| Author |
Message |
Patrick Bandy
New member
Username: patrick_bandy
Post Number: 1
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 10:11 am: |    |
Our firm defines an RFI as a "request for information." The CSI Manual of Practice (7.8.1.2) identifies the term "RFI" as "Requests for Interpretation." My thought is that "interpretation" is the more appropriate term to use. The term "information" implies that the documents are not complete and the contractor needs additional information to perform the Work which could result in legal issues. Has this issue been discussed before? |
James M. Sandoz
Advanced Member
Username: jsandoz
Post Number: 5
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 10:30 am: | |
There is no need for discussion. It is "Request for Interpretation" as stated in the MOP and for the reasons you mentioned. |
Shedrick E. Glass, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: shedd_glass
Post Number: 26
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 11:38 am: | |
AIA Document G716, "REQUEST FOR INFORMATION". |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 123
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 11:55 am: | |
That AIA RFI document is fairly new, and shows just how out of step AIA can be with the rest of the industry, even with their own A201 (4.2.11 & 4.2.12). The topic of RFI (Interpretation) verses RFI (Information) has been discussed and written about exensively. I have not done it, but I'm sure a search of CSI's website will turn up pertainent articles on the topic.
Here is a short paragraph I have written for our internal CA handbook:
quote:RFI’s are defined by the AIA and the CSI as “requests for interpretation”, which is significantly different than the Contractor’s typical term: “request for information”. What is the difference? It’s a mindset. As the Construction Administrator, it is our role to Interpret the documents, based on what is “reasonably inferable” from the documents themselves, and the design intent. Requests for interpretation should always be responded to based on what is inferred in the documents. However, requests for information sometimes ask for information that has nothing to do with the contents of the contract documents. This type of RFI can increase our risk, certainly add to our burden (often unnecessarily), and far too frequently eliminate due diligence normally provided by the Contractor.
|
Ron Beard CCS
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs
Post Number: 155
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 12:01 pm: | |
Hi Patrick:
Welcome to this Board.
You might check out this previous thread:
http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2195/596.html |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 583
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 03:59 pm: | |
Both the big guys in construction software systems used by many contractors, Expedition by Primavera and Prolog by Meridian Systems, call them Requests for Information. I don't know if the name of this document can be customized within those software programs. (Anyone know?) If it can't be customized, we can call it anything we want, but it's not likely contractors using those programs will follow our lead. (Yeah, I know we can "insist," but I'm talking real world here.) |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 212
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, October 07, 2006 - 05:52 pm: | |
It seems to me the responding architect can indicate what an RFI is, no matter what the construction-side-oriented software folks say, by stating: "We issue the following interpretation in response to this inquiry ..."
MASTERSPEC Section 013100 Project Coordination and Management defines RFIs as "Request from Contractor seeking interpretation or clarification of the Contract Documents." The MASTERSPEC article title is Requests for Interpretation (RFIs). The article is fairly specific in what constitutes an RFI and what does not, and what action should be taken by the parties. It appears to me to be consistent with the AIA A201 paragraphs that Nathan cites above.
I do wonder why the AIA chose to name their new form as they did; I would be interested in a post here explaining this.
In the meantime, the A201 and the specifications are contract documents. The AIA RFI form, the contractor software-generated forms, the MOP, the PRM, office standards, and all the other stuff ... are not.
On a lighter note, I am reminded of the faxed form from a particularly gnarly CM titled "Architect Errors and Omissions Report Form." I won't detail our response in public. |
Wayne Yancey
Senior Member
Username: wyancey
Post Number: 190
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 10:55 am: | |
I second Nathan's statement "However, requests for information sometimes ask for information that has nothing to do with the contents of the contract documents."
I have received RFI's that attached an e-mail originating from me, asking me to confirm the contents of my e-mail and that I in fact sent this e-mail.
RFI's are on the agenda for the precon meeting; explained (in no uncertain terms) to the GC what an RFI is (Request for Interpretation as noted by Nathan and others) in the context of the Contract Documents but eventually the junk RFIs filter through.
GCs consider the RFI process as a method of recording and logging discussions via phone, fax, and e-mail. They claim this methodology with RFIs records all discussions and decisions reached.
