Golf Construction Companies - How many? How are they get contracted?

[Jeff Schley]

Just posted about the Wadsworth Golf Construction Company and was thinking I don't know much about golf construction companies. I have heard of a Mccurrach, but that is the only other one I have heard of.
Couple questions for those GCA's and others who are in the know.

• 1. How many major golf construction companies (GCC) are there active?
• 2. Who hires the GCC? Is this the client or the GCA and who they prefer?
• 3. Do some GCC do design or have in house designers? I would guess limited to some small scope projects.
• 4. Are there any GCA's who have their own GCC's, vertically integrated?
• 5. What makes one GCC better than the other? Is is following plans or price or playing nice?

I was looking through the Wadsworth portfolio and it is quite impressive as they have been around for so long. But curious who the other major players are and why they are preferred.

[Adam Lawrence]

Most of the big names are members of the GCBAA.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

We have used Oliphant for the construction of a new 9 hole course that opened in '19  and a 4M renovation of a 25 year old Arthur Hills course that will open in November. We will soon have 3 courses in our community in the West Valley of Phoenix.  We hired Oliphant because they were doing work in the area and were available on short notice. They have done a great job for us.


https://www.oliphantgolf.com/

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just posted about the Wadsworth Golf Construction Company and was thinking I don't know much about golf construction companies. I have heard of a Mccurrach, but that is the only other one I have heard of.
Couple questions for those GCA's and others who are in the know.

• 1. How many major golf construction companies (GCC) are there active?
• 2. Who hires the GCC? Is this the client or the GCA and who they prefer?
• 3. Do some GCC do design or have in house designers? I would guess limited to some small scope projects.
• 4. Are there any GCA's who have their own GCC's, vertically integrated?
• 5. What makes one GCC better than the other? Is is following plans or price or playing nice?

I was looking through the Wadsworth portfolio and it is quite impressive as they have been around for so long. But curious who the other major players are and why they are preferred.

1. Like Adam says, see GCBAA
2. Traditionally, the owner hires the contractor.  There are some design build (and always have been, as Mike Young will point out, read the book on RTJ senior.   But even Pete Dye didn't hire all the workers, he had the owner do it.  The reasoning is that it is hard - not impossible, but expensive - to get design errors and omissions insurance if you are also involved in construction.  Some don't think that is a big deal.....until it is, of course.
3. I know a few contractors with in house design.  Most will find a young (or other) gca willing to work cheap behind the scenes on a project by project basis.  Contract piece work is less expensive than employees.
4.See above.
5.Probably playing nice.  Before Wadsworth, owners would hire some tree clearers, road graders, irrigation guys, seeders, paving, etc.  The golf course GC puts that all together and coordinates the sequence of events.  And, they understand that golf courss are free form, not roads to strict line and grade, whereas the old road contractors were (and are) generally quick to pull out the change order pad. 


Most gca would say having the shapers are what makes them good.  Agree, but when asked, I always add financial stability.  Again, trusting a $5+ Million dollar project to a guy whose office is the hood of his truck doesn't really make a difference.....until it does, LOL.


In the traditional design-bid method there is a saying, "The owner owns, the designer designs, and the builder builds."  In the ideal arrangement for most, "owning" consists of writing checks, LOL.


I will also say there are always a few regional contractors who don't see the value in GCBAA, just as some gca's see no value in ASGCA.  They tend to be smaller, but sometimes, small and nimble is just what a project needs.

[Brian Ross]

Just posted about the Wadsworth Golf Construction Company and was thinking I don't know much about golf construction companies. I have heard of a Mccurrach, but that is the only other one I have heard of.
Couple questions for those GCA's and others who are in the know.

• 1. How many major golf construction companies (GCC) are there active?
• 2. Who hires the GCC? Is this the client or the GCA and who they prefer?
• 3. Do some GCC do design or have in house designers? I would guess limited to some small scope projects.
• 4. Are there any GCA's who have their own GCC's, vertically integrated?
• 5. What makes one GCC better than the other? Is is following plans or price or playing nice?

I was looking through the Wadsworth portfolio and it is quite impressive as they have been around for so long. But curious who the other major players are and why they are preferred.

Jeff,

1. According to the Golf Course Builder's Association of America, there are 281 active golf course builders in the United States, however that number is fairly skewed. Of the 281 members, only 24 are GCBAA "Certified Builders". Many are either very small, working mainly in one state or region, some only offer irrigation services, and some are just affiliate members.

