Architect - Flat-rate offer instead of HOAI for single-family house

1) His office focuses on planning services. Therefore, he would be considered up to service phase 5. For the phases afterward, he would suggest several site managers with whom he has had good experiences.

Oh dear... these are the worst; I would never again hire an architect who already tells me in advance that he wants to drop out from service phase 6...

Inevitably casts a bad light on him/her. Your architect seems to have a clear idea of how he would like to earn YOUR money, namely relaxed and at the drawing board – have you checked how service phase 5 is compensated? And the tough job afterward is done by some other fool...

No no, never again – but I have also paid my dues...
GD

11ant - I tried to read your HOAI guide. The link to episode 3 did not work.

The link only does not work when accessed from episode 2; you can find it via the post list. could correct it sometime :)

Are you referring to a time gap when you say gap? Of course, I will involve a construction manager at a certain point in time. The architect said he would suggest several construction managers to me after his work, who have worked well with his clients so far.

No, the more significant gap is not the time between phases 5 and 8, but exists in phases 6 and 7, which arises if he only goes up to service phase 5 and then only the construction manager (service phase 8) comes in.

He also informed me that he continues to follow the project after commissioning. Probably rather passively...

Hehe, probably only insofar as to see whether you take the colleagues he suggests (and which one); for his commission billing. For the quality of the service in phase 8, it is best if the provider has already been involved in service phase 5 (and ideally also in service phase 3).
Note: any division of labor in the sense that the provider changes between phases 5 and 8 is suspicious, unless the distance between the planning and construction site is the reason!

11ant - I tried to read your HOAI guide. The link to episode 3 did not work.

The link only does not work when viewed from episode 2, you can find it via the post list. Maybe @11ant could fix that :)

Thank you both for the hint, I will fix it later. It must have worked until the day before yesterday; I probably introduced the error during the relaunch of the menu structure :-)

No, the more significant gap is not the time between LP 5 and 8, but exists in LP 6 and 7, which occur if he only goes up to phase 5 and then only the construction manager (phase 8) comes in.

Hehe, rather only insofar as to see whether you take the colleague he proposed (and which one); for his commission calculation. For the quality of the service in phase 8, it is best if the provider was already involved in phase 5 (and ideally also in phase 3). Note: any division of work in the sense that the provider changes between LP 5 and 8 is suspicious, unless the distance between the planning and construction site is the reason!

Thanks to both of you for the hint, I will fix it later. Until the day before yesterday it should have worked, I must have introduced the error when relaunching the menu structure :)

Thank you for the explanations on this.

I will phrase it again in my own words: Basically, it is not unusual or suspicious to work with a planning office up to phase 5. Especially if you have a good feeling with the architect. However, in this case it is very important that the later construction manager is involved earlier. Ideally in phase 3 and phase 5, but at least in phase 5. What does such involvement look like? Would I then essentially have to enter into a "dual commissioning" of both parties, or does the construction manager have a strong self-interest to be informed early about phases 3 and 5?

When commissioning an architect, there is initially no standard case at all, as every client considers a different scope of services to be reasonable. I already explained this in my post to , when deviating from my standard recommendation "A + pause + B + C," for example by commissioning only "A + pause + service phase 3"; choosing the overall scope "service phase 1 to 5" is in any case noticeably wiser than saving at the worst possible point with "service phase 1 to 4." However, once the scope has been defined, the normal case should be that one planner handles it as a whole (although in my opinion best in several tranches ("Module A" + options for extension).

Only in the special case "construction site different from planning location" do I consider it legitimate to pass the baton within the triad "conceptual planning / detailed planning / construction supervision." If the initiative for such a split comes from the contractor of the planning phases, then unfortunately the likelihood is high that it is an artist / cherry picker / construction helmet allergic person (and the warning light should flare up: "Caution: Calculation failure!").

The essential task of construction management is the target-actual comparison, which by nature is best accomplished by the planner: no one else can conduct more faithfully than the composer. Since the planning in service phase 5 is a derivation from plans created in service phase 3, the service provider for service phase 8 should therefore have been involved at least provisionally in service phase 5 (better: already 3). Being involved in the project as an "employee of the planning office" is probably the most suitable form of this participation. The exact form of the employment relationship need not concern you; this does not in the least result in double commissioning. Organizing this cooperation is only your task as a client if you are also the initiator of the splitting.

Counter question: may I assume upon arrival at your side never ever under any circumstances to organize the scope of services into the modules "planner up to service phase 5" + "pedal boat driver loves suicide missions" + "construction manager"? (because that would be – at least with a planner already warned against even by the mother of – the surest way to exceed the budget, and by the way, the construction manager needs service phases 6 and 7 in his file folder no less than service phase 5).

When commissioning an architect, there is initially no normal case at all, since every client considers a different scope of services to be reasonable. I already explained this in my post to , when one departs from my standard recommendation "A + pause + B + C" and for example commissions only "A + pause + service phase 3"; choosing the overall scope "service phase 1 to 5" is in any case noticeably wiser than saving at the worst possible point with "service phase 1 to 4." However, once the scope is defined, the normal case should be that one planner handles it as a whole (albeit, in my opinion, best in several tranches ("module A" + options for extension).

Only in the special case "construction site different from planning location" do I consider it legitimate to pass the baton within the triad "concept planning / detailed planning / construction supervision." If the initiative for such a split comes from the contractor of the planning phases, unfortunately there is a high probability that they are an artist / cherry picker / construction site avoider (and the warning light should flash: "Caution: calculation failure!").

The essential subject of site management is the target-actual comparison, which naturally is best accomplished by the planner: no one can direct the work more faithfully than the composer. Since the planning in service phase 5 is a derivative of plans created in service phase 3, the provider of service phase 8 should have at least been involved as a substitute in service phase 5 (better: already in 3). Being involved in the project as an "employee of the planning office" is probably the most suitable form of this involvement. You do not need to worry about the exact form of the employment relationship; it does not result in a double assignment at all. Organizing this cooperation is only your task as the client if you are also the initiator of the split.

Counter-question: may I assume upon arrival at your place that you never ever, under no circumstances, want to organize the scope of services into the modules "planner up to service phase 5" + "pedal boat driver loves suicide missions" + "site manager"? (because that would be – at least with a planner that even 's mom would have warned against – the surest way to budget overruns, and by the way the site manager needs service phases 6 and 7 in their file folder no less than service phase 5).

11ant, that is how I currently imagine it as well. The planning office handles service phases 1 to 5. I will try to select the later site manager (external) early on and involve him in phases 3 and 5. It is not yet clear to me how I can motivate him without monetary incentives to take an interest in 3 and 5 at all, but that will probably become apparent. Then, from service phase 6 to service phase 8, the new site manager takes over exclusively and the architect remains involved peripherally as well. I currently do not see another solution here except to look for another architect who offers all service phases.