Tendering and Award (Service Phases 6+7): Architect or Construction Manager?

Dear forum members!

I am building a single-family house with an architect. From the beginning, the architect said that he would not be available for construction management (service phase 8) and that he knows a construction manager who has worked well on previous projects. This was acceptable to me.

To my surprise, I have now learned that the architect also intends not to offer service phases 6 and 7 himself, but that the construction manager is supposed to do these as well. The reasoning is that it is a purely technical process and that the construction manager can do it better anyway, and it is also better for me if the construction manager does the tenders himself and is familiar with them. Then he will know exactly what to pay attention to later on the construction site.

As a result, the architect would only do the planning ("Planungsbüro"), while the construction manager would handle everything afterwards.

Questions for you: What do you think about this? Would you insist that the architect do service phases 6 or 7 himself? Or is he even right in his substantive argument that it is better handled by the construction manager?

What does the contract say, up to which service phase is the architect commissioned?

If the architect does not want to do phases 6 and following – i.e., does not feel confident doing them – it makes no sense to force him, then you are really better off with the site manager. However, this raises doubts for me about his competence for service phase 5. Take a critical look at the site manager, ask him for references, and have both explain the handover to you.

With us, the architects come from Austria and the site manager from the region. It is actually the case that certain trades assignments are sometimes better placed with the site manager. With us, he also takes care of the structural analysis/TGA.

It is simply the case that the one who later watches the craftsmen on the construction site finds it easier if he is involved in the awarding or execution planning. Whether it makes the overall fees cheaper is another matter. The ideal case is actually that the architect does everything if he is also directly located on site. However, many architects see their purpose more in designing than in implementation.

Many architects see their purpose more in designing than in implementing.

I can clearly see that here – cf. – it cannot be denied, yes.

Would you insist that the architect carries out service phases 6 or 7 themselves? Or is he even right in the substantive argument that this is better placed with the construction manager?

However, I then have doubts about his competence for service phase 5.

Service phases 6 and 7 should be done by the same person who already carried out service phase 5; and as explained in "Der Hausbau-Fahrplan, Modul C," I would be reluctant to separate service phases 6 to 8 at all; actually, I am even convinced that the person taking over service phase 8 should already have been at least substantially involved in service phase 3.