2. Typically the owner hires the contractor, though the architect certainly has some say in who the chosen contractor is. Sometimes this is done via a competitive bid and other times the contractor is selected upfront based on some preexisting relationship or other reason.

3. Yes, some builders provide in-house design services. McDonald and Sons is one who comes to mind (Andrew Green came into the design business in that role, for example).

4. Yes, some architects have their own construction company but not very many do this. RTJ is one prominent historical example. Kris Spence and Spence Golf is a modern example.

5. There are many factors that go into this answer. Many builders have relationships with certain architects and tend to get a lot of those architect's projects. Being available when needed, being able to get projects to completion on-time and on-budget, being able to find and then maintain a competent workforce, and obviously the quality of their work tend to separate the best from the rest.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


My model has not been design/build but design/shape . . . which is the same used by Bill Coore and Gil Hanse, though we each have it structured a bit differently.


I didn't want the liability of finishing the whole course, but I did want control over the shaping, instead of being reliant on a contractor who had a profit motive.  So, I built my own team of guys to do the shaping work.  And since a lot of our projects had relatively minimal earthmoving, the only "golf" contractor we needed to help us was someone who specialized in golf course irrigation -- which, like Wadsworth [and Don Mahaffey who participates here], is where most golf course contractors got their start.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


I understand the distinction and motivation for your method.  I will say, although they probably won't say it, it drives contractors crazy, specifically in that their contract still makes them liable for completion dates, etc., and they can be at the mercy of independent shapers.  One gca's contract for the same method specifies his guys can take a vacay at any time, including during the final push, which hardly seems fair to the general contractor.  Generally, I favor the single point of responsibility be with the contractor.


I have seen few instances where the profit motive has really kept shaping changes back.  I actually have a "yards, feet, inches" clause in the shaping section, recognizing that I have the right to major changes (moving a green several yards, if necessary) but after that, changes have to keep getting incrementally smaller.  I think that isn't too much to ask an architect, to make up his mind at some point, LOL.


The most trouble I have with independent project foreman or shapers is simply clash of egos or passive aggressive personalities.  Every so often, you run into one that would prefer to build almost anything other than what I have drawn and modified.  Tough line to follow, because every so often, the shapers come up with an idea I would have never thought of and improve the project greatly.  Working with guys who have just come off a Doak, Fazio, Young, or whatever course increase the number of ideas under consideration, which often helps creativity over always working with the same guys.


So, in the end, it comes down to the people, and contracts mean less, but it can go all ways, for sure.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff B:


My post was really aimed at Jeff Schley who started this thread; I know you know how our system works, generally.


I've heard several architects complain over the years that their course would have been better "if they'd just had another $50,000 in the shaping budget".  [Never mind that many construction bids are shell games designed to hide where the profits are being made.]  With my approach, this will never happen . . . if I really have to keep two guys on site for two more months to get it right, I will, even if it comes out of my design fee.  I'm sure most young architects will tell me they can't afford to do that; I would counter that I get paid more because I am willing to do that.


I do not believe we have driven contractors crazy.  Most of them are pleased as punch to know they don't have to staff our course with their "A" shapers because my crew do that, and while they might try to pretend we are holding them up somehow, they know better.  The one job we did with Landscapes Unlimited was the lowest budget 18-hole course they built that year -- AND the most profitable in terms of %, according to their project manager.


You are dead right, though, that you have to watch out for clashing egos and passive aggressive personalities.  Whichever of my associates is running the job has the final say on that.  Nobody is so valuable on the machine that they can get away with screwing up overall morale on the project.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Where do you draw the line between shaping and construction?  Who determines the exact shape, depth, etc of bunkers?  What if the fairway contours have to be changed to accomodate drainage - is that done by the construction firm, the architect or the shaper?


What about greens?  Who builds the greens?  Green surrounds?  Surely you will often have to make last minute changes in many instances and "call an audible" during construction, won't you?

[Tom_Doak]

Where do you draw the line between shaping and construction?  Who determines the exact shape, depth, etc of bunkers?  What if the fairway contours have to be changed to accomodate drainage - is that done by the construction firm, the architect or the shaper?

