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

ah so basically early in the process already sort out the structural shell builders and focus on one for support, but without a commitment for construction. Afterwards, the tender proceeds as usual.

Yes and no. Not sorting out, but rather drawing conclusions from their responses in the decision-making and aligning further planning accordingly as to which candidates you would prefer to build with, and taking that into account for the wall construction. Neither acceptance nor rejection, and proceeding "normally" with the later tender, yes. Simply have the wall constructions explained and incorporate this into further planning, example:

Exact details of the masonry have not yet been discussed,

Actually, they have: 46 cm total thickness, 17.5 cm structural masonry shell, 11.5 cm facing masonry shell, with likely an insulation and air layer in between totaling 17 cm here (for the garage, if a cold garage makes no sense, then possibly with the consequence of creating a transition between facing masonry shell and thin brick at the corner detail there). Total caliber 460 is off beat. Candidate A builds caliber 425 (compatible with the rhythm) but with 3.5 cm less sum of insulation and air layer (or possibly 15 cm aerated concrete as structural masonry shell, then only 1 cm less sum of insulation and air layer. In the example this would be an insulation with a “stronger” thermal conductivity class (WLG) to compensate for its smaller thickness and to offset the worse U-value of the structural masonry shell. His exact approach would need to be asked. But this is product information, not elaborate consulting. Candidates B and C build caliber 490 (also rhythm compatible) with more base area consumption for the exterior walls, but more space for the overall construction. Candidate B uses 24 cm structural masonry shell, and like Candidate A has 3.5 cm less sum of insulation and air layer (with the same consequences as before). Candidate C keeps the structural masonry shell as in the shown architect’s proposal and accordingly has 3 cm more "interspace". He doesn’t need more air layer, since nowadays it is mostly used only as a finger joint anyway, so he can use insulation of the same thickness but with “weaker” thermal conductivity class (WLG). Candidate D builds total caliber say 440, thus also not rhythm compatible as in the architect’s proposal. Which of the roughly outlined ways he exactly takes would need to be asked (also product information, not consulting from the architect).

All providers with non-rhythm compatible overall calibers share the fact that a decision is needed as to which of the two masonry shells fits the rhythm (and the other adjusts accordingly). This can be done by cutting, such providers use aerated concrete for the structural masonry shell, then the facing shell can be the master. Or by wild bond in the facing shell, which categorically excludes the use of universal auxiliary construction tasks for the "brick facing" and is hardly considered by cost-conscious providers. Then the structural masonry shell can be the master.

Or the answer is: “Huh? – we don’t care, we build any fantasy dimension you want.” Then my loyal readers immediately know: “Run away (and actually: sort out the provider),” because this would directly lead to a wild fight full of botched jobs and rainy overlapping dimensions. So despite all pluralism and tolerance, there are always also “objectively wrong” answers. I also evaluate these in the decision-making with the corresponding consequence of recommending to the builders not to involve these candidates in the later tender. Candidates A to C (and if he gives a reasonable answer also Candidate D) are welcome to play in the final.

So from your architect I would clearly expect clear statements about how his wall details should look. Shrugging shoulders would be a “wrong answer” and would lead me to not proceed with him into Module B or service phase 3 after the dough resting phase. The dough resting phase more often leads to an architect selection than the simultaneous decision-making leads to provider selection (“selection” in both cases meaning outcome voting during casting).

I only know from other buildings that the stretcher bond is standard (offset by a quarter brick length).

Offset by a quarter brick length to what: to the neighboring course below, with the consequence of a stair-step pattern in the joint image?

You hopefully see, this all is not so easy, you have to constantly check the smurfs carefully. There can be many paths to Rome in many places – but also repeatedly new stupid answers that the accompanying expert has not yet collected. And for laypeople these are often hard to distinguish – yet they are the ones who pay for the possibly resulting shortfall in construction quality.

And it should also have become clear why I work preventively as a consultant, but not also as an expert, who not rarely is left with the funeral speeches.

this type of preparation could also be applied to e-planning and technology, etc., couldn't it? Ultimately, it's about aligning the practical execution with the planning early on so that no surprises arise during the actual construction phase. I still have to ask soon what exactly the office provides in terms of additional services. I wouldn't be surprised if he says that he prepares a specification for me and then leaves me to deal with the general contractors on my own.

this type of preparation could also be applied in e-planning and technology etc., right?

I apply my approach to entire construction projects. I also have a home automation planner "on hand," as the Kölsche so nicely say – but where do you want to set a course there?

Ultimately, it's about aligning the practical implementation with the planning early on so that no surprises arise during the actual construction phase.

That is done actively, and it is called service phase 5.

I first have to inquire soon about what exact additional services the office provides.

You have to know which service phases a contract was made for (?).

I wouldn’t be surprised if he says that he will create a bill of quantities for me and then lets me deal with the general contractors on my own.

If he only provides you with service phase 6 and not also service phase 7, then that would probably be the case. But you know who you can turn to (I am basically already in the Christmas business, meaning as soon as the waiting room is empty, I will be on vacation first). Appointments for counselors not yet registered will then be made only in the new year, probably for the carnival/Easter period. I don’t know the calendars of the competitors, but I have several and regularly name them – so you will surely find someone.

You have to know which service phases a contract was made for (?)

Yes 1-4, we had mentioned that sometime earlier. Also, that most houses here are only built with the architects up to service phase 4 and then everyone goes to the general contractor. He roughly outlined what he does in service phase 5, but I have nothing concrete on paper.

Yes 1-4, we had mentioned that sometime earlier. Also, that most houses here are only built with the architects up to service phase 4 and then everyone goes to the general contractor.

I then also pointed out why and in what dimensions this is dangerous. Service phase 5 costs 35 percentage points HOAI fee, omitting it nominally does not cost noticeably less, but adds general and specific improvisation risks (regularly including drywall boxing instead of using grip nuts).

He roughly outlined what he does in service phase 5, but I have nothing concrete on paper.

1. If you don't fix that, it will end with the mandate finishing at the approval stamp. Unless you have agreed on fees according to HOAI, you are now of course in a weak negotiating position regarding what service phase 5 as an extension should cost.
2. With only service phase 5 you still only have the detailed planning, but not yet the tendering. The specification comes only in service phase 6.

Either you now book the entire second half-time (service phases 5 to 8) with the architect, thus fully mandating him including the construction management. Or you book at least service phases 5 and 6 with him and find a freelance consultant for service phase 7 and a construction supervisory expert for service phase 8.

Or you book only service phase 5 without 6 and 7 with the architect, rely solely on the "site manager" of the general contractor, pay a lot of tuition fees without helmet and harness (or even more if you botch service phases 6 and 7 yourself), and afterwards complain about the "expensive construction of an architect's house" with a general contractor.

As I said (with the limitation regarding the notes on my calendar), I am gladly available for you.

If you skip detailed planning with the architect, you should at least discuss the topic of wall construction details (corners, reveals & co. as well as the transition between front masonry shell / brick slips) thoroughly with the general contractor. It can happen that applying the 11ant Stone mantra depending on the general contractor leads to the consequence of also executing a cold garage as a double-shell.

I still have to make a decision regarding the planner for service phases 5-8; so far, a change is being considered, although the entire planning for electrical & sanitary/heating is outsourced to the companies anyway (as already mentioned, this is the same with all options). How does a tender including a general contractor (GU) actually work, if the individual tenders (first shell construction, then interior trades and technology) take place at different times with intervals of several weeks, but at the same time I want a fixed price for everything from one GU? The GU would actually need all the tenders at once.