Preliminary design via the architect and then tendering?

Ok, I understand. So far, we don't have anything at all. We are currently deciding between selecting a construction company without comparison and the route with an architect and offer comparison. If we go with the architect route, we would commission up to service phase 4 anyway, if that doesn't make sense, at least up to service phase 7. However, that already costs 20-25 thousand euros. I fully understand that it is, of course, most sensible to commission up to service phase 8, but you also have to keep an eye on the costs and this route would certainly cost 40 thousand euros, I think. So either you forgo an offer comparison to save costs or you spend 40 thousand euros. In my opinion, it is questionable whether you are then still cheaper overall after an offer comparison? Or is there another option that I might not see?

Hello Fabian,

we had to make the same decision, back then we only had the draft and approval planning done by our architects. With our draft, we then went to different companies and had offers created within the provider’s system. We compared not only the prices but also whether the company suited us (how long they have been on the market, where the craftsmen come from, sustainability, etc.). For the few companies that were left, we had the offers refined and checked them together with our architect, then decided on a provider with the most green checkmarks and a price that also fit. We had to make a few compromises, but in return we are working within a system our homebuilder masters. With service phases 1–8 and tendering, you hopefully get exactly what you want, but you need to know exactly what you want. And you have to hope you find a company that wants to and above all can implement it (and at what price). That was all too uncertain for us, that’s why we found the path of a general contractor with a fixed price safer. Our architect is still involved as a construction supervisor.

I compare it to buying a car. Either I have a car built completely to my wishes, or I look at a few manufacturers, configure a car there and take what I like best and can afford.

I fully understand that it is naturally most sensible to commission up to performance phase 8, but you also have to keep an eye on the costs, and this path would certainly cost 40 thousand euros, I think.

Your thinking error is shared by thousands of other builders every year. It is so popular because it sounds superficially logical. And it remains so (logically unfortunately not, but popular), because first, hardly anyone builds two houses to keep the one with the winning price after evaluating the results. And second, because people who have chosen the less clever way have acquaintances who have done the same and are satisfied with the result. Nonetheless, myself and many other independent building consultants are happy to have shown the wiser way to those builders in time. If you read my house-building roadmap including the new "chapters," you will soon recognize that this path cannot only be taken "this way and no other," but can also be varied or even partial. The "default version" of my house-building roadmap is intended for those homebuilders who wanted to book performance phases 1 to 8 with the architect anyway. These readers learn from my concept "only" 1. the splitting of the architect’s contract into three installments, and 2. the trick with the dough resting and setting the course. Those who would have commissioned an architect only up to the building permit (i.e., performance phases 1 to 4) will also learn 3. the magic of the cost control tool performance phase 5 and 4. (even if they still want to omit module C and only rethink the mandate scope from performance phases 1-4 to 1-5 with the architect), alone with this maneuver to chase away those architects from the candidate list, whom warns against. A not absolute, but very reliable sign of architects who are poor in cost fidelity is their limitation to the mandate scope performance phases 1 to 4.

So either you forgo a bid comparison to save costs, or you spend 40 thousand euros. In my opinion, it is questionable whether you are actually cheaper in the overall package after a bid comparison? Or is there another possibility that I might not see?

If I interpret this part of your thinking error correctly, then you fear that the way to more precise cost comparability generates (certain) additional fee expenses that absorb any (possible) success from a price comparison again. But first, as much as I would have to agree with you that this sounds superficially plausible, "the shoe is on the other foot," and second, there is yet another error contained in this thinking error. And I will start with that now: namely, you can also book these consulting services from several other independent / "builder-friendly" consultants besides the architect, and of course also on conditions different from the classic fees according to the HOAI table. But even according to the same, I can assure you that the architect is worthwhile in the "large" scope of services. And that is because the architect pays for himself in the "second half" (performance phases 5 to 8). While the "first half" up to the building permit accounts for 27 percentage points of the fee ("according to the table"), the second half accounts for 71 percentage points, and of that, almost as much as the first half together are 25 percentage points for performance phase 5 alone. Anyone who does not read further at this point must be frightened to be convinced, yes sure, that is uiuiui, as the hero so nicely says, "drunken paint expensive." However, at this point in the journey, you must change into the train with the other glasses: where the 27 p.p. for performance phases 1 to 4 were unavoidable expenses, the 46 p.p. for performance phases 6 to 8 are an investment, and the 25 p.p. in between for performance phase 5 even self-sustaining. This means for you, if you do not classify yourself as a sufficiently middle-to-high earner to take the best path, to be able to take the path also in a variant: namely performance phases 1 to 3 (in two contract installments!) with the architect, performance phase 4 in a way you have to discuss individually with an independent consultant, performance phases 5 to 7 with a tendering specialist, and performance phase 8 with a construction-supervising expert, for example. But letting yourself be ripped off by a general contractor out of sheer fear of price comparison costs without anesthesia would be a mistake in any case. Because one thing is certain: in this way, the general contractor makes a blank check out of everything above your signature. He can do that even better than stacking stones. "Pronto Salvatore" could still learn a thing or two there.

I compare it with buying a car. Either I have a car completely built to my wishes, or I look at a few manufacturers, configure a car there and take what I like best and what I can pay for.

The way with the "catalog house" is also a good alternative in many cases, at least as a "normal family" 2E2K and with a plot that according to the 11ant basement rule does not require a basement. And even there you can get advice, indeed also from the architect – who is by no means only useful for an individual design.

So if I do not want to go the entire way through the architect and not want to distribute the process across 4 contacts, then the approach by os24länger would be best. You just have to find an architect who compares offers from different construction companies, even if they are partially not comparable due to different implementations, and who also takes over the construction supervision, even though he did not plan the execution. Right?

You just have to find an architect who compares offers from different construction companies, although they are partly not comparable due to different designs, and who also oversees the construction, even though he did not plan the execution. Right?

The neutral expert advisor can indeed (but does not necessarily have to) be an architect, yes. And an architect is by no means only competent for this if he himself is the author of the house design, again yes. What is important, correctly recognized as well, is the active comparison, i.e. that a professional who is biased for you sets the comparison standard. Such an "own" creation of the comparison standard requires significantly less time expenditure with the same professional qualification of the comparer or comparison helper. Same qualification = same hourly rate with significantly less time required effectively results in lower costs for conducting the comparison. Only madmen or those who want to become so as quickly as possible perform a passive comparison (elaborate and imperfect comparison of apples and oranges with the same name).

So if I don’t want to go the whole way through the architect and don’t want to split the process among 4 contacts, then the approach of os24länger would be best.

That is already quite close to the approach I recommended (and practice). It is not stated that you would have to split with four contacts: taking out the two big chunks of service phase 5 and service phase 8 and/or service phases 6 and 7 from the portion of architect services remunerated according to the HOAI table, does not necessarily mean commissioning a different architect as the contracting party for this. In my case (independent consultant, not also an architect) and that of many colleagues, it would be like this: being able to provide service phases 6 and 7, but not service phase 8 (for which I would prefer only the designer and detail planner as the "royal road," but also consider construction supervising experts a good choice). Several colleagues also offer service phase 8, but instead of service phases 6 and 7 only the, in my opinion, less skillful passive construction performance description comparison.