Construction projects are complex affairs with many moving parts and stakeholders. Companies are often When you’re weeks into a commercial build and the architectural drawings don’t specify the exact placement of electrical conduit through a structural beam, you need an answer. Not next week. Not after the inspector shows up. Now.
Table of Contents
That’s where Requests for Information (RFIs) come in. They’re the formal mechanism construction teams use to clarify ambiguities, resolve conflicts, and fill gaps in project documentation before those issues become expensive mistakes.
What is an RFI in construction?
A Request for Information (RFI) is a formal written document submitted during construction to clarify uncertainties in plans, specifications, or contract documents. When field teams encounter missing information, conflicting details, or unclear instructions that could affect work quality or schedule, they submit an RFI to the architect, engineer, or design team for clarification.
RFIs serve a specific purpose: they document questions and responses in a traceable format that protects all parties. Unlike casual job site conversations or quick phone calls, RFIs create a paper trail that shows when an issue was raised, how it was resolved, and who made the decision.
Think of RFIs as the construction industry’s version of “getting it in writing.” They’re essential for complex projects where dozens of trades must coordinate work based on hundreds of drawing sheets and specification sections.
Common reasons for construction RFIs
RFIs typically fall into several categories, though the specific triggers vary by project complexity and documentation quality.
Design conflicts and coordination gaps. Two drawing sets show different dimensions for the same wall. The structural engineer’s beam location conflicts with the MEP routing shown in mechanical plans. The elevation detail doesn’t match the floor plan. These coordination failures generate RFIs because field teams can’t proceed until someone resolves the conflict.
Missing or incomplete information. Specifications call for “approved equal” materials without defining approval criteria. Details reference a drawing sheet that doesn’t exist. Finish schedules omit critical spaces. When documentation leaves blanks, RFIs fill them.
Material or method clarification. The spec lists a product that’s been discontinued. A detail shows a construction sequence that won’t work with site conditions. The contract documents don’t address how to handle an unforeseen condition. RFIs give teams a formal channel to propose alternatives and get approval.
Scope interpretation. Contract language that seemed clear during bidding becomes ambiguous during execution. Questions about where one trade’s responsibility ends and another’s begins. Disagreements about what “substantial completion” means for a specific milestone. These boundary disputes often surface as RFIs.
Looking to be more strategic with your people?
We partnered with Construction Dive to outline the steps any contractor can take to be more strategic with their workforce management.
The RFI process and workflow
Most projects follow a standard RFI workflow, though specific requirements vary by contract and project delivery method.
Identification and submission. Someone in the field—typically a foreman, superintendent, or project engineer—identifies an issue that requires formal clarification. They draft the RFI using the project’s required format, including the specific question, relevant drawing or spec references, the location of the issue, and often a proposed solution. Clear, specific questions that end with question marks get answered faster than vague problem statements.
Better RFIs include visual aids. Photos of the actual condition. Marked-up plan sheets showing exactly which dimension is in question. These attachments reduce ambiguity and speed up responses.
Review and routing. The general contractor’s project management team reviews the RFI before forwarding it to ensure it’s legitimate, clearly written, and hasn’t already been answered. They assign it a tracking number, log it in the project’s RFI register, and route it to the appropriate party—usually the architect or engineer of record.
Response and resolution. The design team reviews the question, coordinates with other consultants if needed, and provides a written response. Good responses reference specific code sections or drawing details, explain the reasoning, and make clear what action the contractor should take. Responses that create new questions just generate follow-up RFIs.
Distribution and close-out. Once answered, the RFI response gets distributed to all affected parties—the subcontractor who raised the question, other trades whose work might be impacted, and the owner’s representative. The answer gets incorporated into the project record and referenced in future submittals or change requests if it affects cost or schedule.
RFI best practices in construction
How you manage RFIs directly affects project schedule and cost. Teams that treat RFIs as administrative paperwork rather than risk management tools end up with delays and disputes.
Submit early and specifically. Don’t wait until the issue blocks work. Submit RFIs as soon as you identify a gap or conflict, not when you’re standing down a crew because you don’t have an answer. Frame each RFI around one specific question with clear reference to the relevant document section. Vague, multi-part RFIs that ask three different questions about unrelated issues take longer to answer.
Include proposed solutions. Rather than just identifying problems, suggest a resolution. “Drawing A shows dimension X, Drawing B shows dimension Y. We propose to build per Drawing A based on the later revision date. Please confirm or provide alternative direction.” This approach speeds up responses because you’re giving the design team a starting point rather than asking them to solve the problem from scratch.
