{"id":516,"date":"2026-06-16T08:24:46","date_gmt":"2026-06-16T13:24:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/flikt.ai\/?p=516"},"modified":"2026-09-20T08:24:50","modified_gmt":"2026-09-20T13:24:50","slug":"como-reducir-las-rfi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/flikt.ai\/es\/how-to-reduce-rfis\/","title":{"rendered":"C\u00f3mo reducir las solicitudes de informaci\u00f3n (RFIs) antes de que comience la construcci\u00f3n"},"content":{"rendered":"

Short answer:<\/strong> Reduce RFIs by closing drawing gaps before bid, not by processing RFIs faster. Run four checks on your 2D set: cross-discipline coordination, completeness and spec-vs-drawing, constructability, then automated conflict detection. Flikt.AI runs that fourth check on 2D PDF plan sets, with no BIM model required.<\/p>\n

Most RFI-reduction advice focuses on processing RFIs faster \u2014 better logs, quicker turnaround, cleaner submittals. That’s workflow management. It doesn’t reduce RFI volume; it just handles the backlog more efficiently.<\/p>\n

This post is about something different: closing the drawing gaps that generate RFIs in the first place, before bid, before mobilization, before anyone touches the site. The distinction matters because an RFI resolved in the field is still a disruption \u2014 to the schedule, to the GC’s budget, to the subcontractor waiting on an answer. An issue caught during plan review is a redline on a PDF.<\/p>\n

The four steps below are a practical sequence for a pre-issue coordination review. They run on your 2D drawing set. No BIM required.<\/p>\n

\n

RFI volume is a quality indicator, not just a workflow problem<\/a><\/h2>\n

High RFI counts are a symptom. The underlying condition is a drawing set that doesn’t fully agree with itself \u2014 sheets that contradict each other across disciplines, specs that call something different from what the drawing shows, coordination gaps where required elements simply aren’t on the sheet they belong on.<\/p>\n

What an RFI actually costs<\/a> breaks down the economics: every RFI consumes hours from the GC, the architect, and the engineer before anyone types a formal response. Multiply by a hundred RFIs on a mid-size project and you’re looking at a material schedule and cost impact before a single change order is written.<\/p>\n

The projects with the lowest RFI volumes typically share one thing: the drawings were reviewed comprehensively, across disciplines and against the specs, before they were issued for construction. That’s the window this playbook targets.<\/p>\n

\n

Step 1: Run a cross-discipline coordination check<\/h2>\n

The most expensive conflicts are the ones no single discipline’s reviewer would catch, because they’re distributed across two or more drawings that each look correct in isolation.<\/p>\n

A shear wall and a duct main that occupy the same space don’t show up on the structural sheets as a problem, and they don’t show up on the mechanical sheets as a problem. They only show up as a problem when someone reads both sheets against each other \u2014 or when the crew in the field discovers they can’t build both at once. On one Flikt-reviewed project, a structural conflict of exactly this type carried an estimated $28,000\u2013$45,000 in rework plus 14\u201321 days of schedule impact<\/strong>. Caught in review, it’s a coordination note. Caught in the field, it’s a change order.<\/p>\n

The coordination check should explicitly ask:<\/p>\n