ᐅ Searching for a General Contractor vs. Planning with an Architect and Tendering – General Approach?

In our circle of acquaintances, we often hear that they have been looking for a general contractor, primarily advertising catalog homes, with whom they could realize their own ideas (sometimes through minor modifications, sometimes through significant deviations from the catalog, or even completely new designs). General contractors were then compared based on price, likeability/trust, and the description of the construction services (as far as available and understandable for laypersons) – probably in that order.

On the other hand, we also know some people who have worked with independent architects, had tenders created, and enjoyed a lot of freedom, but also a lot of work (especially decision-making, which is not necessarily a bad thing). They built in higher price ranges than we are aiming for (which probably is not directly related to this approach).

All of this is mainly hearsay; we have detailed insights only in a few individual cases.

We have now been wondering what role browsing catalogs should play for us. Whether we should "make life easier" by modifying a few general contractor offers until they basically fit, and then compare them. Or whether we should have an architect design the project. Details about our specific case can be discussed in another thread. Here, the question is more general, since the discussion in our circle of acquaintances also takes on a more general character.

So: What do you think about requesting and comparing general contractors with catalogs (e.g., Team Massivhaus, Viebrockhaus [not exactly the same league, I know, just for example purposes], or prefab home companies)? What are the advantages and disadvantages compared to starting with an independent architect (who would then probably manage the tender process)?
And would "an architect who already has cooperating subcontractors" be a compromise?
Or what other common approaches are there (roughly outlined) to combine as many advantages as possible? (And: I don’t want to start a debate about direct building, but how would that be classified here?)

__

What’s on my mind:
- Quick offer turnaround / rough estimate
- Price range
- Description of construction services
- Organizational effort
- Design freedom vs. being "pushed into a predefined template"
- Owner’s own work
- Trades well coordinated with each other and, if applicable, with the architect

__

@Papierturm and @11ant (and possibly @ypg, I am not checking now) have already shared some experience in another thread based on our situation. Here it is perhaps a bit more general. I am familiar with the phases described by @11ant, but I assume there are many who have approached construction quite differently (whether that is better or worse is another matter; it seems to me to be a given).

1689owen schrieb:

So, what do you think about requesting quotes from general contractors using catalogs (for example, Team Massivhaus, Viebrockhaus [not exactly the same level, I know, just as examples], or prefabricated house companies) and comparing them?

Since you can’t really compare the catalog prices — it’s like comparing apples, pears, kiwis, and bananas — I don’t think it’s very useful. Especially because the final price is only determined after you’ve included all your requests (upgrades). The standard features offered by each provider vary.

1689owen schrieb:

What are the advantages and disadvantages of starting with an independent architect (and probably having them put the project out to tender)?

You can also work with both an architect and a general contractor (whether for solid construction or prefab/timber frame). Feel free to check the posts by @11ant for more information.

In brief:

Choosing a house from a catalog will probably be cheaper since the design work is already done and the catalog floor plans are optimized.

If you want a custom design, working with an architect and a tender process isn't necessarily more expensive than a custom floor plan with a catalog builder.
Advantage of an architect: much more freedom in decision-making
Advantage of a general contractor (GC): you know the price upfront and have price certainty with a reliable GC.

Mixed approach: free design with an architect, then have a local GC carry out the work at a fixed price.

I’m waiting for @11ant – he will probably recommend architect design and tendering including involvement of a GC?

Gerddieter

1689owen schrieb:

We have been wondering what role browsing catalogs should play for us. Whether we should "make life easier" by modifying a few general contractor (GC) offers until they basically fit, and then compare.

So, in your other thread, you come with a price range in mind and an idea of which rooms the house should include.

In the first instance, in my opinion, you have to look at what is possible on the plot and within the budget.

If the plot or zoning regulations restrict you, you need to see how to fit your needs in. For this, make some rough sketches yourself. If you are only allowed to build 80 sqm (860 sq ft) based on the floor area ratio (or 165 sqm (1775 sq ft) total), you should realistically be able to understand how the desired rooms can be distributed or what is simply not feasible.
No one can generally tell you if you can manage with 113 sqm (1215 sq ft) like other families or if you absolutely need 150+ sqm (1615+ sq ft). That depends entirely on the individual person and lifestyle.

If you – and probably yourself too – do not want to do this homework, you will not be happy with these questions and answers, because nothing can be answered universally.

Car example: If you are looking for a five-seater, it makes no sense to look at convertibles or sporty small cars. Similarly, a practical six-seater might not suit you.

Budget: If only $27,500 (25,000€) is available for the new vehicle, then it’s pointless to look at premium class cars above $55,000 (50,000€). But who knows, maybe $38,500 (35,000€) is available.

Browsing catalogs will help you see what “standard” houses are generally built, which room sizes various builders use in their floor plans. You should also watch room tours or visit model homes to get a feel for the space.

If you don’t dare to make rough sketches or a calculation yourself, then use a forum. But then be more direct. It is impossible to say in general whether x sqm are enough or if y amount of financing is feasible.