Assign ownership and deadlines. Every RFI should have a clear assignee and a required response date tied to when you need the answer to maintain schedule. Track RFIs centrally so nothing falls through cracks. Automated reminders help, but weekly RFI reviews in project meetings ensure urgent items get attention.
Use standardized formats and templates. Consistent RFI formats make them easier to review, route, and answer. Standard fields—project name, RFI number, date, subject, question, proposed answer, drawing references—ensure nothing critical gets omitted and make it easier to search RFI logs later.
Maintain detailed records. Every RFI should create an audit trail showing who asked what, when they asked it, when it was answered, and what the answer was. This documentation protects you during closeout, disputes, or claims. Digital RFI platforms with version control and timestamps are now standard on most projects over $10 million.
Review patterns to prevent future RFIs. If you’re generating 50 RFIs about the same detail across multiple floors, that’s a signal to issue a global clarification rather than answering the same question repeatedly. Analytics on RFI volume by discipline, trade, or project phase can reveal systemic documentation gaps that need addressing in preconstruction on future work.
How RFI volume impacts project schedule and costs
RFIs aren’t free. Each one represents time spent identifying issues, drafting questions, reviewing documentation, coordinating responses, and implementing solutions. That administrative burden adds up, but the real cost comes from what RFIs signal: documentation gaps that slow down work.
Schedule delays from waiting on responses. When critical RFIs sit unanswered, work stops. A framing crew can’t proceed until they know which wall location is correct. MEP trades can’t route systems until conflicts get resolved. Even when teams work around issues, that improvisation often creates rework later. Industry benchmarks suggest a 48-hour response time for routine RFIs, but complex questions involving multiple consultants or code interpretation can take weeks. During that time, work that depends on the answer stalls.
Cost escalation from scope changes. Many RFIs that start as simple clarification questions evolve into change orders. When the answer requires additional work, different materials, or changed methods, costs increase. Even if the owner ultimately bears that cost, someone has to prepare the change order documentation, negotiate pricing, and manage the revised scope. That takes project management time and introduces risk.
Rework and coordination challenges. RFIs submitted late—after work has already been installed based on someone’s best guess—generate the most expensive problems. Tearing out and rebuilding work costs far more than getting clarification before starting. And when one trade’s RFI response affects another trade’s already-completed work, the coordination complexity multiplies.
Teams that reduce RFI volume through better upfront coordination, comprehensive QA/QC of documents, and BIM clash detection in preconstruction consistently deliver projects faster and more profitably. The goal isn’t zero RFIs—legitimate questions will always arise—but rather minimizing RFIs caused by preventable documentation gaps.
How construction teams reduce RFI volume in 2025
The most sophisticated contractors now treat RFI reduction as a preconstruction priority, not just a project management task.
Front-loading design coordination. Using BIM and VDC tools to detect clashes and conflicts before construction starts eliminates the RFIs those issues would have generated in the field. Structured coordination meetings during each design phase—schematic, design development, construction documents—surface ambiguities while they’re still easy to fix. Rigorous QA/QC checklists catch missing dimensions, vague specifications, and conflicting details before documents go out for bid.
Establishing clear communication channels. Many questions that would become formal RFIs get resolved through regular coordination meetings if there’s dedicated agenda time for clarifications. Setting clear thresholds for what requires a formal RFI versus what can be handled as a meeting discussion or site instruction reduces administrative burden while maintaining documentation where it matters.
Standardizing RFI workflows. Templates that require specific information—clear questions, relevant references, proposed solutions—reduce back-and-forth and duplicate submissions. Defined ownership and escalation paths ensure RFIs don’t stall. When everyone knows the process and expectations, answers come faster.
Analyzing patterns for systemic fixes. When multiple RFIs point to the same underlying issue—say, unclear waterproofing details at penetrations—issuing an addendum or global clarification is more efficient than answering 20 individual RFIs. Tracking RFI data by discipline, drawing set, or specification section reveals where documentation quality needs improvement and feeds back into preconstruction practices for future projects.
Digital RFI management tools and technology
The shift from email chains and spreadsheets to integrated digital platforms has fundamentally changed how teams manage RFIs.
Cloud-based collaboration platforms. Tools like Procore and Autodesk Construction Cloud now dominate the market because they centralize RFIs alongside other project documentation—submittals, change orders, daily reports, and drawings. Instead of tracking RFIs in a separate system, they live in the same environment where teams manage everything else, which reduces context switching and keeps information connected.
Mobile-first field access. Superintendents and foremen can now create RFIs directly from their phones or tablets while standing at the issue location. They attach photos, mark up drawings, and record voice notes without going back to a job trailer or office. This immediacy reduces the lag between discovering a problem and formally raising it, which means faster answers and less work-around improvisation.
