We have a multi-million dollar sanitary sewer extension project that is currently under construction. The soil borings obtained during project design revealed extensive rock excavation would be required. Accordingly, language was incorporated into the specs to address a myriad of blasting concerns (e.g. blasting near watermains/services, gas mains/services, pre- and post blasting inspections of a nearby municipal well, etc.)

By using an excavator-mounted rotary grinder as well as drilling and jack-hammering techniques, the Contractor was able to avoid blasting, thus obviating the need for pre- or post-blasting inspections (and similar activities). While the Contract presupposed that blasting would be used, it also explicitly and exclusively obligates the Contractor to all means and methods. The Contract contains no provision for reimbursement of implicit work associated with an assumed means and methods when alternate means/methods are used. The means/methods chosen by the Contractor for rock excavation was still costly in terms of man hours required and wear and tear on equipment. The Contactor is well ahead of schedule in meeting the project completion date.

Recently, the Owner's Manager directed Staff to contact the Contractor and request a credit for the municipal well inspections NOT performed because of the fact that blasting wasn't used. Staff has no knowledge of what cost arrangements were made (if any) between the Contractor and the well inspection firm.

Question: Is it ethical for Management to demand reimbursement for work not needed as a result of a Contractor employing other means and methods?