Construction supervision by expert/appraiser

We involved a construction supervisor/expert quite early on, and that was a good decision. He negotiated some things before the contract was signed that we would never have thought of. He reviewed all the documents (BLPs, contract, etc.) promptly and would have compared the BLPs of different companies for us if we had wanted. Over time, as a layperson, you can read the differences between various BLPs, but you cannot quantify them and therefore cannot really compare the bottom right number. On the construction site, as a layperson, you have no arguments at all, so you need expertise that can also argue with the professionals using standards. Every decent general contractor/main contractor understands this. The only risk I see is that the site manager might show up less often because he thinks, "the client's construction supervisor will sort it out."

Hello everyone,

I have clearly understood how useful something like this is! But I have some purely practical questions here:

1) Who ultimately has the final say on disputed points (site manager/contractor or expert), or what claim does the expert or thus the client have that their opinion is considered and implemented? The site manager/contractor can insist that they are right and that they have to stand behind what they build... and therefore ultimately decide... How is this decided in practice... does it run with evidence... counter-evidence based on DIN standards or how can I imagine it???

Ultimately, as the client, you have the right to a faultless house built according to the state of the art. The expert can accompany you and provide you with the expertise you lack, point out any defects before and during the construction phase, and support you in asserting these against the contractor and ensuring their remediation. Of course, if the contractor refuses to cooperate, your expert won't help you either, since it is a privately commissioned expert. Likewise, the contractor can hire another expert who claims the opposite. If it ever came to that, it would lead to a dispute anyway, and nobody wants that.

2) Isn't "discord" already preprogrammed with the appointment of an expert, as this signals to the craftsmen or the site manager that you do not trust their work... And lack of trust is not a good basis for cooperation...

Regards

Projekt 2012

A reasonable contractor/general contractor will rather welcome the involvement of an external construction supervisor by the client than curse it. This way, defects are identified promptly during the construction phase and can usually be remedied with little effort. This avoids potential conflicts. As the seller told me back then: "these will be the best houses..." I would avoid any company that turns up their nose right from the start when you want to involve an external party.

Hello,

The site manager/contractor can insist that he is right and that he must stand by/represent what he builds... and therefore ultimately decides.... How is this decided in practice.... does it run with evidence.. counter-evidence based on DIN standards or how can I imagine it???

Basically, many roads lead to Rome; but all must adhere to the state of the art technology that was valid at the time the contract was signed.

2) Isn't inserting an expert already programming "conflict," since you signal to the craftsmen or site manager that you don't trust their work... And lack of trust is not a good basis for cooperation...

A reputable builder will welcome having a second pair of eyes on the construction and will by no means assume premature mistrust. If your builder reacts in a similar way – i.e., grumpily responds to your suggestion – you should all the more call in an expert.

Kind regards

Thank you all for your contributions!

If the BU naturally refuses to cooperate, your expert is of no use to you, since it is a private expert commissioned by you. Equally, the BU can commission another expert who claims the opposite.

And that exactly hits the core of my question!
1) Can the BU refuse to cooperate and stick to their way of execution when it is clearly proven that there is a mistake?

2) Can it even be clearly proven what is wrong or right, or are there generally "gray areas" regarding how something should be done exactly?

Best regards

Thank you all for your contributions!



And that exactly hits the core of my question!
1) Can the BU refuse to cooperate and stick to his method of execution when it is clearly proven that there is a mistake?

2) Can it even be clearly proven what is wrong or right or are there fundamentally "grey areas" in the execution regarding how something should be done exactly?

Regards

I actually thought I had written clearly enough.
Something is only "proven" in a court hearing and then an expert appointed by the court has the floor. But ideally, it should not come to that.
The BU can theoretically do whatever he wants, regardless of what the expert you hired says, if he is convinced that his approach is correct, corresponds to the state of the art, and is within the standards.
Again: the expert you hired is, legally speaking, your private affair, and his statements have no legally binding effect. The BU can follow it (if he is reasonable and the expert is not a half-wit, he will), but he does not have to.
Of course, there are also "grey areas" within the tolerances often provided in the DIN standards. The latter are sometimes defined quite broadly in some trades.

Thank you, now everything is clear!

Regards