Which statement about RFI usage is NOT typical?

Which statement about RFI usage is NOT typical?

• A. Reducing costs directly
• B. Clarifying contract requirements
• C. Bridging gaps between documents and interpretation
• D. Resolving discrepancies

Answer: (A)

RFI usage is about turning ambiguity into explicit guidance. When contract documents lack detail or seem inconsistent, an RFI asks the designer for a precise interpretation or missing information, which helps bridge gaps between drawings and specifications and resolve discrepancies between documents. This clarifies exactly what is required and prevents misinterpretation that could lead to costly rework. Reducing costs directly isn’t the primary purpose of an RFI—any cost savings are typically a byproduct of achieving clarity and preventing errors, not the intended goal.

RFI usage is about turning ambiguity into explicit guidance. When contract documents lack detail or seem inconsistent, an RFI asks the designer for a precise interpretation or missing information, which helps bridge gaps between drawings and specifications and resolve discrepancies between documents. This clarifies exactly what is required and prevents misinterpretation that could lead to costly rework. Reducing costs directly isn’t the primary purpose of an RFI—any cost savings are typically a byproduct of achieving clarity and preventing errors, not the intended goal.