.

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

— rfi [2009/09/19 08:29] (current)
capn_ron created
Line 1: Line 1:
 +===== RFI =====
 +RFI is an acronym for the phrase "Request for Information" and has become synonymous with the declining quality of design documents produced by architects and engineers in recent years.  The prevalence of the RFI can be seen by the fact that it has secured its own place in AISC's current Code of Standard Practice, Section 4.6, available here: . http://www.aisc.org/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=6878
 +Many detailers remember an era when RFI's did not exist and these "old-timers" have used their experience to gauge the decline of design drawings.  While we do not necessarily automatically correlate the decline of drawings with the decline of design competence, it certainly does nothing to complement the author of the drawing.
 +
 +When using the RFI process, the detailer should be careful that it is done correctly and is not done frivolously.  First one should be absolutely sure that the information is both necessary and not available in any of the contract documents.  It becomes irritating to have one's work product questioned by a party who is not researching the job properly or is repeatedly asking irrelevant questions.  After one has determined that the information is required and does not appear anywhere in the contract documents one should craft the RFI with the same care one uses to create his own drawings.  The question should be clear, concise and unambiguous.  It should be as uncomplicated as you want the answer to be.  Remember that you are likely to get a ten-page reply to a simple "yes or no" question showing the entire hierarchy of the job as well as the minutes of the meeting that produced the reply and imagine what the volume of a complicated reply would be.
 +
 +Another interesting observation of the use of this process is this.  It seems that if you ask more than one question in a single RFI, you will probably only receive one answer or a partial response. It seems that the best practice is to ask one question per RFI and to make that question a simple one rather than a complex one.  Less kind detailers might make the observation that the respondent may not be able to "chew gum and cross the street at the same time," but I suggest that it may simply be that he can readily answer the first part of the question, but must research the second part and does not want to delay the project. 
 +
 +In less complicated times we would simply produce a drawing mimicking the design drawing, cloud the member in question and ask "What's this?"  Today we may need to generate three RFIs such as: 1. What size member? 2. Is it fireproofed? 3. Is it fracture-critical?  Before you send these be sure you know everything else you need to know, such as its elevation, its end reactions, it's use in the design, or any other pertinent information because you can be sure that any answer you receive will only cover the specific question you ask.  One would think that asking a single question would cause the designer to revisit the phantom member and then produce the exhaustive information required, but he may be chewing gum or crossing the street at the time and be unable to anticipate the next three RFIs that are sure to follow.
 +
 +Remember that you want the RFI process to reflect the quality of the design drawings and not the ignorance of the detailer and this process will work in your favor.  Unfortunately time wasted cannot be recovered, but if you keep careful documentation at least you have an argument for extra charges on a contract.

Personal Tools