ᐅ Preliminary design through the architect, followed by tendering?
Created on: 4 Aug 2023 10:34
B
Bauen1899
Hello everyone,
We have a plot of land in Paderborn and would like to build a single-family house of about 150m2 (1,615 sq ft) on it.
Since we have two children, are quite busy with work, and are not very skilled with DIY, we would prefer to have most of the work done by professionals.
Right now, we are unsure about the best approach, and from our online research, opinions seem to vary widely.
We have decided that we want to build a timber house. We have already consulted several architects who naturally all recommended handling everything directly through them. However, we feel that this might be too time-consuming since we already have difficulty finding times when all of us can meet.
On the other hand, I don’t want to go directly to a construction company, since I don’t have any personal recommendations, and I imagine that if I put the project out to tender openly, the bids might be somewhat lower than if I commit straight away to one company.
My idea was to have an architect carry out service phases 1-3 (up to preliminary design) and then put these plans out for tender to construction companies.
However, I have also read that the detailed design should definitely be done by the architect, because otherwise, there is no real basis for comparison. Also, the planner responsible for the preliminary design should naturally handle the detailed design as well. On the other hand, I have heard there is a risk that each company might build somewhat differently, and if the building permit/planning permission is already granted based on the detailed design, which is then fixed, this could lead to major problems. Therefore, it might be better if the construction company prepares the detailed design.
Additionally, the detailed design costs a lot more money and only makes sense if the construction company takes it over exactly as planned and doesn’t need to redo the planning themselves, which would again cause extra costs.
The offer for the 150m2 (1,615 sq ft) single-family house (first rough cost estimate from the architect = €350,000, which seems a bit low to me) for service phases 1-3 is €11,000. Is that reasonable?
Or is this all nonsense, and in the end, I will pay the €11,000 to the architect and still have to cover architect fees again for the construction company?
Could you please help me? Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone in my personal network who can really assist me.
We have a plot of land in Paderborn and would like to build a single-family house of about 150m2 (1,615 sq ft) on it.
Since we have two children, are quite busy with work, and are not very skilled with DIY, we would prefer to have most of the work done by professionals.
Right now, we are unsure about the best approach, and from our online research, opinions seem to vary widely.
We have decided that we want to build a timber house. We have already consulted several architects who naturally all recommended handling everything directly through them. However, we feel that this might be too time-consuming since we already have difficulty finding times when all of us can meet.
On the other hand, I don’t want to go directly to a construction company, since I don’t have any personal recommendations, and I imagine that if I put the project out to tender openly, the bids might be somewhat lower than if I commit straight away to one company.
My idea was to have an architect carry out service phases 1-3 (up to preliminary design) and then put these plans out for tender to construction companies.
However, I have also read that the detailed design should definitely be done by the architect, because otherwise, there is no real basis for comparison. Also, the planner responsible for the preliminary design should naturally handle the detailed design as well. On the other hand, I have heard there is a risk that each company might build somewhat differently, and if the building permit/planning permission is already granted based on the detailed design, which is then fixed, this could lead to major problems. Therefore, it might be better if the construction company prepares the detailed design.
Additionally, the detailed design costs a lot more money and only makes sense if the construction company takes it over exactly as planned and doesn’t need to redo the planning themselves, which would again cause extra costs.
The offer for the 150m2 (1,615 sq ft) single-family house (first rough cost estimate from the architect = €350,000, which seems a bit low to me) for service phases 1-3 is €11,000. Is that reasonable?
Or is this all nonsense, and in the end, I will pay the €11,000 to the architect and still have to cover architect fees again for the construction company?
Could you please help me? Unfortunately, I don’t know anyone in my personal network who can really assist me.
F
Fabian300011 Feb 2024 12:58Hello everyone,
we are facing exactly the same issue described by "Bauen1899." Could someone please give their opinion on what is more reasonable for comparing offers: preliminary design (this saves the cost of detailed design) or detailed design? Do construction companies take into account in the price if you already provide the detailed design? Would some builders possibly be excluded because they might not want or be able to build according to the detailed design prepared by an architect?
Thank you very much
we are facing exactly the same issue described by "Bauen1899." Could someone please give their opinion on what is more reasonable for comparing offers: preliminary design (this saves the cost of detailed design) or detailed design? Do construction companies take into account in the price if you already provide the detailed design? Would some builders possibly be excluded because they might not want or be able to build according to the detailed design prepared by an architect?
Thank you very much
F
Fabian300011 Feb 2024 16:33There is a development plan that must be followed.
Fabian3000 schrieb:
We are facing exactly the same problem as described by "Bauen1899."The “exact same problem” of the mentioned original poster was, first, building a timber house; third, working with an architect only from design phases 1 to 3; and second, unfortunately not following up on queries. Do all three points really apply to you as well?Fabian3000 schrieb:
Could someone please give their opinion on what makes more sense for comparing bids: design planning (saving the costs of construction documentation) or construction documentation?I will try to answer anyway, although I don’t fully understand the question – especially where savings on construction documentation costs come in during design planning. So I’ll respond as if the question was simply: what is useful for comparing bids? You should never ask for “fruit” in general, otherwise the answers will always refer to “apples” or “pears,” which is never a productive comparison.
