May 15, 2026·7 min read

The Landscape Architecture RFI Process, Done Right

A practical guide to managing the landscape architecture RFI process—how to write them, track them, and stop letting them stall your construction phase.

RFIs are where a lot of landscape architecture projects quietly fall apart. Not dramatically—just a slow accumulation of unanswered questions, missed response windows, and field crews making their own decisions while your team is still waiting on a contractor to formalize a question they asked verbally three weeks ago.

What an RFI Actually Is (and Isn't)

A Request for Information is a formal written question submitted by a contractor to the design team during construction. That's the textbook definition. In practice, it's also a liability document, a paper trail, and—when managed well—a forcing function that keeps field decisions from drifting away from design intent.

What it isn't: a substitute for a pre-construction meeting, a workaround for incomplete drawings, or a tool for contractors to relitigate scope. Firms that treat every RFI as a neutral technical question end up responding to things that should have been rejected outright. A contractor asking whether they can substitute 4-inch caliper trees with 2.5-inch caliper stock is not a clarification request. That's a scope reduction dressed up in RFI clothing, and your response should say so clearly.

The distinction matters because how you categorize an RFI shapes how you respond to it—and whether that response creates a change order, modifies the contract, or simply clarifies existing intent.

The Typical RFI Workflow in Landscape Architecture

Most firms work within a process that looks roughly like this: the contractor identifies a field condition or drawing conflict, submits an RFI through whatever system the GC or owner is using (often Procore, sometimes a PDF form, occasionally email), the RFI lands with the project manager, gets routed to the relevant designer or consultant, a response is drafted, reviewed, and returned—usually with a stamp and a signature.

The contractual response window is typically 10 to 14 calendar days, though some public agency contracts specify 7 business days. Missing that window has consequences. On a $4M park project, a delayed RFI response on irrigation mainline routing can hold up an entire installation sequence. That delay becomes a contractor claim. That claim becomes a problem you're explaining to the owner.

The routing step is where most firms lose time. If the RFI involves both your grading plan and a civil engineer's utility layout, someone has to coordinate that response. If your internal process for that coordination is "reply-all email thread," you're going to miss things.

How to Write a Good RFI Response

Most of the training in landscape architecture focuses on design and drawing production. Almost none of it covers how to write a clear, defensible RFI response. That's a gap.

A good response does three things: it answers the specific question asked, it references the contract document that supports the answer, and it avoids creating ambiguity about what the contractor is now authorized to do. "See drawings" is not an RFI response. Neither is a paragraph of design rationale that never actually answers the question.

If the answer changes the design, say so explicitly and initiate a supplemental instruction or ASI. If the answer confirms existing intent, cite the sheet number and detail. If the question is outside your scope—say, a structural question on a retaining wall designed by a structural engineer—return it with a note directing it to the appropriate party rather than attempting to answer it yourself.

Keep a log of every response you issue. Eighteen months from now, when there's a dispute about why the decomposed granite path is 8 feet wide instead of 6, you want a dated, signed document showing exactly what you said and when.

Tracking RFIs Across Multiple Projects

A solo project manager can track RFIs in a spreadsheet. Two projects, maybe three. Add a fourth project, a second PM, and a few sub-consultants, and the spreadsheet breaks down—not because the spreadsheet is technically insufficient, but because no one is maintaining it consistently.

The core tracking fields you need: RFI number, date received, date responded, responding party, status, and whether a change order was triggered. That's the minimum. Some firms also track the contractor who submitted it and the drawing or spec section it references, which helps identify patterns in where your documents are generating questions.

If you're using Procore on a project, the RFI module handles this reasonably well on the contractor side. The problem is that your internal review and routing still happens outside Procore unless you've set up the architect/engineer access carefully—and most landscape architects haven't, because Procore's default configuration assumes a GC-centric workflow.

Common Mistakes Firms Make with RFIs

Treating verbal responses as closed items. A contractor asks a question in the field, you answer it, and neither party submits an RFI. Six months later there's a dispute. You have no record. Always convert verbal answers to written responses, even if you initiate the RFI yourself on the contractor's behalf.

Letting the response window slip without notice. If you need more time—because you're coordinating with a civil engineer or waiting on a product substitution review—tell the contractor in writing before the deadline expires. A one-line email saying "RFI #23 is under review, response by [date]" protects you. Silence does not.

Answering questions outside your scope. This happens most often on design-build projects or when a contractor is pushing for a fast answer. If the question touches structural, MEP, or civil scope, route it correctly. Issuing a response on something outside your professional scope creates liability exposure that isn't worth the goodwill.

Not linking RFI responses to potential change orders. Some RFI responses have cost implications. If your response authorizes additional work or changes the specified material, flag it immediately. Waiting until the end of the project to sort out what triggered change orders is a nightmare—and contractors will have a much longer memory of what you authorized than you will.

Using email as your RFI system. Email threads get forwarded, deleted, and misread. The subject line changes. The attachment gets lost. If your RFI log is reconstructed from an inbox search, you don't have a log—you have a liability waiting to be discovered.

Failing to close out RFIs at project end. Open RFIs at project closeout are a red flag during owner handoffs and can complicate final payment. Build RFI closeout into your punch list process, not as an afterthought.

Setting Up Your RFI Log Before Construction Starts

The best time to build your RFI tracking system is before the first RFI arrives. That sounds obvious. Most firms don't do it.

Before construction administration begins, establish the numbering convention, assign a primary point of contact for incoming RFIs, define your internal routing protocol for multi-discipline questions, and confirm the contractual response window with the owner. If the project uses a specific platform—Procore, e-Builder, Kahua—get your access configured and test it before the contractor submits RFI #1.

Set a calendar reminder for the response deadline the moment an RFI comes in. Don't rely on memory or a weekly review. A 10-day window disappears fast when you're also managing submittals, site visits, and two other active projects.

If you have a standard RFI response template—letterhead, project number, signature block, reference fields—prepare it in advance. The goal is to reduce friction at the moment you're actually trying to answer a technical question under time pressure.

How Phasewise Handles This

Phasewise includes RFI tracking as part of its construction administration workflow, built specifically for landscape architecture project structures rather than adapted from a GC-centric model. Incoming RFIs can be logged, assigned, and tracked against response deadlines without leaving the platform. The connection between RFI responses and potential change order triggers is built into the workflow, so nothing falls through the gap between a written answer and a cost event. It won't replace Procore on a large public project where the owner mandates the platform—but for firms managing their own CA workflow across multiple projects, it reduces the coordination overhead that usually lives in spreadsheets and email threads.