Contingency for a DKK 1,498,000 renovation of a 55 m² Copenhagen mixed-use building

[weighTheLoft]

DKK 1,498,000 is the working budget, and hidden work could move it more than any choice of finishes. The project is a 55 m² mixed-use building in Copenhagen, with refurbishment planned for the kitchen, bathrooms, surfaces and services, plus modest energy improvements but no extension.

I’m trying to put the checks in the right order before choosing a contingency. Which investigations would best expose inaccessible plumbing, moisture or an electrical installation that needs more than testing? I also want contractors to list exclusions, long-lead items, sequencing assumptions and who is responsible for permits. Would you keep the reserve separate until those points are verified, then reduce it as the scope becomes firmer?

 

[AbleLane]

For an early budget with those unknowns, I would tentatively reserve 15–20% and keep it separate from finish upgrades. Bathrooms and inaccessible services could consume it quickly. Ask each contractor to state what evidence would allow that reserve to be reduced—inspection openings, electrical testing, drainage access or clearer drawings—rather than treating contingency as an automatic extra allowance.

 

[NiaRose]

A few missing facts could change that answer: Is the building vacant during the works? How old are the electrical and plumbing installations, and are the wet areas close together? Also confirm whether DKK 1,498,000 includes tax, design work, permits, waste removal and temporary protection. A seemingly generous contingency can disappear if those items are simply absent from the base budget.

 

[zane_homes]

I’d be cautious about settling on a percentage before investigating moisture. Request targeted readings around bathrooms, the kitchen, external walls and any below-grade area, plus an explanation of how plumbing routes will actually be reached. “No extension” does not necessarily mean no structural risk: moving openings, removing partitions or cutting service routes can still require investigation.

 

[AbleLane]

True, although opening everything before contractor selection may create cost and reinstatement issues of its own. A staged approach could work: non-destructive inspection first, then agreed exploratory openings in the locations most likely to affect the price.

The tender should make demolition, disposal, protection, testing, making good and service shutdowns explicit. Otherwise bidders may appear comparable while carrying very different exclusions.

 

[alba_finance]

Sequencing deserves its own contractor question. Ask for a simple dependency plan: investigations, any permit decisions, strip-out, concealed services, inspections, closing walls, waterproofing, flooring, kitchen and final electrical work. Then ask which materials must be selected early. Lead times matter most when a late item prevents several following trades, not merely when delivery is slow.

 

[AbleLane]

I’d also separate three pots: priced work, unresolved scope and owner-requested changes. Contingency should cover the second, not become a convenient fund for better finishes.

Before committing, issue the same written questions to every bidder and require assumptions beside each answer. The most useful final meeting may be one devoted only to exclusions, plumbing access, moisture findings, electrical remedial work, permit responsibility and what happens to the programme when one of those assumptions proves wrong.