{"id":5047,"date":"2026-07-10T23:16:38","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T21:16:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/knowledge-base\/extra-work-nachtrag-german-construction\/"},"modified":"2026-07-10T23:16:38","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T21:16:38","slug":"extra-work-nachtrag-german-construction","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/extra-work-nachtrag-german-construction\/","title":{"rendered":"Extra work (Nachtrag) on a German construction project \u2014 pricing, proof and payment security"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n<div id=\"progress\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/div>\r\n\r\n<!-- EN version of roboty-dodatkowe-nachtrag-w-niemczech. Own text. Sources verified\r\n     10.07.2026 directly at gesetze.berlin.de (full judgment text):\r\n     KG Berlin 18.07.2025 - 21 U 176\/24, appeal pending: BGH VII ZR 133\/25.\r\n     Independently verified: BGH 8.8.2019 - VII ZR 34\/18, BGH 20.10.2022 - VII ZR 154\/21. -->\r\n<header>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <a href=\"\/en\/\" class=\"brand\" aria-label=\"BWLAW\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"BWLAW \u2013 law firm in Germany\" width=\"42\" height=\"28\"><\/a>\r\n    <nav aria-label=\"Main navigation\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\" class=\"active\">Knowledge base<\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"\/en\/#zespol\">Team<\/a>\r\n    <\/nav>\r\n    <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Contact a lawyer <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n    <button class=\"burger\" aria-label=\"Menu\">\u2630<\/button>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/header>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"shero\" style=\"padding-bottom:3.5rem\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\" style=\"grid-template-columns:1fr\">\r\n    <div>\r\n      <nav class=\"crumbs\" aria-label=\"Breadcrumbs\"><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><span>\/<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><span>\/<\/span><b>Construction<\/b><\/nav>\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Construction<\/span>\r\n      <h1 style=\"max-width:30ch\">Extra work (Nachtrag) on a German construction project \u2014 pricing, proof and payment security<\/h1>\r\n      <p class=\"lead\">Hardly any construction contract in Germany ends the way it was signed. The principal changes the design, works are added that the contract never mentioned \u2014 and at the end comes the dispute: what is the extra work worth, how must it be documented, and what about the percentage deductions the principal shaves off every invoice. A recent judgment of the Kammergericht \u2014 Berlin&#8217;s court of appeal \u2014 settles all three questions at once and hands contractors concrete, quantifiable arguments.<\/p>\r\n      <div class=\"art-meta\">\r\n        <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n        <div><b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <div style=\"margin-left:1rem;border-left:1px solid rgba(255,255,255,.25);padding-left:1rem\">\u2248 10 min read<br>updated: July 2026<\/div>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<article class=\"sec\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">A case that concerns almost every construction site<\/h3>\r\n      <p>A drywall contractor settled its contract with a final invoice of more than 4.2 million euros net \u2014 alongside the main contract works it contained <strong>39 change orders (Nachtr\u00e4ge)<\/strong> and almost 192,000 euros of hourly work. The principal, a property developer, cut the settlement apart: it challenged the pricing of the extra work and deducted percentage levies from the invoices for site electricity, water, a sanitary container, heating and &#8220;site coordination&#8221;. The contractor demanded payment security under \u00a7 650f BGB \u2014 and the dispute reached the Kammergericht.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The judgment of 18 July 2025 (21 U 176\/24) answers three questions that come up on every larger project: <strong>how extra work is priced, how it has to be documented and how much the principal may deduct from invoices as a flat percentage<\/strong>. An appeal is pending before the Federal Court of Justice (VII ZR 133\/25), so the last word has not been spoken \u2014 but the reasoning of Berlin&#8217;s construction senate already sets the standard worth invoking in negotiations and in court.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Pricing a Nachtrag: actual additional costs plus a markup<\/h3>\r\n      <p>Under a VOB\/B contract the principal may unilaterally change the design and order works not provided for in the contract. The remuneration follows \u00a7 2(5) and (6) VOB\/B: the parties are to agree a &#8220;new price taking into account the additional or reduced costs&#8221;. For decades the dominant method was the so-called continuation of the tender calculation (vorkalkulatorische Preisfortschreibung): the new price was derived from the line items of the calculation the contractor had drawn up before signing.