Design intent made procureable — restaurant BOQ and interior coordination extract

The record

On 7 September 2013, a design contractor sent the owner’s side one email for a new restaurant in Nizwa: a thirteen-category interior bill of quantities beside eleven reference-theme images — reception, bar, private rooms, corridor, open-restaurant seating and wall treatments. Design intent and its price structure travelled together, in the same message, before the first drawing hardened.

This page publishes the BOQ’s structure from the exported source workbook. Commercial figures are withheld per the register treatment; each category is shown as its share of the interior budget instead — the shape of the money, never the money.

The thirteen categories — each as its share of the interior budget

What the exclusions prove

The workbook closes by naming what it does not cover: electricity and water, flooring and false ceilings, government approvals, and all civil and mechanical works. An interior BOQ that states its own boundary is coordination evidence in itself — the interior package was priced knowing exactly where the base-build and statutory scopes began, so no dirham could hide between two contracts.

The reference-theme set — held, and why

The eleven accompanying images are reference-theme collateral: photographs and renders of other venues, carried as “optional themes” for each space. They are third-party imagery — identifiable people, venue brand marks and stock provenance among them — so they are not reproduced here, by the estate’s own image law. Their evidential value survives without reproduction: the record shows themes proposed space-by-space beside a priceable category structure, which is precisely what design coordination looks like in writing.

Role boundaries

The BOQ and themes came from a design contractor to the owner’s side for direction and commitment — the owner-side hand held the brief, the budget shape and the decision. Statutory approvals, civil works and MEP belonged to the licensed and contracted parties who carried them, as the workbook’s own exclusions record. GGB is the present-day consultancy carrying this coordination discipline; it claims the owner-side coordination shown, and nothing else.

Redactions applied

All monetary amounts and the currency total are withheld; the category structure publishes as percentage shares. The sending contractor and individuals are not named. The reference-theme images are withheld in full per the image law.

What this document proves — and what it does not

It proves that design intent and commercial structure were coordinated in one motion, category by category, with the package boundary stated. It does not prove the interior was built to this exact structure, and it does not claim the reference imagery as design output — those are different records, and where they are cleared they publish in the dossier this document evidences.