An RFI is closed only when the question, authorised disposition, affected opening marks and incorporated document revisions can be traced as one decision chain.
A window section conflicts with the architectural sill detail. The supplier asks in email, a consultant replies beneath an old screenshot, and the contractor forwards one sentence to the factory. Weeks later, four records appear to support four different details. The failure is not a lack of communication; it is a failure to preserve question identity, decision authority, scope and incorporation. A useful RFI register controls that chain without pretending an RFI can rewrite the contract by itself.
Contract and design-authority boundary: RFI terminology, response periods, reviewer authority, cost/time notice and incorporation rules differ by contract and jurisdiction. Use the executed contract, project information protocol and authorised design route. This guide supplies a control framework only.
1. Open one answerable question against a controlled baseline
USACE construction-quality guidance describes an RFI as a formal way to record, track and monitor contractor questions on a particular construction contract. That is a useful administrative description, not universal contractual authority. Start with the project's own RFI definition and permitted channel.
Write the observed conflict before proposing a cure. Identify opening marks, location, document numbers/revisions, exact clauses or details, field condition if any, and the decision needed. Attach a focused annotated extract while preserving the full controlled source. Separate facts, interpretations and proposals: ‘Detail A shows X; section B shows Y’ is reviewable; ‘use our normal detail’ hides the unresolved authority.
Do not bundle unrelated interfaces merely because they affect one window. Structure, perimeter waterproofing, sill support, fire/acoustic continuity, finish return, access and supplied scope may require different reviewers. Link related RFIs, but allow each decision to reach its proper authority.
| Field | Record | Control purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Identity | Unique ID, date, originator and project channel | Prevents duplicate conversations |
| Location | Opening marks, elevation/grid/room and interface zone | Defines affected population |
| Baseline | Drawing/specification/detail IDs and revisions | Makes the conflict reproducible |
| Question | One explicit decision requested | Avoids an essay receiving a partial reply |
| Observed facts | Quoted requirement, photo/survey reference and condition date | Separates evidence from assumptions |
| Impact statement | Activities potentially held; no unapproved entitlement claim | Allows consequence-based triage |
| Required authority | Named role under project procedure | Routes the question to a valid disposer |
2. Triage by consequence and dependency—not by inbox age
Record which decisions and activities depend on the answer: shop-drawing completion, survey acceptance, profile procurement, glass order, machining, coating, packing or installation. An RFI can affect selected marks or one interface without blocking the entire package. Conversely, a short question about datum or drainage can be production-critical.
Set due dates only from the applicable procedure and current programme logic. Preserve submitted, acknowledged, response-required and escalation dates separately; do not overwrite the original date when the question is revised. If information is insufficient, record a request for clarification as a new state rather than quietly restarting the clock.
Deduplicate by checking open RFIs, submittal comments, design changes and meeting actions. Where an earlier disposition applies, cite it and verify the same marks, revision and condition. Similar wording is not proof that the same answer applies.
| Dependency | Question to record | Safe interim state |
|---|---|---|
| Design coordination | Which drawing/detail cannot be reconciled? | Affected information held |
| Material commitment | Could the answer change section, finish, glass or hardware? | Named order lines held |
| Fabrication | Which marks or operations depend on it? | Mark/activity-specific hold |
| Site interface | Is substrate or adjacent work still changing? | Condition protected and re-survey flagged |
| Commercial/programme | What notice route does the contract require? | Refer separately; do not decide in technical reply |
3. Treat a response and an authorised disposition as different records
A useful disposition repeats the RFI ID, states the decision in implementable terms, identifies applicable sketches/documents and revisions, lists affected marks or scope, names unresolved conditions and records the responder's role. ‘Proceed’ or ‘as discussed’ is not self-contained. A response from a technically knowledgeable person is not automatically an authorised instruction.
Classify the result using the project's own states. A practical register may distinguish answered, clarification required, superseded, design change required, rejected proposal and closed after incorporation—but those labels have no universal legal effect. Keep the original question and every response immutable; corrections should create a visible revision or superseding record.
