Use this construction RFI template when a drawing, specification, or project instruction leaves a question the authorized reviewer needs to resolve. Copy the fields below into your approved project record, replace the bracketed prompts, and attach the exact referenced documents. Keep the question, reviewer replies, issued answer, and later distribution identifiable after the record is closed.
This template concerns construction clarification; a supplier questionnaire (used before a purchasing decision) needs different fields. Procore’s RFI creation documentation distinguishes the question, replies, and official response. The template preserves that distinction without requiring a change in software or promising that a response authorizes extra cost.
Copyable request and response fields
The fields are plain text you can copy and edit in your project’s approved tool. Keep the bracketed prompts until the responsible person supplies the value. Use unknown where a determination is pending; an empty cost-impact field should not be interpreted as no impact.
Record: Project [name and ID]; contract [reference]; RFI [unique number]; title [location and issue]; status [draft / submitted / in review / answered / closed]; revision [identifier]; prepared by [name, company, contact]; prepared on [date].
References: Location [building, level, grid, room]; drawing [sheet number, title, revision, issue date]; specification [section, paragraph, revision]; related record [RFI or submittal ID, if relevant]; attachments [file names, revisions, marked locations].
Question: At [precise location], [document reference] shows [condition], while [other reference or observed condition] shows [specific conflict or omission]. Please confirm [one decision required]. The attached markup identifies [the affected area].
Proposed interpretation, if permitted: [Proposed approach and reason, or not proposed]. This is a request for review, subject to the authorized response and project procedures. Needed by: [date]; affected planned activity [schedule reference and planned start]; reason for that date [review or procurement dependency].
Routing: RFI manager [name]; responsible reviewer [name and discipline]; other required reviewers [names]; distribution [people who need the issued answer]. Potential effect: Cost [yes / no / unknown, basis]; schedule [yes / no / unknown, basis]; linked commercial review [reference or not yet created].
Issued response: [Exact response or controlled attachment reference]; response author [name and role]; response date [date]; selected or accepted by [authorized manager]; selection date [date]; governing attachment [file name and revision]; supersedes [prior response reference or none].
Follow-through: Distributed by [name]; distribution date [date]; recipients [names or controlled group]; field acknowledgment [record reference where required]; related drawing update [reference or pending]; commercial review [owner and status]; closed by [name]; closed on [date].
History entry, repeat for each event: Date [date/time]; actor [name]; event [submitted / returned / response received / official response issued / distributed / reopened]; source or attachment [reference]; decision or next action [text]; next owner [name].
Make the question answerable from its attachments
Ask for the specific decision that blocks the work. A title such as door opening dimension at grid C4 is easier to route than drawing issue because it identifies the subject before a reviewer opens the record. Put unrelated questions in separate records when they require different disciplines or decisions; link them if one answer depends on another.
Attach the actual drawing revision and mark the location. A link that always opens the latest sheet can lose the condition that prompted the question, so preserve the referenced issue under the project’s document controls. The construction document management software article covers the separate task of selecting tools to maintain those controlled documents.
Treat the needed-by date as a supported request, with the affected activity beside it. An urgent label does not explain why a reviewer must respond before procurement or installation. If the answer arrives too late for the planned activity, preserve the dates and ask the schedule owner to assess the effect rather than inserting an assumed delay.
A filled example of a drawing discrepancy
The following project, people’s roles, documents, dates, and dimensions are hypothetical. They illustrate a complete record and are not design instructions. The project’s authorized design and commercial teams would need to make the decisions on a real job.
Record: Project J-214, clinic interior; contract C-214; RFI 027; title service-room opening at grid C4; revision 0; prepared by the mechanical subcontractor’s coordinator on November 4, 2026. Location: level 1, service room M-103.
References and question: Architectural A-201 revision C, issued October 28, shows a 1,200 mm clear opening. Structural S-102 revision B, issued October 21, shows 1,100 mm at the same location. Please confirm the governing opening dimension and identify any revised detail. Attachments: A-201-C-markup.pdf and S-102-B-markup.pdf, each with grid C4 highlighted.