The fact is: if a standard house is sufficient and possible, then a general contractor house is a good and affordable option.
If the plot is “problematic” for whatever reason, then an architect with skill and professional experience can often get more out of the house than a prefabricated model.

1689owen schrieb:

Among our acquaintances, we often hear that they looked for a general contractor who primarily advertises with catalog houses but were able to realize their own ideas (sometimes with minor modifications, sometimes with significant deviations from the catalog, or even completely new designs).

To be honest, that’s how I proceeded, and it worked out, but it doesn’t have to be right for others.
I had my rough room program and a floor area ratio limit for a simple plot with what seemed like an optimal orientation.
A bungalow wouldn’t have been possible due to the floor area ratio, so I looked for a suitable model house. I still see this as legitimate if you want to build everything from one source. That’s what the internet and catalog deliveries are for. I had no problem limiting myself to fixed house dimensions. Because somehow you can always get a nice house if you don’t fixate on tiny personal preferences and if the plot allows it. A standard house can be furnished more stylishly and functionally than a complex custom-designed house where the residents don’t make use of it.
I never dreamed of an Emil-von-Elling house or an expensive HUF house, and I also do not assign much value to terms like luxury or villa. So I found a down-to-earth regional general contractor whose management and owners are architects and who subcontract to local firms.
Our house is individually designed inside, but outside it’s the model house. That only really works to a limited extent with larger general contractors or volume builders.

1689owen schrieb:

General contractors were compared based on price, likeability/trust, and also the description of construction services (as far as these are available and understandable to a layperson).

If your acquaintances already have experience, why don’t you use that?

The question also is: what exactly did they compare? Apples and oranges… yes, you can’t really compare, but in the end, both are fruits with roughly the same vitamin content. If you can only afford prepackaged kilogram offers from discount supermarkets, it makes some sense to look at better grocery stores, but ultimately it stays discount quality. But even those offer organic produce—you just have to look more closely. Translated to housing: scratch a KfW40+ house [high energy standard], you can live wonderfully in a house of lower efficiency class—affordably and without uncomfortable restrictions.
If you can be happy with three apples that weigh only 500 grams (1.1 lbs) and are therefore cheaper even at the better grocery store than the kilogram price at the discount supermarket, then go with those.
In the end, most model houses have their justification – but do you have to compare one house 1:1 with another? Would you rather have an apple or a pear? The worm asks. The worm takes the fruit that is within reach. Both taste good.
Anyone who tries to argue price based solely on the description of construction services and equate them will not succeed.

1689owen schrieb:

What goes through my mind:
- Quick offer preparation / house model
- Price range
- Description of construction services
- Organizational effort
- Design freedom vs “being forced into a grid”
- Owner’s own work
- Trades are well coordinated and possibly aligned with an architect

Personally, I currently consider all of these irrelevant.

1689owen schrieb:

Quick offer preparation / house model

For what? Most general contractors estimate by flat sqm in line with their model houses; a proper offer only comes after an individual design, which often only happens after contract signing. Architects often miss the mark.

1689owen schrieb:

Price range

You specify that by your financing limits.

1689owen schrieb:

Description of construction services

They are usually not that different. The more you move price-wise down or up, the more individual it becomes: cheaper house providers save on tile materials, exterior painting (stairs, wood cladding), dumpsters, etc. Higher-end providers often include extras as part of their standard.

1689owen schrieb:

Organizational effort

Whatever you mean by that. But a Regnauer house will likely incur higher transport costs to Hamburg.

1689owen schrieb:

Design freedom vs “being forced into a grid”

A grid per se is not wrong. Design freedom also costs money. If you have the money, you can afford design freedom.

1689owen schrieb:

Owner’s own work

You have to be able to do owner’s work – both in terms of time and skills. With a GC who builds turnkey, it’s usually not financially worthwhile to exclude a trade. Painting and flooring are often not included anyway in turnkey offers.

1689owen schrieb:

Trades are well coordinated and possibly aligned with an architect

That should be assumed initially.

Wrote a lot, lost some thoughts. Nevertheless: this is one opinion, my opinion, one of many individual opinions you will get if you do not define yourself.

If you are an average family (2 adults, 2 children) and the building plot does not have any special challenges (such as slope, rock, or swamp), you will generally find standard building proposals suitable for almost every income group, and an independent architect is unlikely to design anything visibly different by just looking at it. When you overlay the floor plans of typical homes for families like Müller, Meier, and Schulze, architectural handwriting is often barely noticeable, and the positioning of walls differs by only a few percent. Anyone commissioning a supposedly unique design at this stage likely has more money than sense and will need good luck to ensure the construction workers deliver this premiere without defects. Therefore, my advisees do not insist on having a preliminary design redrawn in greater detail, but rather explore during the > decision-making phase within the > resting period which builder can offer them a proven house model that deviates least from this "ideal scale."

