The Case for Proposed Resolutions
Engineers reviewing RFIs are managing 50 to 100 open items across multiple projects simultaneously. An RFI that says 'We have a conflict at gridline D4 — please advise' requires the reviewer to look up the drawing, understand the conflict, evaluate options, and write a response. An RFI that says 'We have a conflict at gridline D4. The proposed resolution is to reduce the top-of-steel elevation by 1" to clear the ductwork — see attached sketch' requires the reviewer to confirm or modify a specific answer. The second approach is faster and more likely to get a complete response.
What 'Proposed Solution' Does and Does Not Mean
A proposed solution is a recommendation, not an engineering decision. The detailer is not designing the connection or accepting engineering liability by proposing a solution. The EOR accepts the proposal (or modifies it) and that acceptance is the engineering decision. The detailer's proposed solution should always be based on the project documents, project specifications, and applicable standards — not on personal preference or convenience.
Where Proposed Solutions Require Care
Seismic connections, delegated design items, and anything that touches structural capacity should be proposed with explicit acknowledgment of the basis and limitations. 'Based on the gravity loads shown in the column schedule, we propose a 3/8" shear tab with 3 — 3/4" A325 bolts. Connection capacity per AISC Design Guide should be confirmed by the EOR.' This language makes clear that the EOR's confirmation is required and positions the proposal appropriately.
How to Structure a Proposed Solution in an RFI
A well-structured RFI proposed solution follows a standard format that allows the EOR to review and respond efficiently. The format should include: a clear statement of the issue ('There is a geometric conflict between the W21x93 beam at gridline D-4 and the duct main running at EL 18'-6"'), the specific governing reference ('See structural drawing S-302, detail 4 and MEP drawing M-201'), the proposed resolution ('We propose reducing the beam top-of-steel by 2" from EL 18'-4" to EL 18'-2" to provide 2" clearance above the duct main'), the structural basis for the proposal ('Beam deflection under factored loads remains within L/360 at the revised elevation per attached preliminary check'), and the required response date with schedule impact. An EOR who receives this format can approve, modify, or reject the proposal in a single response. An EOR who receives 'please advise' must perform all of this analysis themselves.
Types of Issues That Warrant a Proposed Solution
Not every RFI lends itself to a proposed solution — some questions have no technical answer the detailer is qualified to offer. But most day-to-day detailing questions do.
- Coordinate conflicts: propose specific elevation or member location adjustments with a clearance sketch
- Connection type clarification: propose a specific AISC Design Guide connection with capacity basis
- Member size ambiguity: note the issue and propose using the lighter section if the heavier is not confirmed
- Cope geometry: propose specific cope dimensions to clear the intersecting member based on actual section geometry
- Missing callout interpretation: state the detailer's interpretation and invite confirmation or correction
Building a Culture of Proposed Solutions on Your Project Team
The quality of proposed solutions in RFIs improves when detailers have access to the right reference materials and the confidence to use them. Firms where project managers review RFIs before submission — checking that a proposed solution is technically grounded and references the correct standard — produce better RFIs than firms that treat RFI writing as a junior task. At Tectonix, U.S. project managers review all RFIs before submission and ensure proposed solutions cite AISC, AWS D1.1, or AISC 341 as appropriate. The result is a measurably faster average response time and significantly fewer clarification rounds per RFI.
When Not to Propose a Solution
There are categories of RFI where proposing a solution is inappropriate because the detailer lacks the technical or contractual basis to make the recommendation. These include: questions about whether a structural system meets the governing loads (that is engineering, not detailing); questions about whether an architectural feature is structurally compatible with the framing (requires the EOR's assessment of load path); and questions about compliance with project-specific design criteria that the detailer has not been given. In these cases, the RFI should clearly frame the question, provide all available context and supporting documentation, and request specific direction — without the appearance of having pre-decided the answer.