[Annie66]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

I believe the developer owns all of the championship courses

I believe you are correct. My thoughts were primarily focused on the executives courses.

[edtherock]

Thanks Brian Great info.
Can I suggest like the airports do at the bathrooms for customer surveys.
At each starter shack-during normal hours- an lcd panel be placed outside for each exec course. After a round is played the players enter their village id number and rate the course condition 1-5. That’s it. You get immediate feedback. You Can correlate it to maintenance dates, weather, whatever you like. Keep it as automated as possible. Real live feedback. If people really care they will have no problem entering their id and long 1-5. Or smiley or sad faces. Whatever you prefer. 15 seconds and done.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by edtherock

Thanks Brian Great info.
Can I suggest like the airports do at the bathrooms for customer surveys.
At each starter shack-during normal hours- an lcd panel be placed outside for each exec course. After a round is played the players enter their village id number and rate the course condition 1-5. That’s it. You get immediate feedback. You Can correlate it to maintenance dates, weather, whatever you like. Keep it as automated as possible. Real live feedback. If people really care they will have no problem entering their id and long 1-5. Or smiley or sad faces. Whatever you prefer. 15 seconds and done.

And like almost all surveys of that nature, the overall average result will be a 3.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And like almost all surveys of that nature, the overall average result will be a 3.

How is it possible that the folks who take care of the executive courses have no clue as to the condition of their courses?

Do they not check on the work of their employees?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by edtherock

Thanks Brian Great info.
Can I suggest like the airports do at the bathrooms for customer surveys.
At each starter shack-during normal hours- an lcd panel be placed outside for each exec course. After a round is played the players enter their village id number and rate the course condition 1-5. That’s it. You get immediate feedback. You Can correlate it to maintenance dates, weather, whatever you like. Keep it as automated as possible. Real live feedback. If people really care they will have no problem entering their id and long 1-5. Or smiley or sad faces. Whatever you prefer. 15 seconds and done.

Personally, I think that would just clutter up the areas at the Starter Shacks, which are already cluttered enough. Also, there's no "voter's booth". I think people are more comfortable criticizing, in the comfort of their own homes.

My suggestion, was to have 4 "fixed" questions, with 1-5 rating and a "rolling question", that could be anything they wanted.

I would simply ask: 1) How were the greens. 2) How were the fairways. 3) How were the Tee Boxes. 4) What was your overall satisfaction level.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And like almost all surveys of that nature, the overall average result will be a 3.

10 years ago, I'd agree with you. These days, not so much. People are more used giving "reviews" and with the analysis tools available these days, companies get a lot of valuable data from reviews and ratings.

[edtherock]

I disagree if I understand your message. I ran a 40 million dollar service business in the pulp and paper industry. About 8% of customers respond. Of those 8% there are basic averages -- the scale was 1-10. Anything below a 6 received IMMEDIATE attention from my team. Look up on the web : ------- Net Promoter Score------ and see how it works!
And you can certainly look at averages but AVERAGES ARE MEANINGLESS as you mentioned... What you are most concerned about is the number of low scoress you get and does the trend show it getting worst! If you have a better idea please list it here. I believe the people that play the courses are the ones complaining the last 12 months. So instead of trying to measure sentences and words and angry paragraphs and trying to interpret that data , use a simple survey.. NPS -- I believe-- while used more for profit and loss-- could be used for this situation.. When they want to increase our monthly fees and they get too many low scores, then they will have a hard time justifying that increase when the courses are rated low..

[Topgun 1776]

You didn't ask the hard questions. If weather, etc. were to blame, how come 10-12 executives and the pitch and putts had pristeen greens? Was the weather etc. any different 1 or 2 miles away from greens with bad conditions? Don't tell me about the amount of foot traffic either! Golf greens are meant to be played on...ALOT. The pitch and putts have more traffic of inexperienced golfers (every 7-8 min) dragging their feet, etc., but they looked beautiful. Thank you for your meeting and synopsis, but the solution is/was extremely simple:
Whatever whoever was doing differently at the courses with no issues....DUPLICATE it and STOP doing what whatever they were doing at the courses that were mistreated.

[asianthree]

Originally Posted by Topgun 1776

You didn't ask the hard questions. If weather, etc. were to blame, how come 10-12 executives and the pitch and putts had pristeen greens? Was the weather etc. any different 1 or 2 miles away from greens with bad conditions? Don't tell me about the amount of foot traffic either! Golf greens are meant to be played on...ALOT. The pitch and putts have more traffic of inexperienced golfers (every 7-8 min) dragging their feet, etc., but they looked beautiful. Thank you for your meeting and synopsis, but the solution is/was extremely simple:
Whatever whoever was doing differently at the courses with no issues....DUPLICATE it and STOP doing what whatever they were doing at the courses that were mistreated.

