Construction supervision via Bauherren-Schutzbund, Association of Private Builders, TÜV, DEKRA, independent expert surveyor, or "xyz"...?

What a meaningless babble... what is this about reporting now?

Sorry, just because you write something doesn't make it right - that has nothing to do with being correct.

I won’t engage further with the chess nonsense from your pen because what you’re saying and implying about me is simply ridiculous.

I seriously question your competence with contributions like these.

What a meaningless babble...

Watch your language, Sebastian; I am not as patient as Rheinische greetings

..,
However, it is also often the case that construction companies often work with the same architects. Here, one should question the independence.

If you plan with a completely independent architect, then do tenders etc. with them, I would also rather not work with an external ....

Unfortunately, your argument does not make sense.
If construction companies worked with the same architects, this does not mean that construction supervision is booked above the architect. Usually, a construction company has a site manager who supervises the construction project. Since the site manager’s service is paid for by the construction company, one should consult an independent expert.

However, what I want to point out is that the architect will contact the companies _of their choice_ in their tenders. So if you as the client have no understanding, you leave the choice of craftsmen in the tender to them, also based on trust.
As an attentive resident of your region, you can observe that architects and construction companies as well as craftsmen of the individual trades regularly have lunch together – but this is not called cronyism; it is called nurturing the network – why not!
However, it cannot be called independence. Therefore, having an independent expert also makes sense here.

Not every craftsman you choose yourself does their work 100% correctly. They can also make mistakes.

So I have already gone down the drain with an architect when it comes to building supervision... The concrete ceiling was installed backwards (on his instruction...), so that the hole for the rainwater drainage was right by the gate (instead of at the end of the room), the lintel was planned too low, which only with a lot of goodwill from the gate builder could still be equipped with a standard gate, he didn't simply have the concrete floor smoothed right away with the power trowel, so I had to have expensive and elaborate rework done to get a smooth floor, and so on and so forth.

However, for the (hopefully soon upcoming) next construction project, I would probably still only commission the architect with it. Because he is also an independent expert with a good reputation.

If I skim through this, opinions seem to vary greatly.

Basically, I believe that trust in the architect I commission (when I work with an independent architect) is good - but control is still better.
If I work with a general contractor, the question doesn’t even arise for me. I would definitely have someone keep an eye on things if I can’t manage it myself.

How does it work regarding the mandatory construction supervision according to KFW guidelines?
I would understand it this way anyway: that I have my independent architect, but in addition, I have to consult an independent expert as a construction supervisor.

Regards,
Sebastian

How is it regarding the mandatory construction supervision according to KfW guidelines? I would understand it in such a way that I have my own independent architect, but in addition, I have to consult an independent expert as a construction supervisor.

Regards, Sebastian

Only for the energy-related measures is the KfW construction supervisor responsible.