Developer or architect - costs

Besides the topic of costs, you should also always keep an eye on quality.

The risk of exceeding +20% of the estimated construction cost is significantly higher with an architect than with a GÜ offering a fixed price.

I was at a lecture over the weekend where, among other things, this topic was also addressed. It turned out that this cannot be said in general at all. In a general contractor/general contractor with supervision, architectural services are also included, which you have to pay for. And a general contractor/general contractor with supervision has its manufacturing costs, then additional distribution costs, operating costs, profit, etc. are added for the general contractor/general contractor with supervision. With the architect, you pay for his architectural services. However, it also strongly depends on the architect on how well he obtains offers, negotiates/compares prices. If you have one who is not interested in doing that, you simply pay the costs out of your own pocket. I do not want to speak ill of architects with this, as most certainly work diligently. But there are black sheep everywhere.

It doesn't even have to be black; a cozy light gray is already enough

You pay the architect for their architectural service. However, it also greatly depends on the architect, how well they obtain offers, negotiate/compare prices. If you have one who doesn't feel like doing that, you end up paying the costs out of your own pocket.

I lack personal experience, but shouldn't exactly this be ensured by commissioning service phase 7?! This is not a question of "feeling like it," but a clearly regulated, chargeable service.

It is probably about the fact that it can also be good that an architect has his craftsmen with whom he has been working well for years, who then might just be a bit more expensive.