Draft an RFI Response
Draft a professional RFI response covering the query, design intent, resolution, cross-discipline impact, and drawing updates.
IntermediateDesign ManagerStakeholder Communication
Overview
This workflow drafts a formal response to a Request for Information, structured so that it answers the question, records the design reasoning, and flags every downstream impact before it becomes somebody else's problem on site.
An RFI response is not just an answer. It is a contemporaneous record of a design decision, and it will be read again in a year by someone trying to work out who agreed to what. The structure this workflow produces addresses the original query, states the design intent, gives a resolution, assesses cross-discipline impact, and lists the drawings that now need revising. The output is ready to issue through the project CDE or document management system.
WHEN TO USE THIS
Use it when you have an RFI in front of you and the answer touches more than one discipline. That is where the time goes and where the errors are. A structural change that quietly breaks the ceiling void, a fire strategy assumption nobody rechecked, a duct that no longer fits.
Use it when you are answering under a contractual clock. Most UK contracts set a response period for information requests, and NEC4 users will recognise the shape of clause 27.2 and the Information Release Schedule. A structured draft in ten minutes is what stops a two-day answer taking eight days.
Use it when the answer might carry cost or time. The draft flags that early rather than letting it surface at the next commercial meeting.
Use it for the RFIs that arrive at 4pm on a Friday, which is most of them.
WHEN NOT TO USE THIS
Do not use it when the honest answer is "the drawing is right, build it as drawn". That is a two-line reply. Wrapping it in nine headings makes you look like you are hiding something and wastes the site team's afternoon.
Do not use it to answer an RFI that is really an instruction request. If the contractor is asking you to change something, that is a variation or a compensation event, not an RFI, and answering it as an RFI is how design teams accidentally instruct changes for free. Under JCT the change comes through an architect's instruction. Under NEC4 it comes through the Project Manager. Say so in the response and route it properly.
Do not use it where you do not actually have the answer yet. An AI will write a confident, plausible resolution off the facts you gave it. If the real position is "the structural engineer is checking and we will confirm by Thursday", say that. A holding response with a date is a professional answer. An invented one is a liability.
And do not paste an RFI containing client-confidential or security-sensitive information into a consumer AI tool. Check your appointment and your practice policy first.
COMMON MISTAKES
Answering the question asked and ignoring the question implied. The RFI says "confirm the beam depth". What it means is "I cannot build this and I need to know by Tuesday". If your answer resolves the beam but leaves the ceiling clash open, you have not answered it. The cross-discipline impact section exists for exactly this reason, so do not delete it when it comes back empty. Go and check instead.
Letting the AI invent the design intent. It does not know why the ceiling was set at 2700. It will confidently tell you anyway. Fill in the design intent yourself or leave it blank and write it after you have asked the person who set it.
Burying the cost and programme flag. If the resolution may give rise to a variation, that belongs near the top in plain words, not in section 7 where the commercial team will find it three weeks later.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
How long should an RFI response take?
Contractually, whatever your appointment or the Information Release Schedule says, commonly 5 to 10 working days, and shorter where the RFI is marked urgent. Practically, the drafting is never the bottleneck. The coordination is. This workflow removes the drafting time so the days you have go on actually checking the answer with the other disciplines.
Does an RFI response count as an instruction?
No, and this trips people up constantly. An RFI response clarifies what the design already requires. If it changes what the design requires, it needs to be issued as an instruction through the contractual route, whether that is an AI under JCT or the Project Manager under NEC4. An RFI response that quietly changes the scope is unenforceable at best and an argument at worst. If your answer changes the job, say so and ask for the instruction.
Can AI read the drawings for me?
Partly, and not enough to rely on. The current tools can read a PDF drawing and describe what is on it, and they will miss things a competent design manager would not, particularly across sheets and revisions. Use AI for the words. Do the drawing check yourself.
What if the RFI is really a design fault we caused?
Answer it anyway, factually, in the same structure, and get it into the record properly. Then deal with the liability question separately with whoever needs to know. What you must not do is write a vague RFI response to obscure the fault. A woolly answer in the CDE is far more damaging in a later dispute than a clear one, because it looks exactly like what it is.
Want all 50 prompts in one downloadable pack?
The Construction AI Prompt Pack includes every workflow prompt, 13 editable templates, and role-specific cheat sheets.
