When construction projects stall, costs skyrocket, and nerves fray, the culprit is usually found quickly: the Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers (HOAI). It is considered a dusty relic, a bureaucratic hindrance, and an enemy of all innovation. But anyone who knows from their own experience in project and facility management how things really work on German construction sites and in planning offices comes to a different conclusion: We are mistaking the fever thermometer for the illness.
Oh yes, and what is today's blog about? About the problems in the planning industry, the pitfalls of existing buildings, and the question of why abolishing the HOAI would not save us – but only a smart reform.
When I read debates about the HOAI I regularly feel like I'm witnessing a favorite German pastime: You put a complex system in a corner, point at it with a serious expression, and shout: "There! That's the fault!" And then it stands there, the "HOAI", the Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers, primped like a veteran administrator on a company outing, and is suddenly supposed to be responsible for everything. It is allegedly to blame for projects that are too slow, construction costs that are too high, too much bureaucracy, a lack of innovation, and probably also for the chronically clogged coffee machine in the construction office. But it's not that simple. The HOAI needs reform in some areas and is outdated, but it is not not the big final boss of planning and construction.
My impression after years in practice, juggling CAFMsystems, technical building equipment, and countless project meetings: Those who want to abolish the HOAI to reduce bureaucracy are only treating the symptoms. The regulation describes services, structures fees, and often serves as contractual orientation. But the real distortions lie much deeper. They lurk in excessively long approval processes, sprawling procurement procedures, overly complex technical regulations, completely inadequately addressed measures for existing buildings, and a culture that still surprisingly likes to treat intellectual planning work as a secondary matter. The dispute over the HOAI is therefore not necessarily wrong, but completely misdirected. People are discussing the visible form margin (best sent by fax!), while the pipes in the engine room have long since burst.
The convenient fallacy of bureaucracy reduction
In complex systems, discussions rarely take place where the greatest friction lies, but rather where one can most elegantly point a finger at it. A written set of rules is, after all, easier to criticize than a federally fragmented approval practice or a project reality in which new coordination meetings and construction site disruptions fall from the sky like confetti every week. Looking at the facts, the picture is quite sad: abolishing the HOAI would neither speed up approval processes nor eliminate the major cost drivers. The real "big points" for delays are the approval practice, excessive technical regulations, and procurement procedures, while the notion that there would suddenly be fewer legal disputes without the HOAI is an absolute illusion.
From the perspective of software providers and digitalization experts, it also becomes clear (yes, that's my area) that the real pressure in the industry comes from price wars, bureaucratic hurdles outside of the HOAI, and lack of appreciation for planning services emerges. Anyone who has ever witnessed projects waiting for approvals, statements, or additional demands for months knows: the bottleneck is not the fee structure. The bottleneck is the question of whether a project can even find a reasonable pace through the administrative system. And anyone who believes that Infrastructure encompasses a variety of components that can be divided into two main categories: public and private infrastructures. Both types play a critical role in the functioning of our society, but differ significantly in their structure, financing, and management. alone heals this is greatly mistaken. A digital backlog remains a backlog, just with a prettier file name and a PDF instead of a lever arch file. It's not the electronic shell that needs reform, but decluttering the content requirements is crucial.
The value of intellectual work: Planning is not an advance payment rehearsal
Added to this is the second major misconception: the idea that a lower or completely freely negotiated fee automatically leads to cheaper, faster, or better projects. Even older analyses warned that the HOAI was originally established precisely because intellectual planning services are difficult to grasp and, without a comprehensible structure, easily lead to contractual chaos and loss of quality. This observation is more relevant today than ever. When the connection between performance and remuneration becomes blurred, it's not the The effective management of invoicing and billing processes is essential for maintaining healthy cash flow and financial stability in small businesses, ensuring timely payments and accurate revenue tracking.that wins, but rather the lack of transparency.
Unfortunately, many clients see the HOAI merely as a crude fee schedule. In doing so, they conveniently overlook that this table describes truth complex services: intellectual work, immense responsibility, technical depth, assumption of risk, and coordination. This is the silent tragicomedy of our industry. Good planning is usually only noticed when it not works. A perfectly planned and smoothly handed-over energy and facility management concept doesn't put on a big show on the construction site, but simply prevents disasters and subsequent operating costs. Communicatively, this is unfortunately about as sexy as well-maintained fire damper documentation. But saved planning hours inevitably cost many times more on the construction site or in later building operation.
Furthermore, we must not forget: Since the ECJ ruling of 2019 and the Reform on January 1, 2021 the HOAI is no longer a binding price law of the old kind anyway. Today, it primarily serves as an orientation and fallback system within contractual freedom. So, the HOAI is by no means the iron cage it is often portrayed as. It is a handrail. And one holds onto a handrail – sometimes out of habit, sometimes out of genuine conviction, often simply out of pure professional common sense, to avoid falling.
Service phase 8 and the fight for liquidity
The debate becomes particularly absurd when one leaves the legal meta-level and delves into the daily business of planning offices. The HOAI calculates in service shares, partial services, and attributable costs, but a real office lives in months, salaries, rents, software licenses (thanks again), and continuous effort. Especially in service phase 8, site supervision, this difference sometimes gapes painfully.
