ruppsn
2017-11-30 12:48:11
- #1
I would say that the approach is the right one, that suits you and leads to the goal. At least I did not mean that "our" approach is more correct than another, or especially yours :-)Nice to hear that "our" approach is not wrong and that you have positive things to report.
Under the premise that it is also built accordingly, perhaps. Experience shows, however, that in the dynamic design process there can be frequent shifts, so that the basis for the offer changes. For example, you remember that you want another window, which may require changes to the statics, possibly requiring a beam. Suddenly, some controlled residential ventilation pipes can no longer run where you would like them to, because they would cross the beam. On the basis of which steel quantities, which controlled residential ventilation components, which window (dimensions), etc. were the offers then made, and what significance do they still have?But I also believe that using existing offers as a basis for evaluation & approval is definitely better than a signed €/m³ estimate by the architect.
Another example: One wants, since budget-wise after assigning the shell construction and roofer it is still feasible, a KNX bus system, which entails significantly more cabling effort. The ventilation pipes limit the routing of the empty conduits or these can no longer be laid in the concrete ceiling, but on the shell construction ceiling. This possibly makes a different floor structure with liquid insulation necessary -> different cost structure.
You try to be as precise as possible in the specifications to have cost control. It is no coincidence that different levels of accuracy for cost estimation, calculation, and determination are required according to HOAI and the service phases.
At the end of the day, only what works for you personally counts :-)