The review of requests for information, shop drawings and other submittals are an key part of the job of architects and engineers in construction administration. The timely review of RFIs and other submittals promotes smooth progress of the project, while untimely reviews can lead to delays in the contractor’s work or to delay claims. Thus, it is crucial for architects and engineers to provide timely and complete responses to RFIs and other submittals.
The time for an architect or engineer to review and reply to an RFI or submittal may be defined by the contract documents, in which case the architect or engineer must comply with that deadline. At the outset of any new project, someone on the project team should create a chart for all deadlines agreed to in the contract documents. However, many contracts do not contain a deadline or contain only generic language to the effect that a design professional should respond “promptly”. For example, the 2007 AIA Owner-Architect Agreement requires the architect to “respond to requests for information about the Contract Documents … in writing within any time limits agreed upon, or otherwise with reasonable promptness.”
This raises the question as to what constitutes “reasonable promptness.” In practice, a “prompt” response depends upon the urgency of the RFI or submittal. For instance, if construction work on the project has stopped pending review of a RFI, then the architect or engineer must prioritize the response and respond as quickly as practicable depending upon the complexity of the request.
However, for requests that are not time sensitive, a good practice is to provide a response as soon as possible, but no later than 7 days. A slower response might risk project delays. If a complex RFI requires engineering calculations or creation of other design documents, the architect or engineer may need a longer period to respond. If that is the case, the design professional should advise the contractor when to expect a response to determine if the timetable proposed will impact any significant schedule items. Architects and engineers should promptly respond to contractors when they request a status update. If you fail to respond, it looks like you are overwhelmed at best and callous at the least. Keep the contractor and other necessary project participants in the loop.
It is also a good practice for architects and engineers to maintain a log with all information regarding RFIs, shop drawings and other submittals including their status, receipt and response dates, related documents and the party that must respond depending upon the nature of the request. This log should be regularly updated and reviewed (including at all project meetings) to ensure that the RFI/submittal process is managed effectively and to minimize the chance of a submittal being overlooked or a belated response that causes project delay.
If your firm does not currently maintain an RFI and submittal log, there are several options to consider. First, a number of free or inexpensive templates are available for Excel that are useful to log RFIs and other submittals.1 Second, software programs are available for the electronic management of RFI and submittal responses. For example, Procore©, eSub© and a number of other companies offer RFI software. These and other similar programs may be especially useful for architects and engineers who work on large projects since they can organize RFIs, flag late responses, offer searchable databases, and allow email responses.
If you have any questions about responding to RFIs, shop drawing or submittal reviews or other project administration issues, we would be glad to help you. The attorneys of Gibbes Burton are passionate about helping professionals and businesses to minimize risk and build success.
1 The links for two Excel templates:
(1) https://www.nps.gov/dscw/upload/RFI-Log-Template_11-17-10b.xlsx