Planning contract ... A new trick for quick customer retention?

Well, he provides a service, and that costs something. If you really want to compare, have an architect create a submission plan that meets your expectations. Then you go to the GUs with it, and they will give you concrete offers for comparable services. If you have everyone plan differently anyway, it's not comparable. Or you do like most people and just sign with the one who leaves you with the best feeling.

I think the problem is also too many "free riders" who blindly make inquiries and only generate costs. The companies also have to pay their people like draftsmen, structural engineers, technicians, etc. A craftsman once said, "I can't make a living from writing offers."

But it can't be the be-all and end-all that this makes comparing construction companies impossible ... ?

If you really want to compare, have an architect create a submission plan that meets your requirements. Then you take this to the general contractors, who will give you concrete offers for comparable services. If you let everyone plan differently anyway, it's not comparable.

Exactly. To avoid comparing apples and oranges, you have construction company Pear and construction company Cherry each price the same house (also based on the construction service description) that construction company Apple offers you. Or you take a standard by which none of the three* has a home advantage—perhaps a Flair or Maxime (depending on which is more similar to the dream house). The important thing is: all offers are worthless if you hypothetically assume the ideal plot but actually have to build on a slope with rock on the left and swamp on the right. Or if you take a "city villa" as a reference house and the development plan requires a "one-and-a-half-story." *) if you were to ask not three but ten providers: then you would be exactly the type of price inquiry athlete that providers want to keep away with such a "protection fee" (and should better distill their wishes again)

So it seems to happen more often and basically one understands the reason, but still I would not be willing to pay that. With the architect, I can name my maximum price (probably should be stated somewhat lower than actual) and then "tinker away" within that framework until it fits. I suspect that it rarely happens that the architect and client are so out of sync that sooner or later nothing usable comes out of it, which is then implemented by the general contractor or through individual contracts. However, if I go to a general contractor and say "what does your house X cost me with these and those floor plan/heating concept changes, etc.?" then I get an answer (often with a fixed price... aside from later additions) and either I find it acceptable or my money is simply gone. With the architect, the money is only gone if in the end we do not come to an agreement at all.

Or am I misunderstanding the system?

With the architect, the money would only be lost if you ultimately don’t come together at all.

The fee according to HOAI, however, would usually be significantly higher and would cause more regret in this worst case.

"Not coming together at all" can happen with a general contractor as well as with an architect. In both cases, you can assume: if their satisfied clients are very different types of people than yourself, then they are "the wrong ones"—no matter how good they may be objectively. So before commissioning planning services, no matter to whom, you should always have checked the references to see what kind of people are behind them. When Mr. Kommerzialrat praises the construction company in his letter of thanks, that need not mean anything to Mrs. Schneidermeisterin—he lives (and builds) in different circles.

Prospective builders want to compare several plans and offers, especially when they are uncertain, without committing or investing. That is legitimate. Providers do not want to deliver services without payment. Also legitimate.

If a provider has experienced that they only get the contract every x-th plan, they can either allocate the costs to the construction projects they receive or require them from the requester. That is not a "trick," but a simple business consideration.

A nice side effect is that the provider can filter out serious interested parties. The provider is of course aware that they might lose one or another serious interested party because this approach is not supported. They can live with that better than working "for nothing" too often.

Salespeople often dislike this and communicate such provider decisions awkwardly because they are usually paid based on revenue, not contribution margins => they do not really care how often a planner plans "for nothing."