While there is potential for abuse in any system, and % of fee construction is one of them, its not all bad as some presume.
For instance, any given % number should remain viable over time, as in 7% of a current $4M project should be about the same as 7% of a $2M project in 1985. And, as long as the budget rises because of owner's wishes, it compensates the gca for more time invested, generally.
To be extreme, if the owner decided on 20 ft wide or golf plated cart paths, it doesn't cost the architect a whole lot more. On the other hand, a course with a full cart path system vs. none naturally causes us to spend more time on the design and construction evaluations. (Actually, I hate to read concrete design specs, but it comes with the territory.....)
There are ways to control the architect (contractually) from purposely over spending.And, presuming the construction fee was a bid amount and lump sum, it should be a good reflection of the architects work. Frankly, and as noted, the real potential for funny business comes in the design-build arrangement. In the traditional 3 part - Owner owns-Architect Designs and Evaluates Contractor for Owner- and Builder builds, there is some check and balance not possible with only two parties. Of course, many are totally honest. Others are not.
There are ways to control the architect (contractually) from purposely over spending.
For that matter, I could name several financial questions about the architect shaping projects, too. Typically, on a lump sum construction bid, contractors such as Landscapes, Wadsworth, etc. bid about $200K. And they are pretty open that they put a lot of profit in there, where it is more "protected" from line item budget cuts.
Where architects have carved out that shaping portion for their own shapers, I have seen many bids of generally twice that, driving up construction costs. I am not saying anyone is dishonest (I have only known a few truly dishonest folks in this profession over 35 years) and there are a few very real reasons for the higher price:
* As it turns out, architects like making money on shaping just as much as contractors.
* Given the emphasis on getting it just right, over speed, they probably they aren't as concerned with efficiency, either.
* They can't share any other construction overhead in preparing their price for construction shaping services, which naturally sort of drives up the cost. It naturally costs more to have two construction companies doing similar things.
* Add in that the general contractor needs to put whatever profit he placed in shaping (again, usually a lot - hard to cut and low risk activity) he has to put that back in somewhere.
* Also, with many earth movers, they kind of shape generally (within a foot or so) in mass excavation. The shaping price to tweak it to the magic that is golf features is probably not as much work as a portion of the whole as the fee for separating it out typically is.
* Lastly, separate contractors with varying motivations can cause friction on the construction site, not to mention construction management problems. I have seen some architects write the construction contracts so the general takes all the responsibility for schedule, but then have its crew take vacations, etc. Clearly, it is best to have single point responsibility for a multi million dollar construction project. What's the old saying...Two people in charge is worse than no one in charge?
Again, many good architects do it this way and good people can navigate the problems for a reasonable price. But, the above points are something to consider for most owners when they select a construction method. Basically, it all comes down to people.