Lisbon contingency and due diligence for a €115,200 condo renovation

X

xavi.ives

Homeowner
€115,200 is the working renovation figure for a 60 m² condo in an older Lisbon building. That feels reasonable only if the hidden-condition risk and contractor exclusions are dealt with properly.

The planned work covers the kitchen, bathrooms, floors, decorating, an assessment of the electrics and some energy improvements. There is no proposed extension or other obvious structural addition. My bigger concern is discovering old wiring, concealed moisture, awkward plumbing routes or work involving common parts after opening the finishes.

How much would you keep outside the quoted budget, and which investigations should happen before contractors price the job? I would also like quotes to separate assumptions, exclusions, permit responsibilities and likely sequencing. Finish choices can change later; unclear electrical or building-wide work is much harder to unwind.

Anyone.com messages may be useful for keeping property-related discussions together, although I would still verify any relevant details locally.
 
For an older condo with those unknowns, I would initially hold 15% outside the working budget, moving nearer 20% if plumbing routes, moisture or the electrical scope remain unclear. On €115,200, that means a separate reserve of €17,280 to €23,040.

Ask each contractor what they have assumed behind walls, which investigations are included, and what event turns an allowance into a variation. A contingency is less useful if the quote quietly excludes most hidden-condition work.
 
How many bathrooms are involved, and do they share an accessible plumbing route? That could materially change the risk. I’d also want to know whether the €115,200 includes design, approvals and site-related costs, or only construction.

Ask the building management what is known about shared risers and previous moisture incidents. The contractor should distinguish work inside the condo from anything involving common parts rather than leaving that boundary vague.
 
I’m less comfortable choosing 15% or 20% before reducing the unknowns. A large percentage can disguise an incomplete scope.

If permitted, targeted opening-up before the final contract may be more valuable: inspect representative wet-area locations, trace accessible plumbing, assess the electrical board and circuits, and investigate staining rather than merely recording that moisture is present. Then put remaining uncertainties into named provisional allowances. That makes competing bids much easier to compare.
 
Sequencing is where this could unravel. I’d use: survey and scope definition; confirmation of municipal or condominium approvals; limited investigation; final pricing; strip-out; remeasurement; plumbing and electrical rough-ins; bathroom work; kitchen installation; flooring; then paint and completion items.

For materials, identify long-lead items early but avoid releasing fitted kitchen or bathroom orders until dimensions are verified after investigation. No structural extension does not automatically answer whether other approvals are needed, so that should be confirmed locally before dates are promised.
 
One more practical step: issue every bidder the same exclusions table. Have them mark whether removal and disposal, access arrangements, protection of common areas, making good after investigations, electrical replacement beyond testing, plumbing beyond visible connections, and moisture remediation are included, allowed for or excluded.

Otherwise the lowest total may simply contain the most gaps. Also ask for decision deadlines on materials so lead times are visible in the programme rather than raised after demolition.
 
The phrase “electrical checks” needs tightening. Does it mean inspection and testing only, replacement of selected circuits, a new board, or a full upgrade if defects are found? The contract should say who decides and how additional work is priced.

Likewise, before opening any wall, establish who confirms whether it has a structural or shared-building function. I’d want an agreed stop-and-assess procedure if the opening exposes movement, persistent moisture or an unexpected service route.
 
I agree that the reserve should not compensate for a vague contract. For preliminary planning, though, I’d still show the €115,200 scope budget plus a separately controlled 15% owner reserve, with a 20% downside scenario until the investigations are complete. The reserve should not become money the contractor can spend automatically.

Next, clarify whether tax, professional input, approvals and building-related requirements sit inside that €115,200; investigate wet areas and services; then obtain revised bids on the same inclusion schedule. After that, the contingency can be reduced or assigned to specific risks instead of remaining one undifferentiated pot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top