译自《Delay claims》，Bill Schmalz, FAIA

译文

施工延迟几乎总是导致变更订单请求，作为建筑师，我们有义务对此进行审查，不仅要考虑所需的额外时间或金钱（或两者兼有），而且还要考虑索赔是否合理。为了确定合理性，我们需要了解两类延迟：不可原谅的和可原谅的。

不可原谅的延迟是由承包商团队造成的，包括分包商和供应商。对于不可原谅的延迟，承包商既无法获得更多的时间，也没有额外的钱可以拿到。可原谅的延迟是由承包商不可控的外界力量造成的，又分两大类：有补偿的和无补偿的。一个有补偿的可原谅延迟是由业主的团队造成的，由业主自己承担责任，包括所有者变动和建筑师的错误与遗漏。对于有补偿的延迟，承包商可以依法要求额外的时间与金钱。无补偿可原谅延迟，既不是由承包商造成的，也不是因为业主，而是由于不可预见的坏天气、现场条件、劳动罢工等造成的。对于无补偿可原谅延迟，承包商可以有时间上的延长，但是没有额外的钱。  详见下表。

记住这张表，

我们来看以下三个场景：

1. 在内部结构大部分完成后，客户要求你重新设计行政套房，导致了两个礼拜的工程延迟。

2. 三天的夏季暴雨淹没了你的项目，导致了地基建造延迟两周。

3. 在原定用意大利石材安装大厅的前一个礼拜，承包商告诉你--运输的船还没离开意大利，所以项目延迟两周。

由于延迟，承包商提交了变更订单请求，要求延长时间增加钱款。

作为建筑师，

我们应该如何回应他们呢？

1. 第一种情况是有补偿可原谅延迟，因为这个延迟是由于业主在工程进行中提出来的变更要求导致的。

2. 第二种情况是无补偿可原谅延迟，夏季的暴雨不是由于承包商或者业主所致，也无法预见。建造合同应该因此而延长两个礼拜，但是不改变合同原来的金额。

3. 在第三种情况中，分包商团队也就是石材供应商导致了延迟，属于不可原谅延迟，对建造合同不会有任何改变。

以上的情况都很简单直白，然而，事实是建造中很少出现这样简单的延迟。

现在，

请看三种复杂的场景：

1. 在完成内部结构大部分后，客户要求你重新设计行政套房，导致了两个礼拜的工程延迟。然后，在修正后的图纸被交给承包商的那天里，干墙联盟出人意料地罢工了，不得不停止施工长达两个礼拜。

2. 三天的暴雨淹没了你的项目，导致地基铺造延迟了两个礼拜。与此同时，承包商通知你，原定于暴雨开始当天进行安装的钢筋两个礼拜内无法到位。

3. 在原定用意大利石材安装大厅的前一个礼拜，承包商告诉你运输的船还没离开意大利，所以项目延迟两周。同时，由于业主要求重新设计大堂，也导致了两个礼拜的延迟。

在这三个例子中，其中两个都是同时导致了两个礼拜的延迟。在每个例子中，建筑师的回应都应该基于一个原则：业主责任最小化。

换句话说，

1. 在第一种情况中，既有有补偿可原谅的延迟（业主改变），也有无补偿可原谅延迟（工人罢工）。这样的延迟，应该被看作是无补偿可原谅延迟，也就是说可以延长时间但是没有额外的款项。

2. 在第二种情况中，可归结为坏天气导致的无补偿可原谅延迟与材料的迟延送货导致的不可原谅延迟得复合，应该被看作不可原谅延迟，即是说：没有时间和欠款的额外支持。

3. 在第三种情况中，是材料的迟延送货导致的不可原谅延迟与业主改变导致的有补偿可原谅延迟，最终应当作不可原谅延迟，没有额外的时间与款项。

下表列出了这些复合情况的具体应对。

甚至后面三种情况也是被简化了的，因为每一种情况都是两个同一天开始、又同一天结束的延迟，简直就是巧合。在现实世界中，我们遇到的更多的是两种（或以上）类型的重叠延迟，要确定承包商是否需要额外的时间与款项，需要仔细的分析。但是，不管实际情况多么复杂，基本的原则是不变的——业主责任最小化。

Delay claims

By Bill Schmalz, FAIA

Construction delays will almost always result in change order requests, and as architects, we are obligated to review them not only for the requested additional time or money (or both) but also for whether the claim is justified. To determine justification, we need to understand the two categories of delay: inexcusable and excusable.