What about greens?  Who builds the greens?  Green surrounds?  Surely you will often have to make last minute changes in many instances and "call an audible" during construction, won't you?

Not sure if you are asking me, or Jeff regarding the usual approach.  Probably Jeff, since my play-calling on greens construction is essentially all done by audible.


Our shaping contract generally covers greens, bunkers, and changes to the fairway, with the caveat that we don't make many changes to the fairways.  Sometimes we leave tees to a contractor, and sometimes we include them, too.

[Jeff Schley]

Very good insights here and thanks to our resident GCA's who have so much experience to share. A couple questions:
1. Is there much debate about the type of grass to use for course rough/fairways/greens? I know it is climate dependent, but is this part of the conversation with the client? Maybe when you suggest fescue perhaps in areas which could bring a certain look?
2. Who project manages the entire thing? Is the GCA project managing the GCC or the other way around? In the contract are there more incentives and penalties for being ahead / behind schedule typically?
3. How often do the GCA and the GCC conflict to a point of having to separate during the construction of a project? Meaning one of the two either walk away or are fired? I assume the GCC would be replaced as the GCA is the name to market where the GCC is a service provider without a brand.
4. Are bunker renovations a specialty where you need a specialist?

[Thomas Dai]

Relating this to the other ongoing thread, the thread about technology -https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68522.0.html -
when on-site architect/assistant supervision isn't as available as some would like for whatever reason to what extent would technology aid both the supervision and direction of contractors work? And how would such use likely be received by contractors? Could it help both sides of the coin and ultimately the success of the project?
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Very good insights here and thanks to our resident GCA's who have so much experience to share. A couple questions:
1. Is there much debate about the type of grass to use for course rough/fairways/greens? I know it is climate dependent, but is this part of the conversation with the client? Maybe when you suggest fescue perhaps in areas which could bring a certain look?
With more grass varieties than a Colorado pot shop now, this varies quite a bit, and sometimes, never gets decided until its time to actually plant.
2. Who project manages the entire thing? Is the GCA project managing the GCC or the other way around? In the contract are there more incentives and penalties for being ahead / behind schedule typically?
Works all ways, but as I mentioned, usually, the owner owns (signs checks) the designer designs, and the builder builds.  Clear separation of responsibility doesn't seem important, but whenever there is a cost dispute, the argument usually goes to who should be responsible.
3. How often do the GCA and the GCC conflict to a point of having to separate during the construction of a project? Meaning one of the two either walk away or are fired? I assume the GCC would be replaced as the GCA is the name to market where the GCC is a service provider without a brand.
I had one job where I told the contractor that his shaper had to go, or at least be limited to tee shaping, and kept off greens, because he displayed an "I don't care" attitude on a good project.  On another, I told the company President the foreman had to go, because he wanted to be the architect more than the construction guys.  I think it's pretty rare to walk away from a job, especially after contracts are signed.  They usually stipulate that you finish the job or face a penalty, but rarely say you actually have to get along with everybody!  Like anything else, it is a people business.
4. Are bunker renovations a specialty where you need a specialist?
Most builders (or gca shaping teams) have a crew that (at least when the time comes) focus on bunkers.  Some are so good the gca doesn't really have to do much.  That said, the gca usually steps back and looks at a bunker renovation with eyes to design factors, like distance from tee, distance from green (do we really want to keep that thing 15 feet away from the green?) visibility, balance on other holes.  I just lobbied a club the other day to allow their gca out for a few site visits because catching just one mistake would more than pay for the site visit.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Relating this to the other ongoing thread, the thread about technology -https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,68522.0.html -
when on-site architect/assistant supervision isn't as available as some would like for whatever reason to what extent would technology aid both the supervision and direction of contractors work? And how would such use likely be received by contractors? Could it help both sides of the coin and ultimately the success of the project?
atb

No harm using it, but it is hard to envision not seeing the final greens float.  Back when you could first email photos of in progress work, we used to download them, mark them up with pen and scan or in photoshop, and send them back to save a site visit for a non green issue.  One example comes to mind was the 9th tee at the Quarry.  We wanted to have the tee be down in a chute, and for whatever, the contractor just couldn't read the grading plan, but did see what we wanted in a 3D rendering.


