Why is the total price not enough?
Two companies may give the same name to different services. A "façade renovation" may include the repairs, the scaffolding and the finishes in one offer, but only the painting in another.
Comparing the amounts alone amounts to comparing different projects. The cheapest quote may become the most costly when the forgotten services appear as extras.
How to build a common scope?
The co-ownership must describe the structure, the defects and the expected result. For a complex worksite, an architect, an engineer or a design office may need to draw up the specifications.
Each company receives the same plans, photos, reports, measurements and access constraints. A visit makes it possible to identify the protections and site installations.
On receipt of the offers, one must check that they cover the same scope. The absence of a line does not mean that it is included.
Which discrepancies must be spotted?
The materials must be described with enough precision to understand their quality and their service life. The quantities or surface areas must be visible.
The quote specifies the preparations, removals, protections, connections, cleaning and reinstatements.
The lead times must be read together with the start-up conditions. A company available within eight weeks does not promise to finish within eight weeks.
How to handle variants?
A variant answers a genuine alternative: repair or replace, choose between two levels of insulation or provide an option.
It must remain separate from the base offer. When each company proposes a different solution, the general meeting no longer knows whether it is comparing prices or technical choices.
Which contractual elements to look at?
The quote indicates whether the amounts are exclusive of tax or inclusive of all taxes. It specifies the payments, deposits, validity, guarantees and the procedure for additional works.
Acceptance must be anticipated. It makes it possible to record completion and any reservations.
How to present the offers to the general meeting?
A comparison table helps, but does not replace the quotes. It must show the differences, exclusions and options.
Where a company is linked to the syndic or its relatives under the conditions provided for by the Grand-Ducal Regulation, the agreement must be specially authorised.
The general meeting must know who may decide after the vote. A delegation to choose a variant or accept an extra must be precise.
What happens if the general meeting refuses a project brought by a few co-owners?
Where the general meeting refuses to authorise improvement works in the common parts, the co-owners concerned may ask the district court for authorisation to carry them out at their own expense.
If the use of the installation can be reserved to them, the other co-owners will then be able to access it by paying their share of the cost, assessed as of the date on which they exercise this option.
And when there is an emergency?
In an emergency, the syndic may have the works necessary for the safeguarding of the building carried out, inform the co-owners and immediately convene a general meeting.
The comparison of several offers may then be impossible. The emergency does not dispense with documenting the problem and the decisions taken.
Reference texts
- Law of 16 May 1975 establishing the statute of co-ownership of built property (Mémorial A No 28 of 23 May 1975), in particular Articles 16, 17, 20, 21, 26 and 27 — points b) and d) of Article 16 resulting from the Law of 22 April 1985 (Mémorial A No 22 of 9 May 1985), points e), f) and g) of the same Article and point c) of Article 17 resulting from the Law of 30 June 2022 (Mémorial A No 347 of 11 July 2022)
- Grand-Ducal Regulation of 13 June 1975 (Mémorial A No 34 of 20 June 1975), in particular Articles 27 and 29