As the line in a joke says "What am I going to do. Complain to City Hall."
I consider the source, wait for another junk RFI and move on. I need software that will segreagate my junk RFIs in the same fashion as my e-mail program.
Wayne |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 588
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 11:10 am: | |
Wayne's observation that GC's sometimes use the RFI as a method to document and record information is important. In this respect it serves a valuable and critical role. (Though I have to admit, using an RFI to say "confirm you said this" is a new height of ridiculousness!) However, those GC's seem to forget that there are many other forums to record information: meeting minutes and ordinary correspondence are perfectly fine methods of documentation. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 203
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 05:16 pm: | |
Many architects that I have talked to about RFIs over the years regard them as harbingers of change orders to come and regard any RFI with some suspicion. One firm I do work for has a definition of RFIs that includes a relatively long list of items that are not RFIs. When an Architect ignores spurious, superfluous, or just downright silly RFIs, they run the risk of the contractor's complaining to the Owner about the architect's being uncooperative or holding up the job.
It seems to me that RFIs do serve a useful purpose; however, some contractors need to include on their RFI form a check box for the architect to mark when the person generating the RFI has not even bothered to look at (1) field conditions, (2) the Drawings, or (3) the Specifications.
I would welcome an RFI from a contractor who I knew was doing their job, but too many (not all) contractors want to shift as much of their work off onto others as possible. These guys need to be stopped at the pre-construction conference. |
David J. Wyatt
Senior Member
Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca
Post Number: 35
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 08:30 am: | |
I have noticed a particularly insidious trend - the placing of responsibilities on the A/E by way of the contractor's RFI form. Phrases such as "The Architect shall respond within ____ days or a change in the contract may be required" or "Response required within ____ days" are becoming more common. If you allow the contractor or CM to use their own forms, they should be examined carefully for these statements, and they should be changed before they become material for disputes.
It is, however, important for the A/E to be reasonably responsive. If I don't have an answer for an RFI, or if my answer will take some time to prepare, I respond with something like "The RFI is being reviewed by the A/E and consultants and a response is forthcoming." This is a de facto response in itself and it assures the owner that the A/E's CA responsibilities are not ignored.. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 475
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 08:56 am: | |
Can we agree that there is, indeed, a need for 2 forms-- one for interpretations and one for information?
If so, why not an effort to straighten out the names by making them distinctive to their function, yet separate one from the other?
Let's start the ball rolling. AIA has their form for "information; RFI G716. OK!
What if the name and number of the AIA document for requesting interpretations? If there is no such document, how about IR 0000, INTERPRETATION REQUEST 0000?
Then let's work on our PRM and the AIA 201, etc. and G716 to get all defintions, and documents in proper synch and alignment.
Then, finally, let's write specs so use of the newly and properly aligned documents is the ONLY acceptable manner for the intended purposes-- documents from other sources simply are not accepted! |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 169
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 09:21 am: | |
Ralph,
There already is a Request for INTERPRETATION form - CSI form 13.2.
The term 'interpretation' was chosen intentionally to align with the verbiage in 4.2.11 and 4.2.12 of the 1987 edition of A201. Although the CCA program was developed pre-1997 edition, paragraphs 4.2.11 and 4.2.12 pretty much mirror those in the 1987 edition. However, paragraph 3.2.1 introduced the term 'request for information' for the first time, and specifically uses it with respect to seeking input from the Architect only for "errors, inconsistencies or omissions." No mention of interpretations.
I would strongly suspect that the AIA intentionally chose the term 'information' for their form specifically to align with the language in 3.2.1
So one could certainly make the case, as you have, for two separate forms: A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION form to address matters outlined in 3.2.1, and a REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION form to address matters outlined in 4.2.1 and 4.2.12.
Now getting the contractor to use two separate forms . . . . |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 476
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 09:32 am: | |
Thanks Mr. Combs, I did miss the CSI form.
So let's go after mutuality in this situation whereby either CSI creates its own "information" form, or we convince AIA to do an interpretation form-- just would be nice and more condusive to easy use to have one source for both. Your suggestion for supporting the docs via the 201 info, is most valid.
