Fixed site cost Vs Reliability & Quality

Hi All,

I am building in Craigirburn aren in Victoria. I am confused with two quotations I got for site cost from two different builders, Both of them are very famous volume builders.

Builder A - They did a soil test site was categorized as P due to cut & fill & gave me a 85K site cost (25K for the foundation related charges including piers, 60K provision for rock removal charges)

Builder B - They did not do soil test gave me a 21K fixed site cost including rock removal charges based on the land developer engineering plan.

So obviously I prefer to go with builder B as cost is 1/4 of the builder A, But my doubt is how I make sure builder B do a quality job for the foundation, Due to the fixed site cost they might not do the piers even though it is required. I have seen in this forum some builders haven't done the piers even though it was mentioned in the soil report.

What is the best way I can make sure builder will do a quality job as per the soil test recommendation while having a fixed site cost.

Thanks you all
Cheers

It seems from what you have said that what builder B has said is IF the developers information is right the site costs will be fixed.

But what if the conditions are different?

Is the fixed price guaranteed in that case?

What has each builder said about retaining walls?

With regards to soil tests it could be worth reading this http://www.anewhouse.com.au/2013/08/different-soil…cation-results/

Hi bashworth,

Thank you for your reply, My block already have front & back retaining wall done by the developer. No additional retaining wall required. As per the builder site cost is fixed irrespective of the condition that going to be, That's what my concern is that they would not do things like piers to cut cost as they have fixed the site cost to a lower amount.

Cheers

My understanding is that fixed site costs does not mean that they are fixed under all circumstances. There could be some conditions precedent in the contract, which if not met, render the costs as no longer being fixed.

Usually builders will offer fixed site costs in an estate where they've already built a few houses, so they have a general idea of the cost to build in the area. They then average out what is expected and usually charge a bit extra to cover any possible issues. So often the fixed site costs will cost more than if you'd not had them fixed - but they give you the peace of mind that no matter what, you won't have to pay extra. Take a good look at your contract to make sure they really are fixed. If you're building with a builder that has a good structural guarantee, they still need to do decent site works to meet that. And the house has to meet the minimum requirements for certification. I guess it comes down to how tight the contract is and how much you trust the builder to get it right.

I just talk to the builder as per them site cost is fixed except if soil test turn out as P.

There is your answer. Although from my understanding your builder A has a 60k PC item so I would assume if it only cost $10k then that's all you pay isn't it? Only risk is if it's more then 60k I guess.

I don't know about you but if I was facing 80k just for site works I would consider on selling and finding another block?

If in doubt, it might be for your benefit to spend a little bit to get a soil test done yourself. As you have said, the site is already cut and filled by developer. So a provision of 60k rock removal sounds doggy to me at least. Once you have something on hand, you'll have more idea of what is happening.
At the end of the day, it might be builder B who is giving you the more accurate fixed cost with decent foundation.

Hi Guys,

Thanks you for your time, I have already done my own soil test it also came up with some rocks present at the back of the property. But soil engineer told me in worst case maximum it would cost 30K, Now I am evaluation two options going with Builder A & do my own site works or getting Builder B to give me a complete site cost after the Soil test.

Cheers