Work contract with general contractor - questions about the offer

I guess it depends on how convinced you are of the company and whether you would also be willing to wait longer for the move-in. I know exactly these formulations and to me, they are too vague. Even if it says "Construction starts 2 months after approval, completion 6 months after start." Of course, the contractor can only start when the construction is approved. But what obliges him to finish the building application on time and not dawdle there?
I would first only conclude a contract for the submission planning. When the approval is then there, the actual contract.
I consider price increases due to more expensive insulation to be nonsense. At least if it means that the requirements increase. That is not the case if you submit a building application this year, and I also rather don’t think it would be the case if it drags on until 2018. Or is there a concrete, comprehensible reason for that? As it stands, it sounds like a typical sales pitch to get you to conclude quickly.

I would first only conclude a contract for the input planning.

We have done that. So far, a contract for service phases 1-3 has been agreed upon. If we then sign a house construction contract, no invoice will be issued for it, as this is basically included in the house price. If we do not conclude a construction order, we receive the architect’s invoice.

The building application was signed by us yesterday and is on its way to the building authority.

I think price increases due to more expensive insulation are nonsense. At least if it means that the requirements are increasing.

This was only about the price development. Manufacturers have reportedly registered price increases. Of course, it could be a tactic. I don't really know.

On the other hand, if you wait until the building application is approved, you lose time between the approval of the building application and construction for the execution planning, which only starts after the contract is concluded.

That sounds at first like a typical salesman phrase to get you to close quickly.

I suspect so too. A best solution would still be to conclude a contract now so that the execution planning can begin immediately. The contract will in any case contain the clause that it becomes void in case of non-approval by the building authority.

This was only about the price development. Manufacturers supposedly reported price increases. Of course, it could be a tactic. I don't actually know.

Our architects have also noticed and predicted a price increase for insulation materials in the past. Apparently, there are currently large customers who are absorbing everything on the market.

The good news is that insulation material as an individual item doesn't make the whole thing that expensive now.

Assessments on the following points by other users are of interest.

Regarding 1.
I would like to have shown what the Building Code concretely(!) provides if the agreed construction period is exceeded by X units of time. It would be better to agree now on an appropriate regulation and thereby avoid expensive and lengthy disputes in case of emergency. It is a pity that the general contractor rejects this.

Regarding 2.
The retention suffices and, AFAIK(!), is indeed due to the customer even without explicit regulation in the contract. Nevertheless, in a developer contract subject to the Broker and Developer Ordinance, a final payment of 3.5% is provided. There is therefore negotiation potential here.

Regarding 3.
One should not set the fox to guard the henhouse. Logically, I cannot understand why the general contractor needs/offers supervision paid for by the customer. The general contractor is the professional and is supposed to ensure that he performs free of defects himself. Of course, the builder (usually not a professional and also without time) hires qualified advice. At the builder's own expense and accountable only to the builder. Therefore, contractually independent from the general contractor. It must be clarified with the general contractor in advance (in the sense of good customs) that the builder and his representative receive access to the construction site (details can be arranged).

Regarding 4.
I understand both arguments. A way out could be pricing according to volume. One thus agrees directly on which corridor or according to which criteria an additional price -- with reference to the earthworks -- will be calculated.

Our architects have also noticed and predicted a price increase for insulation materials in the past. Apparently, there are currently large customers who are buying up everything on the market.

I believe there were supply shortages some time ago (force majeure for MDI, a raw material for PU insulation materials in May 2017). This of course does not exclude other effects.

Regarding 1. I would have someone show me exactly (!) what the Building Code stipulates if the agreed construction period is exceeded by X units of time. It would be better to agree now on a reasonable arrangement and thus avoid expensive and lengthy disputes in case of emergency. It’s a pity that the general contractor refuses this.

Provable and reasonable compensation for damages.

I don’t know what exactly I should agree on there except double rent.

Regarding 2. The retention is sufficient and, as far as I know (!), is actually owed to the customer even without explicit regulation in the contract. Nevertheless, in a developer contract bound to the Broker and Developer Ordinance, a final installment of 3.5% is provided. So there would be room for negotiation here.

Regarding the Broker and Developer Ordinance, I even find final installments of 5%.

They say the completion guarantee is also regulated in the Building Code. However, one reads that it should also be made part of the contract and must be carefully reviewed in advance. Does a general contractor have a kind of permanent release guarantee that can already be inspected now?

Regarding point 3 – the expert: They absolutely did not want to remove him. I will certainly have to demand that more clearly. They probably had bad experiences with experts who then harassed the site managers. But I also refuse to throw €4,000 out the window and not to do without the expert that I have come to trust in the previous advisory steps. I’m curious whether I’ll get away with it. In the extreme case, I have two other companies at hand who would build the house, but first I’d have price negotiations coming up, and to be honest, I’m not keen on that because neither of them comes up with reliable alternative offers.

Regarding 4. I understand both arguments. One way out could be pricing according to volume. So you directly agree within which corridor or according to which criteria an additional charge – with reference to the earthworks – is calculated.

That would again have to be explicitly negotiated by the expert – involving costs – as it is beyond my expertise. Is this really worth it? Or better to focus on the points of completion date, payment schedule and retention as well as the removal of the expert?