Is membership in the Association of Private Builders worthwhile?

If it is something serious that could possibly end up in a legal dispute, documenting it certainly makes sense. Once everything is closed up, you can no longer prove anything. It was different for us, though.

The trick is to fix the defect before everything is closed up. And that’s where the catch lies.

Let’s assume the construction expert says that the reinforcement was installed incorrectly. Then you have to stop construction and resolve that. And until that is resolved, which may possibly go to court, the construction site remains halted.

It absolutely makes no sense in this case to have the concrete mixer come, pour the foundation slab, and then try to prove in court two years later with pictures and order forms that the foundation slab is potentially endangered because too little reinforcement was used and also the wrong grade. I mean, if the damage occurs, at least you can still prove who is at fault. But whether the construction company even still exists then... who knows.

And for the above documentation, you don’t even need an expert. It’s enough to buy a 128GB memory card and simply photograph everything, really everything, that is created daily on the construction site. Whether the reinforcement is correctly placed according to plan, enough mats were used, and what quality, can be documented with photos. The stuff is usually dropped next to the house a few days before work begins and there is a note attached specifying the quality. You can count the number of mats, the reinforcement plan can be seen in the structural calculation of the house.

So if anything, then accompany the construction continuously, as 11ant already said. Complaining about defects only when the trade is already covered by the next trade... that makes no sense.

The trick is to fix the defect before everything is closed up. And that’s where the catch lies.

Let’s say the building inspector says that the reinforcement was installed incorrectly. Then you have to stop construction and clarify that. And until that is resolved, which might go to court, the construction site stands still.

There is absolutely no point in this case in letting the concrete mixer come to pour the foundation slab, only to prove two years later in court with pictures and order forms that the foundation slab is potentially endangered because too little reinforcement was used and also the wrong quality grade. I mean, if the damage occurs, at least you can still prove who is at fault. But whether the construction company even exists by then... who knows.

And for the documentation above, you don’t even need an expert. It’s enough to buy a 128GB memory card and simply photograph everything, really everything that is created on the construction site every day. Whether the reinforcement is correctly placed according to plan, enough mats were installed and what quality—they can be documented with photos.
The stuff is usually thrown beside the house a few days before the work begins and there is a note on it about the quality. You can count the number of mats, you see the reinforcement plan in the structural calculation of the house.

So if, then accompanying the construction process, as 11ant already said. Complaining about defects only after the trade has already been covered by the next one... that makes no sense.

Makes no sense, my words exactly. Luckily we never had anything like that :)

The trick is to fix the defect before everything is closed up. And that’s where the crux lies.

Let’s assume the construction expert says that the reinforcement was installed incorrectly. Then you have to stop the construction and clarify it. And until that is clarified, which might potentially go to court, the construction site stands still.

In this case, it makes absolutely no sense to let the concrete mixer come and pour the foundation slab, only to prove 2 years later in court with pictures and order slips that the foundation slab is potentially at risk because too little reinforcement was used and also the wrong grade. I mean, if the damage occurs, at least you can still prove who is at fault. But whether the construction company still exists by then... who knows.

And for the above documentation, you don’t even need an expert. It is enough to buy a 128GB memory card and simply photograph everything, really everything, that is created daily on the construction site. Whether the reinforcement is laid correctly according to plan, enough mats are installed and of what quality, can be documented by photo. The stuff is usually thrown next to the house a few days before the work starts and there is a note on it stating the quality. You can count the number of mats, and you can see the reinforcement plan in the structural calculation of the house.

So if at all, accompany the construction, as 11ant already said. To only raise defects when the trade is already covered by the next... that makes no sense.

Photo documentation is certainly very advisable. I would like to be present daily on the critical topics. I think from a craftsman’s perspective it’s annoying – any tips on the subject?

Drive there in the evening when the craftsmen are finished and calmly look at everything, take pictures, etc. I was there at least once every day, if possible. Many craftsmen also like to chat, and if not, you notice it very quickly. But in case of doubt, that does not replace an expert, because you also need to know how to do things correctly and at least be able to pretend to have expertise when asking the "construction manager."

But we did not receive a prose construction performance description, but a bill of quantities that shows what is done where and how. Nobody could handle that, only with BL.

I would need that explained, please.

Btw: the service we booked there is called "construction-accompanying quality control" or construction supervision.

But obviously it was not performed if fait accompli could come about.

If that is the case, then the architect would be at fault beforehand. And then?
Even if it is circled as a critical point and then the expert has it on the list, you won’t be able to change it anymore.

Apparently, there was no architect here, but only a draftsman or technical draftsman. Both take customer drawings without cleaning them from the fantasy dimensions that disturb the rhythm in execution. From the contractor’s perspective, the additional sawing effort is cheaper than the planner’s brainpower. After the approval of the botched plans, you can no longer change that with reasonable effort. That’s why I correct it directly in the planning review. But a construction supervisor can still do something, namely make "installation plans" if necessary depending on the severity of the rhythm violations. Of course, it is better if the client consults a construction advisor before applying for the building permit. For me, that is such a cheap "small matter" that I seriously consider offering it as a gift voucher during the Christmas business.

If I "add" a second construction manager for 180 EUR per hour, I might as well build a second house right away.

It is not a second but the first – 0 + 1 is not 2. Your construction manager does not create redundancy because the general contractor’s "construction manager" is not one without quotation marks. All the benefit he can have for your interests is merely a by-product (because a few of his master’s interests intersect with yours). Construction supervision will never manage not to be worth its money (in the sense of making it back).

If we talk about execution A (real slate) in all emails and conversations and then something else is delivered (plastic imitation), one could have said somewhere, "Dear client, I perceive that you want real slate because you talk about nothing else, but there will be no real slate at this door, be aware of that. The order only said slate."

You seriously chose the front door clad with a slate-look filling?
As a non-imitation, the thing would be as heavy as the door to a vault room and would need five hinges that would still have to be adjusted quarterly and replaced every five years. That would have been the bigger defect—you would have really gotten that!
The order could also have said "copper metallic slate," tastes are unlimited and different.

Photo documentation is certainly very advisable. I would gladly appear daily on the critical topics. I think from the craftsman’s point of view it’s annoying – tips on that topic?

If the person appearing can demonstrate at eye level to the craftsman exactly how the special execution should succeed, that will be gladly accepted by good craftsmen.

(...)
It is not a second one, but the first - 0 + 1 is not 2. Your site manager does not create redundancy because the GU "site manager" is not one without quotation marks. All the benefit he can have for your interests is merely a byproduct (because a few of his master's interests overlap with yours). A construction supervision will never manage not to be worth its money (in the sense of getting it back).
(...)

However, this also has its limits. Certainly, the site manager (these are usually civil engineers, so I find it somewhat disrespectful to put it in quotation marks across the board, as if they were unskilled workers with two weeks of training in construction) is paid by the GU and therefore biased. I am as well, as an employee of my company, when it comes to problems or errors...

But still, I cannot gloss over the worst botching as acceptable, and many site managers will not do that either, even if the GU pays them. Because very few site managers work for only one single construction contractor. Exceptions certainly exist and you will of course get to know them easiest; that is the nature of the matter. I am also always called only to plants that are malfunctioning and not to those that are running perfectly so that I can admire the flawless quality of our work...