If the answer introduces a changed detail, cost, programme or responsibility question, route those consequences through the contractually required change/notice process. Do not make the RFI register pronounce entitlement.
| Check | Adequate record | Unsafe shortcut |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Role and authority verified under procedure | Most senior person copied |
| Answer | Direct response to each numbered question | See comments / noted |
| Scope | Affected marks, elevations and interfaces | Apply everywhere |
| Documents | Named revision, sketch or detail | Uncontrolled screenshot |
| Conditions | Open assumptions and further evidence | Subject to coordination |
| Consequences | Separate change/notice reference where required | RFI itself grants time or money |
4. Close the loop in drawings, schedules and production-facing records
An answered RFI can remain operationally open. Record where the answer must be incorporated: design drawing, window shop drawing, schedule, interface detail, method statement, inspection plan, work order or site set. Name the owner and target revision for each. ISO 19650-2's information-management scope supports controlled production, review and acceptance of information; it does not decide a project's contractual hierarchy.
Before closure, verify the target records actually contain the disposition and that superseded copies are controlled at each point of use. If immediate field work is authorised before a formal revision, preserve the exact interim instruction, authority, scope, expiry/next issue and as-built capture route required by the project.
Audit a sample from both directions: select an RFI and find its incorporated records; select a changed shop-drawing detail and find the authorising RFI/change. Broken reverse traceability reveals decisions that exist only in correspondence.
| RFI / disposition | Affected record | Target revision/status | Owner | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [RFI-ID] | Window shop drawing / marks | [revision / accepted state] | [role] | [checked by/date] |
| [RFI-ID] | Interface detail/specification | [revision / issue] | [role] | [checked by/date] |
| [RFI-ID] | Factory/site instruction | [controlled reference] | [role] | [withdrawal check] |
| [RFI-ID] | Change/as-built record if applicable | [separate route] | [role] | [reference] |
5. Close on evidence, then retain a decision history
Define closure evidence before changing status: authorised disposition received, consequences routed, affected documents incorporated, superseded information controlled, relevant parties notified and remaining holds stated. An overdue RFI is not closed by moving its question into meeting minutes.
Report register health with counts that expose risk: open by consequence, awaiting named authority, clarification required, answered but not incorporated, and closed. Preserve the raw register so totals can be recalculated. Age alone is a weak metric; an old low-consequence query and a new machining hold are not equivalent.
At handover, retain the question, response history, authority, incorporated revision and affected-mark relationship. This supports replacement, service and dispute review without rewriting what the RFI did or did not decide.
FAQ
Can an email reply close an RFI?
Only if the project procedure recognises that channel and the response has the required authority, scope and incorporation evidence. Preserve it in the controlled register.
Should the supplier propose a solution?
A proposal can help, but label its assumptions and evidence. It does not become approved merely because the reviewer answers a related question.
Does an RFI authorise extra cost or time?
Not automatically. Use the executed contract's notice and change routes; this guide makes no entitlement determination.
When is an RFI truly closed?
When the authorised answer and any consequences are recorded and incorporated into every required controlled record, with remaining holds visible.
Should all window questions use one RFI?
No. Group only questions with the same baseline, scope and decision authority; link dependent RFIs rather than obscuring separate dispositions.
Continue the project review
Connect this guide with the proposed window and door systems, then review how Cavorlen approaches manufacturing and quality control. When your schedule is ready, send it through the project review form.
Official sources used
USACE — Construction Quality Management Student Study Guide (RFI section) ↗WBDG / DoD — UFGS 01 33 00 Submittal Procedures ↗ISO — ISO 19650-2:2018 information management during delivery ↗ISO — ISO 10007:2017 configuration management guidance ↗Related buyer guides
This guide does not interpret a contract, assign design responsibility, authorise a variation, set response times, accept a technical solution or determine entitlement, delay or liability. It states no Cavorlen project history or service commitment.