Exactly my thought if you look at the CSI Forums under Specification Discussions/Defining RFI. I have communicated with Richard Weatherby, one of the authors of the PRM, and with Bob Johnson, one of the authors of MF2004. Both agree that AIA has dropped the ball in issuing G716 and that we need to lobby AIA to have this changed. Dennis Hall has been tasked by CSI to serve as liaison with AIA. Dennis is certainly very qualified to present the CSI-based point of view. Still, there is nothing like a large volume of mail insisting on making a correction to get AIA’s attention. Since I prefer leaving modification of Supplementary Conditions to the ‘Owner’, I suggest that we pick one definition, include proper explanation in our 01 31 00 series Sections, and then issue the correct form as an attachment to the Spec Section.
How many have seen the A201-2007, where 3.2.2 has been revised and 4.2.14 added? Appears to help clarify somewhat and may lead to wider and proper use of G716 [if anybody can figure that “scheme” out for easy use].
I have noted it, with a tinge of dismay. I think the AIA’s own language summarizing the G716 when it was announced makes it’s purpose clear:
(frmo http://www.aia.org/docs_newtitles)
“G7162004 Request for Information
G7162004 provides a standard form for owners, architects, and contractors to request further information from each other during construction. The form asks the requesting party to list the documents reviewed in attempting to find the information. Neither the request itself nor the response to it provides authorization for work that increases project cost or time.”
The phase “…to request further information from …” is the part that concerns me. Many times, my RFI responses are NOT further information, they clarifications of information already provided and thus not generally subject to the immeadiate generation of a change order.
Arguably, any time you need to “clarify” you are providing “further information” to information “already provided.”
The objective is to explain the intent of the Contract. Sometimes a requirement is not well stated and sometimes the reader doesn’t know s#%t. The important message is that this is what I want, this is what I intended, and this is what I expect. There will not be any price adjustments [under ordinary circumstances, of course].
Isn’t “do as I say, not as I do” a form of interpretation?
I would agree that sometimes clarifications are used simply because the person asking the question is as dumb as a box of hair. (or rather, “with extreme limitations on their experience and understanding”. I’ve gotten a lot of “RFIs” where my first response is “how can you not know this?” I worked with one guy 20 years ago who printed up an exact duplicate of the office-standard RFI form that had an extra box on it that was marked “Read the F**** drawings” (you can use your imaginations there to fill in the word). And its often very clear that the intent of the RFI is to stall for enough time to then say that the architect is delaying the job…
Since this thread has shown renewed activity, I have re-read every response and given additional thought to the subject. I know what I wrote in reply to Mr. Bandy on Oct.6, 2006. I know what the MOP says and I know what AIA G716 says. In retrospect, I have changed my position. The “I” in RFI may very well mean “information” in the minds of many and the proper response to that all-to-often-made request for it is “right under your nose in the drawings (or in the specifications).” 
Documents that need interpretation, just like documents that are lacking information, may be just as deficient in the eyes of some. For my part, I would be more confident with the capability of my design professional if I occasionally had to ask for an interpretation and not additional information.
Anne, here in New England, people are “dumb as a box of rocks.” Yet another difference between east coast and west coast construction practice.
Don’t forget dumb as a fox.
An often quoted legal rule is: If walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, call it what you want but it’s still a duck.
Anne, I feel your pain! A couple of years ago, we added a paragraph to our Administrative Requirements section that actually came from a publication our liability insurer gave us. Here it is:
“Requests for Interpretation:
The Contractor may, after exercising due diligence to locate required information, request from the Architect clarification or interpretation of the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Architect shall, with reasonable promptness, respond to such Contractor’s requests for clarification or interpretation. However, if the information requested by the Contractor is apparent from field observations, is contained in the Contract Documents or is reasonably inferable from them, the Contractor shall be responsible to the Owner for all reasonable costs charged by the Architect to the Owner for the additional services required to provide such information.”
To my knowledge, we’ve never carried it this far, and tried to collect for additional services related to RFIs, however, on more than one occassion, the number of RFIs has noticeably become less after pointing this particular paragraph out to the contractor. So I’d say…mission accomplished!
ooh… I like that paragraph.
generally, we just return the RFI and state “information requested is in the documents as issued” and leave it at that.
I’m not quite on board with the duck reference. Which duck are we specifically referring to?
Probably a return air duck? Maybe a supply duck… who knows?
Anne, our office hasn’t looked into changing to the 2007 documents yet, and are still working with the 1997. The AIA has a document (go figure) that makes suggestions in how to modify the general conditions. So, in the Supplementary Conditions, we have a paragraph that makes a modification to article 3.2 - Review of the Contract Documents and Field Conditions by Contractor, of AIA A-201 which reads: “3.2.4: The Owner shall be entitled to deduct from the Contract Sum amounts paid to the Architect for the Architect to evaluate and respond to the Contractor’s requests for information, where such information was available to the Contractor from a careful study and comparison of the Contract Documents, field conditions, other Owner-provided information, Contractor-prepared coordination drawings, or prior Project correspondence or documentation.”
I can’t tell you if this works or not, since we just implemented it, however, one CM had requested that we remove that paragraph before it was put out to bid. So I suppose it is having an impact.
Had a recent exchange with a structural engineer who took exception to my request that he remove things from his specifications that were not part of the project scope and/or not enforceable. His response was that he didn’t really feel like revising the specifications and that:
“…rather than changing the specs, we prefer to address these things through the RFI process.”
I hate my job sometimes.
It’s not rocket surgery!
Anon, I feel your pain. I had a similar (but minor) experience with a structural engineer a couple years ago, and I blogged about it, and quoted AIA A201, The General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. (The link looks weird, but it works.)
http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/%e2%80%9cwell-if-it%e2%80%99s-not-on-the-drawings%e2%80%a6%e2%80%9d/
Who honestly prefers to deal with RFIs instead of doing it right the first time? Only the people who won’t be administering the contract, and won’t be cleaning up the messes they made.
If possible have a talk with his employer. If he is the owner this obviously won’t be effective.
Send a message that such practices will influence your decision not to retain them on future projects. Do not continue to do work with them and informally let your other consultants know why this happened.
If there was litigation this attitude by the SE could be used against them.
Maybe if the Architect would backcharge him for any RFI that resulted from such unprofessional practice (say a flat fee of $500), he would reconsider.
As an estimator for trade contractor. It should definitely mean Request for Information. Estimators use prebid RFIs to come up with the bid price.
There are many error’s and omittions in bid documents. To take a stance that there isn’t and its just contactor can’t interpret things or lazy is silly.
there are times when bid documents are ambiguous, so RFI in that sense meaning Interpretation is somewhat accurate. By the way, providing the design intent in these cases (or providing the interpretation) is indeed providing information.
One cannot provide interpretation without providing information. Therefore, information is the better (more encompassing) definition of RFI.
Kyle, I doff my hat to your response. Finally, after almost 16 years since Mr. Bandy’s original question, there is an answer that is not simply an exercise in semantics.