How much does an architect cost?

Architect, HOAI, Service Phases, Part 1 of 2

What exactly is included in the preliminary investigation? We already have a plot of land and quite precise ideas, but the architect still wants the 3%. And something extra for the structural engineering and something extra for "technical equipment." Is that normal? Altogether, we end up at 13%, that can’t be right.
However, we want to build a passive house, and there aren’t many architects who are really competent in that.
Best regards, Tigermaus

Dear Tigermaus,

Be careful, this will be a very long text
I hope you won’t get tired of reading.

- So, we haven’t built yet ourselves, and I am a complete layman, so I only know what I’ve learned from the internet and magazines/books (and I always hope that all that info is correct ) – so just a bit on that:

I told an architect who might be suitable for us our current situation (plot found, approximate house size clear, building method (solid) clear, number of floors clear, finished/unfinished clear, required rooms, approximate number and location clear, etc.), and he then said to me that service phase 1 was therefore no longer applicable for him; it could also be that he wants to lure us in that way, because for all the other service phases, he always takes the middle rate, which I personally find a bit steep for all phases…

I also see this as a kind of negotiation basis on his part, meaning that he might be willing to negotiate here or there regarding the set rate.

Apart from that, some of the service phases, at least partially, can also be delegated to other people; whether that pays off in the end (those new people also need to be briefed, and some of them are also billed according to the HOAI architect fee regulations) always has to be decided individually.

For service phase 1 (preliminary investigation) it says:
Service Phase 1, the Preliminary Investigation (3%)

Basic Services
Clarifying the task
Consultation on the entire scope of services
Formulation of decision-making aids for selecting other professionals involved in the planning
Summary of results

Special Services
Inventory
Site analysis
Preparation of a space and function program
Checking the impact on the environment and environmental compatibility

Take a look at the basic services; perhaps that is already done in your case.
You must consider the special services, which exist in all service phases and can always incur an extra charge, separately; i.e., that adds on.

To what extent the architect really performs all the services for you in service phase 1, he should prove to you.

If you demonstrate expertise and say to him:
“According to service phase 1, these and those things are included, but these are already clarified from our side, so you don’t need to invest any more work, blah blah,” then maybe you can get him to talk to you as an equal and not just charge flat rates without justifying them.

Tell him you want a disclosure of which services he actually provides in which service phase (SP); from this you can also see what he is allowed to charge at most.

These percentages given per service phase actually relate, as far as I know, to the entire service phase block.

Meaning: If he only does part of the service phase block because either
a) not all parts are required or
b) parts have been or will be done by others,

then of course he must not charge you for those parts.

- Small trick here:
He might not be able to charge you for all parts of a service phase but might take the middle rate instead of the quarter rate, or the three-quarter rate instead of the middle rate, or so on…

Always important:
Ask to see references of the architect; not just 2 or 3, but 20.
Talk to former clients he has supported.
Not just 2 or 3 whom he knows will say only good things about him.
(The same applies for developers!)

Don’t rush these things, it’s simply too much money to risk it half-heartedly.

Service phase 1: The Preliminary Investigation:
“In service phase 1, the architect lays the groundwork for your more detailed planning. This includes, for example, querying your building ideas and financial possibilities, a joint site visit, consultation on the entire scope of services, determination of further specialist planners, and finally, summary of the initial consultations.
The share of the total fee for these services is 3%.”

Generally, probably all state-specific chambers of architects have some kind of member list and an integrated search so that you can select a focus of activity, e.g., “single-family houses,” or better (if available): “passive house construction” or something similar.

Of course, I haven’t checked all chambers :- )
But if necessary, call them (depending on where you live, i.e., in which federal state) and ask. They will surely be happy to help.

Regarding passive or low-energy houses:
Well, sure, a passive house consumes much less energy than a low-energy house (something like KfW 40 or so).

You have to keep in mind that a passive house a) costs more and b) then you hardly need to heat at all; I don’t know how that works with tiled floors, whether they will always feel cold; for us, that is one reason not to have a strict passive house, but (yeah yeah, we’re climate/energy sinners…) a low-energy house with underfloor heating. That has always been our dream, and it’s great for children and pets as well.

And as I said, cost is a very important factor.

