Overhead and profit are claimable:
Overhead and profit are claimable inputs or components of the price: Lauder Bros. & Tate Builders Ltd. v. Vanmore Holdings Ltd. (1985), 12 C.L.R. 128 (B.C. Co. Ct.) and Astro Contracting Ltd. v. McArthur (1986), 17 C.L.R. 230 (B.C. Co. Ct.).
(Golden Hill Adventure Ltd. v. Kemess Mines Inc., 2002 BCSC 1460 at para. 1147).
Head office overhead related to the work can be included:
However, it may be that some of the $43,129.00 claimed for “office overhead” might ultimately be proven to be an integral and necessary part of the actual work and material…
…It may well be that a portion of the office overhead claimed might relate to the work done on the Property…
(Tylon Steepe Homes Ltd. v. Pont, 2009 BCSC 253 at paras. 27 -28).
However, lost profit on work not done cannot be claimed:
It should be noted that [Stro-Built Wall and Ceiling Inc. v. Kamal & Bros. Enterprises Ltd.,  B.C.J. 2725 (S.C.) (QL)] dealt with the question of whether claims for profit on work taken away from the claimant were lienable or not. In concluding that “damages are not lienable”, the learned Master relied on the decision in Hanwor Construction Ltd. v. Sundial Properties Ltd. (1986), B.C.L.D. Civ. 2588-01 (B.C. Co. Ct.). That case also dealt with a claim for price and profits on work taken away from a claimant. I am satisfied that it is uncontroversial that such amounts are not lienable as the damages there relate to lost profits not to work done.
(Golden Hill Ventures Ltd. v. Kemess Mines Inc.  7 B.C.L.R (4th.) 1 at para. 1151).