á Experiences with Building a House Using an Architect on a Fixed-Price Contract?
Created on: 2 Dec 2018 20:01
J
jawknee
Hello everyone,
I originally planned to build with a general contractor (GC), mainly because of the financial security provided by a fixed price. When working with an architect, I was always worried about unpredictable costs or that the final costs might end up being significantly higher.
Now, through acquaintances, I was recommended a local architect who also offers a fixed price like a GC (for the complete turnkey house). The only difference is, as is typical with architects, that itâs not "all in one hand" but rather separate contracts are signed with the trades, which the architect still handles the tendering process for and coordinates later. His profit would essentially be his fixed fee minus the negotiated costs with the trades.
In the first meeting, everything seemed very professional and honest, and I had a good feeling about it. The price was also in a normal range between the lower-cost GCs and the (seemingly overpriced) GCs. He even includes some items that many GCs put under additional construction costs, such as the foundation slab, removal of earth excavation, etc. The remaining additional costs included in the fixed price were roughly estimated.
Thatâs why I would like to build with the architect and I have already started an initial exchange regarding the floor plan.
However, I wanted to ask if anyone has experience with this model and if thereâs anything I should still watch out for? Would you also engage an independent construction supervisor when building with an architect? With a GC, I definitely would, but when working with an architect, where you generally collaborate more closely, I feel like it might come across as a lack of trust.
The only thing that still makes me a bit uncertain is that the scope of services (which would also form the contract basis) is somewhat vague in places: for example, for the masonry, "energy-saving bricks...[]...brick selection is based on thermal calculation..." or for the foundation slab, "will be dimensioned according to structural requirements...". So, unlike many GCs, it does not specify in detail the thickness of the masonry or the foundation slab. However, other parts are described more precisely, similar to GCs.
The architect said that this is often clarified further during the tendering process or by the bids from trades and that it might even be more detailed than with a GC. However, the tendering only happens after I sign the house building contract. At this point, I would have to give him a vote of confidence.
On one hand, he does make a trustworthy impression and has been working according to this model for quite some time, but on the other hand, Iâm a bit cautious about giving a vote of confidence when so much money is involved.
What do you think?
I originally planned to build with a general contractor (GC), mainly because of the financial security provided by a fixed price. When working with an architect, I was always worried about unpredictable costs or that the final costs might end up being significantly higher.
Now, through acquaintances, I was recommended a local architect who also offers a fixed price like a GC (for the complete turnkey house). The only difference is, as is typical with architects, that itâs not "all in one hand" but rather separate contracts are signed with the trades, which the architect still handles the tendering process for and coordinates later. His profit would essentially be his fixed fee minus the negotiated costs with the trades.
In the first meeting, everything seemed very professional and honest, and I had a good feeling about it. The price was also in a normal range between the lower-cost GCs and the (seemingly overpriced) GCs. He even includes some items that many GCs put under additional construction costs, such as the foundation slab, removal of earth excavation, etc. The remaining additional costs included in the fixed price were roughly estimated.
Thatâs why I would like to build with the architect and I have already started an initial exchange regarding the floor plan.
However, I wanted to ask if anyone has experience with this model and if thereâs anything I should still watch out for? Would you also engage an independent construction supervisor when building with an architect? With a GC, I definitely would, but when working with an architect, where you generally collaborate more closely, I feel like it might come across as a lack of trust.
The only thing that still makes me a bit uncertain is that the scope of services (which would also form the contract basis) is somewhat vague in places: for example, for the masonry, "energy-saving bricks...[]...brick selection is based on thermal calculation..." or for the foundation slab, "will be dimensioned according to structural requirements...". So, unlike many GCs, it does not specify in detail the thickness of the masonry or the foundation slab. However, other parts are described more precisely, similar to GCs.
The architect said that this is often clarified further during the tendering process or by the bids from trades and that it might even be more detailed than with a GC. However, the tendering only happens after I sign the house building contract. At this point, I would have to give him a vote of confidence.
On one hand, he does make a trustworthy impression and has been working according to this model for quite some time, but on the other hand, Iâm a bit cautious about giving a vote of confidence when so much money is involved.
What do you think?
I have no doubt that such a thing exists. I was actually offered a similar design by a structural engineer myself some time ago. However, it was based on a custom floor plan that we specified.
Since we discontinued discussions with the structural engineer after two meetings, I still canât quite understand how the calculations and adjustments work.
The only option is that the fixed price is set high enough to include a sufficient buffer.
If additional costs are then charged without a general contractor markup, the higher base price can actually be worthwhile for the homeowner when there are many extra requests.
Since we discontinued discussions with the structural engineer after two meetings, I still canât quite understand how the calculations and adjustments work.
The only option is that the fixed price is set high enough to include a sufficient buffer.
If additional costs are then charged without a general contractor markup, the higher base price can actually be worthwhile for the homeowner when there are many extra requests.
Nordlys schrieb:
So you would have to doubt that this exists: Architect offers a fixed price. But that is exactly the topic here. â I do believe such things exist. However, this does not work here technically because it is not a standardized design. And in that case, a tender makes no senseâespecially not with the client as the contracting party. A general contractor (GC) can offer a fixed price, but then he carries the risk that there is still profit after his procurement costs. And then a tender on behalf of the client is unnecessary. A tradesperson building this design for the first time will not rely on the quantity survey provided by the architect. Instead, they will only participate in the tender if it includes unit prices for each item. And if the bathroom calls for âapproximately 28 sqm (300 sq ft) of wall tilesâ in the tender, but in reality it requires 33 sqm (355 sq ft), then they will want the price adjusted proportionally from 28 to 33. Exactly this kind of âadjustable fixed priceâ would not be available to the client with a GC. That is why I recommend having a specialist lawyer assess what this hybrid, chameleon-like contract really is. In my opinion, a tender with the client acting as the contracting party is more than just a slight cause for doubt.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
N
nordanney4 Dec 2018 20:16Nordlys schrieb:
Architect offers a fixed price. Yep, but the client signs contracts with the contractors, not with the architect. Thatâs the point where I would step back. Either the architect delivers me a house at a fixed price, then they are my contractual partner (and therefore the main contractor), or they fulfill their architect duties and I build a classic architect-designed house with separate trade contracts (but without a fixed price guarantee). Iâve seen too much mess to get involved with the posterâs model...
Nordlys schrieb:
ok, I understand the catch now. A fixed price would only apply if A. assumes the risk. Which A. do you mean?
The client of the architect, the "building owner," understands a fixed price to mean that the price is absolutely fixed. In other words, they do not accept the risk of a price that is only relatively fixed (based on the measurables billed by meters, square meters, cubic meters or pieces).
Whether the contractor or tradesperson bears any risk is easy for them to recognize due to experience: if they are asked to provide a firm fixed price, they will only participate if they can accurately estimate the congruence between the calculated and the actual quantities, volumes, or similar. For a standard project like the "Klarabella 0815" (or a clone with only minor changes such as moved interior walls), they can do this; for a unique custom project, they cannot.
Only if the architect assumes the risk of the effects of any possible miscalculations on the final price of the trade is the architect a true general contractor (GC) in this context.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Only if the architect takes on the risk of the impact of any possible miscalculations on the final price of the trade, is he truly a general contractor here. Thatâs what I mean above.
Similar topics