ᐅ Experiences with Building a House Using an Architect on a Fixed-Price Contract?
Created on: 2 Dec 2018 20:01
J
jawkneeHello everyone,
I originally planned to build with a general contractor (GC), mainly because of the financial security provided by a fixed price. When working with an architect, I was always worried about unpredictable costs or that the final costs might end up being significantly higher.
Now, through acquaintances, I was recommended a local architect who also offers a fixed price like a GC (for the complete turnkey house). The only difference is, as is typical with architects, that it’s not "all in one hand" but rather separate contracts are signed with the trades, which the architect still handles the tendering process for and coordinates later. His profit would essentially be his fixed fee minus the negotiated costs with the trades.
In the first meeting, everything seemed very professional and honest, and I had a good feeling about it. The price was also in a normal range between the lower-cost GCs and the (seemingly overpriced) GCs. He even includes some items that many GCs put under additional construction costs, such as the foundation slab, removal of earth excavation, etc. The remaining additional costs included in the fixed price were roughly estimated.
That’s why I would like to build with the architect and I have already started an initial exchange regarding the floor plan.
However, I wanted to ask if anyone has experience with this model and if there’s anything I should still watch out for? Would you also engage an independent construction supervisor when building with an architect? With a GC, I definitely would, but when working with an architect, where you generally collaborate more closely, I feel like it might come across as a lack of trust.
The only thing that still makes me a bit uncertain is that the scope of services (which would also form the contract basis) is somewhat vague in places: for example, for the masonry, "energy-saving bricks...[]...brick selection is based on thermal calculation..." or for the foundation slab, "will be dimensioned according to structural requirements...". So, unlike many GCs, it does not specify in detail the thickness of the masonry or the foundation slab. However, other parts are described more precisely, similar to GCs.
The architect said that this is often clarified further during the tendering process or by the bids from trades and that it might even be more detailed than with a GC. However, the tendering only happens after I sign the house building contract. At this point, I would have to give him a vote of confidence.
On one hand, he does make a trustworthy impression and has been working according to this model for quite some time, but on the other hand, I’m a bit cautious about giving a vote of confidence when so much money is involved.
What do you think?
I originally planned to build with a general contractor (GC), mainly because of the financial security provided by a fixed price. When working with an architect, I was always worried about unpredictable costs or that the final costs might end up being significantly higher.
Now, through acquaintances, I was recommended a local architect who also offers a fixed price like a GC (for the complete turnkey house). The only difference is, as is typical with architects, that it’s not "all in one hand" but rather separate contracts are signed with the trades, which the architect still handles the tendering process for and coordinates later. His profit would essentially be his fixed fee minus the negotiated costs with the trades.
In the first meeting, everything seemed very professional and honest, and I had a good feeling about it. The price was also in a normal range between the lower-cost GCs and the (seemingly overpriced) GCs. He even includes some items that many GCs put under additional construction costs, such as the foundation slab, removal of earth excavation, etc. The remaining additional costs included in the fixed price were roughly estimated.
That’s why I would like to build with the architect and I have already started an initial exchange regarding the floor plan.
However, I wanted to ask if anyone has experience with this model and if there’s anything I should still watch out for? Would you also engage an independent construction supervisor when building with an architect? With a GC, I definitely would, but when working with an architect, where you generally collaborate more closely, I feel like it might come across as a lack of trust.
The only thing that still makes me a bit uncertain is that the scope of services (which would also form the contract basis) is somewhat vague in places: for example, for the masonry, "energy-saving bricks...[]...brick selection is based on thermal calculation..." or for the foundation slab, "will be dimensioned according to structural requirements...". So, unlike many GCs, it does not specify in detail the thickness of the masonry or the foundation slab. However, other parts are described more precisely, similar to GCs.
The architect said that this is often clarified further during the tendering process or by the bids from trades and that it might even be more detailed than with a GC. However, the tendering only happens after I sign the house building contract. At this point, I would have to give him a vote of confidence.
