GU does not guarantee KfW compliance. Cost risk to the customer?

Is it common in calculated price quotes that for the different KfW levels a guarantee for the later fulfillment of the KfW requirements is excluded?

That is not common.

In one example it is stated that the location of the plot, the orientation to the cardinal directions, and also the layout of the house itself are so individual that no guarantee can be given.

Location and architecture can make achieving the standards more difficult. If an architect has also specified wall thicknesses and materials, a provider may conclude that achieving a standard under the given circumstances cannot be guaranteed. More information would be needed here to determine whether the general contractor is simply evading responsibility or if they critically view certain points in the design.

I actually assumed that during the planning process all necessary facts about the plot and house are known or become known and that fulfillment can then be properly calculated.

That should also be the case; discrepancies can arise if the design provides for specific characteristics for which the general contractor then does not want to assume liability.

Is it common that the cost risk of non-fulfillment is nevertheless shifted to the customer?

That is uncommon.

Each KfW energy efficiency level has its funding conditions, which are documented and thus achievable in a constructive manner. In the U-value calculator, it can be entered which brick with which insulation material of what thickness will achieve the target value. To my knowledge, the conditions are not changed, but with the introduction of the Energy Saving Ordinance 2016, the KfW70 program simply ceased to exist. However, such a change in the legal framework (and thus the removal of a funding incentive) does not usually happen overnight. Therefore, it is quite reliably calculable whether a house planned today will also meet the funding conditions when completed next year. However, for example, every wall also has window surfaces, which naturally have a significantly higher heat transfer coefficient than the wall surfaces. If the builder now turns a catalog house into a skeleton construction with double the proportion of window surfaces, major redesign is at least necessary – but it can also have the consequence that the targeted KfW energy efficiency level is no longer achievable. In this respect, it cannot be guaranteed that every specific individually planned (or individualized from a catalog) house model can be built in the targeted KfW energy efficiency level. On the other hand, it can very well be guaranteed that a planned achievement will also be maintained in execution. If you commission the construction of your house in the KfW55 variant, measures will be planned accordingly and can also be guaranteed to be properly implemented. If you commission the execution in the KfW40 variant, the likelihood is already higher that the order will not be accepted if, for example, your flat roof bay windows are too expansive or the like. But in any case, you can be guaranteed that the implementation of the planning will be faithful and thereby fulfill the conditions of the funding measure. Of course, in the meantime, the Conference of Prime Ministers could come to the conclusion to halve old building subsidies and cancel new building subsidies, for example, to compensate for the Corona aid – but even that would probably only affect you if the funding application were submitted after such a decision. If such a change were made without notice, it would, in terms of the guarantee, probably be considered force majeure and would not cause sleepless nights for the guarantor because of your compensation claims. I – but caution: personal opinion of a non-lawyer! – therefore see no reasonable reason here not to guarantee compliance with a specific KfW energy efficiency level after order confirmation. Guaranteeing before order acceptance that every specific house design would be buildable in every desired KfW energy efficiency level is a different matter.

I just see that you have now landed with four GUs in the "final" while gathering all kinds of salami slices – do they all even offer the same house?

I just noticed, you have now ended up with four general contractors in the "final" round for gathering all kinds of small bits and pieces - do they all even offer the same house?

Exactly, we are on the home stretch. I just mistyped, we are currently comparing Neesen, HelSti, Viebrockhaus, Favorit and Splietker red very intensively. It will probably be one of these five. The houses are not all identical, the layouts and small details differ slightly, but basically by now everything is very comparable. Even with the offers, we have sometimes had additional features priced to balance out equipment differences and to make the offers better comparable. This ranges from the same KfW standard over the reinforced concrete ceiling above the upper floor, the concrete staircase, the cornice box, etc., up to additional sockets and network cables. Although of course it is not always quite easy; Viebrockhaus is the only one with a small photovoltaic system, Splietker is according to the construction service description the only one that already includes glass cover and door for the showers and also includes the podium at the front door.

That won't work in five years. You can't have all 5 of them calculate the entire house down to every last detail and every last euro until the end. Who exactly is supposed to pay for those efforts? From a certain point on, you go into the race with one, the chosen one. Done. Sampling comes anyway in Top each time. Some have ideas. :cool:

You cannot have all 5 calculate the entire house down to the last detail and the last euro until the end.

That is not what is being said either. Comparing primarily means the juxtaposition of the offers (usually one, sometimes with the described second version) and especially the construction service descriptions. This comparison effort is on me; the companies do not have to do more than with any other interested party.