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The Kammergericht calculates differently \u2014 and consistently. The basis of the additional remuneration are <strong>the actual costs caused by the change<\/strong>: the costs of execution after the change are compared with the costs that would have arisen without it. For entirely new works never provided for in the contract, the equation simplifies to the actual costs of that additional work. The tender calculation remains a mere auxiliary tool \u2014 where it does not reflect the actual costs or is disputed, the facts decide, not spreadsheets from before signature. It is the same logic the Federal Court of Justice adopted for increased quantities under \u00a7 2(3) VOB\/B (judgment of 8 August 2019, VII ZR 34\/18): neither party is meant to gain or lose from the unexpected change in the scope of the works.<\/p>\r\n      <p>On top of the actual costs comes <strong>a reasonable markup<\/strong> for general company overheads, risk and profit. The margin negotiated in the contract does not evaporate with changes \u2014 that is the meaning of the formula &#8220;a good price stays a good price, a bad price stays a bad price&#8221;: whoever signed with a healthy margin keeps it for the extra work, and whoever went in below cost will not repair the contract through change orders.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">How high is the markup \u2014 and what must not go into it<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The most natural markup is the one that follows from the agreed remuneration set against the actual costs \u2014 the contractor can demonstrate it by reference to his calculation until the other side refutes it. Where such a derivation is missing, <strong>the court may estimate the markup \u2014 the Kammergericht considers a range of roughly 1.05 to 1.2 reasonable<\/strong>, that is 5 to 20 per cent on the additional costs.<\/p>\r\n      <p>One important caveat: <strong>site overheads<\/strong> (Baustellengemeinkosten \u2014 site facilities, site protection, site management) do not belong in the markup. They are already covered by the contract price. If the change genuinely increased such costs \u2014 say, the project ran longer and the containers stood for extra months \u2014 the contractor can claim them, but must account for them concretely, item by item, not as a flat percentage.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Documentation: material, plant, labour<\/h3>\r\n      <p>A coherent presentation of the additional remuneration generally requires <strong>a breakdown of the expenditure at least by cost type: material, plant and labour<\/strong>. An exception applies to simple, transparent items where the description alone shows what inputs were needed \u2014 that is how the Kammergericht assessed most of the disputed drywall positions, knowing the company&#8217;s hourly rate and material prices that are easy to verify.<\/p>\r\n      <p>Exceptions are no strategy, though. Whoever breaks his change-order offers down into material, plant and labour from the start does not have to hope for the court&#8217;s indulgence. Properly run <strong>hourly work<\/strong> also paid off: almost 192,000 euros of Stundenlohnarbeiten survived scrutiny because the principal&#8217;s site management had ordered the work and the principal&#8217;s staff signed the time sheets (Stundenzettel) as the work progressed. How to document works with a dispute in mind is covered in our article on the <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-defects-burden-of-proof-germany\/\">burden of proof on German construction projects<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Security under \u00a7 650f BGB covers change orders too<\/h3>\r\n      <p>A building contractor may demand that the principal provide security for his remuneration (Bauhandwerkersicherung, \u00a7 650f BGB) \u2014 and that <strong>includes extra work<\/strong>: agreed change orders as well as unilaterally ordered changes. So the Federal Court of Justice in its judgment of 20 October 2022 (VII ZR 154\/21), which the Kammergericht follows. On top of the secured amount comes 10 per cent for ancillary claims.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The bar is higher than for the main contract price, however: the disputed <strong>basis of the change order must be proven<\/strong> in the security proceedings \u2014 that the principal commissioned or ordered the works. For the amount, a coherent presentation along the lines described above suffices. In the Berlin case it helped that the principal had formally commissioned most of the change-order offers and had itself ordered and signed off the hourly work. Worth knowing too: a <strong>retention for defects (Gew\u00e4hrleistungseinbehalt) does not reduce the security<\/strong> \u2014 it is only a temporary withholding.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The outcome also shows how documentation discipline translates into money: of the more than 311,000 euros of security demanded, the court awarded 105,000 \u2014 the rest was consumed by positions that could not be coherently demonstrated and by payments already credited.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"hl rv\" style=\"max-width:760px\">\r\n      <span class=\"eyebrow\">Checklist<\/span>\r\n      <h3>A change order that holds up in court<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The order or instruction for the change \u2014 always in writing, before you start the works. The change-order offer broken down into material, plant and labour, with the company&#8217;s hourly rate. Hourly work only with an instruction and time sheets signed as you go by the principal&#8217;s representative. A register of all change orders kept in parallel with the project, not reconstructed at final invoice. The percentage deductions in the negotiation protocol \u2014 add them up and check whether they are valid at all before accepting them in the settlement.