Guesst,
I chose the cheapest GC I could get who I thought could achieve the results I wanted.
I became familiar with the tile and cabinetry industry in my locale.
I requested my GC hire the specific tile and cabinet people I wanted, and I specified the appliances.
The other work he hired out as he saw fit, and I trusted him to see to it they got it right. The subs were responsible for their own finished product. The GC was responsible for the overall job.
A few more questions, then I'll answer yours.
If the sub you insisted that the GC hire, messed up, would you hold the GC responsible, or the sub you wanted ?
If the sub and the GC were in conflict, each blaming each other, how would you determine responsibility ?
How could you pick the cheapest GC and then dictate the subs, when the subs might have been very expensive, due to the quality of their work ?
How could the GC give you a cheap price, without the subs prior approval ? And, if the subs were expensive, then you couldn't hire the cheapest GC to get the job done.
Was there a penalty clause if the work wasn't done by a certain date ?
Apparently, you chose the subs and price wasn't a consideration, but your choice of the GC was price related.
That appears to be conflicting goals.
To answer your question, I wouldn't put a team together, that might create more problems then you feel it solves.
Who would the subs be loyal to, the GC or me ?
I'd leave the team choice to the architect, with the understanding that the architect knows and understands the finished product that I want.
The bidding process would be in place, however, the lowest bidder might not be awarded the job.
I can't imagine dictating who Pete Dye, Tom Doak or other architects are going to hire as their subs.
Neal Meagher,
The bidding process isn't absolute, there are caveats.
The lowest bidder doesn't always get the job.
The highest bidder doesn't always do the best job,
But, there is a "cost of quality" that is being ignored.
You can't buy tailor made clothes at off the rack prices,
and I'm sure that Guesst understands that analogy.
Craftsmanship, and the quality associated with it, come at a price, and it's usually not the lowest bidder's domain.
If you, your wife or children needed brain surgery or a heart transplant, would you award the job to the lowest bidder ?
Do you dare risk the lowest bidder ?
Guesst would have you believe that the cheapest GC got the job, yet she insisted on quality from two of the vital sub-contractors. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that I want the cheapest price, but you have to hire the most capable, and usually, not the most inexpensive sub-contractors.
On a golf course project, and we could use Merion as an example, where Mike Cirba, Tommy Naccarato and others complained about the construction techniques of MacDonald & Sons, with the use of machines, as opposed to hand work and craftsmanship.
Well, hand craftsmanship comes at a price, and that price may not be affordable. And, the membership might nix the project before it even began, if the project was to be done with hand labor, which would be expensive, and cause them to lose a season of golf.
The "golf course down time" for hand craftsmanship might not be acceptable to the membership.
Tell me what the cost of a car would be if it was built by hand versus the Detroit assembly line.
So, there's a conflict, that's glibly brushed aside.
Quality, it's cost in time and money, and awarding work to the lowest bidder.
Co-incidently, friends of mine are redoing their kitchen on a summer home. They are thorough, highly organized individuals, well versed in the construction trades, who presented all of the GC's with a dictate. The kitchen must be up and ready by a specified date. With the availability of labor, sub-contractors, etc., etc., it eliminated many of the GC's, some of which were on their prefered list.
Hence, this notion of assembling a dream team might be akin to your chances of winning the lottery.