The same contractor had one of those GPS staking units. It was great, because while on a field visit, we could go to lunch or another part of the site and his guy could stake by "walking around" with that funny unit.  We came back, and for whatever reason, when we saw a 10 foot cut (anticipating a 4 foot one) we quickly saw we could change grades to move less dirt, and put that money somewhere else in some good old fashion "horse trading."


Technology isn't bad, but like anything else, it can be used badly.  Garbage in, garbage out.  It doesn't make you a better architect, but it can sometimes convey ideas better than waving your arms.  With 3D ability, the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words" is proven over and over again, with shapers and members.

[Tom_Doak]

1. Is there much debate about the type of grass to use for course rough/fairways/greens? I know it is climate dependent, but is this part of the conversation with the client? Maybe when you suggest fescue perhaps in areas which could bring a certain look?


     It is certainly part of the conversation with the client, especially on renovations where a membership will have definite opinions on whether bermuda greens or bent are acceptable -- even if they know nothing about the real differences in maintaining the two.  Also, the superintendent will definitely be part of the conversation, but sometimes he is already entrenched at the club and other times he has been recruited by the architect, so his influence could go any number of ways.  I have noticed that some seed salesmen will try to go around me to the client or superintendent if they are having no luck with me.




2. Who project manages the entire thing? Is the GCA project managing the GCC or the other way around? In the contract are there more incentives and penalties for being ahead / behind schedule typically?


Ideally, there should be a project manager looking after the Owner's interests, separate from the GCC's foreman or the architect's on-site representative.  But frequently the client will omit that position and just decide whether to trust the designer or the contractor to watch things on his behalf.


Many construction contracts have penalty clauses for seeding the course late, but these are useless when bad weather intervenes and there's nothing the contractor can do.  Meanwhile, for sure the overall bid will be higher if the deal is full of potential penalties.  The bottom line is, we all work outdoors and an owner will have to get used to that, sooner or later.  Hiring a good contractor is the most effective step you can take, as long as they have not spread themselves too thin.


I have done one or two jobs where the design fee included a bonus if the course was completed by a target date, which was really just a way to stop negotiating over the amount of my design fee.



3. How often do the GCA and the GCC conflict to a point of having to separate during the construction of a project? Meaning one of the two either walk away or are fired? I assume the GCC would be replaced as the GCA is the name to market where the GCC is a service provider without a brand.


I've never been fired off a job.  The only times I've seen a contractor fired was when the owner hired a lowball bidder against recommendations, and eventually had to admit it wasn't working.  Your assumption that the contractor rather than the architect would be fired in a dispute is not necessarily correct -- it depends where the client's priorities lie.



4. Are bunker renovations a specialty where you need a specialist?


For any renovation project, you need a contractor who is used to working in tight spaces with turf all around, otherwise the area that will have to be repaired is much greater.  Beyond that, everyone says they're a specialist, so it's buyer beware.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Where do you draw the line between shaping and construction?  Who determines the exact shape, depth, etc of bunkers?  What if the fairway contours have to be changed to accomodate drainage - is that done by the construction firm, the architect or the shaper?


What about greens?  Who builds the greens?  Green surrounds?  Surely you will often have to make last minute changes in many instances and "call an audible" during construction, won't you?

Wayne, again, ideally the designer designs, although I always allow for the possibility that a shaper will have a good idea or two, just as long as they run it by me first.  They can bail a gca out and make an average design look great, so you are foolish not to give them some rope.  Whether plans or supplemental sketches or verbal instructions, the gca should provide enough info for the builder to get started.


As I mentioned earlier, I do draw greens plans, and believe that, other than micro contours and a few field changes, most are pretty accurate.  I tell bidders to expect 14-15 will end up pretty close to plan, but I usually veg out on a few per course, wondering what I was possibly thinking that day......or, sometimes you miss an opportunity on paper (especially on heavily wooded sites) that reveals itself after clearing.  As one shaper told me, he wants at least the green size and angle to the centerline of play to start work.  I actually figure those out ahead of time, as well as bunker depth I want, % slope on the greens that I want in various areas, slope of fw approach, general mounding scheme around the green, including a nice wide walk up from cart path to green, and an ADA mandated access route.  The, the best shapers really get the flow going, sometimes raising a ridge a bit or flattening it into a graceful slope.


