Requests for information (RFIs) are a key component of the construction industry, and they have a crucial impact on both large- and small-scale construction projects. RFIs are ripe for misuse to increase profitability, however, and owners and owner representatives managing capital improvement projects,
contractor executives, project managers, project sponsors and project control personnel, and construction managers and design professionals performing services during construction all want to make sure they are in compliance with best practices in order to avoid this growing problem.
Abuse of the Process
Abuse of the RFI process usually involves contractors misusing RFIs to increase profitability, a practice that has become somewhat institutionalized in the past decade.
The problem develops like this: “Rather than using RFIs to seek information, some contractors use the RFI process for all project communications,” according to a presentation by Navigant. “RFIs are routinely used in place of submittals, for substitution requests, to respond to notices of nonconformance, to transmit safety plans and schedule submittals, and to substitute for both routine project correspondence and even document telephone conversations.”
Contractors do this in order to claim later that the project was not designed properly when the bidding happened, says Navigant. “Thus, soft cost claims arise based on increased project staffing, delay impact and decreased labor productivity.”
Owners often inadvertently contribute to the abuse of RFIs by failing to adopt practices that may contractually safeguard against the potential negative impacts of the RFI process.
Best Practices
James G. Zack, a construction industry consultant who co-authored Navigant’s presentation, makes the following three recommendations to help avoid RFI problems:
- Incorporate critical definitions
- Specify RFI controls
- Use electronic RFI tracking and monitoring
He fleshes out the recommendations with the following solution in the Navigant report: “Most owners would be well-advised to add definitions to their contract documents. Owners ought to draft a specification dealing specifically with the issue of RFIs—when and how they are to be used, what is the owner’s minimum response time, etc.”
Definitions are especially helpful, as there are often numerous terms and procedures in owner organizations that contract documents fail to identify. “While owners and their representatives are cognizant of these processes, contractors are not. Despite this, owners frequently assert that contractors ought to know how they operate. Contractors are held to what is set forth in the contract.”
Zack’s report recommends that to avoid misunderstandings between owners and contractors, the following terms should be included and defined in construction contracts. “If these definitions and processes are clearly specified in contracts,” it says, “this will help defeat the paperwork games played with RFIs.”
- Drawing or plan clarification: Describe both the intent of clarification systems and define what a clarification is
- Nonconformance notice: Include a system for notifying the contractor when the owner spots a problem with the work conforming to the contract’s requirements
- Project communications: Distinguish between routine project memos/letters and RFIs, submittals and substitution reports
- RFIs: Establish that RFIs are only used when the contractor needs interpretation of an issue and require the contractor to explain why it needs clarification
Learn More and Avoid the Abuse Problem
To learn how to avoid RFI abuse problems, join James G. Zack, Jr. for “Construction RFIs: The Paper War and How to Prevent It,” a webinar with AudioSolutionz. Zack will overview a claim case study involving a laboratory building at a wastewater treatment facility to illustrate how the process can be abused and examines the legal arguments for cumulative impact as a result of a large quantity of RFIs.