Just as one swallow does not make a summer, a set of computer drawings alone does not constitute a real catalogue house. What counts is the adequate number of as-identical-as-possible repeated executions of the realized building proposal, and with that, the frequency of those repetitions over time. If someone builds "your" house as unit number 20, it benefits from series maturity. If units 19 and 18 were completed in 2023 and 2019, their final prices are also credible references for cost calculation. Having a Krause house built by Huberhaus makes as little sense as considering a set of drawings with zero realizations a catalogue house.

Housebuilding is a team sport. When craftsmen from various trades know each other from football clubs, shooting clubs, or volunteer fire brigades, it benefits the overall quality of the project. An architect who knows his regular team can, almost like a captain-ship owner, be as suitable a general contractor (GC) as a master mason and concrete specialist (for a masonry house) or a master carpenter (for a wooden house). For more information, see https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/bautraeger-generalunternehmer-handwerker-unterschiede-rechtliches.49341/#post-692109 and https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/bebauung-grundstueck-keller-ja-oder-nein.42556/page-7#post-557229 – both explain the role of the GC. A craftsman broker can also serve as a suitable GC – I do not do this myself because it is not feasible to organize this advantage for my building families spread across the country. Whether mason/carpenter, architect, or broker: a GC should definitely be active in the specific region of the building plot. A broker operating nationwide is probably not a good team captain but rather acts only as a job exchange and may "know" their regulars only online. A "tender issuer and fixed-price gambler" would, however, not be an asset for their clients.

It is important 1. not to approach a GC without consulting and instead of going through a public tender process, but to have your construction advisor (or architect) at your side and 2. to approach the search for a builder in two stages. The inquiry sent during the decision-making phase is meant to calibrate a budget-compliant planning and to determine whether, in the specific case, the masonry or timber construction route is significantly more affordable or suitable. It is explicitly not a quarter-final stage of a GC casting!

Gerddieter schrieb:

I am waiting for @11ant – will he recommend architect planning and tendering including a GC?

As I recommend in my "Housebuilding Roadmap, also for you: The HOAI phase model!" (also see the "Reloaded" series!) to definitely complete module A with an independent architect (this is as essential as first aid training for obtaining a driver’s license), never mandate the architect for the entire project "in one go," even if you want him/her for both halves, conduct the resting period including the integrated decision-making phase after module A, and derive from the results of the decision-making whether to follow the "royal path" modules B and C or, for example, have the independent architect complete only the planning phase 3 before switching to contractor planning. I wrote just yesterday in response to a comment on the post "Summary and Outlook" (Part 5 of the basic series of the roadmap):

Dear Klaus, you can of course switch to the general contractor’s in-house architect at any time. The two best times are "after planning phase 3" or "after completion of module C." In the first case, you let the independent architect handle only planning phase 3 after the resting period, so you have the architect’s design incorporating the insights from the decision-making phase.

1689owen schrieb:

I know @11ant’s phases, but I suspect many approached building very differently (whether better or worse, that is a separate question; it seems to me to be a fact).

Indeed, there are many prospective builders who have approached the project very differently. The worst ways are:
1. starting by exploring the topic through uncoordinated, scattered question threads, beginning with material and wall thickness questions;
2. following the myth that prefab houses are faster to complete and more precisely cost-calculable, and solid masonry houses are more durable and retain value;
3. misunderstanding the general contractor not as a legal role but as an allegedly independent profession (with the incorrect term "developer" being a secondary issue);
4. overlooking indicative terms such as "owner-supplied" and "necessary architect services";
5. mistaking draftsmen for architects and reinforcement plans for detailed planning;
6. failing to complement the contractor’s "site supervisor" with an independent, client-mandated construction expert;
7. overlooking that after approved building permit drawings you are only allowed to build, but not necessarily able to do so;
8. applying the housebuilding roadmap only if you want to follow the planning process with an architect (reading only the basic series without the "Reloaded" additions);
9. relying on an independent architect solely for graphical representations.

Although this list could be endless, many smart alecks manage to commit all nine errors from the start (often with extra points).

---

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

ypg schrieb:

lost some thoughts.

Now I have it again:
It reflects well on an architect when a plot of land or the zoning plan restricts something that requires the architect’s expertise. They often know the building authority, the staff there, the residential area (soil), or the city with its specific conditions. You can plan overhangs, add bay windows, or arbitrarily determine roof pitches not only for aesthetics but also based on calculations, thus maximizing the usable area within the given building footprint. Some details might cost a bit more, but before giving up on the floor area, I would definitely use every possibility and option if there is a corresponding higher need.

The mistake people can make is simply thinking about how to build plainly, instead of building plainly because it is necessary – sometimes it is worthwhile to invest a bit more in a dormer or a corner if it creates additional living space.

1689owen schrieb:

And: I don’t want to start a debate about Baudirekt, but how would this be classified here?)

Interestingly, I have read about this company here several times – if I remember correctly, always DH in Hamburg. I will share my unsubstantiated opinion: The website lacks personality. The concept doesn’t make sense to me. Lots of vague statements. The website uses many stock photos instead of originals. The company headquarters is in Vechta. I would question what good this company really intends for me.