It’s also important to mention that the architect calculates his fee based on the (net)TOTAL SUM of the construction project.

If your house costs (just a low figure so it’s easier to calculate) 119,000 euros gross (including VAT), then he calculates his fee on 100,000 euros (net, without VAT).
That would be 10,000 euros in that case.

For a house costing 250,000–300,000 euros (which is probably normal), that would be 25,000–30,000 euros.

All the more reason to look closely at which individual services can possibly be omitted and then possibly assigned to someone else (if necessary).

AND what we plan to do to save on the architect:

Some of the things we want, we will only have installed LATER (maybe immediately after the house is completed).

Only the unimportant things, i.e., NOTHING that has to do with the energetic/insulation envelope of the house. The good insulation, walls, windows, doors, i.e., everything relevant for the building envelope (and for any possible warranty), must be there!

And myriads of empty conduits as well as structural preparation for things that will only be installed later.

I’ll give you an example:

We will build a house with a ground floor, upper floor, and attic (probably a tent roof).

Since it’s just the two of us for now, and it will take a few more years until we have children, we only need one finished floor at the moment.
(In our case the upper floor, as it has street level; it’s a sloping plot.)
The ground floor (garden floor) and attic will remain relatively “raw,” i.e., UNFINISHED for now.

We want solar collectors with buffer storage, a rainwater cistern (for garden irrigation, washing machine, toilet flushing), possibly an additional greywater system, underfloor heating, a (combined) wood stove for firewood + pellets that can also heat the hot water (so the heat goes to the buffer tank, just like the heat coming from the solar collectors), a ventilation system with heat recovery which can also benefit the heating or the hot water; furthermore, we want to prepare for old age and have a shaft (maybe 1.2 x 1.5 m or something; we’ll see), which will later become an elevator shaft if one of us can no longer walk, and preparations for a BUS system, i.e., automatic technical stuff like, among other things, roller shutters going up/down according to a timer, connection with alarm system, etc., so probably: empty conduits, empty conduits, empty conduits. Supposedly you can never have enough of them
(I hope our house won’t look like Swiss cheese afterward… haha)

And maybe a few other “gadgets” that might be necessary someday, we’ll see. I am currently reading through 50 construction magazines and two dozen construction books step-by-step.

We will – together with the architect – probably have EVERYTHING installed later, except what is REALLY IMMEDIATELY NEEDED!

Because everything that we DON’T have installed/done while the architect is still involved saves us architect’s fees!

In our case, we would probably only have underfloor heating installed directly for that one floor, and the wood stove that can then heat the water for the underfloor heating and our shower water, etc.; if we start building in spring (solid house) and hopefully move in by winter, then at least the heating and hot water supply should be secured, right?

EVERYTHING ELSE, such as finishing the other two floors, laying floors there, sanitary things (bathtub, shower tray, toilet, sink, etc.), partition walls for the rooms or so, will come only AFTER, so that two of us can move in there without missing anything.

But everything must already be PREPARED, so all the electrical stuff should preferably already be laid, sockets and such, or at least you should know what rooms you want to have in the unfinished floors, and accordingly already have, at least on the exterior walls, the corresponding empty conduits/socket preparations in the right places, and so on.

And if you also want a toilet, or bathroom, or kitchen or something in the unfinished floors, then all of that should already be prepared with the wastewater pipes and so on.

Let’s assume (numbers surely not accurate, just an example) a fully finished house would cost you 300,000 euros (net).

A partially finished house costs you 200,000 euros (net).

Then the architect calculates his fee based on the 200,000 euros.

As soon as you “get rid of him” , i.e., he has fulfilled his duty and responsibility, you can, if you want, finish the rest of your house; possibly with the same tradespeople who already did the first part of your house (if you liked their work).

IMPORTANT: - otherwise I’ll get scolded here for my half-knowledge babbling!)
Nothing essential for your passive house may be omitted; i.e., nothing relevant so that a) it receives the status “passive house” and b) such expensive but important things for a passive house are not omitted.

Example:
For a passive house to actually be a passive house, you of course need well-insulated walls, ceilings, floors, roof; but you also need good (probably triple-glazed) windows (with noble gases or so), a good front door, everything nicely sealed (thermal bridges/heat loss mostly happen through badly installed windows or such), and you absolutely need a ventilation system for such a tightly insulated house, which can possibly also be integrated into the heating circuit, etc.

