Requests For Information
Q: Does anybody have any thoughts on RFI's? They are the biggest source of variations in contracts and builders pump them out these days to try and get as many variations as possible. In the ABIC SW-1 there is no mention of architects having to provide information to builders. We are obliged to clarify discrepancies and omissions (cl B1) but nothing about information per se. There are requirements in our Code of Conduct about cooperative working with builders.
I want to be cooperative on the building site but feel that the RFI has become a money making approach by some builders. I often send the builders back to the drawings and specs with their RFI's. I was wondering if any architects use spec clauses or other devices to clarify the "RFI". There are many more RFI's now than ever and the standard of drawings and specs has improved? GB
A: Charge them for the ones where they should know the answer. CA
A: Perhaps RAIA's legal team can comment.
I cannot offer anything apart from perhaps modifying future Contracts to spell it out that RFI's will carry a charge, to the Bulder for Printing, Administration Costs and Postage/Couriers. There may be unfair charges if the RFI is legitimate though.
GA
A:Yes you can use Specs clauses and Drawings...documents issued in general to respond to RFIs.
And some brief comments:
A: 1. RFI's are sometimes genuine.
2. But sometimes they are used to recover losses due to lack of understanding of the documentation and the structure of the tender (to win the job?).... maybe even oversight sometimes.
3. Other times, they can also be used as a means to avoid liquidated damages because of program delays.
4. Or simply because it is easier and quicker for the Architect to direct the builder to the right spot, rather than spend time looking for the information where it really is.
5. RFI's also depend on the contract and the structure of the job. (lump sum? cost plus? etc)
6. In most cases, the builder has a responsibility to fully understand the documentation, and normally there is a statement a the time of tender where he specifies that he has fully understood the project, and that the tender is on the complete job. In this scheme of things, the logical thing to expect is that the builder has ensured that there are no discrepancies or missing "links". Because he is taking a responsibility in that respect.
7. Failing that, what many times happens (especially in small jobs) is that the trades (leaving aside the builder) "discover" the project as they go through....a pretty bad habit....basing all the work initially on a "rule of thumb" and not on actual facts. No wonder that then there are discrepancies and horror stories (some of the typical statements: "oh! mate....I did not allow for that!"...or..."it was not clear"...or..."we did not see it on the drawings"...or...."the drawing does not show it" (pointing to the plan and ignoring that it is shown in the elevation because there is where it is relevant!)
8. There could also be a combination of all of the above.
9. I found that RFI's are a speciality in large (or larger) projects, where there are a lot of people involved...and there could be an attitude bordering on "passing the buck"....
In summary, in my opinion, the Builder also has a responsibility to co-ordinate and understand the documents, and should spend a fair bit of time studying them and making sure there are no loose ends. I firmly advocate for meetings at the very beginning to clarify issues and make sure the builder is on the same wave length.
By the way...if the Contract is a Construction Management one or Fast Track, then you'll probably have a lot of genuine RFI's. GS.
