9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation

4specs.com Home Page

Log Out | Topics | Search

RFI - information or interpretation Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum Construction Contract Administration Discussions RFI - information or interpretation Previous Next

Author Message

Patrick Bandy Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 10:11 am:

New member
Username: patrick_bandy Our firm defines an RFI as a "request for information." The CSI Manual of Practice (7.8.1.2) identifies the term
Post Number: 1 "RFI" as "Requests for Interpretation." My thought is that "interpretation" is the more appropriate term to use.
Registered: 08-2006 The term "information" implies that the documents are not complete and the contractor needs additional
information to perform the Work which could result in legal issues. Has this issue been discussed before?
James M. Sandoz Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 10:30 am:
Advanced Member
Username: jsandoz There is no need for discussion. It is "Request for Interpretation" as stated in the MOP and for the reasons you
Post Number: 5 mentioned.
Registered: 06-2005

Shedrick E. Glass, CSI, CCS Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 11:38 am:
Senior Member
Username: shedd_glass AIA Document G716, "REQUEST FOR INFORMATION".
Post Number: 26
Registered: 07-2004

Nathan Woods, CCCA Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 11:55 am:
Senior Member
Username: nwoods That AIA RFI document is fairly new, and shows just how out of step AIA can be with the rest of the industry,
Post Number: 123 even with their own A201 (4.2.11 & 4.2.12). The topic of RFI (Interpretation) verses RFI (Information) has been
Registered: 08-2005 discussed and written about exensively. I have not done it, but I'm sure a search of CSI's website will turn up
pertainent articles on the topic.

Here is a short paragraph I have written for our internal CA handbook:

quote:

RFIs are defined by the AIA and the CSI as requests for interpretation, which is significantly
different than the Contractors typical term: request for information. What is the difference? Its
a mindset. As the Construction Administrator, it is our role to Interpret the documents, based on
what is reasonably inferable from the documents themselves, and the design intent. Requests
for interpretation should always be responded to based on what is inferred in the documents.
However, requests for information sometimes ask for information that has nothing to do with the

http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 1/10
9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation

contents of the contract documents. This type of RFI can increase our risk, certainly add to our
burden (often unnecessarily), and far too frequently eliminate due diligence normally provided by
the Contractor.

Ron Beard CCS Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 12:01 pm:
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs Hi Patrick:
Post Number: 155 Welcome to this Board.
Registered: 10-2002 You might check out this previous thread:

http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2195/596.html
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Posted on Friday, October 06, 2006 - 03:59 pm:
Senior Member
Username: bunzick Both the big guys in construction software systems used by many contractors, Expedition by Primavera and
Post Number: 583 Prolog by Meridian Systems, call them Requests for Information. I don't know if the name of this document can
Registered: 03-2002 be customized within those software programs. (Anyone know?) If it can't be customized, we can call it anything
we want, but it's not likely contractors using those programs will follow our lead. (Yeah, I know we can "insist,"
but I'm talking real world here.)
Phil Kabza Posted on Saturday, October 07, 2006 - 05:52 pm:
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza It seems to me the responding architect can indicate what an RFI is, no matter what the construction-side-
Post Number: 212 oriented software folks say, by stating: "We issue the following interpretation in response to this inquiry ..."
Registered: 12-2002
MASTERSPEC Section 013100 Project Coordination and Management defines RFIs as "Request from Contractor
seeking interpretation or clarification of the Contract Documents." The MASTERSPEC article title is Requests for
Interpretation (RFIs). The article is fairly specific in what constitutes an RFI and what does not, and what action
should be taken by the parties. It appears to me to be consistent with the AIA A201 paragraphs that Nathan
cites above.

I do wonder why the AIA chose to name their new form as they did; I would be interested in a post here
explaining this.

In the meantime, the A201 and the specifications are contract documents. The AIA RFI form, the contractor
software-generated forms, the MOP, the PRM, office standards, and all the other stuff ... are not.

On a lighter note, I am reminded of the faxed form from a particularly gnarly CM titled "Architect Errors and
Omissions Report Form." I won't detail our response in public.
Wayne Yancey Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 10:55 am:
Senior Member
Username: wyancey I second Nathan's statement "However, requests for information sometimes ask for information that has nothing
Post Number: 190 to do with the contents of the contract documents."
Registered: 05-2005
I have received RFI's that attached an e-mail originating from me, asking me to confirm the contents of my e-

http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 2/10
9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation

mail and that I in fact sent this e-mail.

RFI's are on the agenda for the precon meeting; explained (in no uncertain terms) to the GC what an RFI is
(Request for Interpretation as noted by Nathan and others) in the context of the Contract Documents but
eventually the junk RFIs filter through.

GCs consider the RFI process as a method of recording and logging discussions via phone, fax, and e-mail. They
claim this methodology with RFIs records all discussions and decisions reached.

As the line in a joke says "What am I going to do. Complain to City Hall."

I consider the source, wait for another junk RFI and move on. I need software that will segreagate my junk RFIs
in the same fashion as my e-mail program.

Wayne
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 11:10 am:
Senior Member
Username: bunzick Wayne's observation that GC's sometimes use the RFI as a method to document and record information is
Post Number: 588 important. In this respect it serves a valuable and critical role. (Though I have to admit, using an RFI to say
Registered: 03-2002 "confirm you said this" is a new height of ridiculousness!) However, those GC's seem to forget that there are
many other forums to record information: meeting minutes and ordinary correspondence are perfectly fine
methods of documentation.
J. Peter Jordan Posted on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 - 05:16 pm:
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan Many architects that I have talked to about RFIs over the years regard them as harbingers of change orders to
Post Number: 203 come and regard any RFI with some suspicion. One firm I do work for has a definition of RFIs that includes a
Registered: 05-2004 relatively long list of items that are not RFIs. When an Architect ignores spurious, superfluous, or just downright
silly RFIs, they run the risk of the contractor's complaining to the Owner about the architect's being
uncooperative or holding up the job.

It seems to me that RFIs do serve a useful purpose; however, some contractors need to include on their RFI
form a check box for the architect to mark when the person generating the RFI has not even bothered to look at
(1) field conditions, (2) the Drawings, or (3) the Specifications.

I would welcome an RFI from a contractor who I knew was doing their job, but too many (not all) contractors
want to shift as much of their work off onto others as possible. These guys need to be stopped at the pre-
construction conference.
David J. Wyatt Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 08:30 am:
Senior Member
Username: david_j_wyatt_csi_ccs_ccca I have noticed a particularly insidious trend - the placing of responsibilities on the A/E by way of the contractor's
Post Number: 35 RFI form. Phrases such as "The Architect shall respond within ____ days or a change in the contract may be
Registered: 07-2005 required" or "Response required within ____ days" are becoming more common. If you allow the contractor or
CM to use their own forms, they should be examined carefully for these statements, and they should be changed
before they become material for disputes.

http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 3/10
9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation

It is, however, important for the A/E to be reasonably responsive. If I don't have an answer for an RFI, or if my
answer will take some time to prepare, I respond with something like "The RFI is being reviewed by the A/E and
consultants and a response is forthcoming." This is a de facto response in itself and it assures the owner that the
A/E's CA responsibilities are not ignored..
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 08:56 am:
Senior Member
Username: rliebing Can we agree that there is, indeed, a need for 2 forms-- one for interpretations and one for information?
Post Number: 475
Registered: 02-2003 If so, why not an effort to straighten out the names by making them distinctive to their function, yet separate
one from the other?

Let's start the ball rolling. AIA has their form for "information; RFI G716. OK!

What if the name and number of the AIA document for requesting interpretations? If there is no such document,
how about IR 0000, INTERPRETATION REQUEST 0000?

Then let's work on our PRM and the AIA 201, etc. and G716 to get all defintions, and documents in proper synch
and alignment.

Then, finally, let's write specs so use of the newly and properly aligned documents is the ONLY acceptable
manner for the intended purposes-- documents from other sources simply are not accepted!
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 09:21 am:
CCCA
Senior Member Ralph,
Username: davidcombs

Post Number: 169 There already is a Request for INTERPRETATION form - CSI form 13.2.
Registered: 08-2004
The term 'interpretation' was chosen intentionally to align with the verbiage in 4.2.11 and 4.2.12 of the 1987
edition of A201. Although the CCA program was developed pre-1997 edition, paragraphs 4.2.11 and 4.2.12
pretty much mirror those in the 1987 edition. However, paragraph 3.2.1 introduced the term 'request for
information' for the first time, and specifically uses it with respect to seeking input from the Architect only for
"errors, inconsistencies or omissions." No mention of interpretations.

I would strongly suspect that the AIA intentionally chose the term 'information' for their form specifically to align
with the language in 3.2.1

So one could certainly make the case, as you have, for two separate forms: A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION form
to address matters outlined in 3.2.1, and a REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION form to address matters outlined in
4.2.1 and 4.2.12.

Now getting the contractor to use two separate forms . . . .

Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 09:32 am:
Senior Member
Username: rliebing

http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 4/10
9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation

Thanks Mr. Combs, I did miss the CSI form.

