Every submittal review and RFI response you write becomes part of the permanent project record. Years later, a claim or an audit might occur, and these documents will be scrutinized word by word.
▶️ Did you clearly reference the applicable specifications?
▶️ Did you require adequate information before making decisions?
▶️ Did you protect the agency when approving substitutions or clarifying requirements?
And because most construction managers are juggling dozens of submittals and RFIs while managing active construction, problems around liability can surface if important steps are overlooked sooner versus later. It’s easy to write a quick response that may seem clear in the moment, a submittal approval that doesn’t specify where the material will be used, or an RFI response that makes changes without addressing cost implications. Any missteps can cost your agency thousands if and when contractors claim they weren’t properly informed.
Continue reading to learn how AI can help you write thorough, defensible submittal and RFI responses that protect your agency while providing contractors with the clear direction they need to keep projects moving. You can also download your FREE Submittal and RFI Response Guide for Construction Managers at the end of this article.
The High Stakes of Submittal and RFI Communication
Poor communication in submittals and RFIs creates expensive problems:
Common Submittal Review Problems:
- Incomplete information acceptance - Approving submittals without sufficient detail about application or location
- Missing specification references - Failing to cite specific sections that govern the approval
- Unclear scope boundaries - Not defining exactly what is approved versus what requires additional review
- Substitution approval without cost protection - Accepting alternatives without addressing cost implications
- Vague approval language - Using terms like “no exception taken” that don’t clearly define agency expectations
Common RFI Response Problems:
- Answering incomplete questions - Responding to RFIs that don’t provide adequate background information
- Creating unintended changes - Clarifications that inadvertently modify contract requirements
- Missing cost impact acknowledgment - Making changes without addressing who bears additional costs
- Insufficient contract references - Responses that don’t cite applicable plans and specifications
- Unclear responsibility assignments - Failing to specify contractor versus agency obligations
- created additional work deserving compensation.
The result? Contractors later claim they weren’t properly informed, or that agency responses created additional work deserving compensation.
Setting Up AI for Protective Communication
When using AI for submittal and RFI responses, establish clear context about your role and protection priorities.
Essential Context for AI
“I’m a construction manager for a public agency reviewing contractor submittals and RFIs. My responses become part of the permanent project record and must protect agency interests while providing clear direction. I need to ensure adequate information is provided before making decisions, cite relevant specifications and plan references, address cost implications for any changes or substitutions, and maintain clear scope boundaries. Contractors must provide sufficient detail for proper evaluation, and my responses must be defensible in future audits or claims situations.”
Define Your Project Standards
“This is a [project type] governed by [specifications - ACI, AASHTO, local standards]. Our contract requires [key submittal/RFI procedures]. I need responses that cite specific contract sections, protect agency interests, and ensure contractors provide adequate information before approval. Any changes or substitutions must address cost implications and responsibility for additional costs.”
Four Essential AI Applications for Submittals and RFIs
1. Information Completeness Verification
Ensure contractors provide adequate information before you make decisions that could create liability.
For Submittals - The Prompt: “Review this submittal and my draft response to verify completeness:
- (1) Does the contractor specify exactly where and how this material/equipment will be used (specific locations, quantities, applications)?
- (2) Have they referenced the applicable specification sections that govern this submittal?
- (3) Is there sufficient technical information to verify compliance with contract requirements?
- (4) For substitutions, have they provided complete comparison data showing equivalency?
- (5) Are installation procedures and quality control measures clearly defined?
- (6) Have they addressed any special conditions or requirements noted in the specifications? List specific additional information I should require before approval.”
For RFIs - The Prompt: “Review this RFI to verify the contractor has provided adequate background:
- (1) Have they clearly stated what the plans and specifications say about this issue?
- (2) Did they explain what they assumed during bidding regarding this question?
- (3) Have they demonstrated this issue isn’t already addressed in contract documents?
- (4) Do they provide specific plan sheet and specification references?
- (5) Is the question clear enough to provide a definitive answer?
- (6) Have they included all relevant project information needed for proper response? Identify gaps that need to be filled before I respond.”
2. Specification and Plan Reference Integration
Ensure all responses include proper contract document citations that strengthen your position.
The Prompt: “Help me strengthen the contract references in my response:
- (1) Upload relevant specification sections and plan details that apply to this submittal/RFI,
- (2) Identify specific sections I should cite in my response,
- (3) Suggest language that ties my decision to contract requirements,
- (4) Flag any areas where contract documents are silent or unclear,
- (5) Recommend protective language that reinforces contract compliance expectations,
- (6) Ensure my response clearly references the governing standards and requirements.”
