Dan,
No, my contract for design clearly states in that case that my services are done 60 days after substantial completion. That protects me from being called back w/o pay for a variety of related projects, but it also turns the course over to the Owner.
Mr. Wedge implied that his club has had an architect prepare a master plan or consult in other ways on an ongoing basis, and probably have had some work done to that plan or those recommendations.
If, in fact, the relationship was long ago, and for a specific project, like new greens on three holes, for examle, and the services are complete, then the club probably has no obligation to call the first architect or formally terminate a relationship. They are starting a new project, or a whole new direction (restoration vs renovation) and again are entitled to find a gca who fits their needs.
Then, they might just send a form letter to all saying they are requesting proposals for a restoration plan from qualified gca's, etc. If they choose to send one to the original gca, since they believe he may be qualified, when the original gca calls, they can inform him of why they are soliciting new proposals - to get an idea of what might be out there in the way of a new approach that meets their new directives.
I agree with Scott that they should go through an excersise of defining where they really want to go before calling a bunch of gca's based on a particluar skill set - i.e, restoration.
Corey,
I see little value in having the new gca focus on what was not liked about the old plan. I am sure it will come up in disucssions so they can know what was not favored, but really they should focus on doing what the club currently wants. In the interview process, it should be up to candidates to show you how they WOULD capture the flavor, you want, not rehash how the old one didn't.
If for some reason, the original gca was justifying his work to another gca or the club itself, he would probably say they went through the traditional design process of analyzing, preparing prelim plans for approval and then final plans before construction. Whatever their qualifications and experience, there is a similar design process intended to get the gca and club on the same page as much as possible. If the club (or certain members) don't like the work, its possible that they:
Weren't involved or paying attention (if that was their role) during construction,
Just prefer a subtle style differentiation. For example, I am not sure if I could replicate a Travis bunker, for example, and if that was a requirement, then maybe you should find another gca who could, or
Just have a vague sense it could be better.....(or a specific hole someone dislikes)
Have a great passion for the course (which is good, but also tends to lead to dissatisfaction.......)
Having some members dissatisfied with the work in a renovation is pretty typical. No one agrees on everything.
Knowing the gca involved in your club, I suspect its not a total botched job, and I know they did attempt to go through that process to identify the history of your course and the best way to keep that and also meet modern needs.
If the current board members aren't happy with the results, you can hire a new gca and consider it a lesson learned. However, it is surprising how many clubs go through multiple architects and are never quite happy. Could it be there is something just as amiss with the club decision making process as there is with the gca in those cases?