RFI or CIS?

Specification & Product Discussions Construction Contract Administration Discussions
1

I just got a Request for Information that is actually something very different, something that never really makes a request at all but instead is an outpouring of a bunch of random thoughts, opinions, and statements - something I am going to start labeling and referring to as a CIS - which stands for Contractor’s Irrelevant Soliloquy.

Anyone have a better three-letter acronym for this all-too-common submittal? Why CSI has not already come up with a term, I can’t imagine, because it happens ON EVERY PROJECT.

2

CBS
Contractor’s
Bull
S***

3

It is not new that an owner uses the number of RFIs to guage the quality of a set of construction documents (thus, the architect); and some contractors know this and try to use it to their advantage by generating RFIs on frivolous grounds just to get the count up to use as leverage against the owner for additional costs for “poorly prepared documents.”

Specifications should describe the purpose of the RFI and that other uses will be returned with no action and not entered on the RFI log.

4

In the May/June 2008 issue of the publication, Texas Architect, Grant Simpson, FAIA and Jim Atkins, FAIA wrote an article called RFI Shootout. In that article they bring up this very point being discussed here. In the July/August Issue the President and CEO of the Quoin chapter of the AGC wrote a response. In that response, he states says that the practice describes is few and far between and then goes on to say why how architects are creating bad documents. These two great authors have exposed and discussed these issues in their book Managing Project Risk. An excellent read and reference document.

5

Some projects have tried to deal with the abuses by putting provisions in the contract charging the contractor a fixed amount for certain types of abusive RFI’s. Others have attempted to modify the RFI log to include the type of RFI and whether it was legitimate.

Not sure that either strategy works. I tend to believe that the best approach is to raise the issue when you see abuses. I agree with the practice of returning abusive RFI’s and not entering them in the RFI log.

6

Since the Contractor keeps its own RFI log, not entering gbogush RFIs gin the RFI logh may be less useful that it first appears. The Contractor will still claim the RFI count as accurate.

I try to “quantify” all RFIs as they are being answered and include our categorization of the RFI in our response. This creates a contemporaneous record of the RFIs, and, if we are honest about issues that are “the AEs”, provides veracity for the record.

In categorizing the RFIs we categorize the"reason" the RFI was submitted, and the “type” of response. Some examples are as follows:

RFI Request Reason: This is the reason the contractor stated, or our best interpretation thereof. Some Contractors seem to always list “potential change” or something similar as a reason.

Agency Generated: Governing agency code interpretations, newly enacted codes or policies being enforced.

Change Request: C.M./Contractor requested change or substitution. We usually reject these and require the submission of a “Substitution Request” form, with complete backup.

Clarification: Request for clarification.

Non-conformance: Concerning work by the Contractor that is non-conforming (for example, a wall was installed incorrectly. The contractor may ask that we accept the “as-built” location.)

Owner Generated: Owner requested change or substitution.

Unforeseen: Unforeseen or unexpected existing conditions (for example, soil conditions are different, or the condition of an exist building [or component thereof] is different than
indicated in the record documents.)

RFI Response Type (How we categorize the RFI response)

Agency Generated: Related to question or issue raised by AHJ (Authority Having Jurisdiction). Unforeseen agency code interpretations, newly enacted codes or policies being enforced, etc.

Change to Documents: Question / Response generated a change to the Contract Documents (CDs) that was a result of a design refinement (other than issues generated by AHJ, contractor, existing or unanticipated condition, owner or nonconformance should use the appropriate Response Type). If the response is considered a change to the CDs we should so indicate.

Clarification/Interpretation: Response is consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable from the Contract Documents.

CM/Contractor generated: C.M./Contractor requested change or substitution.

Existing/unanticipated condition: Unforeseen or unexpected existing conditions (for example, soil conditions are different, or the condition of an exist building [or component thereof] is different than indicated in the record documents.

Information In Documents: The information requested was in the current Contract Documents (for example, if the contractor says there is no detail for a condition and we can point to
an existing detail).

Non-conformance: Concerning work by the Contractor that is non-conforming (for example, a wall was installed incorrectly. The contractor may ask that we accept the “as-built” condition.)

We also return RFIs ananswered if they are incomplete or unclear.

If we “categorize” the RFIs consistantly and fairly, we can usually show that the percentage of RFIs that are due to “errors and omissions” are low. We can also show any “patterns” in the contractors RFIs (sending RFIs that are incomplete, RFIs that have answers on the CDs, RFIs that are requests to cheapen details, etc.

7

Ellis, how are you logging them to reflect this categorization?

My firm does something similar, we devised a Microsoft Access database logging system, with similar “Reason Codes” to track the origion or causation of RFI’s and PCO/CO’s

8

We have a custom inhouse system, which started as a customized MS Acsess database. There are “pull down” menus for the various options, plus reporting capabilities