Good evening,
I hope this is the right place for my topic. I would like to hear your opinion about our energy consultant.
We are currently in the detailed planning phase of our semi-detached house with our independent architect. The architect designed the semi-detached house to meet the Energy Efficiency Standard 55. For support as an expert, an energy consultant provided us with a fee proposal of 2,850 euros. Half of this amount would qualify for funding under the KfW program.
Believing that we would meet the KfW 55 standard, we accepted the offer. However, after several meetings with the architect and the energy consultant’s calculations, it has now become clear that we will not achieve the 55 standard with our project, but only the 70 standard, which no longer qualifies for funding. Our energy consultant is now insisting on the originally agreed price.
He argues that the calculations already done, the ongoing support, and the issuance of the energy performance certificate justify this fee. As a goodwill gesture, he is willing to reduce the fee so that he receives a total of 2,400 euros for supporting a KfW 70 project—which, as mentioned, is no longer eligible for funding.
Are these fees typical? In my opinion, the offer was based on the wrong assumption, as we only agreed under the belief that he would assist us with a KfW 55 project.
Does anyone have advice on how to proceed?
Best regards
I hope this is the right place for my topic. I would like to hear your opinion about our energy consultant.
We are currently in the detailed planning phase of our semi-detached house with our independent architect. The architect designed the semi-detached house to meet the Energy Efficiency Standard 55. For support as an expert, an energy consultant provided us with a fee proposal of 2,850 euros. Half of this amount would qualify for funding under the KfW program.
Believing that we would meet the KfW 55 standard, we accepted the offer. However, after several meetings with the architect and the energy consultant’s calculations, it has now become clear that we will not achieve the 55 standard with our project, but only the 70 standard, which no longer qualifies for funding. Our energy consultant is now insisting on the originally agreed price.
He argues that the calculations already done, the ongoing support, and the issuance of the energy performance certificate justify this fee. As a goodwill gesture, he is willing to reduce the fee so that he receives a total of 2,400 euros for supporting a KfW 70 project—which, as mentioned, is no longer eligible for funding.
Are these fees typical? In my opinion, the offer was based on the wrong assumption, as we only agreed under the belief that he would assist us with a KfW 55 project.
Does anyone have advice on how to proceed?
Best regards
M
Mastermind15 Jun 2018 14:50I am not against a mechanical ventilation system. I have one myself, purely for comfort.
One is required to follow a ventilation concept according to DIN 1946 – so usually the architect is responsible.
Whether it makes sense or not is another matter. Often the planner’s preference is simply to design a central ventilation system – and that’s it. (Of course, there are alternatives.)
ruppsn schrieb:
Which regulation forces you to install it for comfort?
The architect is certainly not responsible for the occupant’s habits. Therefore, nothing can be gained there, since regular airing by opening windows is legally reasonable.
Otherwise, I agree with you: a mechanical ventilation system is a convenient way to avoid manual airing and always have fresh air. For allergy sufferers, it also provides filtered air.
From an energy efficiency perspective, I would never install a mechanical ventilation system, but for comfort or to prevent mold, definitely.
One is required to follow a ventilation concept according to DIN 1946 – so usually the architect is responsible.
Whether it makes sense or not is another matter. Often the planner’s preference is simply to design a central ventilation system – and that’s it. (Of course, there are alternatives.)
H
HilfeHilfe5 Jun 2018 17:20Have you applied for KfW 70 funding? If so, you will need the confirmations at the end of the construction and when applying for the funds. That includes the blower door test, or whatever it is called. He should participate in it.
T
toxicmolotof5 Jun 2018 17:298 square meters?
One linear meter of a thicker wall (5cm (2 inches)) equals 0.05 square meters. So 20 meters makes 1 square meter.
Therefore, 8 square meters correspond to 160 linear meters (per floor).
Unless the house is a villa with 2,500 square meters (not a typo) of living space, I cannot agree with the architect’s statement.
Of course, I agree that construction supervision is not necessary beyond KfW 55 standards, but pacta sunt servanda. Even if it makes little sense (quality control might still be in place, though).
But you are collecting the consultant subsidy (1,250) plus the KfW grant (about 5,000 euros?), right? That should make the masonry financially feasible.
Or am I missing something in this simple calculation?
One linear meter of a thicker wall (5cm (2 inches)) equals 0.05 square meters. So 20 meters makes 1 square meter.
Therefore, 8 square meters correspond to 160 linear meters (per floor).
Unless the house is a villa with 2,500 square meters (not a typo) of living space, I cannot agree with the architect’s statement.
Of course, I agree that construction supervision is not necessary beyond KfW 55 standards, but pacta sunt servanda. Even if it makes little sense (quality control might still be in place, though).
But you are collecting the consultant subsidy (1,250) plus the KfW grant (about 5,000 euros?), right? That should make the masonry financially feasible.
Or am I missing something in this simple calculation?
Mastermind1 schrieb:
I’m not against controlled residential ventilation. I have one myself. But purely for comfort reasons. I didn’t understand it that way either. I have one for the same reasons.
You are required to have a ventilation plan according to DIN 1946 – usually the architect handles this. That’s true, you are required to have a ventilation plan. But it can also state that the infiltration airflow volume exceeds what is necessary for moisture protection, and then that’s sufficient.
No one is strictly forcing you to install controlled residential ventilation, only to ensure that (basically) moisture protection is guaranteed.
If a designer fails to point out that no ventilation plan exists, they can be held liable for mold damage, that is correct.
But (as you already mentioned) there are alternatives to controlled residential ventilation (for example, the mentioned window rebate ventilation), but only if the ventilation plan indicates that ventilation is required.
By the way, moisture protection must be independent of the user and must not rely on the occupants ventilating regularly. I was mistaken in my assessment there. Sorry.
Mastermind1 schrieb:
If you also consider the BAFA subsidy, you quickly realize that a significantly more efficient ground-source heat pump is not substantially more expensive than an air-source heat pump. We recently had this discussion elsewhere as well. I consider this statement overly general and potentially misleading. It critically depends on how the heat source can be accessed. Not only on costs (drilling, etc.) but also on the geology. Is the ground suitable for regeneration, how deep can you drill, what is the extraction capacity, and so on.
Under suitable conditions, it might be possible to get a ground-source heat pump for a low additional cost, making it economically feasible.
However, it is not appropriate to generalize, as even my own case disproves this universality.
If you want to do some of the work yourself, you can set up a source with a ground collector, flat collectors, or trench collector for roughly 1000-2000€ (without needing drilling). But you have to be willing to accept that. If you have a malfunction and are stuck in a cold house, I would like to see the emergency service that comes to your aid. If you build the trench collector together with a professional installer, that might be acceptable. However, when dealing with central building services, I would always keep in mind issues such as service and customer support.
Anyone who thinks a heating system (whether a heat pump or gas) is extremely robust and never fails might want to consider why 24-hour emergency services exist.
But of course, this is a matter of personal attitude. For me, it would not be an option—I would rather pay a bit more upfront and not be left out in the cold if something goes wrong.
Similar topics