Can a practice omitted from the BOQ (missing item) but mandatorily required by codes be deducted at the final account? - the judgment chain of contract type x pricing classification (GB/T 50500-2024) and the judicial approach to missing-item risk

Topic Positioning

The judgment framework for whether the contractor's costs of a "practice not listed in the tender BOQ (missing item) but mandatorily required by codes/drawings" can be deducted at the final account - the judgment chain of contract-type qualification -> pricing classification -> treatment if not performed (the GB/T 50500-2024 clause chain) - fitting settlement disputes of the "not in the BOQ but code-mandatory" type such as fire-service access opening signage and other mandatory fire-protection practices.

Core Conclusions

I. Code-mandated obligations are not waived by omission from the BOQ (fire-service access opening signage and other mandatory practices):

• Building Law of the PRC, Article 58: "Construction enterprises must carry out the works per the engineering design drawings and the technical standards for construction, and must not cut corners on materials or work. Modifications of the engineering design are the responsibility of the original design unit, and construction enterprises must not modify the engineering design without authorization."
• Regulation on Quality Management of Construction Projects, Article 28: "The construction unit must carry out construction per the engineering design drawings and the technical standards for construction, must not modify the engineering design without authorization, and must not cut corners on materials or work."
• Fire Protection Law of the PRC, Article 9: "The fire-protection design and construction of construction projects must comply with the national engineering fire-protection technical standards."
• Example: signage at fire-service access openings is mandatorily required by GB 55037-2022 Clause 2.2.3 item 5 ("permanent, clearly visible signs recognizable both indoors and outdoors shall be provided at fire-service access openings"); omission from the BOQ does not waive the construction obligation.

II. The three-step judgment chain of "can it be deducted at settlement" (GB/T 50500-2024):

• Step 1: the contract type. Unit-rate contract: the accuracy and completeness of the divisional-item BOQ are the client's (tenderer's) responsibility (Clauses 3.1.8, 6.1.6) - "whether or not the tenderer has raised questions or objections, the completeness and accuracy of the divisional-item BOQ are the tenderer's responsibility"; where a BOQ defect exists, the price is adjusted per Section 8.2 - for a genuine omission actually constructed, the cost cannot simply be deducted on the ground of "not listed in the BOQ"; it is re-measured per Clause 8.2.1 and repriced per Clause 8.9.1 at up to (and including) 15% (same characteristics: the contract unit rate; similar: adjusted by conversion; no same or similar item: "a market-reasonable all-in unit rate negotiated and determined"). Lump-sum contract: the accuracy and completeness of the priced divisional-item BOQ are the contractor's responsibility (Clauses 3.1.8, 6.1.7) - "the contract price and contract duration shall not be adjusted for defects of the contract BOQ" (Clause 8.2.3, except items priced at unit rates with provisional quantities) - in principle no increase is granted (the deduction holds).
• Step 2: the pricing classification. A practice compiled as a per-item measures item: under both unit-rate and lump-sum contracts its completeness and accuracy are the contractor's responsibility (Clauses 3.1.8, 6.1.5), and no adjustment is made for BOQ defects (Clause 8.2.2); where the practice is already contained in the work content of BOQ items such as doors/windows or curtain walls, it must not be priced twice - if it was priced separately, it can be deducted.
• Step 3: was it performed. Where work quality is unqualified for reasons attributable to the contractor: the client may require rectification to acceptance and "deduct from the contractor, at the final account, the repair and rework costs the contractor should bear" (Clause 10.3.13); non-performance is a failure to perform a mandatory obligation - rectify first (at the contractor's own cost), the settlement deduction is well-founded, and fire-protection acceptance is also affected.

III. Judicial approach (sharing of missing-item risk under fixed lump-sum contracts): courts recognize that the parties may allocate missing-item/missing-quantity risk by contract, but the risk should remain within a reasonable range; where the client failed to exercise due diligence and shifted the whole responsibility for missing items/quantities beyond a reasonable range onto the contractor, this violates the good-faith principle; the contractor, as a professional construction enterprise, should also have carefully verified the BOQ - where both parties are at fault, the loss may be apportioned per fault and good faith. The baseline: where the contract is valid and the risk clause explicit, courts mostly respect the agreement (under a lump-sum price, a contractor's claim for increase is rarely supported). Note: no published precedent was found on a dispute over the cost of fire-service access opening signage as a discrete item.

Applicable Boundaries

• The current GB/T 50500-2024 prevails (it has replaced the corresponding wording of GB 50500-2013).
• A price increase under a unit-rate contract presupposes "genuine omission + actually constructed"; where the practice is already included in the work content of another BOQ item or is a per-item measures item, it is neither separately payable nor adjustable.
• Under a lump-sum contract no adjustment is made for BOQ defects in principle; the exceptions are items priced at unit rates with provisional quantities, and the judicial apportionment per fault and good faith where the omission exceeds a reasonable range.
• Before a dispute, check three things first: the contract type and risk clauses; whether the drawings annotate the practice; which BOQ item's work content the practice falls under.
• The judicial approach derives from the gist of analogous judgments (the original judgment texts prevail); the outcome of an individual case depends on contract validity and the degree of fault.

Further Reading

• GB/T 50500-2024 "Standard for valuation of construction works with bill of quantities" Clauses 3.1.8, 4.1.4, 6.1.5-6.1.7, 8.2.1-8.2.3, 8.9.1, 10.3.13;
• Mandatory code requirement for fire-service access opening signage: GB 55037-2022 Clause 2.2.3; GB 50016-2014 (2018 edition) Clause 7.2.5;
• Analogous cases on sharing of missing-item risk under fixed lump-sum contracts: search judgment documents for holdings on "missing items beyond a reasonable range", "good-faith principle" and "apportionment per the fault of both parties".