The bank may want a construction service description despite individual subcontract awarding

I know what you mean and yes, there is no tender in the classical sense. Here in the area there are exactly 1-2 well-known providers for some trades

The purpose of tendering is not primarily about a large number of bidders, but even more importantly about the clear standard of what is actually required – so as not to compare apples with oranges, but also to actively define what the end result should be. Pictorial plans alone still leave too much room for interpretation, which is why the bank wants to see the construction service description.

I also recently had a thread about this ... but with tapatalk it is difficult to look it up and link it.

You probably meant this one:

Nice to hear that "our" approach is not wrong and that you can report positive things.

It’s definitely not wrong in the sense of "useless," you also end up with a decent house as a result.

However, where all the craftsmen go to the same butcher and the same confessional, you can be quite sure that the cake plate will be eaten empty with your budget exactly. In return you get what is still considered acceptable. That can be more or less far removed from what would have come out with active planning. And tendering is planning too, not just drawing!

Even if my concerns were not met,

You actually shouldn’t say that, you have received all the hints. Among other things, that you basically already have the construction service description. Staple that stuff together, every offer is a chapter. You have to write about own contributions yourself, e.g. "Storage room wallpapered with woodchip and painted white" ;-)

, I think this:

However, you can be quite sure that where all the craftsmen go to the same butcher and to the same confessional, the cake plate will be exactly eaten up with your budget. In return, you get what is still considered decent. That can be more or less far removed from what would have come out of active planning. And tendering is also planning, not just drawing!

is not true everywhere either.
We also awarded contracts individually and at least for electrical, heating/plumbing, and shell/earthworks we obtained comparative offers and the proposed providers from our "house supplier" – with whom he always works – had the cheapest offer.

But for example, with the tiler and painter, his company suggestions were among the most expensive and therefore did not receive the contract.

I think you also have to look around a bit "in the village" and compare if in doubt, but generally saying that the firms divide the budget completely among themselves – I would not agree with that.

But it is certainly also a difference whether everything is to come from one source or if everything is awarded individually.

Best regards
Tina

I think you also have to keep an eye out "in the village" and compare if in doubt, but to generally say that the companies completely divide the budget among themselves – I wouldn’t sign off on that.

At Müllers you’re allowed to earn a little more and at Schulzes I’m involved again, that works in the rural (and small-town) culture without words. And mind you, I referred to the approach of requesting each trade only once (or only occasionally including a control offer). If the bidders know each other, they already have that in mind, that little contract volume leaves the village. And, mind you: if including the client everyone is happy with this approach, I’m happy for them too. Seen on a local scale "economically," that is quite healthy. Personally, however, I would always proceed by building a tender based on exact specifications. Having to deal with "you’re wiser afterwards" later with triple socket extensions would annoy me. But every client may have a different attitude toward that – but then may have to cope with the fact that their banker shares mine.