Getting the contractors to use the forms-- simple strong enforcement! We really have to start getting the point across that what the specs require, is REQUIRED!!! And messing around with and going around requirements at the cost of schedule is unacceptable. Here though we need to convince the owner that schedule creep due to contractor "manuevers" is not the design professionals fault! |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 124
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 11:07 am: | |
David, what year/version of the A201 are you finding that language that cites "request for information" in section 3.2.1?
Ralph, I am perhaps being a curmudgeon, but no way am I going to endorse the dilution of our role, scope, and authority nor am I going to give blanket admittance to errors and ommissions by using an Request for Information form as well as a Request for Interpretation form.
That is a recipe for disaster. No set of drawings is ever "complete" enough to survive that opportunity. Drawings are reasonable complete and sufficent for the intended purpose, ONLY. If we allow the contractor to ask for everything that they feel should be on the plans, we would NEVER get to point where we could be pencils down.
Besides which, I think you are missing the point of article 3.2.1. It defines the Contractors responsiblities towards the documents (a forgotten ideal these days I think), and is totally silent regarding any subsequent action from the Architect.
Our responsibilities are outlined in Article 4 specifically and exclusively. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 477
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 11:15 am: | |
May I ask, Mr. Woods, why are there currently the 2 documents; one for RFInterpreations and one for RFInformation, as well as the misuse, grousing, and irritating situations/problems/incidents, etc.?
All I'm asking is if we wouldn't be better to coordinate and better control all this. I don't think it will ever go away.
Sorry I offended you-- I do understand your position. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 125
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 11:20 am: | |
The two documents? Well, I personally view the recent AIA addition of the G716 as a tragic and unintentional error that has no place in the industry. |
Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA
Senior Member
Username: don_harris
Post Number: 86
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 02:11 pm: | |
The assumption should be (but maybe I'm dreaming), that if a set of documents is signed and sealed by a licensed professional, there is enough INFORMATION available to the contractor to enable him/her to perform their required duties and construct the project. Mr. Woods is correct regarding "reasonably complete and sufficient". To allow a contractor to request additional information implies that there was not enough information to begin with, a recipe for disaster, if the lawyers get involved. Our Division 01 and our attached forms reference "Request for Interpretation". Semantically, that is 180 degree departure from "Request for Information" and in some small way helps protect the designer and the documents from contractor and subcontractor abuse.
To me the key words in 3.2.1 are the final ones..."in such form as the Architect may require." To us that form is the Request for Interpretation. I do hope that when the 2007 revisions are issued this information vs interpretation issue is clarified and G716 is eliminated. |
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: davidcombs
Post Number: 170
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 08:50 am: | |
Nathan,
1997 edition, 3.2.1, last sentence:
" . . . any errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered by the Contractor shall be reported promptly to the Architect as a request for information in such form as the Architect may require."
I sincerely believe that the AIA chose the name for their form very deliberately, to be in strict alignment with 3.2.1
However, if one looks only at 3.2.1, and uses only form G716, the case could be made that there remains a gap: How to deal with interpretations per 4.2.11 and 4.2.12
Nitpicky? Perhaps. But have not attorneys been known to make bigger mountians out of smaller mole hills? |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 01:47 pm: | |
AIA A201, Article 3.2, does indeed refer to contractor's request for information - twice. As I interpret A201, the contractor makes requests for information in accordance with Article 3.2 and the architect makes interpretations in accordance with Article 4.2. AIA G716 seems consistent with A201.
Since the Contractor is submitting a request for information in accordance with AIA A201, I see no reason why they are not allowed to use AIA G716 or any other form agreed to by all parties.
3.2.1 does require Contractor to use a form "as the Architect may require.", but it seems like an architect is setting the stage for a nasty pissing match by insisting on calling this a request for interpretation!
