Construction supervision by expert/appraiser

I hope you have drawn the right conclusion. The most important thing was stated by Häuslebauer40 in the postscript in brackets.

oder BU kann dem folgen (wenn er vernünftig ist und der Sachverständige nicht ein Halbidiot ist, wird er dies auch tun), muss es aber nicht.

My opinion: The sooner errors are detected, the easier they can still be fixed and you can resolve it independently of any courts. If the error is built upon further, it is either irreparable or so expensive for the BU to fix that you can only settle it through a lengthy and costly court process.

The money we pay for our expert is probably partly already earned back in the contract negotiation.

In a previous post, it was mentioned that the involvement of an expert before signing the contract was helpful. I can only emphasize this aspect: a well and clearly formulated contract with the most specific possible description of construction services saves a lot of trouble during execution. The investment in a knowledgeable consultant before signing the contract pays off.

In practice, construction companies are not immediately "enthusiastic" when clients involve external construction supervision. When it becomes clear that this construction supervision acts reasonably and also prevents damage for the construction company by early detection of defects, it can lead to relaxed work and good results.

If a construction company has very strong reservations against external construction supervision, this should raise suspicion – it can also be helpful to keep a better distance from such construction companies.

Hello,

If a construction company has very strong reservations against external construction supervision, this should raise alarms – it can also be helpful to keep better away from such construction companies.

I would put it even more directly: "... this should raise alarms – it is furthermore advisable to keep better away from the construction company."

Kind regards