3. Cost Impact and Responsibility Clarification
Address financial implications whenever your response involves changes or substitutions.
The Prompt: “Review my response for cost and responsibility implications: (1) If I’m approving a substitution or change, does my response address potential cost impacts? (2) Have I clearly stated who bears responsibility for any additional costs? (3) If the substitution could affect other work or create additional requirements, is this acknowledged? (4) Have I required the contractor to provide cost notification if they believe changes create additional expense? (5) For cost-reduction substitutions, have I specified that savings should be credited to the agency? (6) Is it clear that contractor acceptance of my response constitutes agreement to cost responsibility? Suggest specific language to protect agency financial interests.”
4. Response Clarity and Legal Defensibility
Ensure your responses are clear, complete, and defensible in future claims or audits.
The Prompt: “Review my response for clarity and legal defensibility:
- (1) Is my decision clearly stated with no ambiguous language?
- (2) Have I defined exactly what is approved versus what requires additional review?
- (3) Are any conditions or limitations clearly spelled out?
- (4) Does my response create any unintended obligations for the agency?
- (5) Is the scope of my approval clearly bounded to prevent expansion?
- (6) Would this response be understandable to someone not familiar with the project?
- (7) Does my response demonstrate thorough consideration of the contractor’s request?
Suggest improvements to strengthen clarity and defensibility.”
Common Scenarios and AI Solutions
Incomplete Concrete Mix Design Submittal
✔️ Typical Submittal: Generic mix design with specification reference but no application details
☑️ AI-Enhanced Response Requirements: “Require contractor to specify: exact locations where mix will be used, exposure conditions that govern durability requirements, placement methods and quality control procedures, compatibility with specified admixtures, testing schedule and acceptance criteria.”
Vague Equipment Substitution Request
✔️ Typical Submittal: Alternative equipment with basic specifications
☑️ AI-Enhanced Evaluation: “Require: detailed comparison showing equivalency to specified equipment, installation and maintenance requirements, energy efficiency data, warranty terms, training requirements for operators, spare parts availability, cost impact analysis.”
Poorly Defined RFI About Plan Details
✔️ Typical RFI: “Plan detail unclear, please clarify”
☑️ AI-Enhanced Response Requirements: “Require contractor to specify: exact plan sheet and detail number, what they interpret the detail to show, what specific aspect is unclear, what they assumed during bidding, how this affects their work sequence and cost.”
Design Interpretation RFI
✔️ Typical RFI: “Can we use an alternative method?”
☑️ AI-Enhanced Response: “Address: whether proposed method meets specification requirements, performance criteria that must be maintained, approval authority for the change, cost responsibility for any modifications, testing or quality control changes required.”
Quality Control Prompts for Final Review
Submittal Approval Final Check
“Review my submittal response as if you were a contractor’s claims consultant looking for ways to argue the approval was unclear or created additional obligations. Check that I: clearly defined scope of approval, cited applicable specifications, addressed cost implications for any changes, maintained agency protection throughout.”
RFI Response Final Check
“Evaluate my RFI response as if you were an auditor reviewing project communications. Verify that I: provided clear direction based on contract documents, didn’t inadvertently create changes without proper authorization, addressed cost implications appropriately, maintained professional standards throughout.”
Building Consistent Response Standards
Template Development
Use AI to create standard response formats for common submittal and RFI types, ensuring consistent language and protection across all responses.
Training Tool Creation
“Help me develop training materials for junior staff on writing effective submittal and RFI responses that protect agency interests while maintaining professional contractor relationships.”
Quality Metrics
“Create a checklist for evaluating submittal and RFI response quality: contract reference completeness, information adequacy verification, cost protection inclusion, scope clarity, and legal defensibility.”
From Manual Review to Integrated Intelligence
While these AI techniques can dramatically improve your submittal and RFI response quality, imagine if this intelligence was built directly into your project workflow. Instead of manually cross-referencing specifications and developing protective language, you could have AI automatically suggest relevant contract sections, flag missing information, and ensure consistent cost protection language across all communications.
That’s exactly what we’re building at BridgeDoc. Our AI-powered submittal and RFI modules don’t just help you write better responses—they automatically cross-reference contract documents, track approval conditions across the project, maintain consistent response standards, and ensure every communication strengthens rather than weakens your contractual position. Every submittal and RFI becomes part of an intelligent project record that protects your agency while streamlining communication.
What’s your biggest challenge with Submittal and RFI responses? Have you experienced claims related to unclear project communications? Share your experiences with us at: Contact@BridgeDoc.com
Download Your Free BridgeDoc Resource here
Submittal & RFI AI Guide for CM's