Maybe we need to lobby AIA to fix this - or ask AIA for the rationale behind this seemingly inconsistent language. |
ken hercenberg
New member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 11:36 am: | |
Exactly my thought if you look at the CSI Forums under Specification Discussions/Defining RFI. I have communicated with Richard Weatherby, one of the authors of the PRM, and with Bob Johnson, one of the authors of MF2004. Both agree that AIA has dropped the ball in issuing G716 and that we need to lobby AIA to have this changed. Dennis Hall has been tasked by CSI to serve as liaison with AIA. Dennis is certainly very qualified to present the CSI-based point of view. Still, there is nothing like a large volume of mail insisting on making a correction to get AIA's attention. Since I prefer leaving modification of Supplementary Conditions to the 'Owner', I suggest that we pick one definition, include proper explanation in our 01 31 00 series Sections, and then issue the correct form as an attachment to the Spec Section. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 794
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 09:37 am: | |
How many have seen the A201-2007, where 3.2.2 has been revised and 4.2.14 added? Appears to help clarify somewhat and may lead to wider and proper use of G716 [if anybody can figure that "scheme" out for easy use]. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 232
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 01:26 pm: | |
I have noted it, with a tinge of dismay. I think the AIA's own language summarizing the G716 when it was announced makes it's purpose clear:
(frmo http://www.aia.org/docs_newtitles)
"G716™–2004 Request for Information
G716–2004 provides a standard form for owners, architects, and contractors to request further information from each other during construction. The form asks the requesting party to list the documents reviewed in attempting to find the information. Neither the request itself nor the response to it provides authorization for work that increases project cost or time."
The phase "...to request further information from ..." is the part that concerns me. Many times, my RFI responses are NOT further information, they clarifications of information already provided and thus not generally subject to the immeadiate generation of a change order. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 856
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 08:38 am: | |
Arguably, any time you need to "clarify" you are providing "further information" to information "already provided." |
Ron Beard CCS
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs
Post Number: 264
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 01:26 pm: | |
The objective is to explain the intent of the Contract. Sometimes a requirement is not well stated and sometimes the reader doesn't know s#%t. The important message is that this is what I want, this is what I intended, and this is what I expect. There will not be any price adjustments [under ordinary circumstances, of course].
Isn't "do as I say, not as I do" a form of interpretation? |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 732
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 01:52 pm: | |
I would agree that sometimes clarifications are used simply because the person asking the question is as dumb as a box of hair. (or rather, "with extreme limitations on their experience and understanding". I've gotten a lot of "RFIs" where my first response is "how can you not know this?" I worked with one guy 20 years ago who printed up an exact duplicate of the office-standard RFI form that had an extra box on it that was marked "Read the F**** drawings" (you can use your imaginations there to fill in the word). And its often very clear that the intent of the RFI is to stall for enough time to then say that the architect is delaying the job... |
James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CDT, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: jsandoz
Post Number: 29
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 09:44 am: | |
Since this thread has shown renewed activity, I have re-read every response and given additional thought to the subject. I know what I wrote in reply to Mr. Bandy on Oct.6, 2006. I know what the MOP says and I know what AIA G716 says. In retrospect, I have changed my position. The "I" in RFI may very well mean "information" in the minds of many and the proper response to that all-to-often-made request for it is "right under your nose in the drawings (or in the specifications)." :-)
Documents that need interpretation, just like documents that are lacking information, may be just as deficient in the eyes of some. For my part, I would be more confident with the capability of my design professional if I occasionally had to ask for an interpretation and not additional information. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 858
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 10:36 am: | |
Anne, here in New England, people are "dumb as a box of rocks." Yet another difference between east coast and west coast construction practice. |
Ron Beard CCS
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs
Post Number: 265
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 11:48 am: | |
Don't forget dumb as a fox. |
Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA
Senior Member
Username: rarosen
Post Number: 29
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 03:37 pm: | |
An often quoted legal rule is: If walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, call it what you want but it's still a duck. |
Jerry Tims
Senior Member
Username: jtims
Post Number: 12
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 09:43 am: | |
Anne, I feel your pain!  A couple of years ago, we added a paragraph to our Administrative Requirements section that actually came from a publication our liability insurer gave us. Here it is:
"Requests for Interpretation:
The Contractor may, after exercising due diligence to locate required information, request from the Architect clarification or interpretation of the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Architect shall, with reasonable promptness, respond to such Contractor's requests for clarification or interpretation. However, if the information requested by the Contractor is apparent from field observations, is contained in the Contract Documents or is reasonably inferable from them, the Contractor shall be responsible to the Owner for all reasonable costs charged by the Architect to the Owner for the additional services required to provide such information."
