Good evening,
I hope this is the right place for my topic. I would like to hear your opinion about our energy consultant.
We are currently in the detailed planning phase of our semi-detached house with our independent architect. The architect designed the semi-detached house to meet the Energy Efficiency Standard 55. For support as an expert, an energy consultant provided us with a fee proposal of 2,850 euros. Half of this amount would qualify for funding under the KfW program.
Believing that we would meet the KfW 55 standard, we accepted the offer. However, after several meetings with the architect and the energy consultant’s calculations, it has now become clear that we will not achieve the 55 standard with our project, but only the 70 standard, which no longer qualifies for funding. Our energy consultant is now insisting on the originally agreed price.
He argues that the calculations already done, the ongoing support, and the issuance of the energy performance certificate justify this fee. As a goodwill gesture, he is willing to reduce the fee so that he receives a total of 2,400 euros for supporting a KfW 70 project—which, as mentioned, is no longer eligible for funding.
Are these fees typical? In my opinion, the offer was based on the wrong assumption, as we only agreed under the belief that he would assist us with a KfW 55 project.
Does anyone have advice on how to proceed?
Best regards
I hope this is the right place for my topic. I would like to hear your opinion about our energy consultant.
We are currently in the detailed planning phase of our semi-detached house with our independent architect. The architect designed the semi-detached house to meet the Energy Efficiency Standard 55. For support as an expert, an energy consultant provided us with a fee proposal of 2,850 euros. Half of this amount would qualify for funding under the KfW program.
Believing that we would meet the KfW 55 standard, we accepted the offer. However, after several meetings with the architect and the energy consultant’s calculations, it has now become clear that we will not achieve the 55 standard with our project, but only the 70 standard, which no longer qualifies for funding. Our energy consultant is now insisting on the originally agreed price.
He argues that the calculations already done, the ongoing support, and the issuance of the energy performance certificate justify this fee. As a goodwill gesture, he is willing to reduce the fee so that he receives a total of 2,400 euros for supporting a KfW 70 project—which, as mentioned, is no longer eligible for funding.
Are these fees typical? In my opinion, the offer was based on the wrong assumption, as we only agreed under the belief that he would assist us with a KfW 55 project.
Does anyone have advice on how to proceed?
Best regards
I completely agree with Alex. Why have construction supervision for KFW70? Either your energy consultant shows you how to achieve KFW55, which then justifies construction supervision, or you stick with KFW70 and don’t really need it. As far as I remember, KFW requires construction supervision for funding, but with the 2016 Energy Saving Ordinance, also known as KFW70, it is not necessary. I would save that money, as I think it represents a significant portion of the fees. In our case (also building with an architect using separate trade contracts, Energy Saving Ordinance 2016) the energy consultant charges us around €1000 gross, just for reference.
Good morning,
thank you for your quick responses. The "upgrade" to the 55 standard fails due to the thickness of the exterior walls. Currently, our architect has planned 37.5 cm (15 inches) Thermo Sound Gisoton bricks. According to calculations, these bricks are not sufficient to meet the 55 standard. To achieve this standard, the bricks would need to be at least 40 cm (16 inches) thick or more. These thicker bricks would cause additional costs of approximately 3,000 to 5,000 euros and would only provide an annual energy saving of about 100 euros compared to the current standard.
Furthermore, our house is currently planned exactly within the building boundary, meaning that if we switch to the thicker bricks, we would have to accept a reduction in living space because we are not allowed to build wider outward but only inward. According to the architect, this would reduce the ground floor and first floor living space by about 8 sqm (86 sq ft) each.
We are already building with a heat pump, ventilation system with heat recovery, photovoltaic system, wood fiber insulation, etc., but unfortunately, the limitation lies with the exterior wall.
So, can I assume that the quoted price is justified?
Best regards
thank you for your quick responses. The "upgrade" to the 55 standard fails due to the thickness of the exterior walls. Currently, our architect has planned 37.5 cm (15 inches) Thermo Sound Gisoton bricks. According to calculations, these bricks are not sufficient to meet the 55 standard. To achieve this standard, the bricks would need to be at least 40 cm (16 inches) thick or more. These thicker bricks would cause additional costs of approximately 3,000 to 5,000 euros and would only provide an annual energy saving of about 100 euros compared to the current standard.
Furthermore, our house is currently planned exactly within the building boundary, meaning that if we switch to the thicker bricks, we would have to accept a reduction in living space because we are not allowed to build wider outward but only inward. According to the architect, this would reduce the ground floor and first floor living space by about 8 sqm (86 sq ft) each.
We are already building with a heat pump, ventilation system with heat recovery, photovoltaic system, wood fiber insulation, etc., but unfortunately, the limitation lies with the exterior wall.
So, can I assume that the quoted price is justified?
Best regards
The price is reasonable if it includes construction supervision. However, since the KFW issue seems to be resolved for you, construction supervision is unnecessary. I would therefore try to have this task removed in a friendly discussion or only pay a portion as compensation, so that your total stays below 2000€ (about 2200 USD).
Does your architect know the KFW consultant? Maybe they should talk to each other...
Does your architect know the KFW consultant? Maybe they should talk to each other...
What would you do – would you accept the additional costs of about €3,000 to €5,000 and sacrifice living space just to meet the KfW 55 standard?
As mentioned before, we already have a pretty good energy standard with the ventilation system featuring heat recovery. Our bank also offers better interest rates than the KfW bank, so we wouldn’t have to rely on the KfW funding loan. The only “perk” would be the €5,000 payment waiver, which would offset the extra costs mentioned above. Additionally, half of the energy consultant’s fees could be reimbursed through subsidies.
Not so easy... and this is just the beginning of the planning...
Regards
As mentioned before, we already have a pretty good energy standard with the ventilation system featuring heat recovery. Our bank also offers better interest rates than the KfW bank, so we wouldn’t have to rely on the KfW funding loan. The only “perk” would be the €5,000 payment waiver, which would offset the extra costs mentioned above. Additionally, half of the energy consultant’s fees could be reimbursed through subsidies.
Not so easy... and this is just the beginning of the planning...
Regards
M
Mastermind15 Jun 2018 12:15Rob1107 schrieb:
What would you do – would you accept the additional extra costs of about 3,000–5,000 € (3,200–5,300 USD) and lose living space just to meet the KfW 55 standard?
As already described, we have a pretty good energy standard with the ventilation system including heat recovery. Our bank also offers a better interest rate than the KfW Bank, so we wouldn’t depend on the KfW subsidized loan. The only "perk" would be the 5,000 € (5,300 USD) loan forgiveness, which would cover the extra costs mentioned above. Additionally, half of the energy consultant’s fees could be claimed as a subsidy.
Not so easy... and this is just the beginning of the planning...
RegardsGood energy standard? That has nothing to do with the ventilation. The ventilation is merely a comfort feature.
In addition, it is now more or less mandatory because of ventilation regulations.
Otherwise, the architect would have to be released from liability in writing if mold occurs. Very few architects agree to that.
Ventilation saves little energy.
You might save about 500 kWh of otherwise lost heat energy but at the same time you invest 200–400 kWh of electricity to operate the controlled residential ventilation system…
Similar topics