… building affordably.
I have been following this forum for a while. I am surprised that architects in Germany apparently have managed to keep their privileges. What do I mean by that?
Architects’ fees are calculated based on the "fee-eligible" construction costs. So, an architect primarily has an interest in building expensively, doesn’t he?
Years or decades ago, this system was also common in Switzerland. During periods of significant construction cost increases, the payment system for architects was revised. Today, no one in Switzerland pays an architect based on construction costs. Never.
I am not questioning the (justified) income of architects. It just seems outdated and questionable to define fees based on "construction costs" or "contract values": An architect should be compensated for their effort. If a wall costs twice as much, the architect definitely does not have twice the workload!
The legal situation in Germany is apparently clear. Even if billing is done retrospectively according to HOAI (the official fee structure for architects and engineers), the courts support this (viewing it differently than as "circumvention").
Or am I wrong? Am I on the wrong track?
I have been following this forum for a while. I am surprised that architects in Germany apparently have managed to keep their privileges. What do I mean by that?
Architects’ fees are calculated based on the "fee-eligible" construction costs. So, an architect primarily has an interest in building expensively, doesn’t he?
Years or decades ago, this system was also common in Switzerland. During periods of significant construction cost increases, the payment system for architects was revised. Today, no one in Switzerland pays an architect based on construction costs. Never.
I am not questioning the (justified) income of architects. It just seems outdated and questionable to define fees based on "construction costs" or "contract values": An architect should be compensated for their effort. If a wall costs twice as much, the architect definitely does not have twice the workload!
The legal situation in Germany is apparently clear. Even if billing is done retrospectively according to HOAI (the official fee structure for architects and engineers), the courts support this (viewing it differently than as "circumvention").
Or am I wrong? Am I on the wrong track?
C
CrazyChris26 Feb 2019 17:18montessalet schrieb:
I’m not completely sure about that: As far as I know, an architect can still bill retroactively according to HOAI — regardless of whether a flat fee was agreed upon. Whether they actually do this is another matter, of course... (no complainant, no judge).Correct, this is called “minimum rate undercutting.”
A quick note for everyone here:
Many architects are still operating based on outdated regulations (e.g., HOAI 2002/2009) and bill according to the so-called cost determination (i.e., the actual construction costs). These costs were often deliberately inflated to increase their fees.
This is no longer permitted under the new HOAI 2013. The basis for the fee is now the cost estimate (usually prepared during the design or planning permission phase).
Why? Because the legislator wants architects and engineers to be accountable for their cost calculations in order to ensure, among other things, that the construction costs are actually adhered to.
In plain terms: If the architect estimates the house at 300,000 euros and it ends up costing 500,000 euros (because their estimate, as is often the case, was wrong), they don’t receive any additional payment.
And that’s a good thing 😉
H
hampshire26 Feb 2019 17:28Milo3 schrieb:
So: our architect charges according to HOAI, BUT he uses a lower construction cost and told me that he has to base his fee on this amount; otherwise, it would not be profitable for him. Our house is estimated to be ready for occupancy at 560,000 (building currency), but billing is based on 300,000 (building currency). Why is it unprofitable for the architect to charge more for the same service? At first glance, this seems illogical since he would earn a higher fee for the same amount of work if he billed the higher amount.
Is he retired, working part-time, or does he have some special tax status?
hampshire schrieb:
Why is it unprofitable for the architect to charge more for the same work? At first glance, it seems unclear, since with the same effort he would receive a higher fee if he billed the larger amount. Is he retired, working part-time, or otherwise subject to special tax conditions?No, he is a well-known and respected architect with a large office (14 employed architects). On one hand, he wouldn’t have been awarded the contract otherwise, and on the other hand, the construction costs he provided are a conservative estimate. He wants to be fair and not pass the rise in construction prices on to us. Even with the 300,000 EUR (about 330,000 USD), he’s by no means struggling financially...
H
hampshire26 Feb 2019 18:16Just because you say it is unprofitable for the architect to account for higher construction costs does not mean otherwise. I understand well that he is accommodating you with this.
H
hampshire26 Feb 2019 18:25Now I understand the logic as well.
Similar topics