Sorry about the vagueness re: the Smithsonian architect.  I can't remember
the names.  I heard the broadcast in my car on NPR in the afternoon of
Friday April 10, maybe that will help.  You could go over to NPR.org and
see if they have the transcript of the little feature.  It was on all
things considered, I'm pretty sure.

On the other hand, without the names, I can tell a bit more of what I
remember about the dispute.  The architect signed a contract to design a
building that would cost X million dollars.  The contract was with the
Smithsonian. According to a very angry director of the Smithsonian, the
cost of the building atnd the  architects fees were set by congress and are
not subject to negotiation.  The architect, on the other hand, claims that
he was doing much more work on the building than originally specified, and
had a verbal agreement with the Smithsonian's contract officer that he
would be paid an additional 200K out of private funds for his work.  This
everyone at the smithsonian denies.

The architect does not describe why he is doing much more work (changing
program, difficult clients, any of the usual rationales).  And an
architecture critic who wrote a book about this architect describes him in
unflattering terms as someone whose projects are all marked by conflict.
On the other hand, the Smithsonian reps are remarkably un-politic and pull
no punches in describing the architect as, essentially, a liar.

The NPR person refers to the case as "he-said-she-said", but the upshot is
that the architect is off the job, trying to get reinstated, but it doesn't
seem bloody likely from what I heard.

As I said, very unedifying, simply because it is so typical.

Eric "been there, done that, got the souvenir hard-hat" Siegel