Capability template for project and delivery
RFI review package
The project engineer gets one packet for each request for information: the register entry, the question word for word, the drawing revisions and specification extracts it touches, earlier responses, and a numbered list of what is unresolved. No answer is proposed.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
A request for information usually arrives as an email or a form with a sentence or two and a drawing number. Before anyone can answer it, someone has to find the drawing at its current revision, pull the specification section, remember whether a similar question was answered a month ago, and work out who should look at it. This capability does that gathering and puts it on one page.
The packet shows the question exactly as the sender wrote it, the documents the sender cited set against the index of current revisions, the extracts you supplied quoted word for word, and every earlier response that touches the same documents. Where two documents print different values for the same item, both are shown side by side. Where the sender cites an old revision, mentions a site condition nobody has supplied, or hints at extra cost or time, it appears as a numbered question, addressed to the engineer or to the project manager.
The capability does not answer the question, says nothing about which document governs and checks no design. The responsible engineer reads the packet, interprets the design and approves the response. The project manager approves any commitment on cost or time.
Who starts the work, and when
The project engineer, or the project coordinator working for them, starts it when a request for information reaches the design team, before it is routed to a reviewer. It can be run again after the person adds an extract, a missing revision or the sender's reply to a question.
What they supply
- The request: its number, subject, sender, the discipline it is addressed to, the date received, the date the sender wants a response, the documents it cites, any site context, and the question as written.
- The document index: each drawing, specification section and bulletin with its current revision and the date of that revision.
- Extracts from the documents the request touches, each labelled with the document, revision and location.
- The prior responses on the project, with the documents each one cited.
- Your routing rules: which role reviews each discipline, and who approves a commitment.
- Today's date, who decides, and the response period your project allows.
What comes out
One dated packet in a fixed order: a summary, the register entry, the documents the request cites checked against the index, documents that may be related, the extracts quoted word for word, printed values that differ, relevant prior responses, what the request mentions but nobody supplied, any wording that hints at cost or time, the proposed routing, and numbered questions. Where a section is empty it says so, and the packet states that no response has been drafted.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The firm, the project, the contractor, the people, the documents and every number below are invented. Firm Z is an invented engineering firm. Dana, its project engineer, is the invented person running the work. Contractor A, the builder of an invented parking structure, has sent a request for information. First come the inputs Dana supplied, in full, then the packet the capability returned.
The inputs
1. Settings
Project: Alder Street Parking Structure
Today: 2026-11-16
Decider: project engineer
Commitment approver: project manager
Response period: the default
Effect words: the default
Stop words: the default
2. The request
rfi_no: RFI-0042
subject: Ramp edge embed plate size at second floor
from: Contractor A
discipline_addressed: structural
received_date: 2026-11-13
response_due_date: 2026-11-20
references_cited: S-201 rev C; S-501 rev B; 05 12 00
site_context:
question: Drawing S-201 revision C shows embed plate EP-3 at the ramp edge as 12 in. by 12 in. Detail 4 on S-501 revision B shows EP-3 as 10 in. by 10 in. Which governs? The plates are to be fabricated on 2026-11-23. If the larger plate is used, the rebar at gridline 5 may not clear it, and we may need additional detailing time.
3. The document index
doc_no,title,type,discipline,current_revision,revision_date
S-201,Second floor framing plan,drawing,structural,D,2026-11-06
S-202,Third floor framing plan,drawing,structural,C,2026-10-23
S-501,Slab edge and embed details,drawing,structural,B,2026-10-09
A-310,Ramp plan and sections,drawing,architectural,C,2026-10-16
05 12 00,Structural steel framing,specification,structural,1,2026-08-14
03 30 00,Cast-in-place concrete,specification,structural,2,2026-09-04
ASI-07,Ramp edge revisions,bulletin,architectural,0,2026-11-06
4. The extracts
doc_no: S-201
revision: D
location: Note 7, gridlines 5 to 6
text: EP-3 AT RAMP EDGE: PLATE 12 IN. X 12 IN. X 3/4 IN., FOUR 3/4 IN. HEADED STUDS.
doc_no: S-501
revision: B
location: Detail 4
text: EP-3: PLATE 10 IN. X 10 IN. X 3/4 IN., FOUR 3/4 IN. HEADED STUDS.
doc_no: 05 12 00
revision: 1
location: Part 2, item 2.4
text: Embedded plates and anchors shown on the structural drawings are furnished by the steel fabricator and set by the concrete contractor.
