RFI's - Request for Information

@page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } p { line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0.1in; background: transparent }

Request for Information RFI

When I returned to the construction industry after spending much of my time in real estate development and investment, I was greeted by a different type of communication, the RFI (Request for Information). I learned that these time-consuming interactions had become one of the standard forms of communication between construction companies and the professional consultants who generated the contract documents.

My first impression was that RFIs were a substitute for people who didn’t know how to read the contract documents: Blueprints, shop drawings, specifications, etc. In other words, RFI’s were used by people instead of knowing what to do.

Part of my cynicism regarding this form of communication was because according to research on construction projects,?the average number of Requests for Information (RFI) per project is around 796, with each RFI costing approximately $1,080 to review and respond to;?meaning a typical project could see a significant cost associated with managing RFI’s. This does not necessarily include the costs of the resolution of the issue raised or addressed by the RFI. Additionally, the amount of time each one required to conclude was unpredictable and could and often did delay production. This seems like an exorbitant cost to address what were generally minor defects or omissions in the documents. Much of this ambiguity could be eliminated with a vigorous plan review prior to construction. On a recent “distressed” project that I took over, I began by following the RFI threads, continued implementing the solutions put forth by the design team, and asked the next questions posed by those fixes once installed. I put on the brakes once I realized the previous on-site manager had been asking the wrong questions and getting the wrong answers.

The solution was a 3-day on-site meeting with the architect and engineer to establish the actual project status. On the surface, it was 60% complete, but based on what needed to be reengineered and corrected, it was closer to 30%. After the visit and continuous questions about how I would address each substandard condition we viewed, the design team told me, “Don’t send us any more RFI's; just apply the kinds of corrections you have described, transmit the details, and we will draw it.”

Over the years the move to Auto Cad blueprints has seen a huge increase in the volume of plans but not necessarily an improvement in quality or completeness. This may be an oversimplification but it is not an exaggeration to say that plan size has exploded and plan quality has not. This is not the only reason that the RFI has become central to onsite production; among the others is a trend for academically trained project managers to be unfamiliar with construction processes and well-versed in document throughput.

Often, to find pertinent information, it is necessary to review every page in both the architectural as well as structural drawings and read the specifications again to find a key piece of missing information. If it is not detailed (or not found), it triggers an RFI.

Even more challenging are RFI’s that are based on incomplete or inaccurate baseline information. As I said earlier, I have seen a substantial thread of interaction between the field and the consultants that was a complete waste of time since the requests failed to ask the right questions.

Back in the day when encountering a missing or incomplete detail, the builder would evaluate plan components that echoed the missing information and make a field judgment call as to the required feature. If there was any question as to either the engineering or compatibility of the proposed resolution, it could be handled with a quick phone call to the appropriate consultant.

A central reason that a particular builder was chosen was that they had enough experience to extrapolate the plans and sufficient common sense to select the appropriate detail consistent with code, engineering, and industry standards. It was field acquired practical engineering competence. It was memorialized and transmitted to the design team for inclusion in “as-built drawings,” and there was no adversarial relationship. If there was any impact on materials or labor, it was minimal. There was generally an attitude that we were on the same “team”.

In today's market when I call an Architect or Engineer, if I can connect, there is often a guarded response, as if they are waiting for the other shoe to drop. The principals of the firms are not usually familiar with the plans so you connect with a lower-level technician and become conversant with the documents.

Someone shared the metaphor that onsite construction was like when you bought a new car, Ford (or whoever) brought all their machine tools and assembly equipment to your backyard and built your car there, subject to the weather, limitations of space, neighbors complaints, government interference, etc.

That to some extent echos the process of construction, even a repeat of the same building since you are in a non-controlled environment.

Technology has exploded, adding many resources to the builder's kit. Drones, wireless technology, reporting software, tools used in quantifying and verifying, etc. have made some jobs possible to be performed remotely, for the most part! However, until robotics and modularization have advanced substantially, construction is still an outdoor on-site activity performed by tradesmen (and tradeswomen). No matter how effective your tech tools are, it still requires “boots on the ground.”.

A successful construction project starts with team building of all stakeholders, familiarity with construction documents, and a sound, comprehensive contract. A knowledgeable observer must be on site, have regular communication, and have a thorough reporting system. Tech tools are an increasingly important addition and should be utilized fully. Finally, close-out and delivery should include a comprehensive commissioning program that ensures that the owner/client receives a fully operational product.