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"font-size:1.02rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Percentage deductions from invoices: the 1 per cent line<\/h3>\r\n      <p>The second part of the judgment strikes at a practice every subcontractor knows from German negotiation protocols (Verhandlungsprotokoll): flat percentages deducted from every invoice. Here it was <strong>0.35 % for site insurance, 2.35 % for electricity, water and a sanitary container, 1 % for site heating and 1 % for &#8220;site coordination&#8221;<\/strong> \u2014 together 4.7 % of the entire settlement.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The Kammergericht first settled the fundamental point: such clauses in terms drafted by the principal <strong>are subject to judicial content review<\/strong> like any standard business terms \u2014 they are not a review-free price agreement. The Berlin senate consciously departed from an older position of the Federal Court of Justice from 1999 (VII ZR 365\/98). And in the content review the clauses fell one after another: the 2.35 % levy for utilities \u2014 because <strong>a flat levy for utilities and sanitary facilities exceeding 1 % of the settlement total in aggregate unreasonably disadvantages the contractor<\/strong>, whose real consumption has no correlation with the contract value. The 1 % heating levy \u2014 because it gave no way to prove lower consumption, and the aggregate flat rate climbed to 3.35 %. And the 1 % &#8220;coordination&#8221; levy \u2014 because it was impossible to tell what it was supposed to pay for, since coordinating the works was the contractor&#8217;s own job anyway. Only the 0.35 % insurance levy survived.<\/p>\r\n      <p>The consequence matters most: <strong>an invalid clause is not scaled down to the permissible level \u2014 it falls in its entirety<\/strong>, and the principal deducts nothing. In this case, of almost 159,000 euros in flat deductions, less than 13,000 remained. For a contractor settling a project this is often a difference of several per cent of the entire contract value \u2014 recovered with a single objection. When checking the final account it pays to recalculate not only the work items but also the deductions \u2014 we show how to do that systematically in our article on the <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/final-invoice-schlussrechnung\/\">final invoice (Schlussrechnung)<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n      <p>Mind one nuance: a bare percentage discount, not tied to any specific services, may remain outside content review as part of the price. Only when the deduction is justified by concrete services \u2014 utilities, sanitary facilities, coordination \u2014 does the field of review open. That is why <strong>the label given to a deduction in the contract matters<\/strong> \u2014 and why every negotiation protocol deserves a lawyer&#8217;s review before signing.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">What this means for your company<\/h3>\r\n      <ul>\r\n        <li><strong>Price change orders from actual costs.<\/strong> Collect proof of expenditure from the period of the change: purchase invoices, payroll, plant hours. The tender calculation helps, but it does not replace facts.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Insist on the markup \u2014 it is yours.<\/strong> The contract margin carries over to extra work, and absent a derivation the court may assume 1.05\u20131.2. Keep site overheads out of the markup and account for them concretely.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Break prices down into material, plant and labour.<\/strong> That is the condition of a coherent claim \u2014 exceptions exist, but no strategy should rely on them.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Do not wait for your money without security.<\/strong> The \u00a7 650f BGB demand covers change orders and hourly work, plus 10 % for ancillary claims. You must be able to prove the order was given \u2014 written instructions and signed time sheets are worth gold.<\/li>\r\n        <li><strong>Check the percentage deductions in your contract.<\/strong> A flat levy for utilities and sanitary facilities above 1 % is, per the Kammergericht, invalid in its entirety \u2014 it is worth recalculating what was deducted even on projects already settled.<\/li>\r\n      <\/ul>\r\n\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.35rem;margin-top:2.2rem\">Frequently asked questions<\/h3>\r\n      <p><strong>The principal orders changes but will not agree a price. Should I carry them out?<\/strong><br>Under a VOB\/B contract, ordered changes must in principle be carried out \u2014 refusal is risky. The remuneration is not lost: the missing price agreement does not remove the claim under \u00a7 2(5) or (6) VOB\/B. What matters is written confirmation that the principal ordered the change and contemporaneous documentation of the costs.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>How do I price a change order so it survives a dispute?<\/strong><br>Actual additional costs \u2014 broken down into material, plant and labour \u2014 plus a markup for company overheads and profit, derived from the contract price or estimated within a range of roughly 1.05\u20131.2. Site overheads are not added as a flat percentage.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>Can I demand \u00a7 650f BGB security for extra work as well?<\/strong><br>Yes. The security covers remuneration from agreed and unilaterally ordered change orders plus 10 % for ancillary claims. The basis of the change order must be proven in the security proceedings \u2014 for the amount, a coherent presentation suffices.