Post Number: 476
Registered: 02-2003
So let's go after mutuality in this situation whereby either CSI creates its own "information" form, or we
convince AIA to do an interpretation form-- just would be nice and more condusive to easy use to have one
source for both. Your suggestion for supporting the docs via the 201 info, is most valid.

Getting the contractors to use the forms-- simple strong enforcement! We really have to start getting the point
across that what the specs require, is REQUIRED!!! And messing around with and going around requirements at
the cost of schedule is unacceptable. Here though we need to convince the owner that schedule creep due to
contractor "manuevers" is not the design professionals fault!
Nathan Woods, CCCA Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 11:07 am:
Senior Member
Username: nwoods David, what year/version of the A201 are you finding that language that cites "request for information" in
Post Number: 124 section 3.2.1?
Registered: 08-2005
Ralph, I am perhaps being a curmudgeon, but no way am I going to endorse the dilution of our role, scope, and
authority nor am I going to give blanket admittance to errors and ommissions by using an Request for
Information form as well as a Request for Interpretation form.

That is a recipe for disaster. No set of drawings is ever "complete" enough to survive that opportunity. Drawings
are reasonable complete and sufficent for the intended purpose, ONLY. If we allow the contractor to ask for
everything that they feel should be on the plans, we would NEVER get to point where we could be pencils down.

Besides which, I think you are missing the point of article 3.2.1. It defines the Contractors responsiblities
towards the documents (a forgotten ideal these days I think), and is totally silent regarding any subsequent
action from the Architect.

Our responsibilities are outlined in Article 4 specifically and exclusively.

Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 11:15 am:
Senior Member
Username: rliebing May I ask, Mr. Woods, why are there currently the 2 documents; one for RFInterpreations and one for
Post Number: 477 RFInformation, as well as the misuse, grousing, and irritating situations/problems/incidents, etc.?
Registered: 02-2003
All I'm asking is if we wouldn't be better to coordinate and better control all this. I don't think it will ever go
away.

Sorry I offended you-- I do understand your position.

Nathan Woods, CCCA Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 11:20 am:
Senior Member
Username: nwoods The two documents? Well, I personally view the recent AIA addition of the G716 as a tragic and unintentional
Post Number: 125 error that has no place in the industry.
Registered: 08-2005

Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 02:11 pm:
AIA
http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 5/10
9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation
Senior Member The assumption should be (but maybe I'm dreaming), that if a set of documents is signed and sealed by a
Username: don_harris
licensed professional, there is enough INFORMATION available to the contractor to enable him/her to perform
Post Number: 86 their required duties and construct the project. Mr. Woods is correct regarding "reasonably complete and
Registered: 03-2003 sufficient". To allow a contractor to request additional information implies that there was not enough information
to begin with, a recipe for disaster, if the lawyers get involved. Our Division 01 and our attached forms reference
"Request for Interpretation". Semantically, that is 180 degree departure from "Request for Information" and in
some small way helps protect the designer and the documents from contractor and subcontractor abuse.

To me the key words in 3.2.1 are the final ones..."in such form as the Architect may require." To us that form is
the Request for Interpretation. I do hope that when the 2007 revisions are issued this information vs
interpretation issue is clarified and G716 is eliminated.
David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, Posted on Thursday, October 12, 2006 - 08:50 am:
CCCA
Senior Member Nathan,
Username: davidcombs

Post Number: 170 1997 edition, 3.2.1, last sentence:

Registered: 08-2004
" . . . any errors, inconsistencies or omissions discovered by the Contractor shall be reported promptly to the
Architect as a request for information in such form as the Architect may require."

I sincerely believe that the AIA chose the name for their form very deliberately, to be in strict alignment with
3.2.1

However, if one looks only at 3.2.1, and uses only form G716, the case could be made that there remains a gap:
How to deal with interpretations per 4.2.11 and 4.2.12

Nitpicky? Perhaps. But have not attorneys been known to make bigger mountians out of smaller mole hills?
Anonymous Posted on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 - 01:47 pm:

AIA A201, Article 3.2, does indeed refer to contractor's request for information - twice. As I interpret A201, the
contractor makes requests for information in accordance with Article 3.2 and the architect makes interpretations
in accordance with Article 4.2. AIA G716 seems consistent with A201.

Since the Contractor is submitting a request for information in accordance with AIA A201, I see no reason why
they are not allowed to use AIA G716 or any other form agreed to by all parties.

3.2.1 does require Contractor to use a form "as the Architect may require.", but it seems like an architect is
setting the stage for a nasty pissing match by insisting on calling this a request for interpretation!

