RFI Writing That Gets Answers Fast (With Examples)

RFIs don’t have to be slow or adversarial. The fastest‑moving projects share a common thread: clear, scoped RFIs that ask for a decision (not a debate), reference the right drawing/spec, and offer a recommended fix the design team can stamp “Accepted.” This playbook shows exactly how we write RFIs at Novus, plus copy‑paste examples you can use today.

The 6 rules of a high‑velocity RFI

1. One problem per RFI (or labeled sub‑items A, B, C if tightly related).

2. Point to evidence: sheet/detail + spec + photo/markup (attachments).

3. Propose a solution with cost/schedule impact noted (even if TBD).

4. Ask a yes/no or binary question when possible.

5. State the needed‑by date tied to schedule logic (e.g., “before steel shop drawings”).

6. Route and title smartly so it’s searchable later (trade, location, brief issue).

Pro tip: Draft RFIs during pre‑install meetings and 3‑week look‑aheads; you’ll catch conflicts before they turn into delays.

RFI structure (our standard)

Subject/Title: RFI-### | Trade | Location | Short Issue

References: Sheet(s), Detail(s), Spec section(s), Photo/Markup IDs

Condition/Issue: 2–4 sentences describing the conflict/ambiguity.

Proposed Resolution (Recommended): 1–3 bullets with specific direction.

Impacts: Cost (± range or “No cost anticipated”), Schedule (days/phase), Quality/Code.

Needed By: Date + reason (e.g., “to release door hardware submittal”).

Attachments: Marked plans, photos, cut sheets, sketches.

Example 1 — Doors/Hardware (K‑12 corridor fire‑rated opening)

Title: RFI‑021 | Doors/Hardware | A2.11 Corridor 120 | Undercut vs. Smoke Seal

References: A2.11 Door Schedule (D‑105), A6.02 Detail 6, Spec 08 71 00 ¶2.10, Life Safety Plan LSP‑01

Issue: Door D‑105 is shown as 45‑min rated in the schedule. Detail 6/A6.02 calls for a 3/4" undercut for airflow, while Spec 08 71 00 and LSP‑01 indicate smoke and draft control (S‑label) at rated corridors. The 3/4" undercut conflicts with the S‑label requirement.

Proposed Resolution (pick one):

A) Maintain 45‑min + S‑label. Revise undercut to ≤ 3/8" and add smoke gasket at head/jamb.

B) If 3/4" undercut is required for ventilation, downgrade to non‑rated and confirm life safety plan update (not recommended).

C) Provide door transfer grille with listed smoke control and keep 45‑min rating (coordinate with hardware set).

Impacts: Cost minimal for gaskets (A). Option C adds hardware and lead time.

Needed by: Friday, Jan 10 to release door hardware submittal.

Attachments: Marked A2.11, LSP‑01 excerpt, gasket cut sheet.

Example 2 — PEMB penetration & flashing

Title: RFI‑037 | PEMB Roof | RTU Curb Size/Flashing Detail Conflict

References: S2.3 Roof Framing, M4.02 RTU Schedule, PEMB Submittal P‑12 (panel profile), Spec 07 61 00

Issue: RTU‑2 schedule indicates 50" x 90" curb, while PEMB roof panel profile and spacing constrain opening to 48" module. No flashing/closure detail provided for out‑of‑module curb.

Proposed Resolution:

A) Approve 48" x 96" curb (standard module) and allow MEP to adjust curb adapter.

B) Provide custom curb flashing detail for 50" width, including closure layout and fastener spacing, stamped by PEMB engineer.

C) Shift RTU‑2 one purlin bay to align with module; confirm duct re‑route is acceptable.

Impacts: A = No cost, fastest. B = Added PEMB engineering + lead time. C = Minor duct rework.

Needed by: Before PEMB panel release (Jan 15) to avoid rework.

Attachments: Sketch SK‑RFI‑037, PEMB profile cut sheet.

