Franke89 schrieb:
Here in the forum, it sounds more like the construction manager is only responsible for coordination and wants a quick build completion.Always ask yourself who pays the construction manager...It’s like with any consultant, salesperson, or whatever you call an employee of a contracting party. I’m not saying that every construction manager wants to take advantage of you or does a poor job. But in the end, they are an employee of the seller and have to "supervise" other employees of the seller (the tradespeople).
Franke89 schrieb:
We now have several house construction offers on the table. All of them include project management. During sales talks, two of them also mentioned that the site manager carries insurance. I was always told that the site manager also controls quality and is ultimately liable if something goes wrong.
Here in the forum, however, it sounds more like the site manager only handles coordination and aims for a quick project completion. If you plan and build with an independent architect—meaning you hire them for both design and construction phases, including service phase 8—then the architect is your contractual partner for planning including project management, and they are required to carry professional liability insurance (covering, for example, if they were to approve shoddy work).
If, on the other hand, you build with a "package" architect from a general contractor or use an independent architect only for the initial phases ("service phases 1 to 4—note: these are often the architects @Gerddieter warns about!), and then contract a general contractor without tendering, the general contractor will usually try to convince you that you don’t need a site manager because a “site manager” is already included in their offer. However, such a contractor-employed site manager does not provide the same service as your architect’s site manager or an independent construction expert. Formally, this “site manager” is also called site manager and is legally recognized as such in that they sign site manager declarations (e.g., appoint the safety coordinator to the building authority and act as the contact for any construction stop orders).
In terms of your interest in quality assurance, there is a significant difference between the architect’s site manager and the contractor’s site manager: your architect acts like a lawyer representing your interests, while the contractor’s site manager represents the general contractor’s interests. Their main role is to manage the construction site operations. This means coordinating between subcontractors (and, if present, the general contractor’s core team) and following up on delayed or incorrect deliveries. You are not their enemy (so they don’t mind if their work also benefits you), but if necessary, you are their opponent (since your interests may differ from those of their employer). Their loyalty lies with the general contractor, not with you. They have no contractual relationship to you (only to the contractor as their agent or representative). Whether and what kind of insurance they carry is none of your concern and offers you no additional protection or benefit.
In case defects occur, the two differ in the following way: your architect or independent construction expert prioritizes restoring the agreed condition—meaning a defective element will be demolished and rebuilt properly. In contrast, the main priority of the contractor’s site manager is entirely different: protecting the general contractor’s profit against additional costs. They will assess whether the defect jeopardizes your acceptance of the contractor’s work or is likely to lead you to claim a warranty within the liability period. A defect that you will not notice within five years is considered by them as non-existent. For example, the architect’s site manager will have a crooked wall demolished again in its unfinished state, while the contractor’s site manager will make sure it is plastered so it looks straight. The fifth professional year’s main lesson for a “site manager” is memorizing thousands of audacious “It’s no problem” lies—mainly to ensure you don’t withhold any payment.
Franke89 schrieb:
I was also always told that the site manager controls quality and is ultimately liable if something goes wrong. Yes—but not in your favor. They are liable to their employer for additional costs if they culpably fail to reject defective materials in time, or are responsible for delays in proper replacement deliveries.
Franke89 schrieb:
During sales talks, two also mentioned that the site manager carries insurance. You can immediately throw offers from these sneaky types in the trash (and remember to recommend them only to people you want bad luck).
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Franke89 schrieb:
Is it useful to visit construction sites before signing a contract?Yes and no – and you can probably find some tips in my posts on what to watch out for. Franke89 schrieb:
Can someone send me addresses for Bonum, Noriplaner, or Büttner?Why not simply follow my house building roadmap? Hiring a general contractor (GC) without prior advice is something you do only if you have plenty of money (and courage).
I didn’t quickly find anything in your thread history about what your building project is actually about.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
If you are working with an independent architect for both planning and construction—meaning you have contracted them for the entire process including phase 8 (construction supervision)—then the architect is your contract partner for the design and site supervision, and they are required to carry professional liability insurance (which also covers situations where they might approve faulty work).
If, on the other hand, you are building with a “included” architect provided by a general contractor or using an architect contracted only for the initial planning phases (“phases 1 to 4”—warning: these are often the kind of architects @Gerddieter cautions about!), followed by a direct contract with a general contractor without a formal tender, the general contractor will often claim you don’t need your own site supervisor because a “site supervisor” is included in their offer. However, such a contractor-appointed site supervisor does not provide the same service as your architect’s site supervisor or your independent construction expert. Legally, this “site supervisor” is indeed a site supervisor, in the sense that they sign the site supervision declaration (e.g., appointing the safety coordinator and acting as the contact for any official construction stop orders).
Regarding your interest in quality assurance, there is a significant difference between the architect site supervisor and the contractor’s site supervisor: your architect acts like a legal representative of your interests, while the contractor’s site supervisor represents the general contractor. Their primary role is to be the construction site manager, coordinating subcontractors (and if applicable, the contractor’s core team) and following up on delayed or incorrect deliveries. You are not their enemy (so it doesn’t bother them if their work incidentally benefits you), but in conflict situations, you are likely their opponent (if your interests differ from those of their employer). Their loyalty lies with the general contractor, not you. They are not your contractual partner (only an agent or auxiliary of the contractor). Whether or not they carry insurance is none of your concern and provides you with no additional security or benefit.
In the event of problems—such as faulty workmanship—the difference is clear: your architect or independent expert’s highest priority is to restore the agreed quality, meaning they will require defective components to be removed and rebuilt. The main priority for the contractor’s site supervisor, however, is completely different: protecting the general contractor’s profit from additional costs. They will assess whether defective work threatens or risks your acceptance of the contractor’s performance or whether you are likely to claim defects during the warranty period. A defect you will not notice within five years is, to them, effectively non-existent. For example, a crooked wall will be demolished without plaster by the architect’s supervisor, while the contractor’s supervisor will make sure it is plastered to look straight. The main lesson learned in a contractor site supervisor’s fifth professional year is memorizing the thousands of shameless “that doesn’t matter” excuses—mainly to ensure you do not withhold payments.
Yes, but not in your favor. They are liable to their employer for extra costs if they culpably fail to reject wrongly delivered materials in time, or if they are responsible for delayed replacement deliveries.
You can therefore discard the offers from these slick operators immediately (and remember, only recommend them to people you wish serious trouble). I fully agree with all of this!
We also realized our building project with Bonum and the companies they suggested. Based on our experience, I fully endorse the recommendation to engage an independent construction expert without reservation. Unfortunately, we only involved this expert at a very late stage, which we would do differently in hindsight, and would commission a qualified, independent quality control from the very beginning.
home2020 schrieb:
I completely agree with everything said!
We also completed our building project with Bonum and the companies they recommended. Based on our experience, I fully support the recommendation to hire an independent building expert.
Unfortunately, we only involved one very late in the construction process, something we would do differently and would commission professional, independent quality control from the very beginning. Our house construction is unfortunately delayed because our initial building inquiry did not receive a positive response 🙁 so we had to adjust our plans and have been waiting for the second response for 7 weeks 🙁
Accordingly, we have not yet decided whether to go with Bonum or someone else. On the one hand, communication has always been very pleasant. But: with Bonum, we are not certain what we will ultimately get. With Bonum, everything has to be arranged separately with each tradesperson.
@home2020 How did it go for you? Would you or would you not recommend Bonum?
Similar topics