Fabian3000 schrieb:
Do construction companies factor in the price if you already provide construction documentation? Or will some contractors possibly drop out because they may not want or be able to build exactly according to the architect’s construction documentation?Perhaps you should first clarify what you intend: to have the construction documentation done by the architect (that is, design phases 1 through 5), and then without the architect, issue the tender yourself and look for a willing builder? Construction documentation is the architect’s most fee-intensive phase (and the most expensive only if you then do not use it). If you are prepared to pay for it only to not use it, you might as well skip it and approach your contractor with just the building permit planning or, in timber construction, even just the design planning.
I can tell you right away that “saving” during the planning stage will cost a lot of money (and quality) during construction.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
F
Fabian300011 Feb 2024 18:41First of all, thank you for the detailed response. Saying "exactly the same problem" was a bit of a generalization; I meant that we are also currently trying to figure out how to carry out a bid comparison in order to find the most affordable construction company to build our single-family house (not a timber house).
By asking "Can someone please comment on what makes sense for a bid comparison: design phase (which saves the costs of the execution planning) or execution planning?" I meant that you save service phase 5 of the HOAI if you only use a design phase for the bid comparison. This would be the case if the design phase provides a sufficiently detailed plan to find the cheapest provider. But if I understood you correctly, this is not advisable because it leads to comparing apples and oranges.
"Maybe you could first explain what your plans are: having the architect prepare execution planning (i.e., service phases 1 to 5) and then, without the architect, also handle the tendering yourself to hunt for a willing construction company?" What information do you need?
I interpret your second-last paragraph as a recommendation to commission the architect up to service phase 7, correct?
By asking "Can someone please comment on what makes sense for a bid comparison: design phase (which saves the costs of the execution planning) or execution planning?" I meant that you save service phase 5 of the HOAI if you only use a design phase for the bid comparison. This would be the case if the design phase provides a sufficiently detailed plan to find the cheapest provider. But if I understood you correctly, this is not advisable because it leads to comparing apples and oranges.
"Maybe you could first explain what your plans are: having the architect prepare execution planning (i.e., service phases 1 to 5) and then, without the architect, also handle the tendering yourself to hunt for a willing construction company?" What information do you need?
I interpret your second-last paragraph as a recommendation to commission the architect up to service phase 7, correct?
Fabian3000 schrieb:
By "Can someone please comment on what makes sense for comparing offers, schematic design (which saves the costs of construction documentation) or construction documentation?" I meant that you save service phase 5 of the HOAI if you only use schematic design for the offer comparison. This would be the case if the schematic design is sufficiently detailed to identify the cheapest contractor. However, this situation never occurs: already the building permit planning (service phase 4) does not meet the requirement of sufficient accuracy. The schematic design (service phase 3) is even further away from the building permit planning by at least the drainage planning (as well as the heating load calculation, ventilation concept, and similar). Put simply, at the end of service phase 4 you only have "the house from Nikola__", and at the end of service phase 3 you only really have "the house from Niko____".
Fabian3000 schrieb:
If I understood you correctly, you mean it is not advisable because that would be comparing apples and oranges. Yes and no. For comparing offers, you already need construction documentation / detailed planning (service phase 5) as a basis. But even with this, it would still be comparing apples and oranges if one (which is very common among laypeople) does not understand and control the difference between an inquiry and a tender. So even with the construction documentation (which also includes the building specifications and scope of services — it is by far not just about drawings), one would still be hopelessly underprepared to hunt for suitable and competitively priced bidders.
Fabian3000 schrieb:
I interpret your second-last paragraph as a recommendation to commission the architect through service phase 7, right? I would even recommend commissioning the architect through service phase 8, see "A house-building roadmap for you, too: the HOAI phase model!" in the sequence "Module A – resting phase with decision-making – Module B – Module C". Ideally, service phases 5 to 7 belong together, although, as explained in the house-building roadmap, phase 5 still belongs to Module B and phases 6 and 7 to Module C. As my mnemonic "3+5=8" says, the designer, detail planner, and construction supervisor are best the same person. Service phase 5 should be performed by the original designer or at least one key contributor from service phase 3, because "raising someone else’s child" here is a task of the highest difficulty. Developing phases 6 and 7 based on phase 5, however, can also be done by an independent building consultant (or another architect).
Fabian3000 schrieb:
"Maybe first explain what you are planning: with construction documentation from the architect (i.e., service phases 1 through 5) then having the tendering done without the architect yourself to find a willing contractor?" What information do you need? First of all, what exactly do you have: schematic design (service phases 1–3) or building permit planning (service phases 1–4), and did you take the resting phase and make the key decisions before service phase 3? You obviously do not have the detailed planning yet, since you are just now asking how dispensable we consider it.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics