Working with the architect and owner's rep: make the safe answer and the fast answer the same answer

Submittals, and the second most common cause of delay

Submittal delays are usually blamed on the reviewer and usually caused by the submitter. Three practices remove most of the friction:

• Submit a schedule of submittals early. A list of what is coming and when, aligned to procurement lead times, lets the architect plan review capacity. It is unusual enough that it materially changes how you are treated.
• Do not submit incomplete packages to start the clock. It is a common tactic and it backfires, because the rejection consumes a full cycle and the reviewer now expects incompleteness.
• Flag deviations explicitly. A substitution buried in a 60-page product data package that the architect discovers later is the fastest way to lose credibility for the remainder of the project. Deviations stated on the cover page get approved surprisingly often.

Field observation visits, and how to run them

The architect's site visit is an opportunity most builders waste by treating it as an inspection to survive. Run well, it is where problems get resolved before they become RFIs or rejections.

• Walk with them, do not send someone. The superintendent should be present, because the questions that arise are answerable on the spot by whoever knows the sequence.
• Show them what is about to be covered. A visit timed just before insulation or drywall lets them see the work while changes are still cheap. This is genuinely helpful to them, and it protects you from a later objection.
• Raise your own concerns first. A builder who says "we found a conflict at grid C and here is what we propose" is treated very differently from one who waits to be caught.
• Write the visit summary yourself. A short same-day note recording what was discussed and agreed, sent to them, becomes the record. If you do not write it, someone else's version becomes the record.

Payment applications and the certification you depend on

On most contracts the architect certifies the payment application, which means your cash flow passes through a person whose incentive is to not certify something they cannot support. Applications get delayed for a small number of recurring reasons:

• Percentage complete that cannot be verified. Claiming 60% on a line the reviewer estimates at 45% delays the entire application, not just that line.
• Stored materials without documentation. Invoices, proof of insurance and evidence of secure storage are usually required and frequently omitted.
• Missing lien waivers. The most common administrative cause of a delayed check, and the easiest to prevent.
• Change orders billed before they are executed. Work performed on a verbal instruction and billed without a signed change order puts the certifier in an impossible position.

The practical remedy is to review the application with the reviewer informally before submitting it. Ten minutes on a call about percentages avoids a rejection cycle that costs a month of cash.

Twelve months, measured

A commercial builder doing $11 million a year across institutional and private work, with chronic RFI turnaround of 14 to 21 days and payment applications frequently delayed a cycle.

• Month 1: RFI template rewritten to require a proposed solution and a photograph on every submission.
• Month 2: submittal schedule issued at project start on all new work.
• Month 4: same-day written summaries after every field observation visit became standard.
• Month 6: average RFI turnaround down to 6 days.
• Month 12: payment applications certified on first submission 91% of the time, up from 62%.

The RFI turnaround improvement is the one that changed the schedule, but the payment application figure is the one that changed the business. Moving from 62% to 91% first-pass certification removed roughly one delayed cycle per project — approximately 30 days of cash on each job.

The second observation, offered by an architect on one of the projects: the proposed-solution format meant most RFIs could be answered by a project architect rather than escalated to a principal. That is why the turnaround fell — not because anyone worked faster, but because the questions could be answered at a lower level.

When you disagree, and how to do it well

Disagreements are inevitable, and the ones that damage relationships are almost always handled badly rather than substantively wrong.

• Separate the technical question from the commercial one. Whether the detail is constructible and who pays for the change are two conversations. Merging them makes both harder.
• Put it in writing the same day, factually. Not to build a case, but because memory diverges and both parties benefit from a record.
• Never go around them to the owner first. It occasionally wins the point and permanently changes the relationship, and you have many months left.
• Offer two options. A choice between alternatives is a conversation; a demand is a position.

Pre-construction review, where most of this is decided

Nearly every RFI, substitution and conflict discussed above has a cheaper version of itself available months earlier, during document review. Builders who treat pre-construction as a formality spend the project resolving in the field what could have been resolved on paper, at a fraction of the cost and without anyone being under schedule pressure.

A useful pre-construction review covers four things:

• Constructability, sequence by sequence. Not whether the design is good, but whether it can be built in the order the schedule assumes with the access the site allows. Conflicts here are almost always resolvable at no cost when found early and expensive when found by a crew standing in front of them.
• Coordination between disciplines. Structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing drawn separately will conflict somewhere. Identifying those points before mobilization converts a field crisis into a two-line clarification.
• Long-lead items against the schedule. Equipment with a sixteen-week lead time in a twenty-week project is a schedule risk that belongs on the table at the start, not a surprise in month three.
• Specification items that are unavailable or discontinued. Better raised as a list of substitutions before the project begins, when the architect has time to consider alternatives, than one at a time under pressure.

The way to raise these matters as much as raising them. A list of thirty problems delivered without solutions reads as criticism of the design and puts the architect on the defensive for the whole project. The same list framed as questions with proposed resolutions reads as a builder protecting everyone's schedule — and it is the single most effective thing a contractor can do to establish the working relationship before the first concrete is poured.

Five mistakes that make these relationships adversarial

• Vague RFIs with no proposed solution. They force the architect to design under time pressure, which is when people say no.
• Submitting incomplete packages to start the clock. It costs a full cycle and your credibility.
• Burying substitutions. Discovered later, it changes how everything else you submit is read.
• Letting someone else write the meeting record. The written version becomes the truth.
• Escalating to the owner before exhausting the direct conversation. A short-term win with a long-term cost.

Five numbers that describe the relationship

• Average RFI turnaround. Largely a function of how you write them.
• RFIs per million dollars of contract value. Very high counts usually indicate incomplete documents or insufficient pre-construction review.
• Submittal first-pass approval rate. A direct measure of package quality.
• Payment applications certified on first submission. The metric with the largest cash impact.
• Days from field observation to written summary. Should be zero, and rarely is.

Architects and owner's representatives are not obstacles; they are cautious professionals who are paid to not be wrong. Builders who write questions that can be answered in a sentence, flag their own deviations, walk the site alongside them and record what was agreed the same day get faster answers, cleaner approvals and certified payment applications — not because anyone is doing them a favor, but because they have made the safe answer and the fast answer the same answer.

Frequently asked questions

How do you write an RFI that gets answered quickly?

Four elements make an RFI answerable in a sentence. A specific question rather than a general one — 'please clarify the wall detail' invites a re-review of the entire drawing, while 'detail 4/A502 shows a 2-inch reveal at the transom; the frame supplied is 1.5 inches; confirm the reveal may be reduced to 1.5 inches, or advise an alternate frame' can be answered immediately. Your proposed solution, which lets the architect confirm rather than design — faster and lower-risk for them, and it protects your schedule because your solution is usually the constructible one. The schedule consequence stated factually rather than as pressure, since pressure slows careful people down. And a photograph of the actual condition, which eliminates most follow-up questions. In one commercial builder, rewriting the RFI template to require a proposed solution and a photo cut average turnaround from 14–21 days to 6 — because the questions could then be answered by a project architect rather than escalated to a principal.

Why do submittals get delayed?

Usually because of the submitter, not the reviewer. Three practices remove most of the friction. Submit a schedule of submittals early — a list of what is coming and when, aligned to procurement lead times — which lets the architect plan review capacity and is unusual enough that it materially changes how you are treated. Do not submit incomplete packages to start the clock: it is a common tactic that backfires, because the rejection consumes a full cycle and the reviewer now expects incompleteness from you. And flag deviations explicitly, because a substitution buried in a 60-page product data package that the architect discovers later is the fastest way to lose credibility for the remainder of the project, while deviations stated on the cover page get approved surprisingly often.

Why do payment applications get delayed or rejected?

For a small number of recurring reasons, all preventable. Percentage complete that cannot be verified — claiming 60% on a line the reviewer estimates at 45% delays the entire application, not just that line. Stored materials without documentation, since invoices, proof of insurance and evidence of secure storage are usually required and frequently omitted. Missing lien waivers, which is the most common administrative cause of a delayed check and the easiest to prevent. And change orders billed before they are executed, because work performed on a verbal instruction and billed without a signed change order puts the certifier in an impossible position. The practical remedy is to review the application informally with the reviewer before submitting: ten minutes on a call about percentages avoids a rejection cycle that costs a month of cash. One builder moved first-pass certification from 62% to 91%, removing roughly 30 days of cash delay per project.

How should a contractor handle the architect's site visits?

As an opportunity rather than an inspection to survive. Walk with them rather than sending someone, because the superintendent can answer sequence questions on the spot. Show them what is about to be covered — timing a visit just before insulation or drywall lets them see the work while changes are still cheap, which is genuinely helpful to them and protects you from a later objection. Raise your own concerns first, since a builder who says 'we found a conflict at grid C and here is what we propose' is treated very differently from one who waits to be caught. And write the visit summary yourself: a short same-day note recording what was discussed and agreed, sent to them, becomes the record — and if you do not write it, someone else's version becomes the record. That habit costs about ten minutes and is the cheapest project-controls practice in construction.

What should a pre-construction document review cover?

Four things, and every item resolved there costs a fraction of what the same item costs in month four. Constructability sequence by sequence — not whether the design is good, but whether it can be built in the order the schedule assumes with the access the site allows. Coordination between disciplines, since structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing drawn separately will conflict somewhere, and identifying those points before mobilization converts a field crisis into a two-line clarification. Long-lead items against the schedule, because equipment with a sixteen-week lead time in a twenty-week project is a risk that belongs on the table at the start. And specification items that are unavailable or discontinued, better raised as a list before the project begins than one at a time under pressure. How you raise them matters as much as raising them: thirty problems delivered without solutions reads as criticism of the design, while the same list framed as questions with proposed resolutions reads as a builder protecting everyone's schedule.