Maybe we need to lobby AIA to fix this - or ask AIA for the rationale behind this seemingly inconsistent
language.
ken hercenberg Posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 - 11:36 am:
New member
Username: khercenberg

http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 6/10
9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation
Post Number: 1 Exactly my thought if you look at the CSI Forums under Specification Discussions/Defining RFI. I have
Registered: 12-2006
communicated with Richard Weatherby, one of the authors of the PRM, and with Bob Johnson, one of the authors
of MF2004. Both agree that AIA has dropped the ball in issuing G716 and that we need to lobby AIA to have this
changed. Dennis Hall has been tasked by CSI to serve as liaison with AIA. Dennis is certainly very qualified to
present the CSI-based point of view. Still, there is nothing like a large volume of mail insisting on making a
correction to get AIA's attention. Since I prefer leaving modification of Supplementary Conditions to the 'Owner',
I suggest that we pick one definition, include proper explanation in our 01 31 00 series Sections, and then issue
the correct form as an attachment to the Spec Section.
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 09:37 am:
Senior Member
Username: rliebing How many have seen the A201-2007, where 3.2.2 has been revised and 4.2.14 added? Appears to help clarify
Post Number: 794 somewhat and may lead to wider and proper use of G716 [if anybody can figure that "scheme" out for easy
Registered: 02-2003 use].
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2008 - 01:26 pm:
AP
Senior Member I have noted it, with a tinge of dismay. I think the AIA's own language summarizing the G716 when it was
Username: nwoods announced makes it's purpose clear:
Post Number: 232
Registered: 08-2005 (frmo http://www.aia.org/docs_newtitles)
"G7162004 Request for Information
G7162004 provides a standard form for owners, architects, and contractors to request further information from
each other during construction. The form asks the requesting party to list the documents reviewed in attempting
to find the information. Neither the request itself nor the response to it provides authorization for work that
increases project cost or time."

The phase "...to request further information from ..." is the part that concerns me. Many times, my RFI
responses are NOT further information, they clarifications of information already provided and thus not generally
subject to the immeadiate generation of a change order.
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 08:38 am:
LEED AP
Senior Member Arguably, any time you need to "clarify" you are providing "further information" to information "already
Username: bunzick provided."
Post Number: 856
Registered: 03-2002

Ron Beard CCS Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 01:26 pm:
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs The objective is to explain the intent of the Contract. Sometimes a requirement is not well stated and sometimes
Post Number: 264 the reader doesn't know s#%t. The important message is that this is what I want, this is what I intended, and
Registered: 10-2002 this is what I expect. There will not be any price adjustments [under ordinary circumstances, of course].

Isn't "do as I say, not as I do" a form of interpretation?

Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 01:52 pm:
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre

http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 7/10
9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation

I would agree that sometimes clarifications are used simply because the person asking the question is as dumb
Post Number: 732
Registered: 07-2002 as a box of hair. (or rather, "with extreme limitations on their experience and understanding". I've gotten a lot of
"RFIs" where my first response is "how can you not know this?" I worked with one guy 20 years ago who printed
up an exact duplicate of the office-standard RFI form that had an extra box on it that was marked "Read the
F**** drawings" (you can use your imaginations there to fill in the word). And its often very clear that the intent
of the RFI is to stall for enough time to then say that the architect is delaying the job...
James M. Sandoz, AIA, Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 09:44 am:
CSI, CDT, LEED AP
Senior Member Since this thread has shown renewed activity, I have re-read every response and given additional thought to the
Username: jsandoz subject. I know what I wrote in reply to Mr. Bandy on Oct.6, 2006. I know what the MOP says and I know what
Post Number: 29 AIA G716 says. In retrospect, I have changed my position. The "I" in RFI may very well mean "information" in
Registered: 06-2005 the minds of many and the proper response to that all-to-often-made request for it is "right under your nose in
the drawings (or in the specifications)." :-)

Documents that need interpretation, just like documents that are lacking information, may be just as deficient in
the eyes of some. For my part, I would be more confident with the capability of my design professional if I
occasionally had to ask for an interpretation and not additional information.
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 10:36 am:
LEED AP
Senior Member Anne, here in New England, people are "dumb as a box of rocks." Yet another difference between east coast and
Username: bunzick west coast construction practice.
Post Number: 858
Registered: 03-2002

Ron Beard CCS Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 11:48 am:
Senior Member
Username: rm_beard_ccs Don't forget dumb as a fox.
Post Number: 265
Registered: 10-2002

