Architectural office obtains quotes only from long-standing business partners

Hello everyone,

we are now at the tendering stage and our architectural firm is only obtaining quotes from long-standing partner companies (two to three quotes per trade). They said that only this way can they achieve the high quality standard.

What do you think about this?
Is it true that you get the best quotes (price/quality) from local tradespeople you have known for a long time?
I am just afraid that the architectural firm is not only working in our interest but also looking out for their partner companies.

Basically, it is good that the architect has companies with whom he has been working well for a long time. With three offers per trade, there is still competition. Apart from that, the trades tend to look to the architect because they want to continue a good working relationship for a longer time. Yes, it is a give and take. Maybe these are not the cheapest offers. But perhaps the offers that will save you a lot of stress and money later on if not every trade botches the work, you have time (and possibly money) for the repairs, and after moving in, no craftsman is available (for warranty cases that arise after 1.5 years). You can still make suggestions yourself about whom to ask if you know suitable companies and can also assess well that the work will then meet your requirements. Can you do that?

Now we are at the tendering stage and our architectural firm is only obtaining quotes from long-standing partner businesses (two to three quotes per trade). They said this is the only way to achieve the high quality standard. [...] Is it true that you get the best quotes (price/quality) from local trades that you have known for a long time?

"Now"? – this is your first post, we know nothing about your construction project and its specifics. For extraordinary details, it may be appropriate to request one or two additional bidders. A healthy number is four or five, and of course, this number decreases if you know the participant pool and it is also locally limited. A good architect knows his regulars and vice versa (as well as they know each other). And the tiler Dirk and the plumber Jürgen are comrades at the fire brigade, their work also fits perfectly together on the construction site. In such a consortium, they also know that they only have a reasonable number of competitors. An excess of bids only means unnecessary work on calculations destined for the wastebasket.

I’m just afraid that the architectural firm is not only working in our interest but also looking out for their partner businesses.

The architect is actually working very much in your interest: preparing good offers takes time and thus money. You could also work by the method of the really dumb ones and obtain bids yourself, “from twenty companies so that ten respond.” Yes, with at least eight bidders, one would apparently be cheaper than the cheapest from the architect’s team selection. But with this brilliant method, you would get tricksters and dimwits who could easily rival those from construction shoddy trash TV formats with drums and trumpets. Resist this relapse and stick to your smarter path of tendering with the architect – it pays off!

With very, very few exceptions, it was the same for us. The only exception was the wooden staircase, for which we ultimately chose a local carpenter who had only recently opened his business and had not yet worked with our architect. We suggested him, and it was completely fine for the architect. He assessed the risk as low. Architects certainly also like to try out new companies from time to time to always have someone on hand for different requirements.

I am just afraid that the architectural firm does not work solely in our interest, but also looks out for their partner businesses.

What is the problem with the win-win? Or do you mean having to spend too much because you don’t inquire with any cheap providers? I think it already carries a certain seal of approval if an architectural firm has "influence" on companies that like to work for them. In such matters, I like to point out the satirical three-part series by Dieter Wedel "Die Semmelings - once in a lifetime, we're building a dream house." A very good entertainment (of course not streamable because it is still an older production), and everywhere there is a lot of truth hidden. Pure humor with good actors!

They only meant that this is the way to achieve the high quality standard.

That is understandable – both in terms of coordinating the trades, the clarity of agreements, as well as the quality of the implementation delivered. The architect can better ensure higher quality, better adherence to deadlines, and fewer complaints, and this is partly part of the job when he leads the construction through all HOAI phases.

Is it true that the best offers (price/quality) come from local tradespeople you have known for a long time?

Possibly, you do not get the cheapest price on paper. However, this is worth nothing if, for example, construction delays occur or the service is characterized by maximizing profit from the low-cost offer. Local providers, on the other hand, have a reputation to maintain. You have to know what you want. There are many examples here where too strong a focus on the offer price ultimately caused a lot of trouble. Greed and stinginess are no good advisors in construction (and before anyone reads a subtext here: I am NOT accusing the original poster of that).

I am just afraid that the architectural firm does not only work in our interest but also looks out for their partner businesses.

Uncertainty is a poor advisor in construction. I am absolutely fine if a network benefits from my construction and, in return, I get what I order and wish for. Here, interest, presence, trust, and generosity pay off (or at least the absence of stinginess).

From my point of view: Whoever sees a building partner as a potential adversary should rather give up and buy something finished.