To my knowledge, we've never carried it this far, and tried to collect for additional services related to RFIs, however, on more than one occassion, the number of RFIs has noticeably become less after pointing this particular paragraph out to the contractor. So I'd say....mission accomplished! |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 734
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 01:39 pm: | |
ooh... I like that paragraph.
generally, we just return the RFI and state "information requested is in the documents as issued" and leave it at that.
I'm not quite on board with the duck reference. Which duck are we specifically referring to? |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 408
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 02:18 pm: | |
Probably a return air duck? Maybe a supply duck... who knows? |
Steve Gantner, CSI, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: sgantner
Post Number: 7
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 04:38 pm: | |
Anne, our office hasn't looked into changing to the 2007 documents yet, and are still working with the 1997. The AIA has a document (go figure) that makes suggestions in how to modify the general conditions. So, in the Supplementary Conditions, we have a paragraph that makes a modification to article 3.2 - Review of the Contract Documents and Field Conditions by Contractor, of AIA A-201 which reads: "3.2.4: The Owner shall be entitled to deduct from the Contract Sum amounts paid to the Architect for the Architect to evaluate and respond to the Contractor's requests for information, where such information was available to the Contractor from a careful study and comparison of the Contract Documents, field conditions, other Owner-provided information, Contractor-prepared coordination drawings, or prior Project correspondence or documentation."
I can't tell you if this works or not, since we just implemented it, however, one CM had requested that we remove that paragraph before it was put out to bid. So I suppose it is having an impact. |
Anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 12:51 pm: | |
Had a recent exchange with a structural engineer who took exception to my request that he remove things from his specifications that were not part of the project scope and/or not enforceable. His response was that he didn't really feel like revising the specifications and that:
"...rather than changing the specs, we prefer to address these things through the RFI process."
I hate my job sometimes.
It's not rocket surgery! |
Liz O'Sullivan
Senior Member
Username: liz_osullivan
Post Number: 106
Registered: 10-2011
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 04:33 pm: | |
Anon, I feel your pain. I had a similar (but minor) experience with a structural engineer a couple years ago, and I blogged about it, and quoted AIA A201, The General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. (The link looks weird, but it works.)
http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/%e2%80%9cwell-if-it%e2%80%99s-not-on-the-drawings%e2%80%a6%e2%80%9d/
Who honestly prefers to deal with RFIs instead of doing it right the first time? Only the people who won't be administering the contract, and won't be cleaning up the messes they made. |
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 583
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 05:26 pm: | |
If possible have a talk with his employer. If he is the owner this obviously won't be effective.
Send a message that such practices will influence your decision not to retain them on future projects. Do not continue to do work with them and informally let your other consultants know why this happened.
If there was litigation this attitude by the SE could be used against them. |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 585
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 07:44 pm: | |
Maybe if the Architect would backcharge him for any RFI that resulted from such unprofessional practice (say a flat fee of $500), he would reconsider. |
Kyle (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2022 - 11:41 am: | |
As an estimator for trade contractor. It should definitely mean Request for Information. Estimators use prebid RFIs to come up with the bid price.
There are many error's and omittions in bid documents. To take a stance that there isn't and its just contactor can't interpret things or lazy is silly.
there are times when bid documents are ambiguous, so RFI in that sense meaning Interpretation is somewhat accurate. By the way, providing the design intent in these cases (or providing the interpretation) is indeed providing information.
One cannot provide interpretation without providing information. Therefore, information is the better (more encompassing) definition of RFI. |
James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: jsandoz
Post Number: 356
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2022 - 11:26 pm: | |
Kyle, I doff my hat to your response. Finally, after almost 16 years since Mr. Bandy's original question, there is an answer that is not simply an exercise in semantics. |
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan
Post Number: 981
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2023 - 04:33 pm: | |
Bottom line if the contractor formally requests either information or interpretations there needs to be a response. The Architect can control the response. The response could clarify the nature of the response.
If the Request for Interpretation form is improperly used to request information the response could make it clear that the wrong form was used but that the requested information is being provided separately. |
|
4specs.com Home Page