Timing and routing: Response requested by November 9 because opening coordination is scheduled for November 12 under activity COORD-18. The project engineer manages the RFI; the architect and structural engineer review it. Cost and schedule effects are unknown pending their response and the project manager’s assessment.
Illustrative issued answer: Refer to controlled sketch SK-14 revision 0 for the coordinated opening detail. The authorized project manager records the designer’s response and its attachment on November 9. This example leaves the actual technical detail in the controlled attachment, so the RFI summary cannot become a competing set of design instructions.
| Date | Event | Record preserved | Next responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| November 4 | Request submitted | RFI 027 revision 0 and marked source sheets | Architect and structural engineer review |
| November 6 | Clarification requested | Reviewer asks for equipment reference; original question retained | Coordinator supplies equipment reference |
| November 9 | Official answer issued | Accepted response and SK-14 revision 0 | Project engineer distributes |
| November 10 | Distribution recorded | Recipient list and field acknowledgment reference | Project manager assesses commercial effect |
If a later sketch changes the answer, add a history entry and identify what it supersedes. Reopen or revise the record under your project process, with a new distribution event. Replacing the attachment in place would leave the November 10 recipient unable to establish which instruction they received.
Close the clarification after issuing the answer
A reviewer’s comment and the issued answer can be different records. Autodesk’s RFI process documentation describes selecting responses for an official response and recording activity. Follow your configured workflow and preserve the selected answer rather than treating the latest email as the approved instruction.
Before closure, confirm that the response answers the recorded question and includes the attachment it cites. Record who accepted it under the project process, then distribute it to the people responsible for the affected work. Keep uncompleted commercial or schedule reviews visible as linked actions after the clarification has been answered.
The RFI software comparison evaluates routing and retrieval across products if the current tool cannot maintain this record. You can keep a working template in an existing system when it preserves the required question, answer, references, and access. Choosing software is a separate decision from improving the contents of an RFI.
Route potential cost changes through the required approval
Use unknown when the project team has not assessed cost or schedule impact. A statement that an impact exists does not establish its amount, and a dollar estimate does not prove authorization. Link the relevant change record and let the authorized team determine the approval path under the agreement.
The construction change order software comparison addresses the commercial record after a potential scope change is identified. Preserve the relationship to the RFI so a reviewer can recover the design clarification without confusing it with the separate decision to approve spending.
Where Permute fits around an RFI register
Permute sells connected business data and governed context for AI tools. We can scope a view of permitted RFI exports alongside project references and related commercial records. Stable project and RFI identifiers keep a similar title on another job from becoming an assumed match.
We apply your definitions of unanswered, distributed, and commercial review pending to those records. A project manager can ask Claude or ChatGPT which answered clarifications still have unresolved cost reviews and inspect the permitted source evidence. Source refresh and missing attachments need to remain visible in the result.
Explore a connected RFI review
Start with a permitted register export and the records behind one issued answer.
Keep design responses in the authorized project workflow
We do not supply engineering judgment, answer the RFI for the designer, or turn a clarification into approval for changed work. This reporting workflow reads permitted records; it does not issue RFIs, close them, or write back into the project system. No native connection to a named construction product is implied by this template.
Leave a record the next reviewer can follow
A construction RFI template needs a specific question, exact document references, and a supported needed-by date. Preserve the issued answer with its author and attachment, then record how that answer reached the people doing the work. Keep later revisions and commercial reviews linked without overwriting the original decision. The next reviewer should be able to reconstruct the question and the instruction in effect at that time.
Review an RFI-to-cost handoff
Bring one answered RFI and its related commercial record to examine where the decision history stops.
Questions about construction RFI template
Can this template be used in email?
Yes, if the project permits email submission and the required record is preserved in its designated system. Include the identifiers and attachments, then capture replies and the issued response with their authors and dates. Sending an email does not establish acceptance or distribution to the field.
What if one answer creates another question?
Add a new request or reopen the record according to the project process. Link the earlier answer and state the unresolved point so a reviewer can distinguish a follow-up from the original question. Preserve the first issued response and its distribution history.
Can an RFI close without a technical answer?
A project may return, withdraw, or close a request under its own process. Record that disposition and reason instead of inventing an answer. Keep unresolved work dependencies assigned to an owner even when the RFI itself no longer requires review.