Single-family house Bauhaus style living area 180m with double garage

For this, I wanted to verify the construction costs a bit and created a cost estimate[...] On this basis, I carried out a fee calculation according to HOAI, which ends at €62,500 net

Just for the sake of formality, it should be noted that this is not the usual procedure. Of course, he can also estimate his fee based on his cost estimate, but the basis of the fee is the cost calculation in service phase 3, and this is, regardless of the accuracy he attributes to his estimate, simply more accurate by nature because it already includes concrete details.

The €55k flat rate for the works listed in the offer arouses skepticism in me. Why does he list vague service descriptions in bullet points instead of simply referring to the basic services of HOAI? Since there is no minimum fee anymore, he could offer exactly that already for the sake of simplicity.

You run the risk of arguing about the scope of services later. He writes “preliminary design” is included, but what about service phases 1+2? Which “calculations” are included in the building application documents that inflate his fee from ~€1800 according to HOAI to the flat €5,000? What exactly is covered by “construction management”? He writes “weekly by an experienced site manager”; is that sufficient?

You should clarify such details in advance. The simplest way would be, as written, commissioning according to HOAI; there is already the necessary case law for this.

Hello everyone,

we have now accepted the architect's offer - the details will follow in the next few days but are basically based on HOAI Leistungsphase 1-8.

_____

The architect is already gaining momentum - the first offers for the soil survey have arrived.

Hello everyone,



Quick question regarding our contract draft: We would like to build with the GÜ. Contract draft is ready, handshake with the architect as well. Now our contact person from Verband Privater Bauherren has raised a few points to consider which I have passed on to the architect. He reacted somewhat irritably. What is your opinion? Is this justified? Am I really being too "annoying" or have I hit a "sore spot"? I don't know if I am being paranoid by default or acting precisely correctly... I know, different standards apply on construction sites...

[*]Our architect wants to exclude LPH9 from the contract. Reason: Maintenance of the building after handover for 5 years – the effort is not calculable. I have never had this in any client contract and you will probably not find an architect who signs this. We handle the building up to the defect-free acceptance and your move-in as well as the final invoices of the contractors. However, the Verband Privater Bauherren definitely recommends that I include this. What is your opinion? Is this really unrealistic or does the architect consciously not want to include it?

After the "defect-free" acceptance, I see nothing more that could come up except hidden defects, where you would need support – and then a lawyer would be more useful than an architect (?) – how does the association justify its view?

According to the Association of Private Builders

But the argument is a pretext. The real argument is: In our opinion, we do not receive enough fees for that!“

That can and should not matter to you per se. The responsibility for Lph 9 is the best motivation for Lph 7, construction supervision. Good construction supervision can greatly reduce the effort for Lph 7, or conversely… sloppy construction supervision, high claims during the warranty phase. He has it in his hands!!! And in my opinion, it should stay there.

Please keep this – in your own interest – as part of the architect's contract.

And

But the argument is a pretext. The real argument is: In our opinion, we do not receive enough fees for that!“

That can and should not matter to you per se. The responsibility for Lph 9 is the best motivation for Lph 7, construction supervision. Good construction supervision can greatly reduce the effort for Lph 7, or conversely… sloppy construction supervision, high claims during the warranty phase. He has it in his hands!!! And in my opinion, it should stay there.

Please keep this – in your own interest – as part of the architect's contract.

In response, the architect says (which sounds absolutely plausible to me)

I generally do not sign LPH 9 according to HOAI. This is the care of the building after acceptance over 5 years – the effort is not calculable. I have never had this commissioned by a single client, and you will probably not find an architect who signs this. We take care of the building until the defect-free acceptance and your move-in, as well as the final invoices of the contractors. I do not sign this for my industrial clients either, and it is not required there at all.

If your expert claims that this is common practice, he should please contact the Chamber of Engineers Baden-Württemberg and inquire. They advise us differently in this regard.

The Chamber of Engineers is of course also biased in its view - just as the Builders' Association is conversely - and the consideration "is it worth it in terms of fees" is far too legitimate for me to consider it reprehensible. For you, it should be relevant in my opinion to ask yourself what can still happen in the time between "defect-free acceptance" and "expiration of the warranty period concerning hidden defects" - and there I see nothing where an architect could be of use to you: in such cases you are a warranty claimant, must identify yourself as such, and a lawyer advises you more competently on the type, manner, form, and deadline of this action than an architect. You are the holder of the warranty claims, asserting them is the execution of a legal transaction. The architect could be a technical advisor for you - but only that, you could not grant him a mandate within the meaning of the Legal Advice Act. In serious cases a lawyer is more useful - even if he should then need an expert for specialized knowledge - than the technically competent architect who, however, may not legally represent you. From my point of view, service phase 9 serves only as a category for service and billing facts that may still arise after the completion of service phase 8, so that the architect or engineer does not suddenly have to operate without the basis of the HOAI. I see no disadvantage to consumers in waiving service phase 9. From my point of view, construction is completed with completion, after which facility management follows (for which I do not see a civil engineer as necessary).