Architect Talks / Your Opinion

You asked a good question, but there is no concrete answer to it.

All approaches have their pros and cons:

General contractor (GU): Transparent all-inclusive price with a reasonable description of services possible. However, it is rather somewhat more expensive than awarding individual trades for the same service. During construction, there may be only limited flexibility, but fixed completion dates can be set. Only one contact person for all trades and within the scope of the warranty. Etc.

Individual trades: Completely transparent prices for all trades. Probably the somewhat more expensive option because during construction one or the other additional service is often implemented. So probably a higher-quality house than with the GU ==> but then the client is always to blame. You are flexible with many craftsmen but have to coordinate them all and have a bunch of contacts. Construction may then take significantly longer. Etc.

How many trades do you need for the shell? Shell builder, carpenter/roofer. This option, i.e., first having the shell built and then awarding the subsequent trades, basically corresponds to individual trades awarding. But if you actually have many friends who want to work on the construction site in their free time for weeks, always have time, don’t get sick or bail on you, or then have trouble with the warranty (does it even officially exist then?), then this is of course a cost-effective option.

You see, there are many pros and cons, and every way of building must fit the project, the budget, and your wishes/possibilities.

We receive a construction service description from the architect with all the bells and whistles

The general contractor will of course award his contracts in a way that absolutely maximizes his profit, which in turn does not create transparency for me

Have you already built? What are your experiences?

One of the architects recommended that we build with a local construction company (turnkey) or have them ensure weather tightness. This is apparently a well-known company that the architect often works with.

Such a thing does not exist with the architect. You can commission him with the tendering, but then only all trades make sense. What you describe is nothing other than awarding individual trades. Just because you obtain offers does not mean that you will award all trades immediately.

That is precisely the question. Could it perhaps be cheaper if I commission the trades individually? You see, I do not have much experience yet, but I am trying to find out what the possible "right" way is.

That is not true. The general contractor (GU) is ultimately a craftsman who builds a house. If you get an offer from the shell construction company, it is also not transparent. Or what do you mean by transparency? Every craftsman gives you a price for a predefined service. You can also contact 5 GUs, then you have GU price transparency.

By transparency I mean that I would like to keep the option open to negotiate with the GU and not simply accept the price the GU gives just because it comes from my architect.

That is why my question was whether I can ask 5 construction companies with a service description or plans from the architect. The one with the best offer/price-performance ratio would then be awarded the contract.

Yes, I have already bought, renovated, and even built completely. However, the former father-in-law was the architect there. We awarded the tenders externally and separately. Everything else was done by ourselves – construction management, supervision, awarding, negotiations, changes, etc.
However, I have also been in the real estate industry for over 20 years – professionally in commercial real estate financing starting at €10 million financing, but also personally involved with real estate.