On one hand, he does make a trustworthy impression and has been working according to this model for quite some time, but on the other hand, I’m a bit cautious about giving a vote of confidence when so much money is involved.
What do you think?
Interesting, but here a paradigm shift is taking place.
Traditional construction with an architect means they manage your house project through tenders, represent you as the client in dealings with contractors, and charge a fee for their services. Their price for the house is based on the tender results, you know the outcome, and you have some influence on the selection of the contractors.
Now, the architect sells you a house at a fixed price. This means they are no longer representing the client but act on behalf of the suppliers. You do not know the prices they negotiate or who they hire. This architect does not charge a fee, but instead makes an unclear profit from subcontractors providing lower bids. In this case, they function more as a general contractor than as an architect.
Consider what you want. I found building with a general contractor at a fixed price to be more relaxed, but I also trusted them. K.
Traditional construction with an architect means they manage your house project through tenders, represent you as the client in dealings with contractors, and charge a fee for their services. Their price for the house is based on the tender results, you know the outcome, and you have some influence on the selection of the contractors.
Now, the architect sells you a house at a fixed price. This means they are no longer representing the client but act on behalf of the suppliers. You do not know the prices they negotiate or who they hire. This architect does not charge a fee, but instead makes an unclear profit from subcontractors providing lower bids. In this case, they function more as a general contractor than as an architect.
Consider what you want. I found building with a general contractor at a fixed price to be more relaxed, but I also trusted them. K.
jawknee schrieb:
The only difference, as is common with architects, is that it is not a "turnkey" solution; instead, separate contracts are signed with the trades, which the architect still tendered and later coordinates. His profit would then basically be his fixed price minus the costs negotiated with the trades.The real question is: who is the client for the contracted trades?
If it’s you, then you also have to deal with any issues directly.
If it’s not you but the architect, then the architect acts as the general contractor (GC).
This happens, though it’s not an ideal example (our GC is also an architect), and is essentially just a contractor agreement with a GC, except that the head person is an architect.
jawknee schrieb:
The only difference, as is common with architects, is that it’s not “everything from one source,” but rather individual contracts are signed with the trades, which are still tendered and later coordinated by the architect. His profit would basically be his fixed price minus the costs negotiated with the trades. […] However, the tendering only takes place after I’ve signed the house construction contract. In my opinion, this is contradictory. I don’t understand in what capacity he is acting here. The term “house construction contract” suggests his legal position toward you as your general contractor (GC); if the “individual contracts” with the trades are signed by you, he would more likely be acting as your architect.
An architect-GC hybrid is not unusual; most are masonry GCs, but recently there are also more frame builders acting as GCs.
Generally, a GC is not automatically a builder (general builder, GB); many are just shell builders and subcontract many trades. This in itself is not problematic.
However, if his legal status toward you is unclear, I see this as risky for you: as an architect, he is a freelancer and you might have to pay his architectural fees according to the official fee regulations (HOAI); as a contractor, he can include architectural services as a lump sum but is contractually engaged with you as a business operator, which means that professionally and in terms of warranty law, he wouldn’t really be acting as an architect; additionally, sales tax would apply.
Ask a lawyer experienced in construction (contract) law which category this contract actually falls into.
Whether the person is generally reliable or not should be easy to find out: architect-GCs typically work within a specific region and have corresponding references within a relatively small area.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
H
HilfeHilfe3 Dec 2018 06:18My general contractor was / is a former architect who now officially works as a general contractor. His office plans and supervises everything for a fixed price. We receive a warranty from him. That would be too vague for me with you. The downside is that you pay property transfer tax on the entire amount.
montessalet3 Dec 2018 08:19HilfeHilfe schrieb:
My general contractor (GC) is / was a former architect who now officially works as a GC. His office plans and oversees everything for a fixed price. We also receive a warranty from him. That would be too vague for me in your case. The downside is that you pay property transfer tax on everything.No, only if you buy the building plot from the GC as well.
Similar topics