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?
There is no need for discussion. It is “Request for Interpretation” as stated in the MOP and for the reasons you mentioned.
AIA Document G716, “REQUEST FOR INFORMATION”.
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:**RFIs are defined by the AIA and the CSI as requests for interpretation, which is significantly different than the Contractors typical term: request for information. What is the difference? Its 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.
Hi Patrick:
Welcome to this Board.
You might check out this previous thread:
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
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..
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!
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 . . . .
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?