An inexcusable delay is caused by the contractor’s team, which includes subcontractors and vendors. For an inexcusable delay, the contractor receives neither additional time nor additional money.

Excusable delays are caused by forces outside the reasonable control of the contractor, and fall into one of two subcategories: compensable and non-compensable. A compensable excusable delay is caused by, and is the responsibility of, the owner’s team, and can include owner-generated changes and architect’s errors and omissions. For a compensable delay, the contractor can legitimately claim additional time and money. Non-compensable excusable delays are caused by neither the contractor nor the owner; examples include unseasonable bad weather, unforeseeable site conditions, and unanticipated labor strikes.

For a non-compensable excusable delay, the contractor can receive a time extension, but no additional money. See the table below for a graphic summary of this.

With all that in mind, let’s look at these three scenarios:

1. After most of the interior framing is complete, the client directs you to redesign the executive suite, resulting in a two-week project delay.

2. Three days of torrential summer rain have flooded the excavation of your project and delayed the pouring of foundations by two weeks.

3. A week before the Italian stone specified for the lobby is scheduled to be installed, the contractor tells you that the ship has not yet left Italy, so the project will be delayed by two weeks.

Because of these delays, the contractor submits change order requests for additional time and money. How do we, as architects, respond to them?

1. The first case is a compensable excusable delay, since it was caused by the owner’s changes while the work was underway.

2. The second case is a non-compensable excusable delay; the rainstorm occurred in a normally dry season, so neither the contractor nor the owner caused it or could have anticipated it. The construction contract schedule should be extended by two weeks, but without a change in the contract amount.

3. In the third case, the delay was caused by a member of the subcontractor’s team—in this case, the stone supplier—so the delay is inexcusable, and there is no change to the construction contract.

While all of the above may sound straightforward, things are seldom so simple during construction. Now consider these more complicated scenarios:

1. After most of the interior framing is complete, the client directs you to redesign the executive suite, resulting in a two-week project delay. Then, on the day the revised drawings are given to the contractor, the drywall union unexpectedly strikes, halting construction activities for two weeks.

2. Three days of torrential summer rain have flooded the excavation of your project and delayed the pouring of foundations by two weeks. At the same time, the contractor informs you that the reinforcing steel, which was scheduled to be installed on the day the rain began, won’t be on site for another two weeks.

3. A week before the Italian stone specified for the lobby is scheduled to be installed, the contractor tells you that the ship has not yet left Italy, so the project will be delayed by two weeks. This coincides with a two-week delay caused by an owner-directed change to the lobby design.

In each of these examples, two events are simultaneously causing two-week delays. In each case, our response is based on the delay for which the owner is least responsible. In other words:

1. In the first, we have a compensable excusable delay (the owner’s changes) and a non-compensable excusable delay (a labor strike). The combined delays are treated as a non-compensable excusable delay (additional time, but no additional money).

2. The second example combines a non-compensable excusable delay (bad weather) with an inexcusable delay (late material delivery). The delays are treated as an inexcusable delay (no additional time or money).

3. In the third, we have an inexcusable delay (late material delivery) and a compensable excusable delay (owner changes). The delays are treated as an inexcusable delay (no additional time or money).

See the following table for a graphic depiction of these combinations.

Even these examples are simplified, since each involves two delays that, through a remarkable coincidence, start on the same day and end on the same day. In the real world, we’re far more likely to encounter two or more overlapping delays of each type, so determining if the contractor is owed additional time, additional money, or both, or neither requires considerable analysis. But no matter how complex the actual situation, the basic (and simple) principles apply.