General contractor's offer vs. final invoice - a nightmare

Hello

Here is the following information:

Price commitment: in our construction contract, the price commitment was fixed at 12 months under the condition that the building permit is granted within these 12 months. Unfortunately, we could not implement that.
We had accepted that.

According to the soil report, additional foundation work was then required.
Of course, he is not to blame, so we accepted that.
The general contractor created a corresponding offer as described above and we placed the order.
As I understand it, he is responsible only for exactly the quantities determined in the offer based on the report.
If more is simply used later because they still dig deeper and wider, then I don’t understand why I should pay for that.

It’s not an estimate, but an offer?!

Regards
x

You already miscalculated from the start. Normally, you sign a planning contract (if you don’t know 100% the building permit time) and only after the building permit is granted do you sign the work contract. Because you will probably face not only the 15% additional costs and the refinancing but also the standby interest. The few euros the general contractor is demanding more now do not make much difference and probably wouldn’t upset you if the previous mistakes had not occurred.

Quite a lot of gravel...
Price-wise, depending on the region, the price for the installed gravel is okay.

The problem, however, is that the offer contains bad conditions for you. Gravel usually has a density of about 1.7-1.8.
That means, from the outset, the general contractor pockets money for every cubic meter installed. But unfortunately, you signed it that way.

As far as I understand, he is responsible exactly for the quantities determined in the offer based on the report.
If more is used later on because they still dig deeper and wider, then I don’t understand why I should pay for that

The report certainly only contains 2-3 drillings = spot checks.
How this will affect the uncovered area will only be seen then.

What is your opinion on this case.
Am I mistaken here? Do I have to accept this?

Content-wise, I agree with the assessment of .
That you are mistaken is too harshly put for me. I would drop the allegation that the entrepreneur is "printing money." I think you have not fully perceived the effect of the variability of the unit prices in the offer. Ultimately, you probably have to accept that. The deviation of about 15% upwards is, in my opinion, within limits. Whether the agreements could have been handled better, I cannot judge.

The addition "Billing according to weighing slips" is not an obvious announcement of possible additional costs for a layperson. It could also mean that the entrepreneur proves by the weighing slips that he has delivered the offered and ordered quantity.

If something is unclear or not exactly understandable in the contract, one can ask questions. That much can be expected from a consumer. It can happen that one does not read something carefully; if one then signs it, one bears the responsibility. I cannot see any deception here.

Regardless of the causes, an experienced entrepreneur should present his offer so clearly that no customer is later surprised by the costs.

The following lines are expressly not related to the specific situation of :
With more complex offers, the consumer certainly has a co-responsibility to ensure their understanding of the offer. Therefore, it is advisable to go through the items and ask questions – for example: How large can the deviations be? How do you arrive at the stated quantity? What does that mean for a possible deviation in the final sum? What communication can we agree on if you find that there is a deviation?
At some point, the balance between freedom of action and personal responsibility gets out of kilter. Maturity does not come with a full-coverage insurance plan.

I had a similar situation, but in my case, the unit price was much lower and the deviation was probably smaller as well.
Interestingly, the weighing slips didn't match the invoiced quantity at all; according to them, I would have had to pay even more. But the invoiced quantity could be explained: after filling the "exchange pit," it was found that the base course was 20 cm too low compared to the height specified in the building permit. This meant more material had to be added to raise the base course to match the surrounding terrain.
After the demolition, the entire site was lower than it had been during the survey.
From this point of view, it might have been better to be more careful with the cost estimate, but I couldn't avoid the additional costs anyway.

Just try asking your general contractor quite naively why they suddenly needed so much more.

Quite a lot of gravel... Depending on the region, the price for the installed gravel is okay. However, the problem is that the offer contains bad conditions for you. Usually, gravel has a weight of about 1.7-1.8. This means that from the outset, the general contractor pockets money for every cubic meter installed.

But he does settle accounts with the general contractor by m3 and not by ton. That would be positive for the client.

As has correctly suspected himself, he sees the matter differently than I do precisely because he (like probably the OP) has not understood it correctly. has already explained who here had the duty of care to ask further questions. With

each time with the addition: Billing according to weigh slips 2t/m³

the contractor pointed out that he assumes two tons of required material per cubic meter and that the measured weight is decisive for the billing.

The addition "Billing according to weigh slips" is not an obvious announcement of possible additional costs for a layperson. It could also mean that the contractor proves with the weigh slips that he delivered the offered and commissioned amount.

That is not only not an obvious announcement of additional costs, it is not an announcement of additional costs at all.

Which "volume shrinkage" is supposed to have occurred here is not clear to me. The OP writes that the excavation was done too deep (or have I misunderstood that?)

Yes, you have.

Regardless of the causes, an experienced contractor should present his offer so clearly that no customer is subsequently surprised by the costs. For example, by clearly stating that the costs may increase by xy % due to "volume shrinkage" or whatever. The customer usually experiences this for the first time, the contractor for the umpteenth.

What happened? – quite simply:
1) The OP asked the contractor for an offer. This was created based on the volumes calculated from the plans. At that time, the contractor assumed that 300 tons of material had to be poured from the silo onto the dump truck to achieve 150 cubic meters installed at the construction site.
2) The soil surveyor then recommended excavating deeper and installing more material. HERE and nowhere else did additional costs arise – the contractor’s price in the billing exactly matches the amount in his offer. The contractor accordingly had to fetch not 300, but 350 tons. Each time, he drove to the gravel plant with an empty truck. Upon entry, the truck is weighed, and it is weighed again upon exit. This does not take place on the scale of the Baleks – instead, every year an official from the calibration office comes to check whether the scale is still accurate. The weigh slips are electronic receipts like those at the emissions test, even displaying the inspection number of the last calibration. Everything clean, everything traceable.
3) The 350 tons of load cannot be put on the truck in one trip. The construction workers on site measured after each installation and layer-wise compaction of the deliveries that the driver should reload half full again on the eighteenth trip.

The contractors are not to blame that reality on an adult construction site is somewhat more complex than it was in the client’s memory back in the sandbox. So I have to vehemently disagree with that the contractor would not be recommendable here.

There are good reasons why I tirelessly advise against tackling the entire tendering process alone as a layperson/ brave apprentice sorcerer. Building a whole house is several octaves more complex than just commissioning the whitewashing of all ceiling rooms (or wherever the average normal consumer believes to have enough experience in something sufficiently similar). You don’t learn the difference in a weekend webinar (although it seems I should offer one next summer). Drawing the conclusion that building contractors are apparently genetically unreliable from every surprise that reality is more expensive than expected "is no solution" either ;-)