The Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers (HOAI) changed at the beginning of the year. We have summarized for you here what this means for planners and planning quality.
The Association of German Architects (BDA) disagrees. For the association, the abolition of minimum and maximum rates in the HOAI fundamentally threatens German building culture. The amendment to the HOAI has been in force since 01.01.2021 and is causing uproar among those who see their profession in danger. The BDA is convinced that the federal government has made things too easy for itself. Read about alternative proposals here.
The Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers (HOAI) changed at the beginning of the year. The Bundesrat approved the amendment so that the new law could come into force. The changes mainly affect the minimum and maximum rates of the HOAI. The fees are therefore freely negotiable. The previous price specifications are non-binding. They are for guidance only. You can find the current version of the entire HOAI regulation here.
The reason for the amendment to the HOAI was a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In 2019, the ECJ found that the HOAI in its then current version violated the EU Services Directive. According to this directive, the provision of services may not be made dependent on fixed minimum or maximum prices. After the ruling was announced, the Federal Republic of Germany was obliged to implement it swiftly and adapt the national legal system to the requirements of the ECJ ruling.
What does the loss of binding force mean? Can the HOAI remain the basis for calculating fees? Many fear a deterioration in planning quality. The Association of German Architects (BDA), for example, sees numerous disadvantages in abandoning the minimum and maximum rates of the HOAI.
According to a statement by the BDA, this could lead to a drop in prices and the loss of jobs in Germany. As a result, the entire profession could suffer because costs would be cut. This would make it less attractive for young talent. For an industry in which there is already a noticeable shortage of staff and a lack of young talent, this would indeed be fatal.
In addition, there could be strong concentration processes among offices. This means that offices with many employees could prevail, while smaller ones might not survive. The BDA also fears that building culture will suffer if the supply situation deteriorates. The public sector and its own profession would be significantly affected by this. These conceivable scenarios for the BDA are based on the experience of other countries.
As the binding nature of price law is now no longer applicable, the contractual agreement of architectural services will become all the more important. The Committee of Associations and Chambers of Engineers and Architects for the Fee Structure (AHO) points this out. The AHO also emphasizes that the HOAI overall system has proven itself. There is nothing to prevent clients and contractors from continuing to adopt the HOAI fee bases in the future. The AHO strongly advises this in order to prevent price dumping and loss of quality.
Together with the Federal Chamber of Engineers and the Federal Chamber of Architects (BAK), however, the AHO criticizes the lack of an appropriateness clause in the new HOAI. In a press release, Dr.-Ing. Heinrich Bökamp, President of the BAK, states: “We would have liked the regulation to make it clearer that these fees must also be appropriate in the future.”
The BAK is underpinning the fact that planning contracts should continue to be based on the HOAI with a button campaign. The slogan ‘Planning is valuable’ should be passed on by the members. The aim is to raise awareness among architects and clients alike. BAK President Barbara Ettinger-Brinckmann therefore also appeals to architects and planners to stand up for the value of their work so that they are not undercut by service providers from outside the profession.
BDA: Don’t just look at the prices
Back to the BDA statement. It discusses whether the minimum HOAI rates really could not be saved or whether there were other ways of implementing the EU requirements.
A key point for the BDA is the fact that, in principle, architectural services could be provided by anyone. The association is convinced that where no proof of competence is required, there is no protection of the quality of a service. Instead of touching the price specifications, the requirements for service providers could have been formulated more specifically, according to the proposal. The authors cite membership of a chamber as an example of this.
Furthermore, architectural and engineering services could be legally defined. In the statement, this is formulated as follows: “any activity for planning in specific third-party construction matters, as soon as these require planning in individual cases.”
In conclusion, the BDA would have liked the ECJ ruling to have been implemented differently. In other words, the focus should not have been on prices, but on maintaining quality. And so it says accordingly: “Abandoning the minimum rates of the HOAI is therefore not absolutely necessary, but represents a legislative decision.” The federal government would not have made use of its creative options.
For this reason, the BDA cannot see how the federal government intends to ensure the quality of construction. Especially against the background of ecological construction with all its pressing issues or the design of urban space, the authors would have liked to see more ingenuity in the implementation of the ECJ ruling.
Voices from the profession on the ECJ HOAI
In its ruling of July 4, 2019, the European Court of Justice disapproved of the binding nature of minimum and maximum rates as an unjustified competitive disadvantage for foreign market participants. We gathered opinions from the profession at the time. Including Franz Damm, Managing Partner at Keller Damm Kollegen, Dieter Pfrommer, publicly appointed and sworn expert for fees for landscape architecture services, IHK Region Stuttgart and Jens Henningsen, bdla economics spokesperson, Treasurer. Read the opinions on the HOAI ruling 2019 here.
