jawknee
2018-12-02 20:01:02
- #1
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?
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?