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>The principal deducts percentages for electricity, water and the sanitary container from every invoice. Is that legal?<\/strong><br>Such clauses are subject to content review. According to the Kammergericht, a flat levy for utilities and sanitary facilities exceeding 1 % of the settlement total in aggregate is invalid \u2014 in its entirety, with no reduction to the permissible level. An appeal on this point is pending before the Federal Court of Justice, but the deductions are worth challenging now.<\/p>\r\n      <p><strong>My tender price was too low. Do I have to price extra work at cost as well?<\/strong><br>A bad price stays a bad price \u2014 the margin of an unprofitable contract carries over to the change order. The minimum, however, always stands: the actual additional costs multiplied by a reasonable markup, which the court can estimate if need be. Below the cost of the extra work you cannot be pushed.<\/p>\r\n\r\n      <p style=\"font-size:.85rem;color:var(--ink-soft)\">This overview draws on the judgment of the Kammergericht of 18 July 2025 (21 U 176\/24, appeal pending before the Federal Court of Justice: VII ZR 133\/25), the judgments of the Federal Court of Justice of 8 August 2019 (VII ZR 34\/18) and of 20 October 2022 (VII ZR 154\/21) as well as \u00a7\u00a7 305\u2013307, 650c and 650f BGB and \u00a7 2(3), (5) and (6) VOB\/B. This article is for information purposes and does not replace legal advice in an individual case.<\/p>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n\r\n    <div class=\"mini-cta rv\"><b>The principal cuts your change orders or deducts percentages from your invoices?<\/b><span style=\"color:var(--ink-soft);font-size:.92rem\">Send us the contract, the negotiation protocol and the settlement \u2014 we will check the pricing, the deductions and the option of \u00a7 650f BGB payment security. In English, German and Polish.<\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a><\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"prose rv\" style=\"margin-top:1.5rem\">\r\n      <h3 style=\"font-size:1.1rem\">Related topics<\/h3>\r\n      <div class=\"chips\" style=\"margin-top:.8rem\">\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/final-invoice-schlussrechnung\/\">The final invoice (Schlussrechnung) \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/termination-construction-contract-germany\/\">Terminating a construction contract \u2014 \u00a7 648a BGB \u2192<\/a>\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/construction-defects-burden-of-proof-germany\/\">Construction defects \u2014 the burden of proof \u2192<\/a>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/article>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"sec alt\">\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"lawyer rv\">\r\n      <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/dr-artur-barczewski.webp\" alt=\"Dr. Artur Barczewski \u2013 author\" loading=\"lazy\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <b>Dr. Artur Barczewski<\/b>\r\n        <div class=\"role\">Rechtsanwalt \u00b7 attorney-at-law<\/div>\r\n        <p>Author of this article. Handles construction disputes for foreign companies across Germany. <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\">View profile \u2192<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<section class=\"cta-end\">\r\n  <div class=\"glow\"><\/div>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <span class=\"eyebrow rv\">Contact<\/span>\r\n    <h2 class=\"rv d1\">Does your situation look similar?<\/h2>\r\n    <p class=\"rv d2\">Every case has details that change the outcome. Describe yours \u2014 you will receive a concrete answer and a fee estimate.<\/p>\r\n    <div class=\"row rv d3\">\r\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"btn\">Describe your case <span class=\"arr\">\u2192<\/span><\/a>\r\n      <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"phone\">\u260e +49 335 553 10969<\/a>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n\r\n<footer>\r\n  <div class=\"wrap\">\r\n    <div class=\"foot-grid\">\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-brand\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/bwlaw-child-1\/assets\/img\/logo-bw.png\" alt=\"Logo BWLAW\" width=\"38\" height=\"26\"><\/div>\r\n        <p>Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<br>Rudolf-Breitscheid-Stra\u00dfe 10<br>15230 Frankfurt (Oder), Germany<br><a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\">+49 335 553 10969<\/a> \u00b7 <a href=\"mailto:info@bwlaw.de\">info@bwlaw.de<\/a><\/p>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Practice areas<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/\">Construction law and VOB\/B<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/employment-law\/\">Employment law<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/debt-collection\/\">Debt collection in Germany<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/company-formation\/\">Corporate law and company formation<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n      <div>\r\n        <div class=\"foot-h\">Information<\/div>\r\n        <ul>\r\n          <li><a href=\"\/en\/\">Home<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/\">Knowledge base<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/impressum\/\">Imprint<\/a><\/li>\r\n          <li><a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/privacy-policy\/\">Privacy