BIM integration and model-based RFIs. Rather than describing “the structural beam on grid B-7,” teams can click directly on the element in a 3D model and attach their RFI to that specific object. When the design team reviews the question, they see exactly what’s being referenced. This visual specificity eliminates the clarification questions that used to slow down responses.
AI-assisted routing and analytics. Newer platforms use historical project data to suggest who should receive an RFI based on the discipline and question type. They flag RFIs at risk of missing deadlines. They identify patterns—like multiple RFIs on the same detail—that might warrant a broader clarification. While AI isn’t writing RFI responses, it’s making the administrative workflow more efficient.
Audit trails and compliance tracking. Digital systems automatically timestamp every action—when an RFI was submitted, who reviewed it, when it was routed to the design team, when an answer came back, who distributed the response. That documentation matters during project closeout, when resolving disputes, and for compliance with contract requirements. No one has to reconstruct what happened from email threads.
The technology doesn’t eliminate RFIs, but it does make the RFI process faster, more transparent, and less prone to things falling through cracks. On projects where workflow visibility affects schedule confidence, that matters.
The difference between RFIs, submittals, and change orders
These three document types often get confused because they all involve questions or requests during construction, but they serve distinct purposes.
RFIs clarify existing contract requirements. They ask, “What did you mean?” or “How should we interpret this?” The question is about understanding intent, not changing scope. An RFI response shouldn’t introduce new work or different requirements—it should explain what was always intended but wasn’t clear from the documents.
Submittals propose how to meet contract requirements. They say, “Here’s specifically what we plan to install,” and provide product data, shop drawings, samples, or mix designs for review and approval. Submittals translate general specifications into specific products and methods. The design team reviews them to verify compliance with design intent, not to redesign.
Change orders modify contract requirements. They formally alter scope, schedule, or price in response to changed conditions, owner requests, or errors in the contract documents. Change orders require negotiation and usually involve additional cost or time. They’re contractual amendments, not clarifications.
In practice, these categories blur. An RFI might reveal that the specified product won’t work as intended, leading to a design change and a change order. A submittal might get rejected because the proposed product doesn’t meet specs, generating an RFI about whether an alternative approach is acceptable. The boundaries matter because each document type has different contractual implications and approval workflows.
When RFIs become project risks
Most RFIs are routine clarifications that get answered quickly and don’t affect schedule. But some RFIs signal deeper problems.
Late RFIs that should have been caught earlier. When major design conflicts or missing information surface weeks after work in that area should have started, it’s a warning sign. Either the team didn’t review documents thoroughly during preconstruction, or there’s a communication breakdown between field and office. Late RFIs almost always generate schedule impacts and often lead to claims.
Repetitive RFIs on the same issue. If you’re submitting your fifth RFI asking basically the same question because previous responses weren’t clear or comprehensive, that’s a documentation quality problem. It’s also a sign that the design team might not fully understand the construction sequence or how their details interact.
RFIs that sit unanswered past their required response date. When RFIs approach their deadline without movement, someone needs to escalate. Waiting passively until work stops is project management failure. Critical RFIs that affect schedule milestones should trigger daily follow-up once they’re inside the response window.
RFIs that expose scope gaps or changed conditions. Sometimes an RFI is really a claim in disguise—the contractor is documenting that something wasn’t shown in the contract documents and will eventually become a change order. When RFIs start to feel like gotcha documentation rather than genuine requests for clarification, relationships have broken down and project risk is rising.
Smart project managers track RFI velocity, response time trends, and submission patterns as leading indicators of project health. A sudden spike in RFI volume from one trade or discipline often signals coordination problems before they become crises.
RFIs and workforce coordination
While RFIs focus on technical questions about design and specifications, they indirectly affect workforce planning. Unanswered RFIs that block work can leave crews standing idle or force teams to shift workers to different tasks than planned.
Projects that maintain clean RFI workflows—submitting early, tracking diligently, escalating appropriately—create more predictable work environments. When field teams know they’ll get timely answers to legitimate questions, they can sequence work more confidently and keep crews productive. Conversely, projects where RFIs languish unanswered create constant firefighting and last-minute workforce shuffles as teams work around issues or wait for clarity.
This coordination challenge becomes more acute when firms work across multiple projects simultaneously. An RFI that delays work on one job might force an operations team to pull workers off another project to keep them busy, which then affects utilization and schedule on both projects.
The connection to workforce planning is indirect—RFIs aren’t labor management tools—but their impact on schedule reliability ripples through staffing decisions. Teams that minimize avoidable RFIs and manage necessary ones efficiently create the stable work environment that makes workforce planning actually work.
