ᐅ Phases 1-3 with the architect and a fixed-price offer—is there any drawback?

Hello,

we want to have our future house designed by an architect and initially commission service phases 1–3. Due to the significant fluctuations in the expected billable costs, the architect has offered us a fixed-price quote. This is in zone 3 at the mid-rate and thus within the HOAI framework. I have read about problems arising when the architect’s fixed-price offer is below the minimum rates. Are there any other potential pitfalls with this approach if the fee rate is not below the minimum rate? Online, I only see this mentioned as a possible issue. However, I am not entirely sure if this is still a problem under the latest HOAI regulations.

Thank you!

Araknis schrieb:

We want to have our future house designed by an architect and initially commission phases 1-3 of the service.

I recommend (see "A House Building Roadmap, also for you: the HOAI phase model!") starting with "Module A" (phases 1 and 2) and then—very important—a pause phase in which you reflect on the results of phase 2 before moving on to phase 3; you have probably already read here how many homeowners want to change direction during the process, which is usually due to planning too far ahead too early.
After that, you will know whether to continue with the same architect or to hire a new one. Ideally, you keep the same architect between Modules B and C, because no one delivers better results than the one responsible for the full sequence of design planning – detailed planning – construction supervision.
Also, since phase 6 builds on phase 5, I strongly advise never to commission only phases 1 to 4, but always include phase 5 as well.

The prefab house expert Tobias Beutler, on the other hand—precisely because he is a prefab housing specialist advising clients who have already decided to build with a (prefabricating) general contractor (GC)—recommends planning phases 1 to 3 with an independent architect; that is like me advising not to stop after phase 4 (but unlike me, he does not go beyond phase 4, rather stops before phase 4). The—also very reasonable, in my opinion—reason for this recommendation is to avoid doubling effort and costs for phase 4, because (especially with timber frame construction) it is better for the GC to handle the permit and approval planning.

Especially if you want to follow this approach, commissioning phases 1 to 3 is a well-chosen package—but don’t forget the break between preliminary design and design planning (at least two weeks, more is better, although after six weeks the effect no longer increases measurably).

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Thank you! That fits well with what we have planned. If the situation has eased somewhat by the time Phase 3 (design development) is completed and we have good chemistry with the architect, we are definitely open to having this architect handle the entire project. However, after Phase 3, we still have the option to switch to a general contractor or another full-service provider without doing anything twice or unnecessarily, right?

In general, there is nothing wrong with a fixed-price offer, is there?

11ant schrieb:
The reason for this recommendation, which I also consider very reasonable, is to avoid carrying out and paying for phase 4 twice, because (especially in timber frame construction) it is better when working with a general contractor (GC) to have them handle the approval planning from the start.

That’s interesting. Why do you think that is better?

Araknis schrieb:

Thanks! That fits with what we are planning. [...]
Generally, there is no objection to a fixed-price offer, right?

What fits with what you are planning?
I see no objection to a fixed-price offer.

Araknis schrieb:

If the situation has somewhat settled by the time phase 3 is completed and we have good chemistry with the architect, we are definitely open to having this architect handle the entire remaining process as well. But after phase 3, we still have the option to switch to a general contractor (GC) or another full-service provider without duplicating work or doing anything impractical, right?

Definitely take a break after phase 2. This pause is important to get used to—the way many first-time homeowners need to learn—that you can’t keep jumping back and forth during the argument to reassess evidence. "The die is cast! From now on, only minor tweaks, no spiral staircase changes, no going back and forth on mechanical ventilation systems, no wavering between monolithic construction and external wall insulation systems (EWIS/ETICS)." At some point, you have to be mature and stick to your decisions, otherwise the house becomes expensive and complicated. "Clean code," as programmers say. The break between phases 2 and 3 should also be used for reflection on which construction method(s) you prefer. By the way, the preliminary design (which is the “result” at the end of phase 2) is not only sufficient for the building permit/planning permission inquiry with the local authorities but also for a rough selection of possible general contractors. Because phase 3 is when things get serious, and by then you should have already decided fundamentally whether you want a masonry or timber house. The "does the chemistry fit?" question should also be answered during this break. For this reason, I consider the split between the first and subsequent contract modules after phase 2 better than after phase 3.

If you plan—barring major disasters, of course—to continue with the same architect throughout, I think it makes sense at least through phase 5 (hence another split there). Module A = phases 1 and 2 (preliminary design), Module B = phases 3 to 5 (development), Module C = phases 6 to 8 (implementation).

11ant schrieb:

The reason for this recommendation, which I also consider very reasonable, is to avoid having to do and pay for phase 4 twice, because (especially in timber frame construction) it is better when the GC takes over the permit planning.

filosof schrieb:

That’s interesting. Why do you think that is better?

Because prefab home manufacturers usually have their own “systems”: every timber frame panel supplier has their own recipe for the wall build-up sandwich, and even monolithic solid panel manufacturers sometimes have different wall thicknesses than what they offer “off the shelf” for traditional masonry (“brick-and-mortar”) houses; pre-installed installation boxes are commonly included as well. This causes unnecessary double work if an independent architect, unfamiliar with the respective system, does the initial planning as if it were a site-built masonry house. For masonry, the architect develops phase 5 from phase 4; with prefab homes, regardless of material, the process is often reversed: permit planning is derived “backwards” from the detailed construction planning.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

Because prefabricated house manufacturers usually have their own systems: each timber frame panel producer has its own recipe for the wall assembly sandwich, and even the manufacturers of monolithic solid panels sometimes use different wall thicknesses than those offered for sale separately for traditional masonry ("brick-by-brick") houses; pre-installed electrical boxes are often included from the start. This only causes unnecessary extra work if an independent architect who is not familiar with the particular system plans as if designing a site-built masonry house. In traditional masonry, the architect develops phase 5 (detailed design) based on phase 4 (preliminary design), whereas with prefabricated houses, regardless of the material, it is often the other way around: the permit planning is derived "backwards" from the shop drawings.

OK, that makes sense. In our case, it was a bit different: our timber prefabricator provided the architect with the complete data set (walls, windows, etc.), and the architect then used this to prepare and manage the permit planning and building application. After we received the building permit, there was an appointment for the "technical selection" where the final details were discussed (final interior walls, electrical outlets, kitchen connections, etc.), and then the shop drawings were created by the construction partner.