Architect's fee for a single-family house

Thanks for your feedback! One more clarification: There is no dispute or conflict, I was just interested to know if this is common, the amount (which I calculated myself) had surprised me considering the short drafting time. But from your contributions, I rather read no surprise.

How great is the house if it only costs 460k?

"Great" means: not big and expensive, but perfectly adapted to the plot, which is not easy to build on. The floor plan is also exactly tailored to our needs.

You are free to negotiate a flat fee. The architect did tell you his ideas.

He actually did not mention his ideas at the beginning, but gave a free initial draft (I hadn’t mentioned that at first – sorry). That this would amount to 18k with HOAI, I calculated myself, the draft was practically on paper some days later. Aside from that, we are satisfied and wouldn’t want to build anything else.

I vaguely remember that a written contract is not necessarily needed if you go to the architect and ask him with the words “just do it” for something.

That is almost certainly true. However, we did not directly say “just do it,” the initiative (also) came from the architect.

If you are satisfied, then everything is fine. You can still negotiate a flat rate. The HOAI tells you what a fair price is.

I would be very interested in the first draft, as you thought it was quite difficult to plan.

Thank you for your feedback! One more clarification: There is no dispute or conflict, I was just interested to know if this is usual, the amount (which I calculated myself) had already surprised me considering the short design time. But from your posts, I rather don’t read any surprise.

Service phases 1-4 are neither more nor less for the creatives. For this, you get a dimensioned design and cross-section + drainage planning + submitted building application and all documentation including rough cost estimate. From there, it feels like 75% of the service/fee is missing until the last service phase.

I vaguely remember that it does not necessarily require a written contract if you go to the architect and ask him with the words "just do it".

That's also true. However, we still recorded the collaboration in writing "for peace of mind," where, among other things, it was specified which fee zone we were operating in.

That is quite certain. However, we did not directly say "just do it," the initiative also came from the architect.

It doesn't matter, you did not object to the work and thereby implicitly agreed to or commissioned it.

No matter, you did not resist the work and thereby implied your consent or commissioned it.

Where did you get that from?

I suppose the architect said, I'll show you a first draft, then we'll see further. That is an offer and not a contract.

If the OP does not accept the offer, then there is no payment either.

However, in that case, the OP is not allowed to use the draft.

Where did you get that from?

For example ARGE Baurecht.

Agreement on essentialia negotii
When concluding an architect contract, the general rules on the conclusion of contracts according to §§ 145 ff. of the Building Code apply. An agreement on the essential contractual components is required. While the essentialia negotii in most types of contracts consist of performance and consideration, contract law for work contracts has the particularity that a contract is already concluded by agreement on the performance. If there is thus an engagement for architectural services but no (effective) fee agreement, the essentialia negotii are not missing. This "gap" is rather closed pursuant to § 7 para. 5 HOAI (2013) by the mandatory price law of the HOAI and the irrefutable presumption that the respective minimum rates were agreed upon.
To be distinguished are cases in which the engagement itself is unclear and disputed as to whether it is merely unpaid preliminary acquisition services by the architect or commissioned fee-based architectural services. In such a case, the price law of the HOAI, which always requires a contract conclusion, does not help further.

Freedom of form
The architect contract is a contract type free of form. Although the mandatory price law of the HOAI stipulates that certain contractual agreements within the framework of an architect contract require written form. In particular, a fee agreement requires in accordance with § 7 para. 1 HOAI (2013) to be effective a written agreement upon commissioning within the minimum and maximum rates. However, the architect contract itself does not require written form, so it can basically be concluded in writing, orally or by conduct. Other rules may apply in special individual cases, e.g., if the future contracting parties have agreed that the architect contract can only be validly concluded if the written form is observed. According to the interpretation rule of § 154 para. 2 Building Code, the architect contract is then in doubt not concluded until the written certification has taken place. Formal requirements may also arise, for example, in the case of a contract conclusion with the public sector when relevant formal requirements (e.g., the respective municipal code) must be observed.

In practice
If there is an architect contract signed by both parties, the question of contract conclusion usually does not arise. In the case of an oral engagement, evidence problems regularly occur in practice if the oral engagement is denied by the other party. The path (to the claim for compensation) can be demanding if neither a written nor an oral engagement exists and a tacit contract conclusion is to be demonstrated and proven on the basis of indicia. Based on extensive case law, suitable cases can then be identified, by which it can be argued and demonstrated that and on the basis of which indicia in the concrete individual case the parties each had a will to be legally bound aimed at concluding an architect contract.
Such an indication of a will to be legally bound aimed at concluding a fee-based architect contract can, for example, be the request to the architect to provide and amend architectural services (OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of 21.06.2011 – 21 U 129/10). Furthermore, the provision and acceptance of architectural services from an advanced performance phase (e.g. BGH, judgment of 11.10.2007 – VII ZR 143/06), settling interim invoices for services rendered by the architect (e.g. BGH, judgment of 06.05.1985 – VII ZR 320/84) or the utilization of the architectural service, for example by submitting planning documents to the approval authority (KG, judgment of 28.12.2010 – 21 U 97/09), etc. The emphasis is always that the respective circumstance in the concrete individual case can be an indication of contract conclusion but does not have to be.