Draft a clean steel RFI two ways: fill in the fields for a template-based draft (free, nothing sent anywhere), or describe the issue in plain words and AI drafts it. Nine copy-ready formats cover the situations that generate most steel RFIs.
Drafting aid only — not legal advice. Adapt to your contract's notice requirements; your EOR and contract documents govern. Impact/rights wording is a starting point, not a determination.
Nine copy-ready RFI formats for the situations that generate most steel RFIs. Each one: when to use it, a subject line, a body you can paste and fill, what to attach, how to word impact, and what not to say.
When to use: anchor rod plans, embed details, and foundation drawings disagree — or embeds are shown with no size/grade/projection. Highest urgency of any steel RFI: embeds are cast-in.
Subject: RFI [no.] — Anchor rod/embed conflict at [grid], response needed by [date]
Body:
Structural drawing [S-xxx] shows embed plates at [grid/location]; anchor rod plan [S-xxx] shows [conflicting layout / no corresponding embeds]. Foundation drawing [F-xxx] does not resolve the conflict. Please provide governing embed size, material grade, anchor layout, and projection for the listed locations, or confirm detail [x/S-xxx] governs.
Concrete at these locations is scheduled to pour [date]. A response after that date displaces embed installation to post-installed anchors, with cost and schedule impact to be quantified at that time.
Attach: marked-up plan clips of both conflicting drawings, embed schedule if one exists. Impact wording: tie the needed-by date to the pour date — concrete, not steel, sets the clock. Don't say: "the drawings are wrong" — say they conflict; the EOR decides which is right. Escalation (no response by needed-by): "RFI [no.] remains open past the pour-critical date of [date]. We will proceed per [detail x] unless directed otherwise by [date+3], and reserve rights under [contract article] for costs arising from later redirection."
When to use: the connection the structural details show can't coexist with architectural finishes/clearances (exposed connections, AESS, tight shaft clearances), or delegated-design reactions exceed the typical detail shown.
Subject: RFI [no.] — Connection conflict at [member/grid]: structural detail vs architectural [finish/clearance]
Body:
Detail [x/S-xxx] shows a [bolted double-angle / extended shear tab / moment] connection at [location]. Architectural drawing [A-xxx] shows [flush finish / reveal / clearance] at the same location that the detailed connection cannot achieve. Please confirm the governing connection type, or provide direction on [concealing / relocating / redesigning] the connection. If AESS applies, confirm category.
Detailing of affected members is on hold pending response.
Attach: both detail clips, a simple sketch of the physical conflict if you can draw it in five minutes — sketches get faster answers. Impact wording: "on hold" with the member list; quantify only when the hold actually moves the schedule. Don't say: proposed redesigns as assertions. Offer options as questions; the answer must come from the EOR. Escalation: re-send with the shop-drawing submittal date it now jeopardizes.
When to use: MEP needs a hole through a beam web or an opening isn't shown on structural but appears on trade drawings.
Subject: RFI [no.] — Web penetration request at [member], [size] opening
Body:
Mechanical drawing [M-xxx] requires a [size/shape] penetration through [member] at [location along span]. No penetration or reinforcement detail appears on [S-xxx]. Please confirm whether the penetration is acceptable as located, and provide reinforcement requirements if any. Proposed location and dimensions are on the attached sketch.
Attach: dimensioned sketch — distance from support, depth location in the web, opening size. Never make the reviewer guess geometry. Impact wording: none on first issue; this is a routine coordination RFI. Don't say: "we assume no reinforcement is required." Never assume on section loss. Escalation: copy the GC's MEP coordinator — the mechanical contractor's schedule usually drives the urgency, and they should carry part of it.
When to use: spec sections disagree (05 12 00 vs 09 91 00 vs 05 50 00), galvanized members lack a touch-up/overcoat requirement, or shop/field split is unclear.
Subject: RFI [no.] — Coating system clarification, [members/area]
Body:
Section [09 xx xx ¶x] specifies [system A] for exposed steel at [location]; section [05 xx xx ¶x] references [system B] for the same members. Galvanized members at [location] have no specified touch-up or overcoat system. Please confirm for the listed members: (1) governing coating system and surface prep, (2) shop vs field application split, (3) touch-up requirements at field welds and bolted connections.
Attach: the two spec paragraphs side by side, member list grouped by area. Impact wording: coating answers gate shop scheduling — say so plainly if the shop date is near. Don't say: which system is "obviously" intended — pricing differences between coating systems are large enough that guessing wrong is expensive in either direction. Escalation: flag the earliest affected blast/paint date and ask for response before it.
When to use: an open RFI passed its needed-by date and work is actually held. Send this only when the hold is real — crying wolf devalues every future notice.
