Berlin front structure for securing the excavation pit

It took some time until it was finally finished. [...] It cost about 35K. Now the excavation pit is finished and work in the basement begins.

35k "advertising costs" (or whatever you call it and where do you book them: cost center excavation pit/basement?), which are not matched by created values. Where do they come back from, who do you claim damages from - for an architect a professional liability case, but with a general contractor inclusive planning own financial loss aka tuition fees ...

The calculation buffer is always used up in the earthworks, the rest that is missing is saved on the equipment… But somehow it works.

The calculation buffer is always used up in the earthworks, the rest that is missing is saved on the equipment…

A buffer is actually not meant to "save" on proper planning and to hand over one's client fate into the hands of a construction manager who thinks "what I don't think about doesn't cost my money". Where the budget overrun is recouped is well known to me as a former window guy.

But somehow it works.

Yes, exactly with the reallocation you described. The loan security becomes less valuable. Whoever does not recover (or cannot recover) this financial damage from the (co-)responsible planner is stuck. An architect, on the other hand, would have been insured (and would have tried to avoid such mistakes for the sake of their premium).

Interesting, how many meters are there approximately that had to be secured? Probably around 1300 euros per meter, right?

It is calculated by square meters. It is 140 sqm, so about 250 EUR/sqm (gross).

35k "advertising costs" (or how do you call that and where do you post them: cost center excavation/basement?), which do not correspond to any created values. Where do these come back from, who do you claim damages from – for an architect a professional liability case, but with a general contractor inclusive planning your own financial loss aka tuition fee ...

These are additional costs for the excavation. It was always clear that additional measures required for the excavation are not included in the offer. This was the case with every company I spoke to. Why should this be considered damage? My problem here is the poor planning that costs time and even more hidden money (which is certainly not very high), and not the fact that some additional measures are necessary. This is something that should be discussed with the lawyer regarding the general contractor’s responsibility for not meeting the delivery deadline.

These are additional costs for the excavation pit. It was always clear that additional measures required for the excavation pit are not included in the offer. That was the case with every company I spoke to.

This "x" in the calculation does not exist in this form because of the peculiarities of the property, but because of the lack of professionalism in the planning and tendering.

Why should this be regarded as damage? My problem here is the poor planning, which costs time and even more hidden money (which is certainly not very high), and not the fact that some additional measures are required.

The damage lies precisely in the connection between poor planning and additional measures. The additional measures are by no means surprising here (even if the contractor pretends so), and should have influenced the planning.

This is something that should be discussed with the lawyer regarding the responsibility of the general contractor for the failure to meet the delivery deadline.

You mean the unnecessary delay that is not caused by the measures themselves, but by the unwillingness to foresee them, and the resulting consumption of time for the bid validity?

The damage lies exactly in the connection between poor planning and additional measures. The additional measures are by no means surprising here (even if the contractor pretends they are), and should have influenced the planning.

Oh yes, the poor planning is a clear problem. That should not have been a surprise. It should have been recognized and properly planned from day one.

You mean the unnecessary delay, which is not caused by the measures themselves, but by the refusal to anticipate them, and the resulting consumption of the bid validity period?

Not quite. The general contractor carried out the task themselves. The problem is that the problem was not really expected and therefore it took forever to define the appropriate measures (from mid-June to the end of October)! I think the measurable damage is the delay in handover and final acceptance.