Experiences with building an architect at a fixed price?

Hello everyone,

I actually always wanted to build with a general contractor (GU), among other things because of the financial security of a fixed price. With architects, I was always afraid of unforeseeable costs or that the costs would ultimately be significantly higher.
Now I have been recommended a regional architect through acquaintances who also offers a fixed price like a GU (for the complete turnkey house). The only difference would be, as usual with architects, that it is not "everything from one source," but individual contracts are concluded with the trades, which are nevertheless tendered and coordinated by the architect later. His profit would then basically be his fixed price minus the costs negotiated with the trades.

In the first conversation, everything seemed very serious and honest, and I had a good feeling about it. The price was also in the normal range between the cheap GU providers and the (seemingly overpriced) GUs. He also already includes some services that many GUs count in the incidental construction costs, such as the base plate, removal of excavated soil, etc. The remaining incidental costs added to the fixed price were roughly calculated.
That's why I would also like to build with the architect and am already in the first exchange regarding the floor plan.

However, I wanted to ask again if anyone has already had experience with this model and if I should still pay attention to anything? Would you also hire an independent construction supervisor when building with an architect? I definitely would have done it with a GU, but with the architect, where you work a bit more closely together, I rather have the feeling that you would undermine trust right away.

The only thing that still makes me a bit uncertain is that the performance description (which would also be the contractual basis) is somewhat vague in some places:
for example, in the masonry "Energeispiearziegel...[]...selection of bricks is based on thermal calculation..." or with the base plate "will be dimensioned according to structural requirements...". So it does not specify in detail how thick the masonry or the base plate will be, like with many GUs. Other things are described more precisely, similar to GUs.

The architect said that this will only be further specified with the tendering and offers from the trades and would then even be more detailed than with a GU. However, the tenders will only be done after I have signed the house construction contract. At this point, I would have to give him a vote of confidence.

On the one hand, he does make a serious impression and has been doing this model for quite some time, but on the other hand, I am also a bit cautious when I have to give a vote of confidence with so much money involved.

What do you think?

Interesting, but here a paradigm shift is taking place. Classic construction with an architect: he builds your house through tenders, represents you as the client towards the companies, and charges a fee for this; his price for the house is based on the tenders, you know the results, and you have jointly determined the selection of companies. Now. The architect sells you a house at a fixed price. He is thus no longer the client’s representative but on the side of the providers. What prices he achieves and whom he commissions are unknown to you. This architect does not take a fee but pockets a non-transparent profit that he earns from affordable craftsmen. He is thus more of a general contractor than an architect. Consider what you want. I found construction with a general contractor at a fixed price relaxed but also trusted him. K.

The only difference would be, as is usual with architects, that it is not "everything from one source," but individual contracts are concluded with the trades, which are nevertheless tendered and later coordinated by the architect. His profit would then be his fixed price minus the costs negotiated with the trades.

The question is: who is the client for the tendered trades?
If it is you, you also have the trouble with them.
If not you, but the architect, then the architect acts as the general contractor here.
There is, this is not exactly a prime example either (our general contractor is also an architect) and nothing other than a contract for work with a general contractor, only that the boss happens to be an architect.

The only difference would be, as is usual with architects, that it is not "everything from one source," but individual contracts are concluded with the trades, which are nevertheless tendered and later coordinated by the architect. His profit would then basically be his fixed price minus the costs negotiated with the trades. [...] However, the tendering only takes place after I have signed the house construction contract.

In my opinion, that contradicts itself. It is unclear to me what role he is actually playing here. "House construction contract" sounds like his legal status toward you as your general contractor (GC); if the "individual contracts" with the craftsmen were concluded by you, he would rather be acting as an architect for you.

An architect-GC is not unusual in itself; most are masonry-GCs, but increasingly there are also carpentry-GCs nowadays.

And basically, a GC is not automatically a general contractor with trades (GÜ); many are only shell builders and subcontract many trades to subs. That is not problematic in itself.

However, if his legal status toward you is unclear, I see that as uncertain for you: as an architect he is a freelancer and you might face invoicing of his architectural services according to HOAI; as a building contractor he can include architectural services flat rate, but is contractually connected to you as a business operator in a different way and then, in terms of professional and warranty law, actually has nothing to do with you as an architect; and VAT will then also apply.

Ask a lawyer who is familiar with construction (contract) law which category this contract even falls into.

Whether the guy himself is a scoundrel is probably not difficult to find out: architect-GCs typically operate in a tight regional area and have corresponding references within the similarly small radius.

My general contractor was \ is a former architect who now officially acts as the general contractor. His office plans and accompanies us with everything at a fixed price. We get a warranty from him. That would be too vague for me with you. Disadvantage, you pay real estate transfer tax on everything

My general contractor was \ is a former architect who now officially acts as a general contractor. His office plans and accompanies us everything at a fixed price. We get warranty from him. That would be too vague for me with you. Disadvantage, you pay land transfer tax on everything

No, only if you also buy the building plot from the general contractor.