You are here:

Construction Law/Client reluctant to pay the B.O. Q item


We are laying the Sewer line in Muscat. Wherever the road crossing are coming there is thrust boring or micro tunneling to be done. The microtunneling is paid on the dia of the pipe laid. i.e. if a the sewer line is 300mm dia  we are only paid on this basis. Whereas due to the length of the drive, or due to soil condition or due to the expressway crossing we have used a larger diameter casing pipe  (1000mm or 1200mm dia) for safety purpose. There is FOC ducts also running parallel to the sewer line.
Case:- As per the  B.O.Q F.O.C duct when passing under road crossing is to be done by HDD or Auger boring, and separate B.O.Q items is mentioned. As we are doing the micro tunneling for sewer or Irrigation line, client took the advantage of our larger dia casing pipe and instructed us to lay the F.O.C ductís through the same casing.
We claimed the F.O.C duct for road crossing under the prevailing B.O.Q item (HDD/Auger Boring), Client refused paying this item saying that we have not done any separate HDD or Auger boring for passing of F.O.C Duct instead we used the same larger duct which we had done for Sewer line.
Is this fare?? Can you please support me with so cases where the contractor has won similar cases.  Ours is a FIDIC(Red Book) based contract.

Dear Suresh,

I have another similar question for the same project from Joseph. Since your question is more clear I am posting my reply to you and assume that you will share this with Joseph as well.

Although it may not sound fair but one should get paid for the works what one has actually carried out.

You should make a price breakdown for the new methodology adopted by you. I presume that the new methodology was approved by the consultant before starting OFC works. Sine you have not used the specified methodology stipulated in the said BoQ item; you shall be reimbursed as per the adopted methodology.

If you think that this could be a value engineering exercise and was initiated by you; you may request atleast 50% of the cost savings made by adopting the new methodology.

I hope this helps otherwise please revert with a follow up question on this with more details of the instructions you received from the Consultant thereby changing your original methodology.  

Construction Law

All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


Manish Gupta


I can answer questions related to Cost Planning, Contract Administration, Construction Law & Other Post Contract QS related areas.


7 Years with Contractors 12 plus Years with Owners & Consultants

Calgary Project Consultants, Jacobs International, Turner International, J Ray McDermott Inc. Hindustan Construction Company

MRICS, MCIArb, BE (Civil), PGDCM LLM-Constuction Law in Arbitration and Adjudication

©2017 All rights reserved.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]