Shrinkage cracks - allowable width

Hello everyone,

thank you very much for your support and your explanations.


Regarding my question about shrinkage cracks, the site manager explained to me that they exactly use this method with the keyhole cuts. If this is an established and proven method and is acceptable so far, I will leave it at that.

You can tell from your question that you talk too much with the person from the Bauherren-Schutzbund. As a result, exactly what I don’t appreciate about their offers happens. You as the client are more unsettled than enlightened, and you are still paying for it.

That is actually how I feel. The company has also addressed certain points and revised their construction performance description once again. In addition, the supplementary agreements were revised as well, so unresolved points were fixed. Thus, the work of the Bauherren-Schutzbund has already helped me. However, there are three points in the contract in particular on which the Bauherren-Schutzbund insists and where the company believes (probably after consulting a construction law attorney) that they will not be changed. Besides the above-mentioned point, it concerns the payment plan. After the shell construction phase (including roofing and partially plumbing work), the company calculates about 60% of the costs. The construction performance description states that it should be a maximum of 50%. However, the company explained to me that this 60% also covers the costs for the earthworks (about 24,000 euros). From my point of view, the 60% is justified—thus acceptable to me. The Bauherren-Schutzbund would still have liked to enforce the 50%.

For the third point, I will open a separate topic because it would go beyond the scope here.

Many thanks for the information and the support,

Yes, that is a tedious topic. The client would like to have someone work first and pay only afterwards (preferably with a 30-day payment term). The construction company, on the other hand, would quite like to see a down payment before really starting.

There are indeed reputable recommendations according to which a shell construction accounts for about 50% of the construction costs. Your client's advisor's recommendation is of course better for you. However, keep in mind with these demands that the construction company risks making a loss. Everyone tries to secure themselves as much as possible and as reasonably as possible.

First, it should be defined how the 50% are reached. Here, the construction costs without planning are regularly referenced. If you are building with a general contractor (GÜ), I assume that the planning and architect fees are not charged separately? These are then included in the fixed price and make up to 15% of the house price. Of course, these costs also occur at the beginning. Seen from the perspective of a general contractor, up to 65% should therefore have been collected at the shell construction stage.
By the way, there is no clear definition of what exactly the shell construction is in the story of the Bauherren-Schutzbund. Normally, it includes the shell envelope including masonry and roof truss. Most general contractors in our region, for example, combine the trades of roof truss and roof covering. Thus, the installment is not due upon completion of the shell construction but only upon completion of the roof covering including gutters. Another point is the ever-shorter construction time. Everything must be ordered and paid for in full from the start to keep the construction site running smoothly. Time is money and the calculation is tight because the customer is not willing to pay more.

As you can tell from my username, I sell houses. I cannot enter into a contract where at least 59% are not in the account after payment for the roof covering. Less is not possible, as I would then be taking a very big risk of being left unpaid by the client. That would be a very cheap construction for the client. Finishing trades will be found, and the main risk of the shell construction is over. Please note that as the client you can cancel the contract at any time. The construction company cannot.
I always compare this to the “too-short blanket...”. Fixed price, construction time guarantee, securities, and payment plan are closely connected and should be in a balanced ratio. If one detail is changed, it will have effects. For example, if corresponding payment securities are available, the payment plan can also be adjusted.

Does your general contractor actually not have a construction advisor with whom you can calmly discuss these simple points? After all, you will be going a certain way together. You should be able to have a confidential conversation. The Bauherren-Schutzbund will certainly not build your house.

As you can tell from my username, I sell houses. I cannot make a contract where there are not at least 59% of the payment for the roofing covered after payment. Less is not possible, because then I would take a very large risk of being left by the builder and not being paid. That would be a very cheap build for the builder. The finishing trades will be found, and the main risk of the shell construction is over. Please note that as a builder you can cancel the contract at any time. The builder cannot.

I suspected as much. That is exactly what makes this forum so interesting. Here, when someone like you is willing to say something, the perspective and viewpoint of the builder are also discussed – not just the buyer’s perspective.

Does your general contractor not have a building advisor with whom you can calmly discuss these simple points? After all, you will be going part of the way together. You should be able to talk confidentially. The Homeowners’ Protection Association certainly will not build your house.

