Architect with fixed price and later general contractor

So earlier we spoke with a client and listened to the process with architect A and the general contractor (GU).

It was like this: the clients went to various GUs with the plans (scale 1:100) and got a price quote. For this, the GUs used certain average prices for the individual items (clinker, tiles, etc.) to calculate the price per m², and that became the offer price.

The clients then chose a GU and sat down with them again to actually select the individual items. For this, they had to visit various companies/dealers that the GU works with. After the complete selection, the price for the house was determined.

There was no external examination of the construction performance description. Everything sounded good...

There is also no external expert; the clients rely on the GU and its employees.

The move-in is scheduled for the end of the year; currently, there are no problems or other discussions. But without an expert, an absolute layperson probably wouldn’t find any problems or errors.

No additional costs have arisen so far either. But the final invoice is, of course, still forthcoming. Whether anything else will be added to it is currently unknown to the clients. So far, according to them, the GU has stuck to his initial price for every build in this development.

----

If I were to describe this approach to an experienced construction expert in order to build like this, I would probably get quite a bit of laughter paired with the question of whether I’m sane... That would be my personal conclusion after reading through numerous advice and construction processes.

Alternatively, this GU is the angel among all GUs and works solely in the interest of the client and not for his own wallet.

I don’t understand where you see a problem with Variante A? Whether you do the preliminary planning with your own architect or the GU provides you with an architect makes no difference at all. Free planning is free planning. It doesn’t matter whether it’s done by your architect or theirs. I have an execution plan right in front of me; for a single-family house, it’s no big deal.
I bet the GU will only hand over the execution plan after the building is already up.

They will ask you what and where everything should go (sanitary, pipes, heating, etc.) and how the windows and doors should open, and then they work based on their existing experience.

For office clerks retrained as craftsmen, an execution plan won’t help you either.

I think you just have the wrong idea about construction.

And for relaxation, a little example

And Architect A does not go out to the construction site. He only makes the drawing and then gets it approved. The rest is then done either on his own initiative or by the general contractor.

But this "rest" is what the architect is mainly needed for. You can’t build anything from approval plans; they are not suitable for execution interpretation, they are purely pictorial evidence of compliance with regulations. You need execution plans, and to ensure they are read, you need the site manager. Otherwise, you’ll end up with the house from Nikolaus built with the “we’ve always done it this way” method. Properly deriving execution plans from the ideas behind the design drawings practically “requires” that both have the same father. Otherwise, it won’t work.

Of course, you can come to the general contractor only with design/approval drawings. But then he will just build a sloppy interpretation of them.

By the way, execution plans do not serve as a basis for tenders, but only as an attachment. Tender documents are created by combining the description of the construction services with the specific dimensions of the design to be built. Again, having the same father is helpful. Descriptions of construction services that do not cheat the client are best concocted by a planner who is biased in his favor. Everything else is nonsense (which you can plaster over, then no one sees it – or maybe they do?).