Property development - basement yes or no?

how is it supposed to happen that two different architects design EXACTLY THE SAME house?

It happens thousands of times a year that at least one house, distinguishable only under a microscope as different, is individually designed as an alleged "one-off" because Müllers, Meiers, and Schulzes, with practically pseudo-identical requirements, each uncoordinatedly go to a different architect. Such planning over-redundancy generates avoidable costs (the economic technical term is "waste"). For no nobler motive than plain vanity, an illusion of individuality is indulged here, which for the trained better-Western (Besserwessi) belongs to his sacred concept of freedom.

That's how "simply" dozens and dozens times two architects plan the same de facto "standard house" and don't even realize it :-(

The background of my question was: We met acquaintances this week who are building with an architect and we probably just got a bit unsettled in the conversation ;). But we realize that the architect is the wrong end to save on by looking for one who stays well below [HOAI].

Yes, I prefer design, construction planning, tendering, and construction management all from the same source. Of course, the tender is not only about materials, quantities, and volumes, but also about execution time windows and price binding periods. I don’t know who keeps putting that nonsense into the minds of prospective builders that price guarantees are only available with the general contractor.

Since we just came from the topic of architects, I wanted to add something about "fixed price guarantees" for architects – it might also be interesting for others.
If you tender and then award the tenders to a general contractor, you have a fixed price guarantee. However, if you award the trades individually, you practically don’t. The offer binding periods are usually 10 days. Since the trades are needed one after another, the price can (and in the current situation will) always change. Especially trades that come towards the end, such as tile layers, usually call for quite different prices when the time comes.
However, you must also consider that price increases are naturally factored into the fixed price guarantees of the general contractors. At the end of the day, it’s also a kind of bet. If prices rise more than the general contractor estimates, you come out well without the price guarantee at the architect. If the price increases are less than the general contractor priced in, you would definitely be cheaper with the general contractor’s price guarantee.

: Actually, I should now reply to you exactly with what you quoted from my post #53 in this thread :-(

Since we're just talking about the architect, I wanted to add the topic of "fixed price guarantees" for architects – it might also be interesting for others.

It is certainly interesting for many readers, so it is very much appreciated that you once again bring up this family combo-pack of misconceptions and misunderstandings, because these are genuine evergreens. However, the formulation "‘fixed price guarantees’ for architects" is misleading, since it is not the architect who "guarantees" the prices.

If you tender and then award the tender to a general contractor (GC), you have a fixed price guarantee. If you award the trades individually, however, you almost never do. Because the offer binding periods usually amount to 10 days. Since the trades are needed one after another, there can (and in the current situation will) always be changes in the price. Especially trades that come towards the end, such as tilers, usually quote completely different prices when the time comes.

A tender also contains information about the execution period to which the offer prices are supposed to refer, i.e., what the binding period (commonly called a "guarantee" by clients) is. In principle, these binding periods are not altered by whether a bidder bids only on individual lots or on all of them (as a "GC"). In the case of a GC, practically the binding period of the last lot applies to the entire package. When "the time comes" is dictated by the scheduling (which in a proper tender is already part of the information provided).

However, you also have to consider that the fixed price guarantees of the GCs naturally include the price increases. At the end of the day, it is also a kind of bet. If prices rise more than the GC estimates, you come off well without the price guarantee through the architect. If the price increases turn out to be higher than priced in by the GC, you would certainly be cheaper with the GC’s price guarantee.

What you understand here as a "bet" is the normal commercial calculation risk, which affects a GC no more and no less than the craftsmen who bid on individual lots. Material price increases make up most of this risk (since wage and social security increases are calculable), and the fact that reality exceeds forecasts is never a reason to cancel the offer price binding.

Obtaining offers successively for individual awards (and then "often" with a domino effect of miscalculated or insufficiently considered binding periods from the start) is a popular clumsiness of apprentice-builder clients. Blaming this repeatedly and unfairly on the chosen pro/con GC contracting path does not become any truer with the millionth repetition. Any client who fears unexpected price increases basically only has to write that behind their ear: phases 6 and 7 of the service must preferably not be performed as DIY by a layman. For a layman, this will regularly be a mistake (and must be).