Get the Pack - £29
Instant download
Prompt
You are an experienced UK construction Design Manager. Draft a professional RFI response based on the following: Project: [PROJECT NAME] RFI Number: [RFI NUMBER, e.g., RFI-0142] RFI Date: [DATE RECEIVED] Response Due Date: [DATE] Originated By: [NAME, ROLE, ORGANISATION, e.g., John Smith, Site Manager, ABC Construction] Discipline: [DISCIPLINE, e.g., Structural / Architectural / MEP / Civil] Original RFI Query: [PASTE OR DESCRIBE THE QUERY, e.g., "Drawing S-201 Rev C shows a 300x600 RC beam at Grid Line B/4-5 at Level 2, however the architectural reflected ceiling plan A-RC-201 shows a bulkhead at 2700mm AFFL in this location. The structural beam depth would project 150mm below the ceiling line. Please confirm the correct beam depth or advise if the ceiling level can be adjusted."] Available Design Information: [LIST RELEVANT DRAWINGS, SPECS, OR DETAILS, e.g.: - Structural drawing S-201 Rev C - Architectural RCP A-RC-201 Rev B - Room data sheet showing minimum ceiling height 2550mm AFFL - MEP routing drawing M-201 Rev A shows ductwork in this zone] Design Intent: [DESCRIBE THE DESIGN INTENT IF KNOWN, e.g., The structural beam is sized for the loading requirements at this location. The architectural ceiling level was set before the structural design was finalised.] Proposed Resolution: [SUGGEST A RESOLUTION IF YOU HAVE ONE, e.g., Investigate whether the beam can be made shallower (300x500) with additional reinforcement, or whether the ceiling can drop locally with a bulkhead. MEP coordination also needed as ductwork routes through this zone.] Structure the RFI response as: 1. Response header (RFI number, date, project, response number) 2. Reference to original query (restate the question clearly) 3. Design review summary (what was investigated and by whom) 4. Response and resolution (clear, unambiguous answer or instruction) 5. Impact on other disciplines (structural, architectural, MEP, fire — flag any coordination issues) 6. Drawing and specification updates required (list specific drawings and revisions needed) 7. Cost and programme implications (if any — flag if a variation may arise) 8. Distribution list 9. Action required (who needs to do what by when) Use clear technical language. If the response requires further design development, state the timeline for a final answer. Flag if a formal instruction or variation is required to implement the change.
Example Output
WORKED EXAMPLE: LINTEL SPECIFICATION CLASH This is what goes in and what comes out. A real shape of RFI: the sort that looks trivial and takes a fortnight because three parties each hold a piece of the answer. ── THE RFI THAT ARRIVED ── RFI-0087 Project: Kingsdown Mews, Plots 12-18 Date: 09/07/2026 From: Lee Hartnell, Site Manager, Fairhaven Homes Discipline: Structural / Architectural Response required by: 16/07/2026 Query: Drawing A-201 Rev D shows the lounge window to Plot 14 as 2400mm wide with a 150mm structural opening head at 2400mm AFFL. The structural schedule S-SCH-04 Rev B calls up a Catnic CG90/100 box lintel for this opening, which is 219mm deep. The architectural elevation shows brick coursing continuing to soffit level with a two-course soldier detail above the opening. With a 219mm lintel and the soldier course above, the head of the opening drops to approximately 2331mm AFFL, and the soldier course fouls the first floor DPC tray shown on detail A-D-14. Please confirm: (a) the correct lintel reference, (b) whether the soldier detail is to be retained, and (c) the resulting structural opening height. Bricklayers are on site from 20/07 and this affects Plots 12 to 18 as the detail repeats. ── WHAT YOU FEED THE PROMPT ── You paste the RFI text above into the query field, then fill in: Available design information: - A-201 Rev D (elevations), A-D-14 (window head detail), S-SCH-04 Rev B (lintel schedule) - Catnic CG90/100 technical data: 219mm height, 100mm cavity, 2700mm length for 2400mm opening - Structural engineer email 11/07/2026 confirming CG50/100 (143mm) is adequate for the loading at Plot 14 given the roof truss layout, subject to end bearing of 150mm each side - Room data sheet: minimum head height 2300mm AFFL Design intent: The 2400mm head height was set to align with the door head on the same elevation. The soldier course is an elevational feature required by the planning approval (condition 4, materials and detailing). Proposed resolution: Substitute the shallower CG50/100 lintel confirmed by the SE, retain the soldier course, and revise the DPC tray detail to sit above the soldier rather than through it. ── WHAT THE AI DRAFTS ── RFI RESPONSE RFI Ref: RFI-0087 Response Ref: RFI-0087-R1 Project: Kingsdown Mews, Plots 12-18 Date of response: 14/07/2026 Responded by: A. Crocker, Design Manager 1. QUERY RESTATED Confirmation is sought on the lintel reference to the Plot 14 lounge window (2400mm structural opening), whether the two-course soldier detail above the opening is retained, and the resulting structural opening head height. The query notes a conflict between the 219mm CG90/100 lintel scheduled on S-SCH-04 Rev B and the head height and DPC tray arrangement shown on A-201 Rev D and A-D-14. 