Obtain comparable quotations from suppliers

I have had good experience with the structure architect + general contractor afterwards. The architect planned the house up to and including the building permit up to service phase 4 (at a fixed price). With the approved plans, I then obtained offers from regional general contractors. The offers were still not 1:1 comparable, but still transparent enough for further negotiations. Of course, the general contractors are reluctant to deviate from their standard scope of work descriptions because it is difficult or involves additional effort to calculate.

This gives me courage. I just came across a thread with 11ant and GerdDieter out of curiosity, where I immediately doubted our approach. So far, however, we have not signed anything with our architect. Everything has been acquisition so far, but it is so hard to decide on a path.

Conversely, I can no longer imagine signing a contract for an unauthorized building structure. There were 4 deviations from the development plan and the property had a 9m height difference, which was nerve-wracking.

In our case, he doesn’t calculate a preliminary design because I provided it. But he does indeed carry out service phases 1-2, as far as I know. The general contractor definitely does the execution planning.

The architect planned the house up to and including service phase 4 with the building permit. With the approved plans, I then obtained offers from regional general contractors.

The work planning of a general contractor does not replace the detailed planning of the architect any more than a "construction manager" replaces a construction manager (see: "Of Construction Managers and ... Construction Managers"). According to the approval plans, one cannot yet build, but one is allowed to. This "fine" ;-) distinction becomes most obvious in the form of drywall installations, the birthmarks of saving at the wrong end.

The concept markets itself as architect-planned turnkey construction. He still has a few gimmicks, as he writes, only for general contractors who haven't caused problems in the past, are solvent, etc. I see the advantage in hopefully having a reasonable design but also building with a fixed price.

The concept is at least market-appropriate insofar as it can count on much approval from the "consumer client." It is good if he explicitly tenders to proven bidders – less smart, however, if he only does this to general contractors. The concept is similar to that of an architect-GC, just without the architect playing GC himself. In my opinion, this is not the royal road but quite a considerable alternative. I am – inspired not least by – engaged in incorporating this approach into my consulting practice.

And this scope of services is structured so that one could go to any general contractor. Is it always like this in the awarding service phases?

With a construction service description, one should actually always be able to go not only to general contractors, but with them probably to all.

The offers were still not 1:1 comparable, but nonetheless transparent enough for further negotiations. The general contractors naturally shy away from deviating from their standard construction service description because it is difficult or calculable only with extra effort.

The transparency "arises" here mainly through one's own construction service description; thus, "approval planning plus construction service description" is definitely considerably more meaningful than without. For the basic topic of deviations in construction service descriptions see (also) here with the search term "11ant Steinemantra."

That gives me courage. I just stumbled out of curiosity upon a thread with 11ant and GerdDieter, where I immediately doubted our approach. So far, however, we have not signed anything with our architect. Everything is acquisition so far, but it is so hard to decide on an approach.

Which thread was that (it is allowed to link internally here)? I think you should go the intended path without doubting, with one small difference: the architect should not limit the tendering to general contractors. As far as you cannot yet use private messaging, you will find the way to send me one externally here with the search term "11ant gmx." I would be interested in the name of the architect.

The work planning of a general contractor does not replace the architect’s detailed planning any more than a "construction manager" replaces a construction manager (see: "About construction managers and ... construction managers"). According to the approval plans one cannot yet build, but one is only allowed to. This "subtle" ;-) difference becomes most obvious in the form of drywall encasements, the marks of saving at the wrong end.

I have noticed that too. When we had the first meetings with initial drafts at the general contractor, the question was: Where is the pipe supposed to go there? Our architect had already excluded that in his preliminary planning. Maybe it can’t be done differently in the first step, but still.

The concept is at least market-appropriate inasmuch as it can rely on much approval from the "consumer client". It’s good if he specifically tenders to proven bidders – less wise, however, if he only tends to general contractors. The concept resembles that of an architect-GC, only without the architect simultaneously acting as GC. In my opinion, this is not the royal road, but still quite a worthwhile alternative. I am – inspired not least by – currently engaged in integrating this approach into my consulting practice.

Yes, our architect was also very keen to sell his concept, sounds so convincing. :)
What exactly are you? :) Architect?

One should actually always be able to approach not only general contractors with a construction services specification, but usually all of them.

Transparency "arises" here essentially through one’s own construction services specification, insofar "approval planning plus construction services specification" is at least significantly more meaningful than without. For the basic topic construction services specification-deviation see (also) here with the search term "11ant Steinemantra".

Which thread was that (it is allowed to link internally here)?
I think you should pursue the intended path without doubts, with one small difference: the architect should not limit the tender to general contractors. Insofar as you cannot yet use PM, you will find here with the search term "11ant gmx" the way to send me one externally. I would be interested in the architect’s name.

That was this one:

It was about a similar question, or some of your arguments also came up there.
From the beginning we actually had immense time pressure, both internally and because we were already paying monthly rent for my grandmother’s temporary accommodation. Therefore, we declined an architect who only wanted to take us on starting November, and now we are not much further or faster than hoped and are building more standardized than expected, have lost a lot of money due to the KFW stop, and have already had to solve quite a few problems even before the building application. I find the whole process massively exhausting and would have liked to quit everything five times by now. It really feels like you cannot properly trust anyone.
For example, our architect was not even once on site at the property, which bothers me massively.
Ultimately, the topic (general contractor or architect) is probably not one that can be definitively resolved. If one, back to the topic ;) , wants to compare GCs, a specification of services certainly helps a lot.

Our architect, for example, was not even once on site at the property, that really bothers me

Oh, I feel the same way.

What exactly are you? :) Architect?

I once wanted to become an architect, now, three and a half decades of detours later, I advise builders as "Construction Pilot Hoffmann".

Hi guys!

Quick update:

The appointment with the contractor was great. Preliminary planning is affordable and we are allowed to ask other contractors.

Our architect does it like this:
Conceptual design and later building application planning,
then an offer that you can use through him to tender the contract to a general contractor, whereby a service catalog is created individually for the house that the general contractor must cover.

With that you can basically go to any provider. Most grant discounts for the external building application planning etc.

Maybe something like this is an option for you?

Yeah, something like that. We had the draft from the general contractor’s draftsman brought into a buildable form version 1.
Now after change requests, the refined version 2 is being made.

With version 2 I will then go to an architect in my circle of acquaintances and ask him over a beer if he notices anything he would do completely differently and why. Then I will bring that back to the draftsman.
Yeah, and based on the resulting version 3 we want to get further offers.

The detailed planning of a general contractor does not replace the architect’s detailed planning any more than a "construction manager" replaces a site manager (see: "Von Bauleitern und ... Bauleitern"). After the approval plans one cannot yet build, but one is allowed to. This "subtle" ;-) difference becomes most obvious in the form of drywall boxing-in, the telltale marks of saving in the wrong places.

Hmm. Drywall boxing-in? For us, a space behind a shower in a sloped ceiling was boxed in and unused. Do you mean something like that? (I just left it open and planned it for towels. Fits great there.)

Cheers