Financing request - How many documents are normal?

But if the house construction company is commissioning your preferred company for the foundation slab anyway, why can't the house construction company simply include their offer in the house construction price?

They commission ONE company. And that company would only do the tasks that concern the house itself. And the house company adds a "brokerage fee" on top. We know some regional civil engineering companies and have received good offers where everything (!) is included. If we were to commission the house company + other tasks, it would simply cost us a few thousand euros more... And the house company will do an acceptance anyway (according to the construction performance description). For them, it's OK if we take it out. Only the bank doesn't understand that...

Well... as I said, we'll see next week.

We don't want to discuss and publish all our figures here.

We were also asked who then supervises all the trades execution if we build "without an architect." We just fall off our chairs. We are not the first to build with a general contractor, are we?!?!

The bank wants a stamp and a signature confirming that the calculation is correct.

And they want a site manager or architect who confirms the construction progress.

Normally, your general contractor can provide this; they often even have templates for it.
The general contractor does not even need to know how much equity you have.

It is usually sufficient if the items you have calculated are listed, and if you then assign the foundation slab to someone else, the bank normally doesn't care.

And she wants a site manager or architect to confirm the construction progress

The bank didn't care about that at all, for example, in our case.

We were also asked who supervises all the trades executions if we build "without an architect."

The question is quite justified, because despite all the similarities between what a general contractor and an architect understand by construction management, the difference in partiality is not insignificant. Although the financing bank does not intend to live in the house, it nevertheless has no less an interest in quality. You call it a home, and the bank calls it security, but it means the same thing. The bank does this commercially and therefore perceives its interest more professionally, and its skepticism is quite legitimate and appropriate.

The question is quite justified, because despite all the similarity in what GU and architect understand by construction management, the difference in partiality is not insignificant. The financing bank does not want to live in the house, but still has no less an interest in the quality. You call it a home, and the bank calls it collateral, but it is the same thing. The bank does this commercially and perceives your interest accordingly more professionally, and their skepticism is quite legitimate and appropriate.

I can also understand that they want security. That’s why we report about US and OUR plans.

But somehow it doesn’t matter what we say, because every external person – who has zero idea about our project – counts more than our statements.

And that they can’t make sense of the GU/turnkey building concept confuses us. An architect is their “god.”
And that they then react completely confused when we say the house building company controls it/a construction manager and that we have the option to hire a building expert, although we actually don’t plan to do so because that is my husband’s job. "Fake numbers" from someone unrelated count more than the personal plan of how we want to implement the project.

And planning to finish the children’s rooms later or the garden later is also completely unacceptable.

That is something that has obviously changed a lot in the last decades… we are building in the wrong decade.

we are building in the wrong decade

There was probably just a personnel shortage among the consultants, so they put the cleaning lady behind the desk. That is probably the reason.