Depending on the orientation of your plot, you may also need passive solar use, i.e., large glass surfaces facing south or so.

If you want to save on the architect, then for God’s sake don’t “start” by saving on windows and insulation of walls, ceilings, floors, roof, etc.! Like double-glazed windows, too thin / insufficiently insulated walls or so, and then think “I’ll do that later.”

1. You may then not get the passive house standard, which would require more heating, and you’ll freeze your butt off in winter because you don’t have a proper heating system tailored to your house, and

2. it causes you unnecessary work and money to do such insulation things later; removing double-glazed windows (which already cost a lot), installing triple-glazed ones; insulating the roof afterward, walls, floors, ceiling too… no no no, that’s too much work; better negotiate a flat rate.

Only things that can comfortably be installed/done later because all installations/preparations have already been made beforehand, such as rainwater cistern, attic finishing, second bathroom (ceramics), partition walls, furniture, wallpaper, floors, paint for the unfinished floors, elevator/lift and so on, that’s what I mean.

Put differently, this could also mean:
You still build for 300,000 euros because you can afford a bigger/better house by saving on the unfinished floor(s), so the architect still gets a lot of money – but you only finish the rest of your bigger, better house later, probably without the architect.

Those are the two options you have.

We choose the bigger, better house because maybe in 10 years or so adding an extension to such a low-energy house… well, I don’t know. Also, our orientation is bad, so we have to think differently anyway. But everyone has to decide for themselves. It depends on what you short-term (you two or three), medium-term (you four, five, or six), and long-term (you back to two, kids out of the house, or three because of a care case [mother/father/child] in the house) will need.

Regarding old age or possible accidents or illnesses, you should also take a small look at barrier-free accessibility… Wider doors also cost more money – but are worth it in serious cases because tearing open walls afterward, thus destroying the insulating perfect envelope, and then not being able to restore it 100% (depending on who does it), that’s a thing…

Walk-in showers probably cost more money too, but now, while you are still young and fit, it’s kind of real luxury feeling, and it helps also if you are temporarily ill (broken leg, bad cold and hence tired/worn out, risk of slipping because of high shower threshold, etc.).

The bigger a house, the more it costs, just on insurance and so on, and energy and so on… (though with a passive house… – but more insulated walls, windows, etc. = more costs), and the more you have to clean, or basically the bigger it is for you – i.e., TOO big, I mean.

- Possibly you can rent out one floor (or part of it) later in old age; like a granny flat if that fits your nature (people are different here).

You need to plan well accordingly, depending on your short-, medium-, and long-term life plan.

- Oh yes, one more thing:
The less living space you have (initially), the lower also some fees …
As long as, for example, a basement is only declared as a basement and not as living space, it won’t be added to the living area.

Also, you can stay relatively flexible and, depending on the situation, possibly replan the still “open,” unfinished rooms somewhat differently.

- I would be glad if experienced people could also comment on my explanations. I don’t want to give wrong advice here.
It’s just the essence I’ve drawn from the internet, building diaries, construction magazines, and the like.

- Well, I hope I haven’t written too confusingly. I had a coffee first

Best regards,
Hongkuchen

Hello Katharina "Stadthausblog", Hello Honigkuchen and all the other prospective builders,

Honigkuchen has put in a lot of effort. However, in my opinion, there are some errors in reasoning contained therein. I will come back to this later.

First, I would like to clarify a bit about the fee of an architect or civil engineer. The fees for these freelance professions are regulated in the HOAI (Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers), which has the force of law.
It should also be noted that the fee levels in the HOAI tables were last adjusted to general price increases on 01/01/1996, about 13 years ago. This means that these professions have not received any "pay increase" for 13 years. With this background knowledge, one can certainly imagine what goes through an architect’s or civil engineer’s mind when clients also try to push the already insufficient fees down further.
Due to this fact, a civil engineer with 10 years of professional experience earns about the same salary as a worker on the assembly line of an industrial company. This is also one reason why there is hardly any young talent left for these extremely interesting engineering professions.

