Writing an RFI that gets a usable answer

An RFI—Request for Information—should help a named person resolve a specific uncertainty before it disrupts work. “Please clarify the drawing” usually creates another conversation. A useful request identifies what conflicts, where it occurs, which documents were checked and when an answer is needed.

In Romania, an RFI response does not by itself replace the required design documentation, verification or instruction procedure.

Clarification, instruction and change are different records

The AIA's instructions for form G716 illustrate an important boundary: that form records a question and response, but neither authorises work increasing contract cost or time. Read the authority and change clauses of your own project. AIA: G716 instructions.

A clarification may confirm an existing requirement. A design revision may change the required solution. A commercial instruction may authorise a variation. These can be connected, but a reply from a designer is not automatically the commercial approval of every consequence. Record which further action remains necessary.

A worked example: two dimensions for one opening

In this fictional project, architectural drawing A-214 revision C shows a 1,200 mm opening. Structural drawing S-118 revision B shows 1,100 mm at the same location. Formwork is planned for Thursday.

A weak request says: “Opening dimensions do not match. Urgent.” The recipient must first discover the location, revisions and affected activity.

A usable request says: “At level 2, grid C/4, opening O-07 is 1,200 mm on A-214/C and 1,100 mm on S-118/B. Both documents are in the current issue register. Attached extracts mark the same opening. Please confirm the coordinated opening dimensions and identify any revised documents required. A response is needed by Tuesday at 14:00 to allow the formwork review before Thursday's planned activity.”

Add the known consequence: “Work on this opening cannot proceed on an agreed dimensional basis; the remaining formwork sequence is being reviewed.” Do not invent a delay entitlement or a cost figure that has not been assessed. A suggested solution can help, but label it as a proposal for review, not permission to alter reinforcement or structure.

Build the request so someone else can answer it

Use one principal issue per request. Related dimensions may belong together; an unrelated finish selection deserves a separate item.

• Give the location in the project's normal system: building, level, grid, room or element identifier.
• Name each drawing, specification or model revision. A screenshot without a document reference is difficult to trace.
• Describe the conflict or missing information factually, then ask a precise question.
• Attach a small marked extract and enough surrounding context to identify it.
• State the affected activity, required response date and basis for that date.
• Identify the recipient responsible for coordinating the answer and any disciplines that must contribute.

An RFI number is useful for tracking, but the numbering style is optional. The content and ownership matter more than an elaborate code.

Review the answer before closing the item

“Use the architectural dimension” may still leave the structure uncoordinated. Check whether the answer covers the whole question, comes from an authorised role and identifies its effect on other documents. If it introduces a revised detail, request the controlled revision through the established process.

Keep separate dates for answer received, technical resolution and distribution to the people doing the work. Where cost or programme implications require assessment, link the variation or instruction record rather than hiding an unresolved change inside a “closed” RFI.

A useful closure note for the example would identify the coordinated revision, the person who checked it, the distribution date and the affected work package. Preserve the superseded answer if the decision changes; add the replacement and its reason.

Make the register support the work

Review unanswered requests by the next affected activity, not only by age. A two-day-old issue blocking tomorrow's pour may matter more than a two-week-old finish question. Track recurring causes: missing interfaces, conflicting revisions or questions already answered elsewhere.

Measure usable resolution, not merely response speed. A fast reply that triggers three further questions is not necessarily good performance. At the next coordination meeting, select one recurring cause and correct the underlying information process.

Further reading

The AIA explanation of construction change orders provides wider professional context. These US practice sources are useful process references; the project's applicable Romanian law and contract determine the actual authority to execute or change work.