Which trades are necessary for a single-family house? Individual contracting!

So if I had to build again, I would also consider that. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with not having an architect. You need one anyway for the plans and the building application. After that, the architect is not dead either, so you can still ask questions. Usually, as long as the plan is right, the tradespeople even know themselves when it’s their turn and whether one can already do something before the next one comes, etc. The problem in the current boom phase is really getting the people on site. A planning office of course has completely different contacts, and when they call somewhere, the craftsmen are then also on the construction site. Since they all know each other, it goes a lot more smoothly between them. Usually, anyway. As a lone fighter, the thing can then drag on like chewing gum because you haven’t approached the right craftsman in time, etc. Or you don’t get an offer at all because the tradespeople prefer to serve their professional customers, who will still be getting orders for the next 10 years, even after the boom is over.

which trades do I need?

All those you cannot do yourself. And in the correct order. If the roofer is available first but not anymore after the roof frame is even up, then many things cannot proceed. So even if the sequence is right but not connected swiftly: do you want a one and a half year construction period?

Self-contracting is only for people who are not building their first house, even in times of a weaker construction market.

We are building with an architect and separate trade contracting. Our architect is also our site manager, so he takes care of everything, has initiated the tenders and obtained quotes, awards the trades, coordinates the trades, and of course also checks and controls the work performed and the invoices.

At the very beginning, we also considered awarding everything ourselves without an architect, partly because this is not uncommon in this region or was completely normal here until a few years ago. But honestly: I am so glad that we have our site manager! Without this man, we would probably have been completely lost. It starts with obtaining quotes (what is important, what do I need, what must each individual trade include?) and goes through the awarding (when does which trade come, what sequence is sensible, how do I coordinate the trades so that everything is closely connected in terms of timing and there is no long downtime?) to the acceptance of the trades (has everything been done professionally, are there defects, was something forgotten?) and the payment (is the invoice correct, has anything been charged incorrectly, are there defects in the trade and is withholding payment reasonable?). We would never have been able to manage all that ourselves. The time required alone is enormous. Building a house is already stressful enough because something always needs to be decided, selected (or done yourself in terms of self-performance), because deadlines have to be met, because banking stuff has to be taken care of, and so on. I wouldn’t even know how to manage all the organizational work on top of that (at some point you also have to work to be able to pay for the house!). Even my father, who initially thought we were completely crazy for wanting a site manager (he is from the old school and built his own house almost entirely by himself without site management back in the 70s), is now genuinely convinced of our site manager and has told us several times that it’s really great that we have him.

Having a site manager has other advantages too:
- Some companies offer their services somewhat cheaper (and in my opinion work more cleanly because they know there is someone checking). I can compare this somewhat because I know people who build without a site manager and I partially know what they pay and how the work was carried out.
- Also, in my opinion, the work progresses more quickly; for example, a neighbor had the same site manager but only hired him up to a certain point, not for the entire construction. He recently told me that since the site manager is gone, he really notices that everything is going much slower and progresses at a snail’s pace, and he constantly has to ask when things will continue, etc.
- The site manager usually knows the companies, knows which work well and reliably and which do not, knows which companies are cheap and which are not. He can tell you which companies you should rather avoid and recommend good and affordable companies you might not have thought of yourself.
- You always have someone to ask if there are uncertainties. There have already been several things for which we wanted a second opinion independently of the executing company. It is really good to have a site manager (whom you also trust!) and whom you can ask if in doubt.

Of course, you also need the "right" site manager for that. We are very lucky with ours and are extremely satisfied. He takes very good care and always keeps an eye on the finances (so that it doesn’t get too expensive). He is very meticulous and criticizes things we would not have noticed ourselves. But I also know that there are site managers who are not so "caring," check less thoroughly, or don’t take as good care. Finding the right one may not be so easy.

Also note that there are banks that want a construction status report signed by the architect/site manager or similar before payments are made! We are with such a bank (the interest rate was just too good ) and would have a real problem without a site manager because otherwise the bank would not disburse money! Alternatively, without a site manager, we would have had to choose another bank where the interest rate would of course have been higher and would have exceeded the costs for the site manager over the entire term by far.

I know people who have built without site management. It somehow works, of course. But I would not recommend it. You have to know what you’re getting into and that you “buy” the money saved on a site manager with time and nerves. And at least you should have some knowledge about building a house, the process, and execution!

In the end, you have to decide for yourself. Nevertheless, I would definitely inquire with 1-2 architects about their fees for site supervision and trade awarding and then consider whether it’s worth it for you. For us, the amount was not high at all (well below HOAI), just a drop in the ocean compared to the total construction costs.

One must differentiate some aspects regarding this topic:

Single trade awarding.
... initially means only that the contract is not awarded to a general contractor or general contractor with subcontractors, but the trades are awarded separately and directly to the executing companies. Whoever awards can still be the architect.

Self-awarding.
... does not necessarily follow from self-awarding, and in my view it is clearly not recommended if someone is building for the first time. Houses from parents / parents-in-law count in this sense as own houses - provided the persons concerned can take care of it. As a beginner, one should not undertake this ocean voyage.

Ordered and paid.
... differ like plan and reality. For the lay client, a plan is already nice if all his ideas are drawn in. For the construction worker, it is sometimes better if someone has drawn in every rebar and every light switch individually. And for the implementation, it is best if the site manager was already the planner. What the lay client regularly significantly underestimates are the work hours, which can only be largely, but never entirely avoided. Site management does not only mean standing like a watchman on the corner and showing presence so that no one dares to build something crooked. It also means having to make decisions during the course of the work. This requires expertise; a sharp eye is not enough.

Opinions on this.
How "valid" fundamental attitudes towards the appropriate type of awarding and supervision are makes a significant difference between "times of peace" and "times of booming construction periods": where planing is done (in other words: where someone without practice dares to coordinate a matrix of construction participants), normally only chips fall. When this game is played under the intensified condition of a relative shortage of skilled tradespeople, they are beams. One may still be of the "normal" opinion that the brave one will manage.

Thank you for your reply, I will definitely consider the site manager and inquire.

(Of course, every construction is different and every region) May I know what you have built and approximately how much the costs were? And how high the fee was?

Thank you

I will definitely consider construction managers

I would rather recommend an architect to you (they can also be engaged even if you don't intend to need them for all "service phases"). A construction manager only becomes active on the construction site, meaning they supervise the construction and make decisions there; however, they do not coordinate the schedules and are certainly not involved in the tendering process. Conversely, construction management is part of the architect's role (as mentioned, unless you decide to exclude individual service phases). That means: on the construction site, the construction manager organizes things; if things should be organized already when the construction project is initiated, the architect is recommended.