Uncertainty regarding ongoing construction supervision

Hello everyone,

sorry, this will be a bit longer now, but from my point of view necessary in order to be able to present the situation.

At the beginning of the year, we commissioned construction supervision for our new build, but we are not really satisfied with the previous course of the construction supervision:

Already when reviewing the construction description, the construction supervisor noted various points that were either economically nonsensical (e.g. installation of a cistern), were mentioned elsewhere in the construction description, or were obvious from our point of view (e.g. comment regarding missing parapet railing in the description of the stairs).

In principle, the construction supervisor is quite quick with assertions. In one specific case, it was about the Dryfix adhesive, which our construction company has been using instead of mortar for the erection of the shell structure for a few years. Here he was quite quick to say that it is not approved in Germany, and that we should request the approval from the construction company. I myself did not need 5 minutes to find the associated DIBT approval on the manufacturer’s website. The construction supervisor later somewhat excused himself by saying that this technique is rather uncommon in Germany, and many builders do not want these chemical agents anyway.

During the first inspection of the shell structure, a report was created which also contains various assertions that I have shown to the construction company. The construction company was not very pleased, but already addressed a few points on the phone.

Examples:

[*]missing ventilation of the drainage via the roof:
this is not missing but is still currently hidden under the insulation of the upper floor. Will be completed.

[*]open empty conduits in the attic:
these will still be closed, as the electrical work is not yet completed (Sat wiring is still missing)

This runs through the entire report.

In any case, my wife and I are now quite unsettled as to whom we should believe more:

On the one hand, the construction supervisor (with whom my wife had a bad gut feeling from the start), who in my impression has little practical experience and relies a lot on regulations and in my opinion goes far beyond the mark.

On the other hand, the construction company, which is taking care of our construction site with great commitment, even does not charge us for delays (see my recent thread regarding the neighbor’s lawsuit).

For us laymen in construction matters, it is currently very difficult to find out who is right, or whether the construction supervision in this form still makes sense for us.

Do you have any advice on how we can deal with this situation? And thanks for reading :-)

Good evening,

I have a faint suspicion which association this expert belongs to ... the described approach certainly fits my experience with one of them.

If I were you, I wouldn’t hesitate long and would terminate the collaboration. I recently wrote elsewhere that the first pain is the cheapest ;)

For example, find support for your construction project through the Association of Independent Experts. Since you are already in the shell construction phase, not many "meaningful" inspections are left; thus, it probably won’t make a big hole in your budget, even though an independent expert is more expensive than any association-affiliated expert.

Gut feeling is always good, listening to it even better; pulling the ripcord in time: priceless. It also sounds like your current expert is not capable of uncovering "real" inconsistencies, should they actually occur. You have probably already noticed that he is more of a disturbance to the client/contractor relationship rather than a helpful companion.

Rhenish greetings

If it doesn't fit, then one should react and change as the construction expert has already pointed out.

or from our perspective self-evident things were (e.g. comment regarding missing parapet railing in the description of the stairs).

Just as a note on this. The same was also not included in our construction service description and what is not included is not delivered. The cost would have been an additional €95 for us.

Good evening everyone, thank you very much for the answers!

Good evening,

I have a quiet suspicion which association this expert belongs to ... the described procedure certainly fits my experience with one of them.

The association is the one that is usually abbreviated with 4 letters here in the forum ...

If I were you, I wouldn’t hesitate long and would terminate the cooperation. I recently wrote elsewhere that the first pain is the cheapest one ;)

What is your assessment here, what should I expect in case of a termination? Before the start of the construction project we signed for a complete accompanying quality control - but the contract is silent about termination and its consequences. Should we fear that the expert will claim damages for lost earnings?

Should the termination be made with or without stating the reason for termination?

Just as a note. The same was not included in our construction service description either and what is not included will not be delivered. The cost would have been an additional €95 for us.

Our builder saw it differently, he considered it part of the staircase system (and that was included in the construction description). I also see this as a matter of the level of detail in the construction description. After the conversation with the construction company, the points were clarified accordingly for us.