Setting contingency and scope for a 60 m² Oslo apartment renovation

[HugoYork]

A single contingency percentage feels too blunt, while separate allowances for every trade could give false confidence; neither approach seems comfortable yet. I am working with a preliminary NOK 1,182,000 budget for a 60 m² Oslo apartment. It covers a kitchen and bathroom renovation, new flooring, painting, electrical assessment and some energy improvements, without an extension or other structural addition.

The finishes can be adjusted later, but opening walls before plumbing access, moisture and electrical requirements are understood could lock the project into expensive changes. What evidence would you seek from the surveyor before fixing the reserve? I also want contractors to define whether electrical remedial work is included, list exclusions clearly, and explain how discoveries or permit timing would affect the sequence and price.

 

[travelsAndVale]

At this stage I’d carry roughly 15–20%, but keep it outside the working budget rather than quietly spreading it across each trade. Ask contractors what happens if they find moisture, inaccessible pipework or an electrical installation needing more than inspection. You also want a written list of exclusions, because vague exclusions are where a reassuring total can become misleading.

 

[AmberPost]

Before choosing a percentage, does the NOK 1,182,000 include VAT, design work, waste removal and any temporary accommodation? Also, what does “electrical checks” mean in the estimate: inspection only, selected replacements, or an allowance for remedial work? Those distinctions could move the figure more than your choice between a 15% and 20% reserve.

 

[FullPost]

I’m less comfortable applying a blanket percentage until the wet-room and plumbing unknowns are narrowed. A 20% reserve still may not describe the risk properly if access requires opening several finished surfaces.

I’d ask the surveyor to identify visible moisture indicators, likely pipe routes, ventilation concerns and any areas that cannot be assessed without opening up. Then ask each contractor to price the same assumptions and state who pays for investigation and reinstatement.

 

[crane.real]

Sequence it from the least reversible decisions: confirm layout and whether any wall work changes the approval path, investigate moisture and services, define electrical and plumbing work, then seek comparable contractor prices. Only after dimensions and routes are settled would I commit to materials with long lead times. Permit or building-approval timing, where applicable, should sit in the programme rather than being treated as an administrative afterthought.

 

[HugoYork]

This helps. The main weakness is clearly that my preliminary total combines defined finishes with loosely described technical work. I’ll separate the base scope, investigation allowances and contingency, and ask for VAT and exclusions to be shown explicitly.

I’ll also request two contractor figures where practical: one assuming the existing plumbing access is usable, and another describing the cost basis if opening and reinstatement are required. That should make the reserve less arbitrary.

 

[FullPost]

That two-scenario approach is sensible, but make sure both bidders use the same definitions. Give them a simple room-by-room schedule with demolition, disposal, preparation, supply, installation, testing and making good listed separately. Add columns for included, excluded and provisional.

I would keep the contingency under your control rather than presenting it as money available to spend. Revisit its size after the surveys and any opening-up work; by then you should know whether moisture, plumbing access or electrical remedial work remains the dominant uncertainty.