Richard A. Rosen, CSI, Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 - 03:37 pm:
CCS, AIA
Senior Member An often quoted legal rule is: If walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, call it what you
Username: rarosen want but it's still a duck.
Post Number: 29
Registered: 08-2006

Jerry Tims Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 09:43 am:

Senior Member
Username: jtims
Anne, I feel your pain! A couple of years ago, we added a paragraph to our Administrative Requirements
Post Number: 12 section that actually came from a publication our liability insurer gave us. Here it is:
Registered: 04-2005 "Requests for Interpretation:
The Contractor may, after exercising due diligence to locate required information, request from the Architect
clarification or interpretation of the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Architect shall, with
reasonable promptness, respond to such Contractor's requests for clarification or interpretation. However, if the
information requested by the Contractor is apparent from field observations, is contained in the Contract
Documents or is reasonably inferable from them, the Contractor shall be responsible to the Owner for all
http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 8/10
9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation

reasonable costs charged by the Architect to the Owner for the additional services required to provide such
information."

To my knowledge, we've never carried it this far, and tried to collect for additional services related to RFIs,
however, on more than one occassion, the number of RFIs has noticeably become less after pointing this
particular paragraph out to the contractor. So I'd say....mission accomplished!
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 01:39 pm:
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre ooh... I like that paragraph.
Post Number: 734 generally, we just return the RFI and state "information requested is in the documents as issued" and leave it at
Registered: 07-2002 that.

I'm not quite on board with the duck reference. Which duck are we specifically referring to?
George A. Everding, AIA, Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 02:18 pm:
CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member Probably a return air duck? Maybe a supply duck... who knows?
Username: geverding

Post Number: 408

Registered: 11-2004

Steve Gantner, CSI, CCCA Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 04:38 pm:
Senior Member
Username: sgantner Anne, our office hasn't looked into changing to the 2007 documents yet, and are still working with the 1997. The
Post Number: 7 AIA has a document (go figure) that makes suggestions in how to modify the general conditions. So, in the
Registered: 08-2007 Supplementary Conditions, we have a paragraph that makes a modification to article 3.2 - Review of the
Contract Documents and Field Conditions by Contractor, of AIA A-201 which reads: "3.2.4: The Owner shall be
entitled to deduct from the Contract Sum amounts paid to the Architect for the Architect to evaluate and
respond to the Contractor's requests for information, where such information was available to the Contractor
from a careful study and comparison of the Contract Documents, field conditions, other Owner-provided
information, Contractor-prepared coordination drawings, or prior Project correspondence or documentation."

I can't tell you if this works or not, since we just implemented it, however, one CM had requested that we
remove that paragraph before it was put out to bid. So I suppose it is having an impact.
Anon (Unregistered Guest) Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 12:51 pm:
Unregistered guest
Had a recent exchange with a structural engineer who took exception to my request that he remove things from
his specifications that were not part of the project scope and/or not enforceable. His response was that he didn't
really feel like revising the specifications and that:

"...rather than changing the specs, we prefer to address these things through the RFI process."

I hate my job sometimes.

It's not rocket surgery!

Liz O'Sullivan Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 04:33 pm:
http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 9/10
9/15/2017 4specs Discussion Forum: RFI - information or interpretation
Senior Member
Username: liz_osullivan Anon, I feel your pain. I had a similar (but minor) experience with a structural engineer a couple years ago, and
I blogged about it, and quoted AIA A201, The General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. (The link
Post Number: 106
Registered: 10-2011 looks weird, but it works.)
http://lizosullivanaia.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/%e2%80%9cwell-if-it%e2%80%99s-not-on-the-
drawings%e2%80%a6%e2%80%9d/

Who honestly prefers to deal with RFIs instead of doing it right the first time? Only the people who won't be
administering the contract, and won't be cleaning up the messes they made.

Mark Gilligan SE, Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 05:26 pm:
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan If possible have a talk with his employer. If he is the owner this obviously won't be effective.
Post Number: 583
Registered: 10-2007 Send a message that such practices will influence your decision not to retain them on future projects. Do not
continue to do work with them and informally let your other consultants know why this happened.

If there was litigation this attitude by the SE could be used against them.
J. Peter Jordan Posted on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 07:44 pm:
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan Maybe if the Architect would backcharge him for any RFI that resulted from such unprofessional practice (say a
Post Number: 585 flat fee of $500), he would reconsider.
Registered: 05-2004

Add Your Message Here

Post:

Username: Posting Information:

This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter
Password: your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.

E-mail:

Options: Automatically activate URLs in message

Action: Preview/Post Message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration

http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2046/2738.html?1372463076 10/10