GU is building without a final factory plan

Hello,

new here, so please forgive any mistakes. We have a work contract with a general contractor, which roughly states the following:

The contractor prepares, at his own expense, both the work and detailed planning required for him as well as the necessary static calculation, and, if required, the structural safety and fire protection certificate.

Before construction begins, the work plans (scale 1:50) must be submitted to the client and signed off by him for construction approval.

The GC sent us a preliminary draft of the work plans several months ago. However, there were still some errors in them and we had some change requests. Some were incorporated, some were not. This went back and forth several times, and as of today, we have not yet received a work plan that is completely free of errors. However, the house is already being built intensively. The shell is now almost finished and as far as we can tell, it was also built “correctly.” That means the way we want it and not as shown in the preliminary drafts of the work plan.

We have pointed out to the GC several times that we have not yet received an error-free work plan and therefore cannot formally approve anything. I somehow don’t understand why this is being ignored by the GC. I see this rather disadvantageous for the GC because he is somehow building at his own risk. But maybe I am wrong. The following questions:

[*]Is there a "trap" we could fall into if building continues intensively even though the work plan has not been finally approved?
[*]Could we possibly refuse interim payments (due, for example, when a floor in the shell is completed) on the grounds that the work plans must be approved before construction begins? (perhaps more something for the lawyer who reads the entire work contract, but maybe someone has concrete experience).

Could we possibly refuse the installment payments (due, for example, when a floor is completed in shell construction) with the note that the working plans must be approved before the start of construction? (maybe more something for the lawyer who reads the entire construction contract, but maybe someone has concrete experience).

Counter question: Why should you do that if the construction is being done properly? With that (and with the lawyer), you are taking the best path to sustainably poison the business relationship with the general contractor.

How did you point this out?
Why didn’t you personally go to the general contractor when construction started (or even earlier if you notice that communication is sluggish)? Email is half-hearted.
Do the plans in the building application match the desired plans?
You are the client, why did you let the guys start construction without plans?
Do the workers on site have the correct plans available?

Good counter-question :) That would only be in case something comes up in question 1 indicating that this setup is extremely disadvantageous for us.

Answer to the remaining questions:

[*]We pointed this out by email and on the phone
[*]We live in another country, so personal meetings are always a bit difficult. But even then, I wouldn’t have anything in writing.
[*]No, the building application is about 1 year old and was not submitted by us. Apart from the external dimensions, quite a few things were changed.
[*]I don’t quite understand how I’m supposed to prevent it. Am I supposed to take the bricks off them? If they build, then they build. The only thing I can do is not pay (see question 2)
[*]The last time we were there, they had two different plans. One was 90% correct, the other 95%. So it was rather chaotic. But I have no idea how many plans they still have lying around.

I don't quite understand how I'm supposed to prevent that. Should I take the bricks from them? If they build, they build. The only thing I can do is not pay (see question 2)

If you have not given up your house rights in the contract, you are the builder and can prohibit further construction or any construction at all until the plans fit.

The last time we were there, they had two different plans. One was 90% correct, the other 95%. So rather chaotic. But I have no idea how many plans they still have lying around.

That would have been the moment when I would have pulled out all the stops...

We have transferred the house rights, yes.

Moving all levers sounds good, but in my opinion that would mean threatening a construction stop and withholding advance payments. You have already written that this would probably negatively affect the business relationship.

So far, everything has been built correctly. And if something was built incorrectly, it has always been corrected without any objections. Maybe everything is not that serious, but that's why question 1: Could something happen here that would suddenly give the contractor the upper hand over us?