KfW BEG funding stopped 261, 262, 263, 264, 461, 463, 464

a general contractor who then has to calculate sharply and basically saves things here and there in a hidden way and uses cheap material

As if he wouldn’t do that anyway ;)
Ok, kidding aside.

The crux is that the conditions with the restart on 20.4. and presumably with the reorganization at the end of the year simply can no longer occur!

Yes exactly, the contract is somehow in limbo. Formally, from my point of view, neither the condition for continuation nor for termination is met. I think a lawyer will know how to resolve such situations. Perhaps the intention of this regulation is really very relevant.

I will now wait for the offer and see if we can meet somewhere.

No, better to take action against it directly and object. I feel it is "poorly negotiated" (instead of "just bad luck"), as you explicitly signal that you would gladly pay a surcharge.

No, better to address it directly and object. I consider it "badly negotiated" (instead of "bad luck"), since you explicitly signal that you are willing to pay an extra charge.

I see it differently. A request for a quote has nothing to do with the matter. Only when I sign the new contract can it legally be assumed that I do not want to object.

Everyone can play it however they want. And I still have the option. But currently, I am rather relying on cooperation. That has always gotten me much further in recent years ;)

Of course, you shouldn't go straight to the lawyer, but it would be important to directly communicate that you do not consider a dissolution as given. You can say that in a friendly and cooperative manner.

That is a clause that clearly aimed to protect the builder.

I don’t see it that way. The real issue is the project start which was defined as the date of signing. There are good reasons for this; the old version with construction start = groundbreaking tended to result in opportunistic effects. But that completely misses the reality for most builders using the loan variant. On the one hand, there are often longer waiting times between signing and construction start during which you don’t want the availability period to run out. On the other hand, often there isn’t just a planning and a work contract but both are interconnected. And to adapt reality to the funding agency’s model, the clause was designed and imposed on builders. I don’t believe any builder wished that their entire construction contract would be void if the funding fell through. A change clause (if no funding -> the house is built according to the energy saving ordinance) would have been absolutely sufficient and would have provided an incentive for funding.

I agree exactly with WilderSueden and that is why I also find this blanket response absolutely inappropriate:

That is a clause that clearly aimed to protect the builder. Not a single person who depended on the funding will be unhappy about having a void contract. That protects against financial misfortune. No one here would have complained about the consequences for the general contractors. Now, one is burdened by the clause themselves and suddenly the tables have turned.

It is always astonishing what a sense of entitlement exists here in this country at times. It feels like everyone thinks they know their rights, but no one knows their duties.
By the way, one of the duties includes obtaining information. Everything was always available for review from government agencies. Only no one expected the actual quick stop of funding. One can feel that is unjust, unfair, or whatever. Whether it is legally so remains to be seen.

What do you mean by sense of entitlement? It was about a clause we had to sign in order to be eligible for funding at all. We never wanted to get out of the contract and certainly never read this condition as meaning that the house provider can get out too. That was never up for debate last year and it only comes up now.

...and we certainly did not read this condition in a way that the main contractor could also back out. That was never up for discussion last year and has only come up now.

Well then, you unfortunately made it too easy for yourselves. For my part, I had that in mind – what I did not realize, however, is that we have the specific numbers in the condition...

According to the Building Code, this is not a right but an (unavoidable) non-optional "condition" which states that the current contract is now void. There is no "can," no matter from which side.

Of course, it is up to you to draw up a new, identical contract with the general contractor – but which GC would do that now given the current market situation?