Construction Consultant / Architect: Payment by Construction Company?

Hello everyone,

this is my first post. I hope I have arrived in the correct section. If my inquiry belongs to another category thematically, I kindly ask for it to be moved.

I have a question regarding the following matter:

Like many in this forum, we would like to build and have been searching for a suitable plot of land for some time.

It now seems that we have found one. We came across it through an ad on a real estate portal. The contact person introduced herself to us at a first meeting as a "Bachfachberaterin / Baubegleiterin" (not a realtor) and at the second meeting also had an architect present with whom she claims to have worked for years. Since the term "Baufachberaterin" is somewhat vague and apparently not protected, I wanted to know from the two of them how the further procedure with the parties involved might look after a potential purchase of the plot from the owner.

The two persons explained to us that neither for the Baufachberaterin nor for the architect would any costs arise on our part at this time and also in the future, and that the two would be paid by the construction company after a possible start of construction, which would then be "selected" following a tender.

However, this arrangement seems problematic to me. As I see it, this is neither the case of a general contractor nor the case of a general construction contractor. Although the architect wants to take on both the planning of the house and the construction management as well as the acceptance of the respective contracts or service phases, it is also not a classic individual assignment to an architect since I would have no contractual obligation with him.

This appears too non-transparent to me. I also find it difficult that an architect with whom I have no contractual relationship and thus no recourse options in the event of a problem can take a position that is in my favor or at least neutral when he is paid by a construction company (albeit one selected via a tender).

Am I too critical? Are such arrangements not unusual? I would appreciate feedback.

Best regards
Ferique

Hello,

do we know each other? The described procedure reminds me very much of our conversations with potential builders :confused:

The two gentlemen explained to us that neither the building consultant nor the architect would incur any costs on our part at the current time or in the future and that both would be paid by the construction company after a possible start of construction, which would then be "selected" after a tender.

No, not us :)

We have a number of regionally operating construction companies with whom we cooperate. When selecting the construction company, proximity to the building plot and the workload of the books of our eligible construction companies count. We also have a second architect who deals exclusively with tendering and construction management, but this is usually a different client base and is based on several (many) contracts.

However, this constellation seems problematic to me. As I see it, this is neither the case of a general contractor nor the case of a general undertaker. Although the architect wants to take over both the planning of the house and the construction management or the acceptance of the respective work contracts or service phases, it is also not a classic individual award to an architect, since I would have no contractual obligation with him.

On the one hand, I see it as unfortunate that the planning architect also takes over the construction management. But that is just my opinion, born from numerous construction projects over the past years.

On the other hand - you see me confused. What is it supposed to be now? Handing over the entire construction project to a general contractor or individual awarding of the trades? In the former case, you conclude - via the mediation of the building consultant - one contract with a general contractor; in the second, several contracts both with the architect for planning and construction management and the subsequent trades for later execution.

That seems too non-transparent to me. It also seems difficult to me that an architect with whom I have no contractual obligation and thus no possibilities of recourse in case of doubt can take a position directed in my favor or at least a neutral position, if he is paid by a (albeit in the context of a tender) selected construction company.

If it actually comes down to an individual awarding of the trades, I would probably think so too. Here the architect should and must "show his true colors". I would be interested in the contracts of this model ;)

If it comes down to a single work contract based on the plans of the aforementioned architect, your concern is unfounded. He then also bears liability for planning errors, especially since he also creates the execution plans.

Now I am curious, where do you want to build?

Rhenish regards

Hello construction expert,

No, I think (after looking at your page) we (unfortunately?) do not know each other :-).
But it is good to know that services of the kind I described do exist.
Do I understand your cheerful answer correctly that, even though you act as a construction consultant, it is not part of your business model to have the payment for the service run through the ultimately selected general contractor?

In my experience, the saying "He who pays the piper calls the tune" applies in most cases. At the moment, I am talking to the construction consultant and the involved architect without any (oral or written) contractual commitment, and the architect has even made initial drawings after a first conversation. In the long term, I am not so optimistic that the architect can be held liable by me (let's assume there are planning errors) (so easily).

I will wait for another appointment we already have and decide, depending on how the conversation goes, whether the matter still feels fishy according to my gut feeling.