Great viewpoint

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki

Good comment, given the increase in the amenity fee is capped at CPI.

I thought they remove cap couple years so ago? Read another article about putting cap back month or so ago?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Topgun 1776

You didn't ask the hard questions. If weather, etc. were to blame, how come 10-12 executives and the pitch and putts had pristeen greens? Was the weather etc. any different 1 or 2 miles away from greens with bad conditions? Don't tell me about the amount of foot traffic either! Golf greens are meant to be played on...ALOT. The pitch and putts have more traffic of inexperienced golfers (every 7-8 min) dragging their feet, etc., but they looked beautiful. Thank you for your meeting and synopsis, but the solution is/was extremely simple:
Whatever whoever was doing differently at the courses with no issues....DUPLICATE it and STOP doing what whatever they were doing at the courses that were mistreated.

As you said, it was a "synopsis", I left out plenty of detail. I'll try to answer your questions.

First off, not all the courses were constructed the same. Some of the early courses, they just moved around some dirt and planted 2 different kinds of grass. Their construction process evolved and later courses were (I was told) built to USGA Specifications. I don't believe that to be the case (I'm not suggesting anyone was lying or trying to mislead me). "USGA Specifications" are a bit of a moving target. It's not as simple as A, B, C & D and there are still plenty of ways to "cut corners", yet still claim to be "USGA Specs".

Secondly, I suspect (I have not verified) that not all the contracts are identical. The contracts have evolved through the years. I suspect the basic contract 15 years ago, was 3 pages & probably 28 pages now. The contracts I have read, were all 3 year contracts with provisions to "renew", without a new Bidding process. Again speculating, I suspect some were renewed, without a thorough evaluation of how good (or poor) of a job the contractor was doing.

You are 100% correct. Golf Greens are expected to endure a huge amount of foot traffic and if they're not constructed properly to begin with and properly maintained, the traffic is going to destroy them.

The "Pitch & Putts" are fairly new ... better construction and easier to maintain.

I have minimal experience with the Executive Courses from a playing perspective, but I suspect the "newer" the course, the better condition it was in. Most likely, owing to more careful original construction ... & in many cases as you pointed out, better maintenance contractors.

That's the best I can do, without getting too deep into the weeds.

IMO, we need new contractors, better contractors, more specific contracts, better oversight and an overall agronomy plan, with specific addendums to address the specific needs of every individual golf course.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

As you said, it was a "synopsis", I left out plenty of detail. I'll try to answer your questions.

First off, not all the courses were constructed the same. Some of the early courses, they just moved around some dirt and planted 2 different kinds of grass. Their construction process evolved and later courses were (I was told) built to USGA Specifications. I don't believe that to be the case (I'm not suggesting anyone was lying or trying to mislead me). "USGA Specifications" are a bit of a moving target. It's not as simple as A, B, C & D and there are still plenty of ways to "cut corners", yet still claim to be "USGA Specs".

Secondly, I suspect (I have not verified) that not all the contracts are identical. The contracts have evolved through the years. I suspect the basic contract 15 years ago, was 3 pages & probably 28 pages now. The contracts I have read, were all 3 year contracts with provisions to "renew", without a new Bidding process. Again speculating, I suspect some were renewed, without a thorough evaluation of how good (or poor) of a job the contractor was doing.

You are 100% correct. Golf Greens are expected to endure a huge amount of foot traffic and if they're not constructed properly to begin with and properly maintained, the traffic is going to destroy them.

The "Pitch & Putts" are fairly new ... better construction and easier to maintain.

I have minimal experience with the Executive Courses from a playing perspective, but I suspect the "newer" the course, the better condition it was in. Most likely, owing to more careful original construction ... & in many cases as you pointed out, better maintenance contractors.

That's the best I can do, without getting too deep into the weeds.

IMO, we need new contractors, better contractors, more specific contracts, better oversight and an overall agronomy plan, with specific addendums to address the specific needs of every individual golf course.

Sounds like getting all of the above translates to more $$$. Maybe the no bid contracts and renewals are an effort to keep said costs down in the hopes El Nino type weather patterns take a powder every now and then and nobody will notice.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Sounds like getting all of the above translates to more $$$. Maybe the no bid contracts and renewals are an effort to keep said costs down in the hopes El Nino type weather patterns take a powder every now and then and nobody will notice.