: actually I should now reply to you exactly with what you quoted at the beginning from my post #53 of this thread :-(

The quote is exactly the reason why I wanted to make this addition ;).
As mentioned, the statement comes directly from our architect. So it is not "wrong" per se. Maybe our architect or our region is an exception and things work differently elsewhere. I cannot judge that.

It is certainly interesting for many readers, so it is very appreciated that you once again address these family-combo-package misconceptions and misunderstandings, as these are indeed veritable evergreens. However, the formulation "’fixed price guarantees’ with architects" is misleading, as it is not the architect who "guarantees" the prices.

From my point of view, it is not so crucial how exactly it is called or by whom the guarantee / binding period is given. At the end of the day, the key point for me as a client is the calculation security.

A tender also includes information on the execution period to which the offered prices should relate, i.e. what the binding period (commonly called "guarantee" by clients) is. In principle, these binding periods are not changed by whether a bidder bids on individual lots or on all (as a "general contractor"). In the case of a general contractor, the binding period of the last lot practically applies to the entire package. When it is "time", is determined by the schedule (which is also part of the information in a proper tender).

And this is exactly where our architect’s statement does not align with yours. It is not about who is right here. But it might certainly be interesting for other clients to know that it does not always have to be as you describe.
Our architect stated that of course there is a binding period, but it is usually very short (about 10 days). And sure, the tender relates to an execution period, but if there were material price increases by the time of execution, then the trades pass this on to the client.
As I said—I don’t know whether something is done wrong or runs incorrectly with our architect’s tenders or if it is just not as "simple" as you present it.

What you consider here a "bet" is the normal commercial calculation risk which affects a general contractor no more and no less than the craftsmen who bid on individual lots. Material price increases are the biggest part of this risk (because wage and social security increases are predictable), and the fact that reality exceeds the forecast is never a reason to terminate the bid price binding.

Of course, I can understand your argument as well. I will also specifically address this with our architect and report back. If it comes to a contract, I can then pass on my experience from firsthand.

Requesting bids successively for individual awards (and then "gladly" also with a domino effect of underestimated or from the start insufficiently considered binding periods) is a popular clumsiness of apprentice-builder clients. Unfairly blaming this again and again on the chosen path "pro/con general contractor award" does not become true even after the umpteenth repetition. Clients who are afraid of unexpected price increases basically only have to resolve not to carry out service phases 6 and 7 "in-house" as amateurs. For amateurs, this will regularly be a failure (inevitably).

Don’t worry—we would never even consider doing that ourselves ;).
If we sign with the architect, then for all service phases.

A completely different question:
We will receive initial drafts for our floor plan in the next few weeks.
Is it okay if I start a separate thread with these and cross-reference this thread? I think that would be clearer.
Or would it be better to attach them directly here?

The statement, as said, comes directly from our architect. So it is not "wrong" per se.

Which statement do you mean now?

From my point of view, it is not that important how exactly you call it or by whom the guarantee / binding period is given. At the end of the day, the decisive point for me as the builder is the point of calculation security.

Call it (also with permission from Stoffel and Wolfgang) as you want – it remains not the architect who gives "guarantees" here.

Our architect made the statement that there is, of course, a binding period, which is usually very short (about 10 days).

He must have been sick during the lectures about tendering. An offer from the roofer whose validity would have expired even before the excavation of the foundation pit would turn the tender into a joke. The offers are not supposed to reflect current daily prices at the time of the tender, but to make the execution calculable.

If we sign with the architect then for all service phases.

Maybe better not with this one after all. Besides (see also: "A house building roadmap, also for you: the phase model of HOAI!") I do recommend commissioning the same architect for "the whole program," but not all phases "in one go" (but as modules A, B, and C – also found at the same place on the web – with a break after A).

Is it okay if I start a separate topic with these and set a cross-reference to this thread? I think that would be clearer.

Yes – to have the questionnaire in the initial post there. But also cross-reference from here to there.