Containing RFIs

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 200 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:24 am:    Any suggestions or suggested text inserts to cut down the number of frivolous RFIs? Too many items appearing on RFIs that a simple document review, or phone call would resolve. Almost seems to be a scheme to drag out the project [for other insidious reasons] Understand you can't eliminate these inquires, but any ideas about some way to "pinch them down"? Heard one firm requires a sketch to indicate the proposed solution or interpretation, in lieu of just wide-open, far reaching questions [and shrug of the shoulders!} Thanks for your help. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 419 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:35 am:    Ralph, I think it has been addressed here in a couple of posts, perhaps hidden within some of the topics not of appropriate name. I know some have mentioned that they actually include language that those with answers found in the documents will be charged. I am not sure how that really works. However, what we do here is, and most especially at the start of the project is... 1 - at the kick off meeting, we tell them that it is their responsibility ro review the documents, and even if a sub passes on a question, the contractor is responsible to refer them correctly and not just pass it on. 2 - then if (when?) it starts to happen and we get these, we answer it at first just directing them to the appropriate detail, or to the section/paragraph in the project manual. We don't answer the question, we just give the reference. The first time, its with a caution that they need to review the documents and that in the future if we find it the specifics of where it is located will be less and less....until about the 3rd or 4th time we only convey that 'its in the contract documents in an obviosly appropriate location'. If they truly can't find something, they should call - an RFI wastes time. If it truly is not there, than an RFI is avoided and we correct it, or they can generate an RFI that is valid if for some reason the correction is not timely sent. Yes, asking for a proposed solution is an interesting concerpt. We were talking with another group that we had joint ventured with on some marketing and they actually had a division 1 section that defined RFIs and how they would be handled, and what would not be considered a valid RFI. This group even kept a log of all RFIs, just noting if they were valid or invalid RFIs, and when some issue about how the Owner was complaining that the contractor was complaining about how RFIs were not be responded to, they just pulled out their log and showed him the ones that were frivolous. William Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 50 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 11:46 am:    A frivolous question deserves a flippant answer. I know one PA who would simply reply, "The requested information is adequately covered on the contract documents", when he got an RFI that asked about something that was easily discernable by a review of the drawings or reading of the specs. He said he had no obligation to teach the contractor to read. If they called, he would help them find the information. It really discouraged further RFIs of a similar nature. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 97 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:23 pm:    I do think that Contractors should require their people to step up to the plate and take responsibility for knowing the CDs as well or better than the Architect. I like the idea of responding to a dumb RFI with RTFD (Read The F****g Documents!). Contractors will generate an RFI to begin the documentation process for a Change Order so the tendency is to submit an RFI for everything. The electronic "project management systems" so commonly used now seem to make it easier to fire off an RFI than review the Documents just a little more. This is merely one point on an agenda for a pre-construction meeting that should be emphasized and then reinforced early on. Contractors will test the limits quite forcefully and take whatever advantage they can. Such advantages may be to their own detriment as well as the project. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 215 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 01:32 pm:    As in previous discussion about this subject, it is critical to make it clear what "RFI" stands for: Request for Interpretation. This is most important on public projects and other projects with highly competitive bidding. When the Architect provides information not included in the Contract Documents or which changes the information in the Contract Documents, then it is usually, successfully argued that a change condition exists and --- wham! --- a Change Order is necessary. Getting the parties, especially general contractors and construction managers, to accept this definition of RFI is difficult. They prefer their customary definition of "request for information." Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 50 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 02:03 pm:    I agree with John, but one of the problems with achieving consistent terminology and defintion is that A201 refers to a "request for information" in 3.2.1. This was added in 97 edition. This terminology is not really consistent with the terminology used at the primary requirements on the subject at 4.2.11 where "interpret" and "interpretations" are used consistently. The PRM retains the request for interpretation terminology (PRM 7.8). Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS Senior Member Username: rick_howard Post Number: 51 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 02:22 pm:    It is not too early to express concern over the inconsistent terminology to the AIA Documents Committee so they can correct this in the 2007 edition. Ralph Liebing Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 201 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 02:30 pm:    Can't you just correct A201, 3.2.1, in your Supplementals? (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, July 15, 2005 - 12:38 pm:    Peter: I actually knew a project architect who used photoshop and duplicated the architect's RFI form... exactly, but he added one more line with a check box that said exactly RTFD. He had those forms made up in pads, and used them on his project. I'm not sure it made any difference in the number of RFIs he got... but he had some small satisfaction from the whole process, and the project was under construction for several years. some of my current project managers here will respond with "the information requested is in the documents" and let it go at that. we are also very careful about our RFI tracking software; we've been challenged on a couple of jobs that we "weren't responding in time" and were able to demonstrate that our average turn-around time was 25 hours -- calendar hours, not working hours. That shut the contractor up really fast.. and helped to turn the Owner back into our ally. (you know the drill -- "Architect is holding us up and costing you money"). David R Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 09:05 am:    Regarding the contractor claiming "delay," note that 4.2.11 of A-201 states that the contractor cannot claim a delay unless the Architect takes more than 15 days to respond to a written request for interpretation. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 98 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 10:34 am:    Generating an RFI puts the issue on hold (even when the Architect can come back within a few hours with a valid response). I would suspect that merely logging "too many" RFIs could be used by the Contractor to suggest to the Owner that the CDs are not sufficient. One of the more interesting aspects to this issue is the difference in the way that Contractors view CDs vs. the way Architects do. AIA A201 says that the CDs represent "design intent"; Contractors view the CDs as an explicit and specific recipe (2 cups of concrete, 1 lb. of glass, 2 Tbsp. of steel; shake and bake in an oven for 92 days). I would expect that Owners feel somewhat the same way. Although some documents are more explicit than others, no set of construction documents can show every instance where each material is used. The Contractor (and the Owner) must understand that limitation and extrapolate the information. Sometimes the Architect is just not clear on "design intent," and this should justify the generation of an RFI. When a Contractor needs a building recipe... well, in my view, he has taken up the wrong vocation. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 378 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 11:19 am:    We require an RFI to include the specific specification and drawing references that the contractor used in generating an RFI. First, that saves me a heap of time since I can go right to the details (sections, specs, etc.) and see what the contractor is referring to. Second, if the contractor has listed these things, then he or she must have looked at the drawings. Works pretty well. By the way, our definition of RFI is request for information. I am one of the few who actually find them useful. Sure, a simple phone call may direct the GC to some information that's plainly on the documents. But, if there really is some minor ambiguity, or question, the RFI forces a written documentation. Who really documents all their phone conversations with the GC, regardless of what the insurers and lawyers tell us we ought to do? Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: bob_johnson Post Number: 54 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 12:34 pm:    It is interesting to note in regard to Peter's discussion of the differing viewpoints of contract documents that the 1997 A201 moved a little closer to the contractor's viewpoint when "intended results" was changed to "indicated results" in 1.2.1. The statement regarding the intent of the documents to include everything necessary for the completion is still there and also that the Architect's interpretions of the documents shall be consistent with the intent of the doucments (4.2.12), but the results have to be "indicated" not just "intended."