We reject RFIs for various reasons - and one of them is if the GC is asking for an interpretation or explanation of an action we took on a previous submittal.
I’m unclear about whether there is a specific kind of documentation trail we lay down with the submittal process that allows GC’s to follow up later and ask, “Hey why did you take X action on that last submittal I sent? Your explanation is confusing to me…”
Is this just done through emails?
When we send back the rejection and specify why we rejected the RFI - what do we point to as the correct way for them to get clarity on what we said / did about a past submittal?
I would say that we should respond to all RFIs; I’ve never rejected an RFI. If a pattern develops where RFIs are being used for the wrong purposes (i.e. they’re not asking for clarifications of the CDs) then I have a conversation with the contractor. If that continues, I still respond to RFIs, but I respond saying that this is not a valid RFI and to submit it through the appropriate channels, or something along those lines.
I think rejecting someone’s question leads to unnecessary animosity and I try to keep the construction process collaborative. I think part of that is answering any questions anyone might have.
Refer to AIA A201, ss 4.2.14, which says (paraphrasing) that the architect WILL respond to RFIs.
I think the sending back and forth of the submittal can happen via email, or via a system like Procore.
If they have a question about the content of your review, I would think email is fine. It shouldn’t be an RFI because RFIs are for interpreting contract documents, and a submittal isn’t a contract document.