Is membership in the Association of Private Builders worthwhile?

In summary, it sounds like, at least regarding the feedback here, one can save on such an expert for construction supervision. That surprises me a bit.

Ok, a publicly appointed, sworn expert is possibly more conscientious than someone who has only given themselves the non-protected title "expert."

I also don’t know if it makes sense for us. I’m somewhat unsettled by now. If I hire one of these experts and then only (obvious to me as well) defects are listed in the report, I don’t need to pay several thousand euros for that. To me, it sounds more like a kind of insurance that you pay for and hopefully never need. The goal for me would be to use this "insurance" to detect errors early before they delay the construction or lead to more serious defects and possibly avoid legal disputes.

I am still interested in further tips and experiences / recommendations, especially maybe also in the Oberhavel region / north of Berlin.

I would not save on the expert. Although I agree that good planning and a good contractor are the decisive factors, how do you recognize that in advance? An expert is rather unlikely to prevent disputes. In my case, the "we have always done it this way" from the contractor collided with the "but this has not been correct for 15 years" from the expert.

I do agree that good planning and a good contractor are the crucial points. But how do you recognize that in advance?

That is my "daily bread" and I have already said several times that I am certainly not the only independent building consultant – however, I work nationwide and therefore have no recommendation for a colleague in the TE's area at hand. Also, I do not know what the colleagues advertise themselves as. But I am sure there are several.

When I read this, neither the Bauherren-Schutzbund nor the Verband Privater Bauherren are really the best option. TÜV and Dekra also offer similar services. Has anyone had experience with them? How do you find an expert for checking the contract and the construction performance specifications as well as for construction supervision who is worth their money?

I think the question was not addressed: which institution is truly independent, neutral, and technically knowledgeable enough to help evaluate the value of the house based on the construction and performance specifications? And no, it’s not about the rimless toilet but about what kind of structural quality or insulation is being used, how the roof is constructed, how the basement is executed, heat bridges eliminated, etc. — things I can no longer change afterward. I can always change or upgrade a flooring. A poorly sealed basement slab is done for! The fulfillment of the promised services is topic 2, having that assessed by a truly independent expert is step 2. Would TÜV or Dekra be the right choice? The associations don’t seem to be that great.

And no, it’s not about the rimless toilet but about what constructive quality or insulation is used, how the roof is constructed, how the basement is executed, thermal bridges eliminated, etc., i.e., things I can no longer change afterwards.

You generally can’t change the quality much anymore with an off-the-shelf house. And "how" exactly it’s built, meaning the execution (your keyword thermal bridges), you can only check during the construction. Your step 1 is then a qualified architect, if you want to delve so deeply into the matter. Although if I were you, I would never even read a construction specification because I would go directly to the architect and have my house planned. That’s why your step 1 practically doesn’t exist in reality.

which entity is really independent, neutral, and professionally deep enough to help evaluate the construction and scope of services description regarding the value of the house? And no, it’s not about the rimless toilet but about what structural quality or which insulation is used, how the roof is constructed, how the basement is executed, thermal bridges eliminated, etc. — things that I cannot change later on.

I generally recommend not to have the scope of services "read" (i.e. passively assessed) but actively specified. The knowledgeable and partisan entity for you is called the architect (and is also useful for clients who do not specifically value a unique floor plan design).

The execution of the promised services is topic 2, having that assessed by a truly independent expert is step 2.

In phase 8 of the service, have the designing and tendering architect also manage the construction (i.e. simply have the same architect provide both halves, service phases 1 to 4 and 5 to 8, of course as separately mandated modules A to C as described in my house-building roadmap), then you already have the preventive expert. This can often save the need to hire a damage expert for a verification procedure altogether. Having a scope of services description of a general contractor selected without architectural support checked for indications that the contractor is not a baker with cheap ingredients is the opposite of an efficient approach. It already starts with the fact that creating a scope of services description requires considerably less effort than comparing three or even four of them (apples, pears, day and night). Do not behave as a construction ping-pong ball or damage seeker, but as a client (and accordingly let your partisan construction advisor aka architect call the shots). "Tendering" means "active alignment without Excel crutches." Detailed planning and tendering lead to a project-specific scope of services description.