ᐅ Tendering software at an affordable price

Digital tendering is a good way to receive comparable offers. It is important that the output format can be easily read by the companies you contact. I would choose GAEB as the output format. The price of the software depends on the input options and ease of use. It is practical if the software already includes or can import performance specifications. These specifications, of course, also cost money. After all, people should be able to make a living from good work.

You asked about a cheap solution – look for software with GAEB output. Based on my fairly extensive experience with software for the construction trade, I believe that cheap software creates more work than a mature and naturally more expensive one, as you will repeatedly encounter limitations when trying to represent your project with simple programs. From 3000€ you can get something reasonable.

This is also why, even though I can get such software cheaper and handled subcontracting myself, I have chosen to forgo such software.

WilhelmRo schrieb:

For us, it’s quite bold – we ask for an offer (preferably with a personal meeting and discussion about what we want), remove all prices, and then forward it as a request with the respective information (project folder etc.)

I think this is a poor and unproductive approach. The contractor who gets the award will have in mind that you do not respect the work of their colleagues – in case of problems, which inevitably occur during a house build, the atmosphere of communication is therefore very likely to be characterized not by openness but by mistrust. I do not recommend this method.

hampshire schrieb:

It is practical if the software already includes specification texts or can import them.

A layperson might initially (rightly) think that creating such texts themselves requires some experience (and hopes for this kind of software often include that it could generate professionally sounding texts just by entering general material types and dimensions). But even more experience is needed to remove traces of sponsorship from those texts: there are performance features that are either genuinely unique to a manufacturer or, at least, only referred to by that name there. As a result, the text never explicitly mentions "Manufacturer A," but the "supercalifragilistic sensor control" only exists there, and installers who only use technology from Manufacturer B or who at least have significantly better purchasing terms there (for example, with boilers this is not uncommon) are effectively excluded.

---

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

alexisan schrieb:

Which software is recommended for a simple single-family house?

Excel.

As 11ant has already explained well, the challenge is not the graphical frontend where the specification texts are compiled into individual items to then output a GAEB file. A neutral specification without product recommendation cannot be achieved easily with platforms like ausschreiben.de and similar, as manufacturers only provide items that directly target or even require their own products.

You can create a specification for a single building project with Excel plus a GAEB interface (under €100 (about $110) for commercial use). I have used this setup to prepare specifications for projects worth millions. ORCA AVA might be more comfortable in this case, but Excel gets the job done, especially for a one-time individual building project. The individual items need to be correct, but your AVA software won’t create those for you either.

11ant schrieb:

But even more experience is needed to identify traces of sponsorship in such texts

That’s true – tools like the Standard Performance Book for Construction (StLB data) or the Sirados collection can help with that. Of course, these come at a cost. Exporting Excel data to GAEB format is possible, but it’s not really suitable for beginners.

An alternative to formal tendering is to involve the technical and problem-solving expertise of the construction company directly. That’s how we approached it. Our architect did an outstanding job, partly because he didn’t pretend to know everything but showed respect for the skills and knowledge of the tradespeople and specialists. We consulted them during the planning stage and in this way received a range of excellent solutions that perfectly suited our needs and went beyond standard thinking. You aren’t buying just a price or a discount, but a home for your lifetime.

hampshire schrieb:

I find that a poor and unproductive approach. The tradesperson who gets the contract will keep in mind that you don’t appreciate the work of their colleagues.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense.
1. Does that mean you always take the first offer you get? Just so no one thinks you don’t value their work? We have nearly identical quotes with price differences of 25%.
2. The same applies with kitchens. In fact, we were even asked, "If you get a better offer elsewhere, we would appreciate the opportunity to make a counteroffer."
3. These are not small children who will cry if we eventually decline them.
4. I still have the option, in an emergency, to choose the more expensive one who made a better personal impression.

@WilhelmRo
“Sorry” accepted.

1.: No, I don’t just take the first offer. That conclusion isn’t logical.
2.: Kitchen sales are highly discount-driven to prompt purchasing decisions. As a sales trainer, I find the suggestion to simply try to find a cheaper offer very transparent. Applying this discount-driven approach to the trades industry is misguided.
3.: These are business professionals. In the current excellent economic situation, the best companies won’t even respond to you. They have no interest in playing such games.
4.: Of course you have options, but only from those who respond to this approach. The best ones are not included.

Preparing a quote takes several hours of work and is only paid for if the contract is awarded. This is normal and common practice. Quotes are usually confidential, not only regarding prices. Breaking this confidentiality without permission is poor etiquette. The temptation is strong because the potential gain seems high, and because others do it too. Still, it remains poor etiquette.
The best companies currently choose their customers. Why should a reputable tradesperson engage with someone who already shows in their inquiry that they are not willing to build a trusting working relationship?