I mean if he had access to technical resources who were willing and capable to do this for him, he chose to do it.
When you get clients describing things like this, it's possible they've been promised things about this server before by other consultants that didn't pan out. They don't want to give you the full details because then you'll recommend a different route that they don't want to take (justifiably or not).
It's easier for them to frame the problem to a consultant in a way that allows for only one potential solution, even if perhaps better ones exist, because the guy in charge of making the decision isn't technically skilled enough to assess whether others proposed by consultants are as viable.
And, of course, one might read a little into why there exists a "boss" with such a highly-critical IT need that is hiring a consultant to do work like this, and thinks that threatening to not pay at all if there is any downtime is the best way to do it.
I mean, what if they opened the door to this closet and it grazed a power cable on the floor and the machine just shut off? Why even bother staying around to bring things back up? It wasn't your fault and there's already downtime: you're not getting paid.
Then again, could easily be wrong