How the tables are built
A fee table is a matrix with two entries. Their intersection yields not a figure but a band, which is regularly left out when a table is quoted.
| Axis | Content |
|---|---|
| Horizontally: the fee zones | I to V, each with a lower and an upper value |
| Vertically: the chargeable costs | in steps from a minimum to a maximum amount |
The intersection yields a band within which the fee for all nine work phases falls. Where not all phases are commissioned, the percentage of those transferred is taken from that figure.
The base fee rate
The Basishonorarsatz, base fee rate, is the lower figure of each band. The ordinance has carried it under that name since 2021.
It is identical in amount to the former minimum rate but serves an entirely different function. That confusion is the commonest source of error in dealing with the reform.
| Former minimum rate | Today's base fee rate | |
|---|---|---|
| Legal nature | mandatory floor | fallback rule |
| Going below it | agreement invalid | agreement valid |
| Effect | claim for top-up | applies only where no agreement exists |
A fee below the base rate can validly be agreed today, provided the agreement was made in text form. That is the most practically significant consequence of the reform, and older treatments do not reflect it. Anyone relying on a source predating 2021 is working from a repealed legal position.
The rate does apply as a fallback in two cases: where no agreement on the level was made in text form, and where the duty to inform a consumer was breached. Both mechanisms are covered in the article on fee agreements.
Interpolation
Chargeable costs rarely land exactly on a table value. For that case the ordinance provides for interpolation between the neighbouring figures.
The calculation is linear: the amount by which chargeable costs exceed the lower table value is set in proportion to the span between the two table values and applied to the fee difference. Rounding to the nearest table step is not provided for.
Two notes on application. Both concern the direction in which interpolation runs.
| Note | What it rules out |
|---|---|
| Interpolation takes place within the same fee zone | there is no interpolation between zones, only between cost steps |
| It is performed separately for the lower and upper value | where the whole band is needed; in practice the rate underlying the agreement usually suffices |
The full calculation on a concrete case is set out in the article on calculating a fee. The order of the calculation steps is documented there as well.
Where costs fall outside the table
The tables cover a cost range between a minimum and a maximum amount. Where chargeable costs fall below or above it, the system ends.
| Position of the chargeable costs | Projects affected | Usual practice |
|---|---|---|
| Below the minimum amount | small schemes, for which the table fee is rarely adequate anyway | free agreement, often a lump sum or time charge |
| Above the maximum amount | large projects | free agreement, often extrapolating the table logic as a derivation |
In both cases the level is free but the formal requirements are unchanged. Without an agreement in text form the base fee rate applies, and outside the table range determining that rate is itself difficult, which makes the agreement all the more important.
The alternatives are covered in the article on hourly rates and lump sum fees. That article also sets out what an hourly rate agreement must contain.
What the tables do not contain
Three items sit outside the table values and must be handled separately. Forgotten, they create the gap between the expected and the invoiced fee.
| Position | Rule |
|---|---|
| Value added tax | the table values are net, tax is added |
| Ancillary expenses | travel, reproduction and similar are not included; to be agreed separately, otherwise reimbursed against itemised evidence; a lump sum is customary and permissible but belongs in the agreement |
| Additional services | not covered by the weighting system of the tables |
The billing of additional services is covered in the article on additional services. That article also explains why they go unpaid more often than basic services.
Where within the band the negotiation happens
The table yields a band, not a figure. Where within that band the fee falls was formerly a question of price law and is today a question of negotiation.
Four arguments support a position above the base fee rate, and each can be made independently of the table. They rest on the effort rather than on the regulation.
| Argument | Basis |
|---|---|
| Effort above the typified level | the table values rest on average assumptions; unusually many parties, a long construction period or a demanding consent procedure depart from them |
| Additional requirements without their own remuneration rule | sustainability certification, digital design methods and extended verification duties create effort the service profiles do not reflect |
| The age of the table values | their level dates from the 2013 edition and has not been updated since |
| The distribution across phases | where actual effort per phase departs from the weighting, this can be reflected contractually since 2021 |
Conversely: since a fee below the base rate can validly be agreed, price competition now acts downwards too. For a practice, a traceable derivation of its own effort has therefore become more important than a reference to the table.
Looking to the reform
The table values date in amount from the 2013 version and have not been updated since. The expert reports prepared for the reform propose substantial adjustments, particularly for projects with low chargeable costs, which are generally regarded as unviable.
Two things follow for practice. First, the table value is a weaker argument in negotiation today than it once was, because its age is known. Second, a reform could change the starting position considerably.
The status of the process is covered in the article on the HOAI reform. That article also sets out which adjustments the expert reports propose in detail.
Related articles
This article reflects the position of the rules and case law at the date of checking and serves professional orientation. It does not constitute legal advice and does not replace assessment of the individual case.