ᐅ Turnkey vs. Individual Contracting

Altai schrieb:

As a layperson, it’s really hard to grasp how the different trades coordinate with each other. It’s not a straightforward sequence; trade A does part of the work, then trade B steps in, then A continues, and only then trade C... You have to understand this, or else the often mentioned chaos will occur. It’s also crucial to coordinate the "handover points" between A to B to A to C.
I once walked into a room where the site manager and a tradesperson were negotiating:
“Trade X will have a problem if we do it this way.”
“Don’t let the client hear that!”
“She’s standing right behind you…”
Awkward silence...
Trade X was scheduled much later and, at that time, it wasn’t even clear which company would do it... This is another example of what can go wrong. Here, a less-than-optimal job causes a problem that only appears later when another trade starts work.
It’s definitely an art to think of everything — some things are obvious (you need windows, heating, electricity, and a toilet), while others tend to be hidden but still must be done.
In my opinion: taking on coordination yourself is only for those with expertise, a lot of patience, time, and extra money. Everyone else should hire a site manager (e.g., an engineering firm).

And PS: my interior finishing cost about 1000€/m² (93 USD/ft²) at a standard level, just as a rough reference and regarding the initial question whether 190,000€ would be reasonable. (2019)

You really need to let go of the idea that constant supervision or presence as a layperson will actually improve quality. You simply can’t be standing there all the time, and above all, most people (myself included) need to accept that we only have limited knowledge.
With my old house, I did everything myself, and in the end, I was often just cleaning up after the tradespeople. On top of that, every trade tends to shift responsibility onto the others, so you’re always caught in the middle making decisions whose consequences you may not fully foresee.

pagoni2020 schrieb:

In addition, each trade often tends to shift responsibility onto the others, leaving you stuck in the middle having to make decisions whose consequences you may not yet be able to foresee.

Sounds just like with politicians...

HilfeHilfe schrieb:

In house construction, the trades need to be coordinated. It also gets tricky with warranties. When something doesn’t work, the trades start blaming each other.

That’s exactly how it is. We built with a general contractor (GC), did some work ourselves, and subcontracted some tasks directly. Coordinating the interfaces is not to be underestimated.
If one of the parties involved slacks off (the contractor, site manager, homeowner, or other trades) or is unwilling to cooperate, it becomes difficult—meaning it gets prolonged or more expensive because of “I thought this was already prepared by X” or “Y will do it later.”

When something did go wrong (for example, damp insulation between rafters or cracked screed), I was extremely grateful that no trades outside the GC’s scope were involved. That way, I only had my site manager as a contact person, who worked out solutions with the trades involved according to the instructions—I didn’t have to deal with annoying liability or financing issues. A silver lining.

Also, the word of the respected site manager from the GC carries much more weight with the individual trades because of the much larger overall contracts than if I as the homeowner had addressed the same issues directly.
If there’s a problem, they may never want to see me again, but they intend to keep working with the GC in 10 years’ time.

dab_dab schrieb:

That’s how it looks. We built with a general contractor (GC), did only a few tasks ourselves, and managed some work directly with subcontractors. Coordinating the interfaces between trades should not be underestimated.
If any party involved (contractor, site manager, client, other trades) slacks off or is unwilling to coordinate, it becomes difficult—meaning the process gets lengthy or expensive due to misunderstandings like “I thought that was already prepared by x” or “y will do it later.”

When something goes wrong (like water-damaged insulation between rafters or cracked screed in our case), I was extremely grateful that no trades outside the GC’s scope were involved. This way, I only had my site manager as a contact person, who worked together with the involved trades to find solutions as instructed—I didn't have to deal with frustrating issues about blame or financing. A blessing in disguise.

Also, the word of the GC’s respected site manager carries much more weight with the individual trades due to their larger overall contracts than if I, as the client, had addressed the same issues directly.

That’s exactly it! Everyone should be brutally honest with themselves here. There’s still plenty to do in selecting and designing floors, blinds, tiles, bathrooms, garden, outdoor areas, furniture, kitchen, and so on. Plenty of important tasks exist just in those areas alone.

Is this a new development area?

hampshire schrieb:

Whether contracting trades individually is ultimately cheaper cannot be generalized. In my opinion, the more customized your build is, the more beneficial individual contracts become.

We subcontracted individually and organized construction supervision as follows:

• Earthworks and deep excavation up to the foundation slab and hillside support, including piping for utility connections to the street, were awarded to a local company. We visited the site regularly, provided refreshments to the workers, praised and thanked them, and had them explain the ongoing work. Cost drivers were soil class 7 areas and the hillside location.
• All other local trades were chosen together with the carpentry company that built the house. (In your case, this would be the masonry or structural contractor.) They included 100 hours for construction coordination (scheduling, coordinating trades) in their bid. As mentioned above, we were involved and made detailed agreements with each trade regarding finishes (materials, fittings, colors, ideas we had, suggestions from the trades which we accepted or rejected). Cost drivers were our detailed decisions that went beyond the original scope (clay plaster mixed with straw, larch wood cladding, special wood flooring, unique tiles, additional exterior water outlets, Italian glass mosaic, special lighting, specific switch systems, etc.).
• We supplied some materials ourselves when they were not available through the trades. Overall, this was still attractive for the contractors within the whole project.
• We accepted premium labor rates because the highest quality cannot be achieved by using only the cheapest workforce.
• Each company can use our house as a reference for future clients. Since the house attracted attention and sparked conversations in the region due to its location and appearance during construction, this was motivating for everyone involved right from the start.

The construction phase was a very happy time for us and largely free of stress. Overall, considering the quality, individuality, and flexibility during construction, we now have a house that we certainly could not have gotten from a turnkey builder—especially not for this price.

Do you have a picture of your house? Best regards