BBQ - Construction-accompanying Quality Control

I don't know,
these are all points for the contract review,
of course before signing

I have a contract review from Bauherren-Schutzbund here including a suitable construction contract. I would first orient myself by that and apply it to my construction contract. If there are things I don't understand or consider unfavorable to consumers, I will do the review via Bauherren-Schutzbund.

We obtained a credit report to assess the risk of bankruptcy. It is rated as very low.

Something like that is okay if the future will be like the past. However, that is quite certainly not the case at the moment. Therefore, I would not attach too much importance to it.

the building savings contract looks "general"

And I’m not saying that building savings contracts are "worthless".

The only argument not to commission a building savings contract,

I have the suspicion: if someone here shortens the construction expert like the Bavarian school book publisher / disabled sports club / slipped disc, then an AI (artificial incompetence) automatically replaces it with a Bau.spar.vertrag *LOL*

I have the suspicion: if someone here abbreviates the building expert like the Bavarian schoolbook publisher / disabled sports club / slipped disc, then an AI (artificial incompetence) will turn it into a building savings contract by auto-replacement.

Better like this: A building expert can be very useful to ensure that a construction project is carried out properly and that potential defects or damages are identified early. The presence of a building expert can help avoid construction errors and minimize delays in project completion. Furthermore, a building expert can also assist in assessing damage to buildings or in detecting construction defects, which can lead to faster and fairer resolution of disputes. It is true that the costs for a building expert can be high, but in many cases they can prove worthwhile by identifying potential problems early and ultimately helping to reduce the costs for repairs or damage claims. Overall, a building expert can be a meaningful investment when it comes to safely and successfully completing a construction project.

A construction expert can be very useful to ensure that a construction project is carried out properly and that possible defects or damages are detected early.

The presence of a construction expert can help avoid construction errors and minimize delays in project completion. In addition, a construction expert can also assist in assessing damage to buildings or identifying construction defects, which can lead to a faster and fairer resolution of disputes.

It is true that the costs for a construction expert can be high, but in many cases they can prove worthwhile by detecting potential problems early and ultimately helping to reduce the costs for repairs or compensation claims.

Overall, a construction expert can be a sensible investment when it comes to completing a construction project safely and successfully.

I am usually not a fan of full quotes, but sometimes a simple "Like" in its meaning "that's exactly how I would have said it" would be too easily overlooked. Every house construction involves hundreds of opportunities for subcontractors to pay back the client with price pressure from the general contractor and the like. Also, several trades no longer require a master craftsman qualification, or rather, a colorful panopticon of, to put it kindly, carelessly trained specialists is milling about on a construction site. Added to this is my old refrain that for every corner window and every building component penetration, the working hour counter of an expert construction supervisor should be raised accordingly. In the (external, best googled together with the quotation marks) article "Von Bauleitern und ... Bauleitern" I particularly addressed the fact that the general contractor employee titled "site manager" sometimes acts from a biased perspective contrary to a site manager in the sense of the client: his job is not the avoidance of errors as such, but rather "limited" to the detectability of these during the warranty period. Defects over which a plaster layer reliably spreads the mantle of silence until the "statute of limitations" therefore remain untreated if the client does not appoint his own overseer. Even general contractors with a relatively good reputation are not entirely exempt from this phenomenon.

The construction-accompanying quality control told me that the burden of proof during the construction phase lies with the construction company. That is initially correct and I was also aware of it. However, the BBQ goes so far that proof is always demanded for the correct execution.

For example
- compaction proof
- blower door test

Is that really the case? Can I always expect the proof to be provided by the construction company? What if not? Then I, as the client, am forced to provide the proof and offset the incurred costs against the final invoice. Of course, this will lead to discussions and those are not pleasant.

PS. You were all right. Never ever without BBQ.