I also do fairly extensive drainage plans compared to most gca's.  But, they do need changes from time to time.  On a current project, the topo map didn't come out under the trees. I put in a few more basins than I really thought were needed, to avoid grading on tree roots.  The foreman asked if he could combine 2 that were close together and in a relatively open area, and of course I said yes, since it worked.  These guys have built dozens to hundreds of courses and often solve some problems in the field.


As I mentioned, the only problems are when shapers really play architect and refuse or are reluctant to work collaboratively. 

[Jeff Schley]

2. Who project manages the entire thing? Is the GCA project managing the GCC or the other way around? In the contract are there more incentives and penalties for being ahead / behind schedule typically?


Ideally, there should be a project manager looking after the Owner's interests, separate from the GCC's foreman or the architect's on-site representative.  But frequently the client will omit that position and just decide whether to trust the designer or the contractor to watch things on his behalf.


Many construction contracts have penalty clauses for seeding the course late, but these are useless when bad weather intervenes and there's nothing the contractor can do.  Meanwhile, for sure the overall bid will be higher if the deal is full of potential penalties.  The bottom line is, we all work outdoors and an owner will have to get used to that, sooner or later.  Hiring a good contractor is the most effective step you can take, as long as they have not spread themselves too thin.


I have done one or two jobs where the design fee included a bonus if the course was completed by a target date, which was really just a way to stop negotiating over the amount of my design fee.

For projects for a municipality, does the local city administrator or parks/recreation supervisor manage the project? I know that is common for city spent dollars, but not sure for golf courses. If so how has this worked?

4. Are bunker renovations a specialty where you need a specialist?
 everyone says they're a specialist, so it's buyer beware.
That is funny!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Many construction contracts have penalty clauses for seeding the course late, but these are useless when bad weather intervenes and there's nothing the contractor can do.  Meanwhile, for sure the overall bid will be higher if the deal is full of potential penalties.  The bottom line is, we all work outdoors and an owner will have to get used to that, sooner or later.  Hiring a good contractor is the most effective step you can take, as long as they have not spread themselves too thin.

[/size]Most city contracts have "Liquidated Damages", i.e., a daily penalty for every day beyond schedule.  That said, we keep track of rain days, etc., and if particularly rainy, a specific number of days or inches over the norm, the contractor is entitled to an extension on a day for day basis.  It is usually $500-1000 per day.  Some cities try to put $5000 a day on them, but Tom is right, then the bid goes up.  You have to calculate a number that is a bit painful, but not so much that the contractor pads the bid unnecessarily.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff S:


Others here would have far more experience working with municipalities than I do.


Generally, we don't try to get those jobs, because the RFP's are written for Jeff's method of building a golf course [plans - golf course contractor - change orders].  To me it sounds horribly inefficient -- I am staggered by how many millions of dollars it took to rebuild Torrey Pines or Harding Park -- but cities generally insist on doing business that way.


One of the most personally rewarding projects we have ever built was CommonGround -- which sounds like a muni but is actually run by the Colorado Golf Association(s).  They had saved up $4 million to make the course better, and trusted us to spend it for them.  I rerouted the golf course, rebuilt every feature, and we somehow saved enough in the process to build them a little par-3 course for kids, which has been enormously popular. 


But the idea of "trust" goes out the window when you are talking about doing business with municipalities, and every bit of mistrust results in paying more for the service.

[Jeff_Brauer]

plans-contractors-change orders, LOL.    


In my experience, most projects no matter what the method contractually, end up being basically unit price jobs.  If the architect says there are going to be 50,000 CY of earth, but for whatever reason, it ends up at 100,000, no one is going to do that work for half price.  (except in one unusual case, where the earthmover was in a divorce, bid earth at $0.50 CY when it should have cost a $1 per CY, and begged us to move more earth to bankrupt his company so his soon to be ex wouldn't get much.)


I agree that the municipal mentality probably drives up costs and more trust could yield lower costs.  But they probably get taxpayers at every meeting claiming they spend wastefully, and aren't going to risk re-election on a golf project (or any public works project, but golf seems "optional" compared to a water plant or something)  And, if you really want better examples, track a state or Federal job.  I did an Army base course once, and I got to see exactly how their contract provisions led to paying thousands for toilet seats and the like.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff B:


Did not mean to imply that your work requires change orders.  What I did mean to imply was that the threat of change orders tends to limit field changes to municipal courses, because there is supposedly a strict budget.