RFIs: Clarity, Communication and... Hierarchy? Words: Kate ViennaPhotos: Bramwell-McKayIn construction, any project starts with drawings. Plans. Schedules. Specifications. Whether we're talking about new construction, additions, or restoration, there is a plan, there is design intent, and a way every piece of a project needs to fit together to achieve the end goal. The amount of planning and projection that goes into a project is, of course, extensive. Nevertheless, questions and the need for clarification arise both before a project is bid and after a project breaks ground and really starts production. Enter the RFI (Request for Information). In its truest form, an RFI is simply that: a Request for Information. It is a formalized procedure for questions, comments, and clarification prior to bidding to ensure correct pricing and contractor planning, as well as during construction to tackle real-time, in-field conflicts, missing information, or inconsistencies that affect execution. At their core, RFIs are the formal process by which contractors submit questions to the architect, engineer or owner’s representative. It’s not hard to believe that not everything in construction goes perfectly to plan from pre-conception to completion. Considering this, when a project reaches a certain size and complexity, a more formal process than the typical Q&A session is required to organize and track questions, missing information, and possible changes. The Cost of Skipping the Conversation There is always pressure in construction to keep work moving. Schedules are tight. Labor is coordinated weeks in advance. Because of this, teams sometimes attempt to work around unresolved conditions in order to maintain momentum. As crucial as momentum is, unbridled momentum will be the detriment to the success of any project. Acting on assumptions and hopes will almost always create larger problems. In my time primarily in restoration, repair and remediation, the work isn’t merely ripping out the old and putting in new. More often than not, building assemblies that we take apart were not put together properly in the first place. Plenty of this comes down to something as simple as flashing placement, weep holes, improper window details, drainage, or incompatible materials. Some construction deficiencies come from a lack of knowledge. Some come from rushed timelines, tight budgets, or poor coordination. But when the intent of all owners, investors, and coordinators is to have a proper build, there is only one thing stopping that group of players from failing. That is, alignment. When in-field decisions are made without proper coordination, projects experience rework, excessive change orders, performance failures, or disputes about responsibility. A rushed decision may temporarily save time, but it will almost always cost far more in the long run. RFIs are to be used as a means of slowing down just enough to make informed decisions before mistakes are quite literally built into the structure itself. This is not inefficiency; it is disciplined professionalism. RFIs Are Often About More Than Information The term “Request for Information” can actually be somewhat misleading. In many situations, especially during preconstruction, the contractor issuing the RFI is not necessarily lacking information. More often, they are identifying a conflict, constructability issue, coordination gap, or performance concern based on practical field experience. A mason contractor may recognize that a specified detail will create long-term moisture problems. Specialized window installers may recognize that certain wall assemblies will lead to failure as different building materials shift and settle over time. The hierarchy of construction and situations such as this have led some specialized tradespeople to joke that they wish they could formally submit an “RTE” (Request to Educate) instead of an RFI (Request for Information). There is some truth behind the joke. It is not uncommon for an architect to unknowingly design a detail that will create moisture infiltration over time or accelerated deterioration. Or specify incompatible materials that a master mason would never dream of installing. Even engineers can occasionally “over-engineer” aspects of a build, creating higher costs and unnecessary complications simply due to a lack of specialized trade knowledge. In all seriousness, it is not fair to expect an engineer, architect or owner’s representative to be an expert in every area. That is the point of specialists and skilled tradespeople. The gap is not necessarily a lack of knowledge on the part of design professionals. More often, it is a lack of collaboration, and sometimes an unclear expectation of authority over a project. Enter Delegated Design In situations like these, the RFI becomes less about asking a question and more about introducing specialized construction knowledge back into the design process. Part of the reintroduction of this concept can be credited to Jamie Davis and her work surrounding “Delegated Design of Masonry: A Paradigm Shift.” Delegated design is a more collaborative construction approach where certain technical design responsibilities are transferred from the Engineer of Record to qualified specialty designers or contractors with deep trade-specific expertise. Within masonry construction, the concept emphasizes involving experienced masonry professionals earlier in the design process to improve constructability, reduce avoidable RFIs and redesigns, increase cost awareness, and create more efficient systems overall. Rather than replacing the architect or engineer, delegated design strengthens the project through collaboration between the design authority, delegate engineer, specialty contractor, and field professionals. Highly specialized tradespeople spend decades understanding how systems actually perform in the field. They understand tolerances, movement, moisture behavior, material compatibility, and installation limitations in ways that can only come through direct application. Yet because of the structure and hierarchy of the construction industry, that expertise often enters the formal process through an RFI. In many cases, the contractor already understands the practical solution, but the project still requires that information to formally move back through the architect or engineer of record for review, approval, or revision. This is where many hope to see delegated design become a larger part of the construction standard. Fewer RFIs. Fewer redesigns. Fewer preventable delays and unnecessary conflicts. RFIs will always remain part of construction. No project is perfectly predictable, and unforeseen conditions will always arise both before and during construction. But ideally, RFIs become what they were originally intended to be: a tool for clarification and coordination, not the primary mechanism for correcting preventable disconnects between design and constructability. The best projects are the ones where experienced professionals communicate early and respect the value that every side of the industry brings to the table. Construction has become too specialized for design intent and field expertise to remain separate. The earlier skilled tradespeople are brought into the conversation, the fewer preventable problems the industry will continue building into projects from the very beginning.About: Technical Talks