The boss is the building advisor. As you have already read in the other thread, the construction company has already performed various services in advance. Strictly speaking, we have been in discussions and planning with them for 1 year now (including 3 new drafts, since the first would have been too expensive or the others didn’t fit). Everything possible has already been discussed in conversations – but statements have only partially been fixed in writing (statements like "of course we do it this way" or "this is our standard" were not fixed).

The penultimate meeting was with the general contractor and the Homeowners’ Protection Association. It was then in the course of this meeting that such things were fixed.

Here now the excerpt from the payment plan (I left out the payment steps for the basement, since we will build without it):
1. After contract signing 5%
2. Completion of building application or building notification 5%
4. Completion of building drainage; slab/foundations 15%
6. Completion of ground floor masonry (without exterior plaster) 17%
7. After erecting the roof truss 13%
8. Completion of roofer and plumber works 5%

In addition, the earthworks are already included here with a value of approx. 24,000 euros. I also think that the 60% here is reasonable. Therefore, I would leave the plan as it is.

Good evening,

However, there are three points in the contract that the Bauherren-Schutzbund insists on, and where the company is of the opinion (probably after consulting a construction law attorney) that these will not be changed. Besides the aforementioned point, it also concerns the payment plan. After the shell construction phase (including roof covering and partial plumbing work), the company charges around 60% of the costs. The construction service description states that it should be a maximum of 50%. However, the company explained to me that this 60% also covers the costs for earthworks (around 24,000 euros). From my perspective, the 60% are therefore justified – so acceptable to me. The Bauherren-Schutzbund would nevertheless have liked to enforce the 50%.

I am still waiting for the first client to ask the Bauherren-Schutzbund about a contract for work

I have written many times that the payment plan topic should be very carefully examined by every potential client and that under no circumstances should more than 60% be paid for the finished shell construction. Finished shell construction means: earthworks, masonry, carpentry + roof truss, windows including front door as well as plaster/veneer (including some plumbing work).

The ladies and gentlemen of the Bauherren-Schutzbund often overshoot the mark in this – and unfortunately other contractually unchangeable details – and frequently confuse property developers with construction supervisors. If all positions of the finished shell construction are included in the aforementioned 60%, there is no objection to signing the contract, as the sum paid approximately corresponds to the construction status including architecture and structural engineering costs.

According to our contracts, the client has paid 57% until the finished shell construction; therefore, I find that 3% more is within an acceptable range.

Rhenish greetings

In total, the payment schedule is completely acceptable from my point of view up to this point. What I would still change in your place are the 5% after contract signing. That goes against good practice and should actually have been vehemently objected to by the [Bauherren-Schutzbund]. Payment should always only be made after a completed service. So include the 5% in the foundation slab (which should be included with the foundations) and you will be very well secured up to that point. If the 5% is added during planning, it is also not too serious and corresponds to what would be at least customary in our region.

However, you should insist on a 5% completion bond, which should be on the table at the start of construction, or retain 5% as security from the invoice for the foundation slab. I would not accept any payment for contract signing and would not pay for the foundation slab without a 5% security retention or completion bond.

How high is the final payment actually?

Overall, the payment plan is completely justifiable from my point of view up to that point. What I would change in your place are the 5% after contract signing. That is against good morals and should actually have been vehemently criticized by the Bauherren-Schutzbund.
Payment should always be made only after a completed service. So include the 5% in the foundation slab (should be included with the foundations) and you are very well secured until then. If the 5% are added during planning, it is not too bad and corresponds to what is at least usual in our region.

All planning is already completed, the execution planning is in its final stages, building permit granted, geothermal approval obtained, construction power and water initiated, etc. Oh yes – the soil investigation report is also completed (I believe the surveyor has already done the first pass as well).
The construction company completed all the above-mentioned services before the contract was signed. Motto: If the customer backs out at the last minute – tough luck. According to statements, however, no one has backed out yet – I believe that too.
Therefore, in my opinion, the 5% at contract signing are acceptable.

However, you should insist on a 5% completion guarantee, which should be on the table at the start of construction, or retain 5% as security from the foundation slab invoice.
I would not accept any payment at contract signing and would not pay the foundation slab without a 5% security retention or completion guarantee.

By the way, how much is the final payment?

Hm – that also gives me some concern. It is only 2%.
However, the entire payment plan includes 16 payment steps (or 14 without a basement). For example, laying the tiles (step 15) is also set at 2%. The tiles are, however, outside the contract, where the following passage of the contract applies: "If a trade is omitted, this installment will be added to the subsequent installment."
This means the final payment increases to 4%.