[ian]

Run, and run away fast!

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Jeff:

I will second what Ian advised.

Dick

[Neal_Meagher]

Hmmmmmmmmm$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ?

The first thing that comes to my mind is what kind of directive has your committee given said architect?  If they are insisting on an air-tight set of plans and specs for bidding, the type usually associated with municipal and/or government work, then I might, kind of, possibly understand the fee.  The architect would, in that case, have to take great care to address every conceivable element that could rear its ugly head during construction to cover everyone's arse.

Yet, again without knowing any of the details, methinks a more loose arrangement with a qualified contractor working in conjunction with the architect from the beginning would provide a more efficient way of achieving your goals.

Some clubs and owners simply have to compare apples to apples when hiring a contractor which has its advantages.  But so does a design/build approach where everyone involved is highly qualified and trustworthy and has the primary goals of the restoration always uppermost in mind.  In that type of arrangement you would be paying for more hands-on time, rather than exhaustive "product".

[Mark_Fine]

And I will third it    

This is a good example of what I sometimes call in business my "toss it over the wall" syndrome.  One guy does work on something, then tosses it over the wall to the next guy to work on (and figure out).  Often he then tosses it back again and the process repeats itself.  In this case, the drawings are what gets tossed over the wall.  I am convinced there is no need for such detailed drawings if there is good communication between the architect and the contractor.  They are added expense that make golf expensive (especially on a "restoration").
Mark

[Mike_Young]

I don't think there is any way to tell if the value is there unless someone knows the details.  For Ex:  if it is a 2 million restoration and the architectural fees are $200,000 whats the big deal.  The design contract might be broken out over the course of the project to include visits etc.
Also, I also think that most of the old plans I have seen have no technical merit at all in regard to accurate contours etc.  While they may show the outline of a green complex , bunker placements in 2D and show + or - elevations they do not allow for interpretation to an exact duplication.  And in saying that I would say that I do not think there has ever been a course built that matched the drawings.  I know that if someone was to take a set of my drawings in 50 years and rely on them for a restoration they would not have what I put on the ground.  THEREFORE it could be that the accurate and detailed restoration drawings were going to require a very accurate topo which would be done with GPS most likely could increase the cost significantly.
On top of that I have had one renovation we presented our drawings to the club in digital photo format with "photo shop" renovations as well as a complete 3D vitual rendering which can greatly increase cost.  BUT...it can help a membership understand what they are receiving and enable one to see the proposed finish.  
 Hell if an architect saves a client one or two runs of large pipe here and there he might have paid for these services.
I think all would agree it is better to make mistakes on paper.
And after all of this ranting I would still rather work in the dirt.

[Forrest Richardson]

My father spent his entire life designing things. So have I. What have I learned?

The cost of design — be it creative thinking, consultation, or drawing plans and overseeing the building process — is the least of all the costs of any building project. If done correctly, and with care, it will be well worth any fees paid out.

Whenever I hear of persons questioning the design cost it strikes me they may not understand the value of the design professional. This does not mean that it might also be that the design is "costly" — for I will agree this can occur.

BUT...if the designer has been hired and is officially engaged — and this usually means there has been a process and he/she is respected among those making the decisions — the the cost of the designer is NEVER an issue, for it is always a comparatively small sum to the cost and importance of the improvements or creation to be had.

[Ramon T. Hernandez]

"Run Forrest. Run."

[Craig Disher]

Jeff,
The actual construction work you describe must be in the $500K-$1M range. Even at the high end, $200K for drawings is outrageous. But if the club already spent $40K for a master plan, should the green chairman really be surprised?

I KNOW that a high quality "restorative" plans don't have to cost $200K no matter what the subsequent construction costs are.

[jimbob]

In perspective, a million dollars will get you 18 sheets of drawings for each greens complex at 40 scale, 1" to 100'
grading plan for fairways and bunker grading, maybe two sheets, a landscape planting plan for trees, maybe four sheets, an irrigation plan, full set with details, 9 sheets?
and maybe two sheet af details, PLUS, a round of golf on opening day from a prominent golfer, I won't say if its Jack, Arnie or who.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

$To me 200,000K is high given the scope of work. Dirt calcs
can be done of of a 1" t0 100" topo to determine any cut and fill. To have 30 drawings for a few tees and bunkers is ovberkill. One sheet for each greens complex makes sense.
I would expect to execute the plan with ten pages of drawings. Mr. Woof to for my firm, if we spent that many hours on ten pages of grading plans, we would be out of business. What am I saying? Why do I need thirty pages of drawings to do 1mil worth of work. I've spent 2.5 mil with
only 4 1" to 100' sheets and built 18 holes including irrigation?
Seriously folks, if there are any engineers or architects out there you know what thirty pages will get you.

[grandwazo]

At our club we are in the process of interviewing architects to help us with the renovation of a relatively non descript 1960ish Alfred Tull or Joe Finger (we're not really sure) designed course.  We have had the pleasure of meeting with a number of architects whose work has been discussed on GCA and they have all been extremely patient with us, taking the time to meet with us free of charge, in some cases more than once for extensive periods of time.  

From these discussions I get the feeling that all of these gentleman don't get to spend enough time at home, but love what they do so much they are willing to accept the fact they have to travel too much and listen to the same sad stories about membership's that all suffer from the same lack of foresight and commitment to continue to improve their golf courses.

The quotes we have received have all been pretty consistent, the only variation on the "Master Plan" price being how many visits the architect will make during the drawing process.  The price has been consistently around $50,000 and the plans consist of a basic drawing of the total site, highlighting the areas to be worked on, and then individual drawings of each area, with no limitation to how many pages that might be.
 
The drawings are developed from aerials that cost approx another $12K, but in some cases as low as $6K depending on the architects needs.  

Each architect then offers their services for overseeing the construction firm we get to choose and bills a percentage of the overall cost of the job.  $2million - $200K in most cases.  All of the architects have been willing to collect their fee for construction management on an "as performed" basis.  If it takes us 2 years or 5, it doesn't seem to matter.  The only big difference has been that one of two have stated that they will participate directly in shaping, whereas the rest will leave it to the contractor to follow their drawings with some oversight provided by the architect.

What does come through loud and clear in each meeting is how much these men love what they do, how much pride they take in it and the mark they hope to leave behind.  I would certainly hope that the "service" they are selling has a value above and beyond the hours or the page count.  

As far as the $200K price for drawings that started this thread, I have to believe that there are additional services included in this price and that's it's tied to the overall budget for the project.  If not, I would have to agree that the price would seem high based on the limited experience I have had with the process.

Regardless, this discussion is one of the reasons why I enjoy GCA as much as I do.  You learn something new everyday and gain perspective that is invaluable.  Thank you gentleman.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()