Contingency and hidden risks for a 245 m² Prague renovation

B

book.open

Construction professional
The preliminary scope looks manageable on paper, but I am not yet comfortable treating the price as firm. The working budget is CZK 4,696,000 for a 245 m² mixed-use building in Prague, covering new kitchen and bathroom work, floors, decoration, electrical assessment and limited energy improvements. There is no extension in the plan.

Rather than choose a final contingency now, would it make sense to keep a larger allowance until the survey, permit timing and service routes are clearer, then reduce it once contractors have opened up the risky areas? I particularly want the surveyor to examine moisture, electrical condition and access to plumbing. I will also ask bidders to separate exclusions and enabling works so that strip-out, access or making good cannot quietly sit outside the quote.
 
For an early budget like this, I’d tentatively carry 15–20% until the electrical condition, plumbing routes and moisture risks are clearer. Ask every contractor to list exclusions in writing, especially opening and making good walls, waste removal, access equipment and repairs discovered after strip-out. A low figure is difficult to compare if half the enabling work sits outside it.
 
Is the building vacant during the works, and are the residential and commercial areas served by the same utilities? That could affect sequencing more than the finishes. I’d also want to know whether kitchens and bathrooms remain in their current positions, because moving services can quickly turn a moderate refurbishment into a more disruptive job.
 
One more question for the surveyor: where can plumbing actually be inspected without major opening-up? Visible fittings tell you little about concealed runs. The same applies to electrical checks—clarify whether the allowance is only for testing or includes remedial work and replacement of anything that fails.
 
I wouldn’t automatically reserve 20% across the whole project. Separate known work from uncertain work first, then place more contingency against the risky packages. Moisture investigation, concealed services and any signs that might lead to structural work deserve more allowance than painting or straightforward flooring.

Also establish early whether any part of the energy upgrade or mixed-use layout affects permit timing. The answer is project-specific in Prague, but it could alter the programme and material orders.
 
Zoe’s approach is better for cost control, although I’d still keep an overall reserve that the contractor cannot absorb through vague variations. Build a sequence around investigations first, service decisions second, then closing walls and finishes. Ask bidders what must be ordered early, what substitutions are acceptable, and which dates depend on permits or access. That exposes lead-time assumptions before they become delay claims.
 
I’d request a room-by-room scope plus a separate schedule of exclusions and provisional items. Then hold a pre-contract walk-through with the survey findings in hand and ask each bidder the same questions: what are you assuming behind walls and floors, who pays for opening and reinstatement, and what would stop work?

The CZK 4,696,000 may be workable, but its reliability depends less on the headline rate than on how much remains undefined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top