Half GU

Hello everyone,

we had a consultation with a construction company that builds the shell construction itself and awards further services for turnkey construction to third parties.

In doing so, the construction company offers everything from submitting the building application, architectural services, structural engineering, tendering and awarding as well as construction supervision.

So far, nothing unusual.

The difference to the "normal" general contractor is that this construction company does not want to act as a contracting party to the third parties. Here, a contract is to be made from the client to the third company for each trade and company.

This would have the advantage that for each trade a different company assumes the warranty. That means if a company goes bankrupt, only part of the warranty is "lost."

Since I have not heard of this before, I am posting a few questions here right away. :o

Is this approach known to anyone?
What advantages or disadvantages does it bring from your point of view?
Has anyone already built like this?

Are you building that with a fixed price? What happens if every third company changes their prices because, for example, the tender was not correct? That's what comes to mind spontaneously. Your construction company then gets off easy (by the way, this also applies to defect repairs). If you choose such a construct, you might as well build "properly" with an architect and individual trade contracts.

Hello,

...we had a consultation with a construction company that builds the shell itself and awards further services for turnkey construction to third parties...

From an economic point of view, this is quite close to a success model of the future!!! Why in this case the general contractor hands over liability for the final building to third parties must have its reasons! ;-)

...In doing so, the construction company offers everything from submitting the building application, architectural services, statics, ...

I would consider that valuable if, for example, alongside the enclosed shell, plaster and screed are included in a fixed price. However, I would not leave tenders, subcontracting, and site management to them! ;-)
Without internal site management, no construction project can be realized, therefore by no means a marketing argument. Important is an external, sales-independent site supervision that keeps an eye on the executor! Only positive assessments from this should justify partial payments! ;-)

...This would have the advantage that a different company assumes the warranty for each trade. That means, if a company goes bankrupt, only part of the warranty is "lost".

You don’t get advantages without also having to accept restrictions at the same time.
The "jack of all trades and master of all" is well known not to exist!
It’s not comfortable, but certainly very economical and without unpleasant surprises!

best regards

...What if the third company each time changes its prices, ...

In a new build, a contractor hardly faces any risk in providing missing services also at a fixed price! If not, he is in the wrong place!

...If you choose such a construction, you might as well build "properly" with an architect and individual trade contracts.

Mistake, there is no "fixed price guarantee for everything" here!!!
That is precisely why this intermediate solution is so interesting!

Best regards

In the case of a new build, there is hardly any risk for a contractor to provide missing services also at a fixed price! If not, he is in the wrong place!
Mistake, there is no "fixed price guarantee for everything" here!!!
That is precisely why this interim solution is so interesting!

Regards.

I believe it will still not be that simple.
Contract customer - builder: fixed price
Contract customer - craftsmen: ???
What is the situation if the craftsmen contracts do not match the fixed price contract? Who is the contact person for complaints? Site management (already mentioned by you)? Who pays the craftsmen?

Hello,

The difference from the "normal" general contractor is that this construction company does not want to act as a contracting party to the third parties. Here, a contract is to be made from the builder to the third company for each trade and company.

I consider this - contrary to €uro's opinion - to be very problematic. It would be normal if you concluded the contract via a main company with one third party; this is usually a general contractor who performs all trades or works together with craftsmen companies. This construct - first contracting with the shell construction company and then assigning all the remaining trades (and there are quite a few) individually - requires an enormous understanding of the house building process itself. Read the posts by "nordanney" on the HBF - he awards contracts individually via an architect, and that is already an enormous effort.

This would have the advantage that a different company assumes the warranty for each trade. That means if a company goes bankrupt, only part of the warranty is "lost".

Nice advertising statement! What if the prices for the succeeding trades are calculated so tight that in the worst case you don't even have the slightest chance to reassign the "failed" trade? The shell construction company is off the hook because that is the most cost-intensive trade and their profits are secured ;)

Now all that's missing is for you to say that the shell construction company would tender the trades in a "craftsmen pool" ....

If you are really interested in this system, have knowledge of the matter, and time - find an architect and award the house construction together with him. That external construction management and securities should also be negotiated goes without saying.

Best regards from the Rhineland