policy<\/a><\/li>\r\n        <\/ul>\r\n      <\/div>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n    <div class=\"foot-bottom\">\r\n      <span>\u00a9 2026 BWLAW \u00b7 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski &amp; Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR<\/span>\r\n      <span>Rechtsanw\u00e4lte \u00b7 attorneys \u00b7 Frankfurt (Oder)<\/span>\r\n    <\/div>\r\n  <\/div>\r\n<\/footer>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"sticky-cta\">\r\n  <a href=\"tel:+4933555310969\" class=\"call\">\u260e Call us<\/a>\r\n  <a href=\"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/practice-areas\/construction-law\/#kontakt\" class=\"book\">Describe your case<\/a>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">\r\n{\r\n  \"@context\": \"https:\/\/schema.org\",\r\n  \"@graph\": [\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"Article\",\r\n      \"headline\": \"Extra work (Nachtrag) on a German construction project \u2014 pricing, proof and payment security\",\r\n      \"description\": \"How extra work on a German construction project is priced: actual costs plus markup, breakdown by cost type, \u00a7 650f BGB security and the 1 % cap on invoice deductions.\",\r\n      \"inLanguage\": \"en\",\r\n      \"author\": { \"@type\": \"Person\", \"name\": \"Dr. Artur Barczewski\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/team\/artur-barczewski\/\" },\r\n      \"publisher\": { \"@type\": \"LegalService\", \"name\": \"BWLAW \u2013 Kanzlei Dr. Barczewski & Dr. Wr\u00f3blewska GbR\", \"url\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/\" },\r\n      \"datePublished\": \"2026-07-10\",\r\n      \"dateModified\": \"2026-07-10\",\r\n      \"mainEntityOfPage\": \"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/knowledge-base\/extra-work-nachtrag-german-construction\/\"\r\n    },\r\n    {\r\n      \"@type\": \"FAQPage\",\r\n      \"mainEntity\": [\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"The principal orders changes but will not agree a price. Should I carry them out?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Under a VOB\/B contract, ordered changes must in principle be carried out. The remuneration is not lost \u2014 the missing price agreement does not remove the claim under \u00a7 2(5) or (6) VOB\/B. What matters is written confirmation of the order and contemporaneous documentation of the costs.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"How do I price a change order so it survives a dispute?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Actual additional costs, broken down into material, plant and labour, plus a markup for company overheads and profit \u2014 derived from the contract price or estimated within a range of roughly 1.05 to 1.2. Site overheads are not added as a flat percentage.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"Can I demand \u00a7 650f BGB security for extra work as well?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Yes. The security covers remuneration from agreed and unilaterally ordered change orders plus 10 per cent for ancillary claims. The basis of the change order must be proven in the security proceedings, while a coherent presentation of the amount suffices.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"The principal deducts percentages for electricity, water and the sanitary container. Is that legal?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"Such clauses are subject to content review. According to the Kammergericht, a flat levy for utilities and sanitary facilities exceeding 1 per cent of the settlement total in aggregate is invalid in its entirety, with no reduction to the permissible level. An appeal is pending before the Federal Court of Justice.\" }\r\n        },\r\n        {\r\n          \"@type\": \"Question\",\r\n          \"name\": \"My tender price was too low. Do I have to price extra work at cost as well?\",\r\n          \"acceptedAnswer\": { \"@type\": \"Answer\", \"text\": \"The margin of an unprofitable contract carries over to the change order. The minimum always stands, though: actual additional costs multiplied by a reasonable markup, which the court can estimate in a range of roughly 1.05 to 1.2.\" }\r\n        }\r\n      ]\r\n    }\r\n  ]\r\n}\r\n<\/script>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Construction law Debt collection Corporate law Employment law Knowledge base Team Contact a lawyer \u2192 \u2630 Home\/Knowledge base\/Construction Construction Extra work (Nachtrag) on a German construction project \u2014 pricing, proof and payment security Hardly any construction contract in Germany ends the way it was signed. The principal changes the design, works are added that the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":4417,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":"","rank_math_title":"Extra work (Nachtrag) on German construction sites | BWLAW","rank_math_description":"How to price extra work on a German construction project: actual costs plus markup, \u00a7 650f security for change orders and the 1 % cap on invoice deductions.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"extra work construction Germany","rank_math_robots":[]},"class_list":["post-5047","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"bwlaw_import":{"lang":"en","template":"template-bwlaw-page.php"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5047","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5047\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bwlaw.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}