An office doesn't pay its site managers in "72 percent advanced construction site coordination," but punctually at the end of the month in euros. If the construction time of a project extends from 18 months to three years for reasons for which the planner is not responsible, the effort for meetings, minutes, conflict resolution, and documentation increases massively. While time is not directly identical to performance, it is the most reliable indicator of continuously incurred operating costs. Therefore, flexible payment plans and construction time couplings as a supplement to the HOAI are indispensable today.
It is a fatal misconception to consider remuneration merely as reward for completed stages Planners must finance a continuous readiness for service Financing continuous readiness for service. Presence on the construction site and responsiveness to unforeseen disruptions cost money every single day. Anyone who thins out the planning coordination during an extended construction period for reasons of saving is saving precisely on problem-solving competence. It's like sending home the people with the water buckets first on a sinking ship for cost reasons.
Building in existing structures: Where the system reaches its limits
The imbalance becomes even more dramatic when we move away from new construction and turn to building in existing structures – the absolute megatrend of our time. The HOAI structure is historically strongly oriented towards new buildings and often no longer adequately addresses the highly complex, fragmented, and often unpredictable requirements requirements of renovation, revitalization, and monument protection. There is a lack of sufficient consideration for existing building substance, the focus on cost calculation is problematic, and the surcharges for repairs are often too low.
From my own experience in dealing with existing buildings, I can only underline this: Anyone working with existing buildings is constantly dealing with surprises.Hidden pollutants, damaged structures, incomplete as-built documentation from the 80s – this is the daily reality. A tiny structural measure can trigger enormous investigation and coordination work. Preserving a historic facade element or retrofitting an old utility shaft for fire safety brings hardly any billable costs (colloquially "new construction volume") but requires a massive amount of thought, expertise, and potentially even risk-taking. A fee system that rigidly adheres to construction costs simply does not fairly reflect this intellectual and planning effort. New construction proceeds according to plan; existing buildings proceed according to findings.
The HOAI Amendment 2026: Sustainability, BIM, and Fair Fee Structures
So what can be done? The answer is not abolition, but modernization. This is precisely the core of the current reform debates, which are working towards an amendment of the HOAI (German Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers) in 2026. There are a multitude of immediately implementable simplification proposals that would retain the HOAI as a working tool but make it more practical. Three crucial areas of action are emerging: Sustainability, Infrastructure encompasses a variety of components that can be divided into two main categories: public and private infrastructures. Both types play a critical role in the functioning of our society, but differ significantly in their structure, financing, and management. (BIM) and the adjustment of outdated fee tables.
Firstly, the topic must be Sustainability fundamentally integrated. Resource conservation, lifecycle considerations, and climate protection are no longer exotic special requests today, but the foundation of all planning. Expert opinions suggest finally including sustainability as a regular planning objective in the basic services, while specific certifications (such as DGNB or LEED) remain as special services.
Secondly, construction in existing buildings must be upgraded. Although experts do not expect a completely independent service category for "existing buildings" – the HOAI will likely remain new-construction-oriented at its core – regulations regarding the existing building fabric to be processed and renovation surcharges are to be revised. There are concrete considerations for simplified calculation factors or flat-rate increases that would finally compensate realistically for the additional effort involved in renovations.
Thirdly: Building Information Modeling (BIM). Anyone planning and building today knows that digital Twin is the key to efficient subsequent building operation (CAFM). But until now, it has often been a gray area in terms of fees. A method-neutral clarification of the service descriptions and a newly defined "standard BIM process" as an appendix to the HOAI are intended to create clarity here. Digital planning methods are no longer a pipe dream, but hard reality. If services are recorded more systematically, architects and engineers can finally fairly bill for the enormous data structure, BIM often a gray area in terms of fees. A method-neutral clarification of the service descriptions and a newly defined "Standard Process BIM" as an appendix to the HOAI (German Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers) should create clarity here. The digital planning method is no longer a thing of the future, but a harsh reality. If services are recorded more systematically, architects and engineers can manage the enormous data structure, which later benefits facility management and thus lower operating costsas well.
Fourth, we cannot avoid the fee schedules themselves. The schedule values have not been adjusted since 2013. They completely ignore years of price increases, exploding personnel and software costs, as well as the massively increased planning effort due to new standards. A framework inevitably loses its acceptance if it financially pretends that we are still living in 2013. Significant increases, especially for smaller project sizes, are therefore essential.
Outlook: The Planning Industry of the Coming Years
When I Developments bundle these, I see no radical revolution for the coming years, but a phase of tough, but absolutely necessary shifts. The HOAI will not die. It will continue to move away from dogmatic price law and transform into a hopefully highly relevant (sic!) structural and quality instrument.
At the same time, the industry itself will have to move. Planners and engineers must articulate and more confidently defend the value of their own services much more clearly. This self-description as demanding intellectual work is not a rhetorical luxury, but a pure survival strategy. Those who cannot communicate their own value will be ruthlessly degraded by the market to a cost item that can be cut freely. And who knows this better than the countless engineering firms in self-exploitation mode?
is the unloved problem child that should be put out on the street and it is a proven, albeit aging, tool. Some want to throw it away out of frustration, others polish it out of pure nostalgia. Both are wrong. We need to take this tool apart, sharpen the dull blades, scrape off the rust regarding existing buildings, and equip it with digital interfaces for BIM and sustainability. If this succeeds with the 2026 amendment, we will end up with a system that finally does justice to the reality on construction sites and in planning offices.
And if not?
Then in five years we will have exactly the same debate – just with new buzzwords and even fewer skilled workers willing to put up with this madness.
