Floor plan single-family house 1 full floor technology and daylight

Prepare and submit all the documents, I meant, the structural analysis still needs to be done as well. Only phases 1-4 are currently commissioned. The plan is to create an execution plan and then a tender for the general contractor/individual companies. Since I don't have an offer for the subsequent phases yet, I don't know if he even wants to do the entire planning & coordination or just a reduced phase 5 (without [Sanitär] and [Elektri], for example) and then send us to the general contractor. And I would definitely like to have the planner from phase 5 as the site manager.

Only phases 1-4 are commissioned now.

This is the most wrong scope of services, which I always warn against. Now phase 4 will probably be done more or less twice (to derive phase 5 without having been involved in phase 3). It is always better to do the scope of services phases 1 to 3 or 1 to 5 (depending on whether phase 4 should come from the architect or the drafting assistant), always with "Module A" as the basis of the planning contract, then the dough rest with soft setting, and then depending on its result either only phase 3 or the whole "Module B" with the architect.

And in any case, I would like the planner of phase 5 as construction manager

That sounds reasonable, but is hard to get.

Since I don’t have an offer yet for the further phases, I don’t know if he even wants to do the entire planning & coordination or only a reduced phase 5 (without sanitary and electrical, for example) and then send us to the general contractor.

Three mistakes: 1. the client is you, your will be done; 2. half measures do not exist (why even a phase 5 without installations? – the kebab guy would say "without everything", that makes no sense!); 3. no, never ever without tendering to the general contractor! (otherwise phase 5, which is otherwise extremely useful, is exceptionally wasted money).

The plan is to do an execution planning and then a tender for general contractor / individual firms.

First you should find out (or have someone find out) how you want to proceed at all. That depends on with whom. I can arrange that gladly, but then you have to get back to me quickly. I still have time in October (but for people getting back only then, not sure if still this year). And I traditionally take vacation between the years.

Thank you for the offer, I prefer a planner nearby with personal contact.

Why is it difficult to get the planner of phase 5 also as construction management for phase 8?

The reality here was that for phase 8 we were within ~30km of the construction site with 8 out of 11 offices, and all offered phases 1-4 and a few offered 1-2, but no one wanted to do 1-3 ("we do preliminary design and design together"). In addition, everyone recommended always including phase 5, even though >70% of the clients would not do that. Three of them only do service phase 5 without sanitary and electrical planning; the respective trades would have to plan those themselves. For the others, I don't remember anymore.

3. no, never ever without tendering for the general contractor! (then the otherwise very reasonable service phase 5 is exceptionally wasted money).

Oh yes, sorry, I already meant with tendering.

Now service phase 4 will probably be done more or less twice (in order to derive phase 5 without having been involved in phase 3).

Naive question: With a change after phase 4, some familiarization with the design and other documents will probably be necessary, but what exactly has to be done twice?

Naive question: When switching after phase 4, it will probably require some onboarding into the design and other documents, but what exactly has to be done twice?
[ < ] Why is it difficult to get the planner of phase 5 also as the construction management for phase 8?

Phases 4 and 5 are different further developments, each derived from the results of performance phase 3. Acting as a surrogate to develop a performance phase 5 for a construction project in which one was not involved in performance phase 3 is a small biblical punishment.

Many construction-related experts are so specialized in performance phase 8 that they rarely offer performance phase 5 as well. This also makes much less sense than offering the entire second half (performance phases 5 to 8). The latter, in turn, would be a completely different business model than that of a construction-related expert (and would already require a substantially different operational structure). Therefore (consider: I say this as someone who professionally recruits such specialists), you will (not impossible, but) have difficulty finding providers for performance phases 8 and 5. You at least understood that theoretically the same service provider for at least 5 and 8, if not for 3, 5, and 8, would be a blessing. But: will that benefit you? - good luck!

Thanks for the offer, I prefer a planner nearby with personal contact.

I also look for these specialists exclusively near the respective construction site. I could do little with those from my residential area; there I have (intentionally, I also want to be able to go to Aldi unshaven) practically no clients.

The reality here was that for phase 8, we were dealing with 8 out of 11 offices within about 30 km of the construction site, all offered phases 1-4 and a few offered 1-2, but none wanted to do 1-3 ("we do preliminary design and design together"). Everyone advised always including phase 5 as well, even if >70% of clients would not do that. Three of them only do performance phase 5 without sanitary and electrical planning; the respective trades would have to plan those themselves.

Looking for a planner nearby is best. Among the best home architects, "office" is already a big word; they are classic freelancers with a draftsman/construction supervisor assistant and a part-time office worker. A good architect explicitly (though more politely than I do) points out that a mandate scope of performance phases 1 to 4 is the "idiot’s budget package"; the mandate scope "Module A - (dough rest / decision-making) - performance phase 3," on the other hand, is a good choice and, depending on the result of dough rest with decision-making, exactly the right one. Phases 4 and 5 should not be separated, following "st"’s example; and performance phases 5/6/7 are a kind of triad. A performance phase 5 without installation is gross nonsense, practically a "performance phase 5 without performance phase 5" – what is that supposed to be: formwork plans with BD and DD? – that's nonsensical stuff! Architects who stop after obtaining the permit at the urging of the clients are okay—on the other hand, those who on their own initiative offer a mandate scope of phases 1 to 4 are highly " warns" suspicious; from them, one can expect plans running severely over budget.

Oh yes, apologies, I already meant with the tendering.

Performance phase 5 is the essential basis for phases 6 and 7 and serves, as its fee share already implies, far more than just giving the craftsmen their drilling points pre-chewed.

Above all, I consider it highly advisable that you catch up on / have caught up the missed decision-making together with the omitted dough rest. With phase 4 completed and the building permit obtained for a stone house, this makes somewhat less sense than usual, but nevertheless, I would still place it before the second half in your case. But as I said, don’t wait any longer: as soon as my waiting room is processed, I will disappear into vacation (and after that the first appointments will be available again from February). For the other independent construction advisors, the situation is similar, although their vacation times obviously differ.

Developing a service phase 5 as a substitute architect for a construction project in which one was not involved in service phase 3 is a small biblical punishment.

You said that in your last post too, but still not why in terms of content. Which processes and activities are specifically so ungrateful?

You said that in your last post as well, but still not why content-wise. Which processes and activities are specifically so ungrateful?

Just as a memorable historical moment with the concert of feelings of all those present can only be incompletely conveyed by a photo, so too can only a small fraction of the thoughts that led to a plan be seen in the strokes of its graphic representation. Those who were involved in the planning process are reminded by the sight of the drawing of all the heated debates about why one went in this direction and not another. Those who were not there cannot remember. Such an "outsider reader" of a plan drawing depiction of a phase 3 discussion result (and nothing else are the drawing attachments to the building application, apart from the drainage planning) can inevitably not successfully escape the ordeal of despair if they are supposed to derive something from it. It can be nothing less than a torment to subject a blind person to cross-examination, asking them to explain what color is.