When the answer is already in the drawings, the problem isn’t always missing information. Sometimes, it’s a failure to read, coordinate, and take responsibility.

How many RFIs are submitted because something is genuinely missing from the construction documents, and how many are submitted because someone hasn’t taken the time to look?

It’s a question I’ve asked myself more times than I care to remember throughout my career in construction administration.

Three construction questions, each with an answer already documented in the reviewed project information.

Two walls, one very clear detail

Another example involved a double-height interior space where the architectural intent was particularly important.

We had concrete walls and a condition where the wall assembly needed to continue vertically without creating an awkward step or horizontal ledge at the second floor.

I didn’t want a dust shelf. I didn’t want a change in plane halfway up the space. I wanted one clean, continuous vertical surface.

To accomplish that, we detailed two back-to-back furring walls.

The arrangement appeared in the enlarged plans and multiple building and wall sections. The drawings showed the two physical wall assemblies and how they related to the surrounding construction.

One plan was missing a wall tag, although the wall was identified elsewhere in the documents.

The contractor initially asked for clarification of the wall type.

Fair question.

I’d rather have a contractor ask than make an assumption about an unclear designation. We clarified the intended construction.

But the conversation didn’t end there.

The drywall subcontractor subsequently argued that the second wall wasn’t included in the contract scope and should be treated as an extra.

That’s where a legitimate clarification turned into something else.

The drawings showed two walls. The enlarged plans showed two walls. The sections showed two walls. The design intent and physical arrangement were visible across several documents.

Whether the subcontractor had allowed for that construction in their estimate was a separate issue from whether it was represented in the contract documents.

And that’s an important distinction.

A contractor can legitimately question dimensions, assembly requirements, or conflicting information. Those questions deserve proper consideration. But a pricing omission does not automatically mean the work was absent from the contract.

This is where I believe the general contractor has an important responsibility.

When a subcontractor raises a question, the GC should review it with a fair and reasonable eye. Look at the drawings. Review the specifications. Understand the concern. Determine whether there’s a genuine discrepancy before passing it on.

The RFI process shouldn’t become a mechanism for forwarding every subcontractor disagreement directly to the architect.

Sometimes the right response is to ask the consultant for clarification.

And sometimes the right response is to tell the subcontractor that the work is already shown.

When an approved manufacturer isn’t an approved product

The third example involved acoustic ceiling tiles on another school project.

The specification identified two acceptable manufacturers. However, under the approved products, we had identified a particular ceiling tile because that was the product we wanted.

The drywall subcontractor proposed a less expensive ceiling tile from one of the named manufacturers.

Their argument was straightforward: if the manufacturer was listed as acceptable, then a product from that manufacturer should also be acceptable.

But that wasn’t what the specification said.

There is a difference between identifying acceptable manufacturers and specifying acceptable products. A manufacturer’s name doesn’t automatically make every product in its catalogue interchangeable.

Ceiling tiles can differ in appearance, acoustic performance, durability, reflectance, and other characteristics. Product selection is not necessarily just a matter of choosing the least expensive item from a familiar manufacturer.

We responded by directing the contractor back to the specified product requirements.

That should have resolved the issue, or at least established a clear basis for a properly documented substitution request.

Instead, the discussion continued.

There were additional responses, conversations, meetings, and disagreements about what the specification permitted.

What should have been a straightforward review became a prolonged administrative exercise.

Looking back, I estimate that the issue consumed roughly thirty hours of collective discussion and coordination. That’s my recollection, not a formally tracked project statistic, but it illustrates how much effort a relatively small material dispute can absorb.

And the frustrating part is that all of that time was spent discussing a ceiling tile.

Imagine what else the project team could have accomplished with those hours.

The cost isn’t just another RFI

When people discuss RFIs, they often focus on the number submitted, the average response time, or how many remain outstanding.

Those are useful measurements, but they don’t tell the entire story.

An unnecessary RFI can require someone to retrieve documents, review earlier correspondence, coordinate with consultants, prepare a response, and explain the same information during a meeting.

If the answer is disputed, the issue can return several times.

The original question might take fifteen minutes to answer. The resulting discussion can consume hours.

And that time comes from somewhere.

It’s time that could have been spent reviewing shop drawings, completing field reviews, resolving legitimate construction conflicts, or helping the project move forward.

There’s also a less measurable cost: frustration.

Construction administration already involves competing priorities, changing conditions, and constant decisions. Repeatedly defending information that has already been communicated adds friction to relationships that depend on collaboration.

Over time, it can create an unnecessarily adversarial atmosphere.

The architect becomes frustrated with the contractor. The contractor becomes frustrated with the subcontractor. The subcontractor believes its concern isn’t being heard.

Meanwhile, the project isn’t moving any faster.

The general contractor is more than a forwarding service

I think this is where we need to reconsider how RFIs move through a construction project.

The general contractor has an important coordination role. They’re the connection between the consultant team and the trades performing the work.

That role should involve more than receiving a subcontractor’s question and forwarding it to the architect.

Before an RFI is submitted, someone should be asking whether the issue has already been addressed in the drawings, specifications, addenda, change documentation, or reviewed submittals.

They should also consider whether the question involves a genuine discrepancy, an interpretation of the contract documents, a proposed substitution, or a subcontractor’s pricing concern.

Those are not necessarily the same problem, and they shouldn’t automatically follow the same process.

Of course, consultants have responsibilities too. Drawings need to be coordinated, specifications need to be clear, and responses need to be timely and useful. When information is genuinely missing or contradictory, the design team needs to address it.

This isn’t about suggesting that contractors should stop asking questions.

It’s about asking better questions, after doing the necessary review.

A good RFI should demonstrate that someone has investigated the issue, identified the relevant documents, and explained exactly what remains unresolved.

That’s a much more productive starting point for everyone.