Now back to the HOAI:
There are five different zones here, reflecting the difficulty level of the respective planning task. From Zone I with very low requirements, through Zone III with average requirements, up to Zone V with very high planning requirements.

The example of a normal single-family house falls into Zone III for the architectural field and Zone II for the structural engineering field.

In addition, the services of an architect/civil engineer are divided into 9 different service phases: (The following percentages apply to buildings)
Phase 1: Basic evaluation, which corresponds to 3% of the total fee
Phase 2: Preliminary design, 7%
Phase 3: Design planning, 11%
Phase 4: Approval planning, 6%
Phase 5: Execution planning, 25%

From here, construction supervision begins.

Phase 6: Preparation of awarding contracts, 10%
Phase 7: Assistance with awarding contracts, 4%
Phase 8: Object supervision, 31%
Phase 9: Object care and documentation, 3%

It is clear from this how the planning phase (together 52%) and the construction supervision phase (together 48%) complement each other.

Here, as I understood Honigkuchen’s statements, there is an error in reasoning:
Also for elements that are initially not yet installed but must be planned, the architect/civil engineer is entitled to the fee for the planning area. So only in the construction supervision area is part of the fee saved.
For elements that he does not supervise during construction, the corresponding liability naturally also lapses.
From a legal point of view, this puts the client on thin ice.

Furthermore, the fee tables state minimum and maximum rates within which the fee may fluctuate. Larger offices usually also have higher costs.

Now to the example houses:

For a house with a net final construction cost (excluding VAT) of €100,000, the architect's fee according to § 16 HOAI for all basic services in all service phases (1-9) lies between €11,311 and €14,360 plus VAT.
Special services are invoiced additionally.
If certain services should/must not be provided, the fee is reduced accordingly.

The structural engineering fee, unlike the architect’s fee, is calculated based on the net shell construction sum.
Assuming that about 45% of the final construction sum is taken into account for this (i.e., €45,000), the structural engineering fee according to § 65 HOAI (Zone II) corresponds to between €3,945 and €5,186 plus VAT.
Special services are also invoiced additionally here but occur less frequently.

For a normal single-family house, additional specialist engineers are very rarely involved, except for surveyors. We will ignore these here.

Accordingly, for the residential house, which is built for €119,000 gross, architect and engineer fees add up to between about €15,256 and €19,546.

For an example house with a final construction sum of €300,000 (net) and a shell construction sum of €135,000 (net), corresponding to 45%, the following fees arise under the same conditions:

Architect: €30,650 to €37,643
Structural engineer: €12,352.40 to €15,695.20
Total: €43,002.40 to €53,338.20

Now I want to look at how much fee would be saved if the house is not fully finished under construction supervision. As already explained, the fee for planning remains the same.
The structural engineer would also receive the same fee because the shell construction sum does not change.
Only in the area of construction supervision would fees be saved.
This results in the following calculation:

Architect planning: €30,650 x 52% = €15,938 or €37,643 x 52% = €19,574.36
Architect construction supervision: final construction sum of €200,000 (net), €16,920 x 48% = €8,121.60 or €21,394 x 48% = €10,269.12

These values are compared as follows:
Architect planning: €15,938 to €19,574.36
Architect construction supervision: €8,121.60 to €10,269.12
Structural engineer: €12,352.40 to €15,695.20
Total: €36,412 to €45,538.68

The apparent savings would be between €6,590.40 and €7,799.52, thus about 15% of the original total fee or about 21% of the original architect's fee.
In this case, the client would also have to be willing to take over about two-thirds of the total construction supervision tasks or one-third of the total architect services.

This is just an example based on Honigkuchen’s figures.
It also raises the question of whether the house with a finishing sum of €65,000 (€200,000 - €135,000) net can be completed under a construction supervisor to the extent that it can initially be occupied. If this is not the case, the supposed savings will be correspondingly lower.

Anyone considering such matters should also know that then they bear sole responsibility for the remaining finishing (quantity determination, tendering, awarding, and supervision) and the former construction supervisor assumes no liability for this.

I hope I could contribute a little to clarification with this.

Kind regards
Danton

Engineering and Planning Office
Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Brandenburg
Consulting Engineer and Building Expert
Insurance Specialist (Building Contract)