I think we're spending a reasonable amount for maintenance, but not getting a quality product. So we need to either "get more for our money" or, spend more of it. I'm for the former, rather than the latter.

I've been trying not to get too deep in the weeds, but ...

The Contracting criteria, is sort of (IMO) slanted towards continuing to use the same contractors, year after year. Once you're "in" with The Villages, you're IN!

I'll give you a specific example. In order to bid on the Pimilco renovation job (Bid opening is next week), a company needs "10 years of golf course construction experience". I suspect the bidders are going to be the same guys who have worked for TV for the last 20 years. Hardly anyone else is qualified to bid.

Why does the company need 10 years of golf course building experience?

"Renovating" a golf course is way different than "building" a golf course. You have an existing golf course, that you're removing the grass and sand, then replacing it. Presumably, with an Architect's Plan and associated specific contract, that spells out exactly what has to be done and how to do it.

That job isn't brain surgery ... it's a site contractor's job. There's no thinking or design work involved ... you only need to know how to read plans and specifications, and move dirt.

I suggested: "instead of 10 years building golf courses", why not open the bidding up to site contractors, with a requirement that there's an approved, on-site superintendent on the job at all times, and that person has to have actual golf course construction/maintenance experience. That opens the bidding up to a lot more contractors. A smart site contractor would bid that job and then go hire a Super from a quality private course and bring him in to run the renovation job.

I'll be curious to see how many "golf course construction" companies bid the Pimilco job.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I think we're spending a reasonable amount for maintenance, but not getting a quality product. So we need to either "get more for our money" or, spend more of it. I'm for the former, rather than the latter.

I've been trying not to get too deep in the weeds, but ...

The Contracting criteria, is sort of (IMO) slanted towards continuing to use the same contractors, year after year. Once you're "in" with The Villages, you're IN!

I'll give you a specific example. In order to bid on the Pimilco renovation job (Bid opening is next week), a company needs "10 years of golf course construction experience". I suspect the bidders are going to be the same guys who have worked for TV for the last 20 years. Hardly anyone else is qualified to bid.

Why does the company need 10 years of golf course building experience?

"Renovating" a golf course is way different than "building" a golf course. You have an existing golf course, that you're removing the grass and sand, then replacing it. Presumably, with an Architect's Plan and associated specific contract, that spells out exactly what has to be done and how to do it.

That job isn't brain surgery ... it's a site contractor's job. There's no thinking or design work involved ... you only need to know how to read plans and specifications, and move dirt.

I suggested: "instead of 10 years building golf courses", why not open the bidding up to site contractors, with a requirement that there's an approved, on-site superintendent on the job at all times, and that person has to have actual golf course construction/maintenance experience. That opens the bidding up to a lot more contractors. A smart site contractor would bid that job and then go hire a Super from a quality private course and bring him in to run the renovation job.

I'll be curious to see how many "golf course construction" companies bid the Pimilco job.

I suspect the job will go to the same people who have made a mess of our courses.

If this was me the current supplier would not be allowed to bid.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

I suspect the job will go to the same people who have made a mess of our courses.

If this was me the current supplier would not be allowed to bid.

So I have a little further information, based on a cursory review of the Executive Golf course maintenance bids for the last 7-8 years.

It appears that once a bid is accepted and contracted (usually for a few courses in a package), that contractor keeps the job.

It appears the District puts the contracts for Exec Course maintenance out for bid, when they're turned over to the District from the Developer. A contract is awarded for a length of time and then comes up for "renewal". It appears they are generally renewed with the same contractor (I haven't yet found a case where a winning bidder was not renewed. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, only that I haven't seen where it's happened in the last 8 or so years.)

I won't comment on the wisdom of that approach.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

So I have a little further information, based on a cursory review of the Executive Golf course maintenance bids for the last 7-8 years.

It appears that once a bid is accepted and contracted (usually for a few courses in a package), that contractor keeps the job.

It appears the District puts the contracts for Exec Course maintenance out for bid, when they're turned over to the District from the Developer. A contract is awarded for a length of time and then comes up for "renewal". It appears they are generally renewed with the same contractor (I haven't yet found a case where a winning bidder was not renewed. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, only that I haven't seen where it's happened in the last 8 or so years.)

I won't comment on the wisdom of that approach.

For many years I was a purchasing manager dealing with my companies suppliers. I was married to my wife not my suppliers.

If they did not do a satisfactory job found a replacement. Do not understand loyalty to a firm ruining our courses