Thank you very much for your answers!
"Phase" is, to my knowledge, still spelled with 'P' - or am I not up to date anymore?
Of course, Leistungsphase with "Ph". Embarrassing! oops:
By hiring the independent architect instead of if a general contractor's signatory slave had done it, you only gained design quality (or not even that ?) ?
Yes, the design quality is right and was also the main reason for us to plan with an independent architect. Unfortunately, it only became clear during the collaboration that the architect's strength lies solely there and not in project management. Therefore, further cooperation would be like "running into misfortune with open eyes." It is clear to us that it is much better when detailed and design planning comes from one source. Hence this thread. Maybe we can minimize the disadvantages through your tips.
All the more reason that the execution planner should at least also be identical with the site manager. GU site managers unfortunately have a different task / objective: not ensuring design-compliant execution, but avoiding collisions between the involved trades (so actually more process lubrication than quality assurance, the latter only as far as necessary to avoid claims)
I agree with you. Execution planner and site manager should now be even more identical. We also considered a general contractor for that reason, to have everything from one source. If I understand your post correctly, you see that rather critically with a general contractor. What would you advise us then? An independent site manager who does execution planning, tendering, site management including coordination and acceptance with us?
You could of course also look for another architect for further implementation (execution planning, tendering, site management).
We had also considered that. But we fear that an architect, compared to a general contractor, may be even less willing to come to terms with the planning of another architect.