2. DESIGN REVIEW SUMMARY The query was reviewed by the design manager with Pellow Structural Engineers on 11 July 2026, and against the planning approval dated 3 March 2026. The lintel schedule was checked against the current truss layout and loading. The window head detail A-D-14 was reviewed with the architect. 3. RESPONSE AND RESOLUTION (a) Lintel reference. The CG90/100 on S-SCH-04 Rev B is superseded. Pellow Structural Engineers confirm that a Catnic CG50/100 (143mm height) is adequate for the loading at this location, subject to minimum end bearing of 150mm each side. The lintel schedule will be revised to CG50/100 for the lounge window openings to Plots 12 to 18. (b) Soldier course. Retained. The two-course soldier detail is required by planning condition 4 (materials and detailing) and is not to be omitted. Any proposal to omit it would require a non-material amendment and is not accepted. (c) Structural opening head height. 2400mm AFFL is confirmed and unchanged. With the 143mm CG50/100 and the soldier course set above the lintel rather than below it, the head height is achieved and the room data sheet minimum of 2300mm AFFL is satisfied with margin. The DPC tray shown on A-D-14 is to be repositioned to sit above the soldier course, discharging over the lintel via stop ends and weep holes at 450mm centres in the course immediately above the soldier. Revised detail A-D-14 Rev A to follow by 16/07/2026. 4. IMPACT ON OTHER DISCIPLINES Structural: lintel schedule revision only. No change to loading, foundations or truss layout. Confirmed by Pellow SE 11/07/2026. Architectural: revised head detail A-D-14 Rev A. No change to elevation A-201 Rev D, which remains correct as drawn. MEP: none. No services in this zone. Fire: none. Not a compartment line. Planning: soldier course retained, so no departure from condition 4. No planning action required. 5. DRAWING AND SPECIFICATION UPDATES REQUIRED S-SCH-04 Rev C: lintel reference amended to CG50/100 for lounge window openings, Plots 12 to 18. Issue by 16/07/2026. A-D-14 Rev A: DPC tray repositioned above soldier course, weep holes and stop ends shown. Issue by 16/07/2026. A-201: no change. 6. COST AND PROGRAMME IMPLICATIONS Potential cost saving. The CG50/100 is a lower-cost lintel than the scheduled CG90/100 across seven plots. Fairhaven Homes to confirm whether a credit arises under the contract. This response is a clarification of the design, not an instruction to vary, and no variation is instructed by this response. No programme impact provided the revised details are issued by 16/07/2026, ahead of bricklayers commencing 20/07/2026. 7. DISTRIBUTION Lee Hartnell (Fairhaven Homes, originator), Pellow Structural Engineers, Marsh Architects, Fairhaven commercial team, project CDE. 8. ACTION REQUIRED Marsh Architects: issue A-D-14 Rev A by 16/07/2026. Pellow SE: issue S-SCH-04 Rev C by 16/07/2026. Fairhaven Homes: confirm receipt and confirm the lintel order is amended before delivery. Note the lintel order for Plots 12-18 may already be placed. Design Manager: close RFI-0087 on receipt of both revisions. ── WHAT THE AI GOT RIGHT, AND WHAT YOU STILL DO ── It structured the answer, held all three sub-questions together, and picked up from the facts you gave it that the response should be flagged as a clarification rather than an instruction. It also caught that the lintel order might already be placed, because you mentioned bricklayers on 20/07. What it could not do: the engineer's confirmation that a 143mm lintel actually works. That came from a human with the loading in front of them. If you had not obtained that first, the AI would have written the same confident paragraph anyway, and you would have issued a formal response saying a lintel was adequate on no authority at all. That is the whole game with RFI responses. AI does the writing. You do the checking.
Use Case
Use when an RFI lands from the site team or contractor and the answer crosses more than one discipline, so every impact gets identified and written down before it turns into a clash on site.
Typical trigger: a query that touches two consultants and has a date on it. Structural versus architectural head heights, a duct route versus a downstand, a fire strategy assumption versus a door schedule. The drafting is not the hard part, the coordination is, and this gets the drafting out of the way so you can spend the time checking the answer.
Fits naturally alongside the design manager's weekly RFI log review. Draft the responses in a batch, then walk them through the disciplines that are affected.
All 50 Prompts
Get every prompt in one pack
Stop copy-pasting one prompt at a time. The Construction AI Prompt Pack includes all 50 workflows as editable documents, organised by role, ready to use offline.
£29one-time
Get the Prompt PackInstant download. Editable files.
Try our software
Want these prompts pre-built?
AI Construction Copilot has all these workflows ready to run — no copy-pasting needed. Built specifically for construction professionals.
Try FreeFree newsletter
Get AI Tips Weekly
New construction AI workflows, prompts, and templates delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe FreeNo spam. Unsubscribe anytime.