If you manage RFIs across multiple projects, you already know the queue itself creates much of the delay. I see teams lose time before response drafting starts.
From the EJCDC, the Engineer renders initial interpretations that are final and binding unless the Owner or Contractor elects to appeal. That legal weight shapes how I think engineers should manage their RFI workflows, from inbox triage through formal issuance.
Who touches an RFI before the engineer sees it
Most RFI delay starts before the engineer ever reads the question. An RFI passes through multiple hands before it reaches the engineer's desk, and each handoff can delay the RFI or strip out context.
The contractual chain of authority
Per the same EJCDC commentary mentioned earlier, the engineer of record who sealed and signed the associated portion of the contract documents, or a duly appointed successor, should sign responses affecting design. A project engineer can draft. The engineer of record (EOR) should retain responses affecting design.
The field team, typically a subcontractor or superintendent, identifies a contract-document conflict or missing detail. They draft the RFI and submit it to the general contractor, who logs it, reviews it for completeness, and forwards it to the architect of record. The architect evaluates which discipline owns the question and routes it to the appropriate engineering subconsultant.
The volume problem
In the 2013 Navigant Construction Forum study of 1,362 projects containing more than one million RFIs, the average project generated 796 RFIs. Mid-range projects ($5M to $50M) carried the highest density at 17.2 RFIs per million dollars of construction value. Each RFI required an average of eight person-hours of combined administrative and technical review time. Individual RFIs can require between 8 and 17 hours to review and respond.
For an engineering firm managing four or five active projects simultaneously, the math is punishing. Without triage protocols, the backlog compounds fast.
Where RFI engineering response workflows break down
I usually see the same failure modes repeat. The same Navigant dataset shows the average project spent approximately $859,680 on RFI review and response. That cost multiplies when engineering responses are late or incomplete.
Pitfall 1: CYA responses that defer rather than decide
Engineers under time pressure can default to "cover-your-a**" (CYA) hedge language such as "see drawings," "contractor to coordinate," or "use your best judgment." These responses technically exist in the log but resolve nothing. The contractor proceeds on an unvalidated assumption or files a claim citing the engineer's failure to clarify. In the documented SSC v. VA case from the Navigant report, the court concluded that the Corps' unclear RFI response caused the claimed damages and awarded $1.3 million in direct damages plus interest from March 30, 2004 to January 7, 2008.
Pitfall 2: under-detailed responses that generate follow-up RFIs
A narrow answer often creates the next RFI. A response that answers the literal question but omits adjacent affected work or drawing references forces another RFI. Using the Navigant study's benchmark, each additional RFI cycle can add roughly another $1,080 in average review-and-response cost. Their data shows that RFIs resolved within one week had no discernible schedule delay, while several RFIs taking longer than a week had already resulted in owner-issued and settled change orders.
A separate FMI's report quantifies the quality failure. On stressed projects, first-cycle RFI and submittal approvals drop to 25 to 50 percent, sometimes requiring five review cycles. Top-performing projects achieve 85 percent first-cycle approval.
Pitfall 3: scope authority violations
Authority drift creates avoidable liability. A structural engineer answering an MEP coordination question or a civil engineer providing guidance on contractor means and methods creates avoidable risk.
When a designer's RFI response requests the contractor's input on a potential solution, it creates a risk of design liability transfer.
An ASCE article documents a court finding that the engineer's duty is defined by the contracts, which assigned responsibility for means and methods to the contractor. When an engineer answers RFIs that fall under the contractor's means-and-methods responsibility, they expand their own liability beyond what their professional liability insurance contemplates.
Common RFI engineering patterns by discipline
The pattern of the RFI usually tells you where the workflow broke upstream. Each engineering discipline generates and receives RFIs with distinct root causes and liability profiles.
Structural conflicts
These typically originate from drawing coordination failures between structural and architectural or MEP drawings. A steel fabricator's detailer discovers a W18x97 beam occupying the same elevation as a 24-inch mechanical duct. Neither drawing cross-references the other.
The structural EOR must evaluate whether to lower the beam, permit a web penetration with reinforcement, or defer to the mechanical engineer for duct rerouting. The number of RFIs and the extent of detailer questions on shop drawings are key indicators of original contract document quality.
MEP coordination gaps
These arise when BIM clash detection runs with inadequate filters or coarse tolerances. Chilled water headers conflict with electrical conduit runs at the same ceiling elevation. This ENR project report shows the architect routing to both mechanical and electrical engineers simultaneously.
Neither engineer should issue discipline-specific direction until both have coordinated a response. Rerouting either system cascades into ASHRAE clearance and voltage drop calculations that affect the other discipline's design.
Code interpretation requests
Code interpretation RFIs carry direct liability weight because the response becomes the EOR's formal reading of code compliance on a life-safety element.
These RFIs surface when the applicable code provision is ambiguous or two sections appear to conflict. A common example is a special inspector questioning lap splice lengths in a shear wall boundary element against ACI 318 tables. To respond, the structural EOR retrieves the original design calculations, identifies the specific code exception relied upon, and issues a response citing the section in full.
Geotechnical condition queries
Geotechnical RFIs expose a built-in tension between disciplines. Geotechnical engineers build uncertainty into their recommendations, while structural engineers need finality on the drawings, as documented in this ENR collaboration report.
These RFIs get triggered when field conditions differ materially from the original geotechnical investigation. A common example is rock encountered at elevation minus 18 feet when the report indicated soil to minus 30 feet. The geotechnical EOR then has to determine whether the bearing capacity assumptions still hold at the shallower depth before the structural team can proceed.
Upstream RFI validation changes what engineers receive
If you want better RFI responses, improve what enters the queue. I see too many RFIs reach an engineer's queue with outdated drawing revisions. Others duplicate prior responses or ask questions already answered in the specifications.
Datagrid's RFI Validator Agent validates RFIs before submission. It identifies trivial requests before an RFI reaches the design team and flags project implications for review. It also can flag cost, schedule, or quality implications before submission.
When teams need to assemble the supporting project-file evidence behind an RFI, Datagrid connects to your current tools, then locates, compares, and assembles relevant drawings, specifications, prior responses, and attachments into a structured analysis for review. People make decisions. AI agents handle the work between the decisions.
What good validation looks like in practice
A validation agent should clean up the queue before engineers ever see it by handling a few core checks:
Catches stale references by cross-referencing RFI content against current drawing revisions, prior RFI logs, approved submittals, and addenda
Filters duplicates and trivial questions so engineers spend review time on questions that actually require judgment
Assembles the supporting evidence package so each validated RFI arrives with the relevant spec sections, drawing references, and submittal records already attached
What engineering teams are seeing
Alain Waha, CTO, Buro Happold, states:
"Buro is deploying Datagrid to help our designers and engineers resolve RFIs. We are on our way to reduce CA work by 50%."
Raise your RFI baseline
If you manage RFI backlogs across multiple projects, you cannot spend eight person-hours on requests that reference outdated drawings or duplicate prior responses. Datagrid's RFI Validator Agent filters those requests before they reach your inbox, so your technical review time goes to questions that actually require engineering judgment.
That is the baseline to aim for. Better questions in. Better decisions out.
