Yes, I agree. However, there are two major problems lurking: - The deviation tolerated by courts between the basis from service phase 1 and the actual construction costs is very large, and we could just barely fall under it. Additionally, the architect (whether consciously or not, I don’t know) tries to evade this by repeatedly mixing services from different phases; for example, he is already pushing (after the disclosure of the shell construction price!!!) to perform further services of service phases 5 and 6. We have stopped this and prohibited any further external orders until clarification. - For reasons of flexibility, but also on advice regarding cheaper planning costs, we agreed on billing by hourly rate. At least up to the maximum rate, the architect can still issue invoices and is doing so. Only when the rate is reached could we theoretically demand "free" further work. Difficult, since the invoices have already been paid. And then there is the risk that the construction sum will be recalculated, causing the architect’s fees to increase as well. Of course, we have recognized the mistake by now, but this only helps for the next house.
The client took a dual approach here: tendering individual trades and tendering for a general contractor. I think these are two different things that can justify additional effort beyond the flat fee
No, it was a bit different. Some time ago, we stopped further planning of external services and set the condition to receive a proper cost calculation according to DIN. As a result, a shell construction offer was obtained. Since we currently do not want to spend a four-digit amount for every additional offer nor pay the architect for sending the documents, we obtained the remaining offers ourselves using the building application documents and the geotechnical report. These offers therefore contain a certain degree of uncertainty, which in the end certainly won’t work in our favor. Hence the red line we set at 500k and the question of what we get for it.