Subject: RFI [no.] — Response overdue; notice of schedule and cost impact from [date]
Body:
RFI [no.], submitted [date] with response requested by [date], remains open. Fabrication/detailing of [members/areas] has been suspended since [date] pending the response. Per [contract article], this is notice that schedule and cost impacts are accruing from [date]. Upon receipt of the response, we will submit updated schedule information and any change-order pricing within [x] days.
Attach: the original RFI, dated; the affected-work list. Impact wording: dates, holds, and the contract article. Nothing else. Don't say: anything emotional, any threat, any characterization of the design team. The letter is for the file, and the file may someday be read aloud. Escalation: the next notice adds actual quantified costs to date; keep the same neutral register.
When to use: field measurements disagree with contract drawings on renovation/addition work — existing column lines off, elevations that don't match, obstructions not shown.
Subject: RFI [no.] — Existing conditions conflict at [location]: field dims vs [drawing]
Body:
Field measurement on [date] found [existing condition] at [location]: [measured value]. Contract drawing [S/A-xxx] shows [design value]. Difference is [value], which exceeds fit-up tolerance for [affected new work]. Please confirm governing dimensions or provide revised details for the affected connections. Field-measured dimensions are on the attached survey sketch.
Attach: dated survey sketch with who measured it; photos with a tape or known reference in frame. Impact wording: state which new members can't be released to fab until resolved. Don't say: "existing drawings are unreliable" as a blanket claim — document the specific measured deltas only. Escalation: propose a joint field walk with the EOR — for existing-conditions disputes, twenty minutes on site beats three RFI cycles.
When to use: the specified section has a mill availability problem and an equal-or-better substitute is available. This is a request, not a notification.
Subject: RFI [no.] — Substitution request: [specified section] → [proposed section] at [location]
Body:
Specified [section] for [members] shows mill availability of [lead time / no rollings until date] per [supplier]. We request approval to substitute [proposed section], which is [equal or greater] in [depth/weight/Sx/Ix as relevant] and available [lead time]. Cost impact: [none / value]. All other members unchanged. Please confirm acceptability; substitution will not be fabricated without written approval.
Attach: supplier availability documentation; a one-line section-property comparison table. Impact wording: the lead-time delta is the whole argument — state both numbers. Don't say: "equivalent" without showing the properties. The EOR must verify; make verification a 30-second job. Escalation: if no answer inside the rolling-window date, restate the date after which the substitution no longer helps.
When to use: a spec item (special grade, HSS size, stainless, weathering steel) has a lead time that threatens the schedule and you need direction or early release.
Subject: RFI [no.] — Long-lead material at [location]: direction needed by [date] to hold schedule
Body:
[Material/section/grade] specified at [location] currently shows [x-week] mill lead time per [supplier(s)]. To meet the erection date of [date], a purchase order must be placed by [date]. Please confirm: (1) the specification stands as written, or (2) direction on the attached alternates. If early material release is available under [contract provision], we request it for this item.
Attach: supplier lead-time quotes (two if you can get them), alternate options with property comparison. Impact wording: work backward from erection date to PO date and show the math — dates are more persuasive than adjectives. Don't say: "we cannot meet schedule" — say what date makes the schedule work and what needs to happen by then. Escalation: elevate from RFI to a schedule-risk line item in the next OAC meeting; long-lead is a project problem, not a steel problem.
When to use: the drawings show member sizes but no connection details, and the specs are unclear on whether connection design is delegated to the fabricator's engineer — or reactions/forces needed for delegated design aren't given.
Subject: RFI [no.] — Connection design responsibility and design forces, [area/phase]
Body:
Structural drawings [S-xxx] show member sizes at [area] without connection details. Specification section [05 12 00 ¶x] is unclear on whether connection design is delegated. Please confirm: (1) whether connection design is the fabricator's responsibility per the contract documents; (2) if delegated, provide design reactions/forces for the affected members (or confirm the [uniform-load / percentage] basis to be used); (3) submittal requirements for delegated connection design calculations.
Connection detailing cannot begin for the listed members until responsibility and design basis are confirmed.
Attach: the spec paragraph in question, member list by area. Impact wording: connection design lead time sits in front of detailing, which sits in front of fab — show the chain if the schedule is tight. Don't say: "we assume connections are delegated." Responsibility assumptions are how stamped-drawing disputes start. Escalation: request confirmation in writing before any delegated-design work is priced or performed; this one protects both sides.
Log every one of these. Submission date, needed-by date, response date, what was held, what it cost. That trail is where steel money leaks — and where it's recovered.
A copy-ready RFI or worksheet, a calculator or SDS2 template, and directory updates. No filler, unsubscribe anytime.