Oh yes... construction is supposed to take place near Bonn.

Thank you very much
Ferique

Is it correct that I cannot subsequently edit/correct posts already created here?

Hello Ferique,

No, I think (after looking at your page) we don’t (unfortunately?) know each other :-).

Whether "unfortunately" is true may still become clear ;)

But it is at least good to know that there are indeed services of the kind I outlined.

Yes, there are still few, but they do exist.

Do I understand your cheerful response correctly that, even if you act as a construction consultant, it is not part of your business model to have the payment for the service not run through the ultimately selected general contractor?

Double negation – I hope I understand your question correctly.

We work with different models depending on the builder’s needs. For difficult building plots and also when no classic floor plan design is to be used, the second consultation takes place at our architect’s office. There, in a joint discussion, it is examined how the final floor plan should look – always based on the overall budget for the construction project. Beforehand, both our architect and we have inspected the building plot on site and possibly already talked to the responsible building authority. In the next appointment – again at our architect’s office – the first draft is presented, usually with a fixed price offer. Afterwards, our potential builders have to decide whether the services we have provided so far – consultation, clarification, references, and design – give them the secure feeling to commit finally. If this is the case, a planning contract – solely for the design planning including the preparation of the building application – is concluded. In the following steps, you will get to know the general contractor we selected and can form your own picture there as well; both through references and customary bank checks. At this point, we leave the "how" to the clients, as we specifically do not want to fall under the phrase "whose bread I eat..."

Regarding costs – the costs of the planning contract must be paid separately. By proceeding this way, in the overwhelming majority of consultations, the contract for work with the general contractor selected by us is concluded and no further costs arise regarding our services for our clients, whose construction projects we accompany until move-in. Those who – for various reasons – decide against further cooperation are at this point equipped with an unencumbered building permit and free in choosing their further steps.

If clients come to us with a finished plan and a rather tight budget, this will be calculated according to their desired features (and their budget) and presented in the second consultation. Of course, in this case too, we know the building plot as well as the planning authority’s requirements and coordinate this with the clients’ wishes. Next, we present our general contractor and his references, and then the clients have to decide whether they want to realize their construction project with us. If they agree, the contract for work is concluded – after final design planning – and the building application is created through the general contractor’s office. No additional costs for our service arise, and again, we accompany until move-in.

There are other variants as well, for example if our second architect is to award the trades individually, but that would be going too far here and I think that is not what you are looking for anyway.

In my experience, the phrase "whose bread I eat, his song I sing" applies in the vast majority of cases.

That unfortunately happens very often, I agree with you. If you, for example, google us a bit, you will see that we work differently, especially in this point. Not without reason, quite a few providers are not very fond of us :D

The "close" circle – architects, structural engineers, geologists, surveyors, financing brokers, and energy consultants – with whom we have worked for years, share the same attitude towards a serious construction process; there is no other way. We often rely on their experience/recommendations regarding reliable general contractors and have rarely been disappointed so far. Of course, we are not immune to mishaps, but our network of partner general contractors – we work exclusively regionally – always allows us to react quickly. In most cases without additional costs for the builders, as our contract terms are formulated accordingly and the construction projects are seriously budgeted. That is – by the way – one of the main reasons why we accompany “our” projects until move-in; if everything goes well, we are gladly welcomed guests even years later.

In the long run, I am not that optimistic either that the architect, assuming planning mistakes exist, can be (so easily) held liable by me.

I think you see this wrongly. This architect – if you decide to work with them – is liable with their signature under the building application and subsequently also under the execution plans. They cannot escape this situation, regardless of whether you, the later general contractor, or the subsequent tradesmen pay them.

I will wait for another appointment, which we already have, and depending on how the conversation goes, decide if the matter still feels fishy according to my gut feeling.

The gut is always a good indicator!

But – you should also ask for references, google etc. An office that works like this should be able to offer you plenty of good as well as bad references. Even the, at first glance, "bad" references often turn into good ones with close support!

Oh yes... construction is planned near Bonn.

So basically around that corner ;)

Rhine greetings

Is it correct that I cannot edit/correct posts that have already been created here afterwards?

Yes. The admin has deliberately set it up this way because at the beginning of the forum posts were often "edited" out of context. Rhineland greetings