Example 3 — Ceiling congestion (ACT with dense MEP)

Title: RFI‑044 | Ceilings/MEP | ACT 2x2 with VAV + Light Layout Clash in Admin 210

References: RCP A8.11, M5.01, E3.04, Spec 09 51 00

Issue: 2x2 ACT grid conflicts with VAV box and 2x4 troffers in Admin 210. Grid perimeters leave no access within 24" of the VAV for maintenance.

Proposed Resolution:

A) Approve 2x4 ACT in this room to align with luminaires and maintain 24" service clearance.

B) Maintain 2x2 ACT; shift VAV and luminaire layout per attached sketch.

C) Provide access panel (size/location indicated) if layout must remain as‑is.

Impacts: A = Neutral cost; B = minor re‑layout; C = added material + labor.

Needed by: Prior to ceiling grid layout (Feb 1).

Attachments: Marked RCP, coordination sketch.

Example 4 — Spec ambiguity (paint vs. FRP at wet walls)

Title: RFI‑012 | Finishes | Paint vs. FRP at Janitor 014 Wet Wall

References: A9.02 Finish Legend, A2.10 Room Finish Schedule, Spec 09 91 23 (painting), Spec 10 26 00 (FRP)

Issue: Legend calls for P‑2 at all walls; janitor sink wall is designated “wet” in plumbing plan. FRP is listed in Section 10 26 00 but not assigned in the room schedule.

Proposed Resolution: Install FRP full height on sink wall (B‑dimension), terminate with cap and sealant; balance of room P‑2.

Impacts: Added material cost; improves durability/cleaning.

Needed by:

Before finish takeoff finalization (Jan 8).

Attachments: Marked A2.10, FRP cut sheet.

Before/After (tighten your language)

Before: “There’s a conflict with door clearances. Please advise.”

After: RFI‑019 | Doors | 102 Lobby | Clearance at 42" Mullion — Detail 4/A7.12 shows 180° swing into sidelites; Spec 08 71 00 calls for full 180°.

Confirm acceptance of 165° hinge due to mullion, or provide alternate jamb detail.

Needed by Friday 1/17 to release hardware.

Before: “Tiles seem wrong above the VAV.”

After: RFI‑044 | Ceilings/MEP | Admin 210 — 2x2 grid conflicts with VAV service clearances per M5.01.

Approve 2x4 grid in this room or re‑locate VAV per SK‑RFI‑044 to maintain 24" access.

Numbering, routing, and speed hacks

• Numbering: Project‑prefix + sequential (e.g., WMF‑RFI‑001). Group related items as ‑A/‑B sub‑RFIs.

• Routing: Single point of contact; copy design discipline leads and owner rep; avoid shotgun emails.

• Bundles: If items share one decision maker (e.g., architect), bundle up to 3 to reduce admin—else keep them separate.

• Deadlines: Tie “Needed By” to a schedule activity (shop drawing release, slab pour, inspection).

• Attachments: Always include a marked‑up plan—answers arrive faster when reviewers can see the conflict in one image.

• Log hygiene: Keep an RFI log with status, discipline, and impact tags (Cost/Schedule/Quality/Code). Report aging RFIs weekly.

  
  

When NOT to write an RFI

• Means/methods you control (unless contractually required).

• Questions already answered in specs/addenda (check first).

• Routine submittal clarifications—handle in submittal comments.

• Field directives better handled via site meeting and a confirmation email (FCN) to keep momentum.

  
  

Mini‑templates you can paste into emails

Subject: RFI‑### | Trade | Location | Short Issue

Body:

Issue: … (2–4 sentences with refs)

Proposed Resolution:… 2) … 3) …

Impacts: Cost (±), Schedule (days), Quality/Code

Needed by:  to maintain

Attachments:

Follow‑up nudge (24–48 hrs pre‑deadline):“Following up on RFI‑037—needed by Jan 15 to release PEMB panels. We recommend Option A; please confirm or provide alternate detail.”

Deliverables Novus provides on RFIs

• Project‑branded RFI log (xls) with filters for discipline, impact, and aging.

• Markup pack (PDF) for each RFI with callouts and SKs.

• Weekly RFI dashboard to keep the team focused on blockers.

  
  

CTA: Want our editable RFI templates (email + PDF form + log)? Say the word and we’ll drop the files into your workspace ready for your next project.