5. The prior responses
rfi_no,date_answered,subject,response_text,answered_by,docs_cited
RFI-0019,2026-09-28,Embed plate EP-1 at column base,Use EP-1 as shown on S-501 revision A.,structural engineer of record,S-501 rev A
RFI-0027,2026-10-12,Third floor duct sleeve at beam,Sleeve location is as shown on S-202 revision B.,structural engineer of record,S-202 rev B
RFI-0031,2026-10-20,Embed plate EP-2 at stair landing,EP-2 is as shown on S-501 revision A detail 3.,structural engineer of record,S-501 rev A
RFI-0036,2026-11-02,Ramp edge curb height,Curb height is 6 in. as shown on A-310 revision C.,architect's coordinator,A-310 rev C
6. The routing rules
discipline,reviewer_role
structural,structural engineer of record
architectural,architect's coordinator
What the capability returned
RFI REVIEW PACKAGE: Alder Street Parking Structure, RFI-0042
For: project engineer. Prepared Monday 16 November 2026 from: RFI text, document index (7 rows), extracts (3), prior responses (4 rows), routing rules (2 rows), settings.
Column check: all labels and headers matched.
Settings: response period 7 days, counted in calendar days. Defaults used: response period, effect words, stop words.
Summary: RFI-0042, response due in 4 days. Documents cited: 3 (1 revision differs, 0 not in index). Possibly related, not cited: 1. Printed values that differ: 1. Prior responses listed: 3 of 4 checked (2 cite an older revision). Mentioned but not supplied: 1. Possible effects on cost or time: 1. Open questions: 7 (6 for the responsible engineer, 1 for the project manager).
Data checks
- None.
Register entry
- RFI: RFI-0042, Ramp edge embed plate size at second floor.
- From: Contractor A. Addressed to: structural.
- Received: Friday 13 November 2026, 3 days ago.
- Response due: sender asks for Friday 20 November 2026 (4 days away); the response period gives Friday 20 November 2026.
- Dates in the question: Monday 23 November 2026, 7 days away.
- Question as written: "Drawing S-201 revision C shows embed plate EP-3 at the ramp edge as 12 in. by 12 in. Detail 4 on S-501 revision B shows EP-3 as 10 in. by 10 in. Which governs? The plates are to be fabricated on 2026-11-23. If the larger plate is used, the rebar at gridline 5 may not clear it, and we may need additional detailing time."
- Status: Open. No response drafted.
Documents cited
- S-201 Second floor framing plan, structural. Cited: revision C. Current: revision D, Friday 6 November 2026. REVISION DIFFERS. Extract supplied at revision D.
- S-501 Slab edge and embed details, structural. Cited: revision B. Current: revision B, Friday 9 October 2026. REVISION MATCHES. Extract supplied at revision B.
- 05 12 00 Structural steel framing, structural. Cited: no revision. Current: revision 1, Friday 14 August 2026. NO REVISION CITED. Extract supplied at revision 1.
Possibly related, not cited
- ASI-07 Ramp edge revisions, bulletin, architectural. Matching words: ramp, edge. No extract supplied.
Extracts, word for word
- 05 12 00 revision 1, Part 2, item 2.4: "Embedded plates and anchors shown on the structural drawings are furnished by the steel fabricator and set by the concrete contractor."
- S-201 revision D, Note 7, gridlines 5 to 6: "EP-3 AT RAMP EDGE: PLATE 12 IN. X 12 IN. X 3/4 IN., FOUR 3/4 IN. HEADED STUDS."
- S-501 revision B, Detail 4: "EP-3: PLATE 10 IN. X 10 IN. X 3/4 IN., FOUR 3/4 IN. HEADED STUDS."
Printed values that differ
- EP-3 plate length and width: S-201 revision D, Note 7, gridlines 5 to 6, prints 12 in. by 12 in.; S-501 revision B, Detail 4, prints 10 in. by 10 in. No view is taken on which governs.
Prior responses (4 checked, 3 listed)
- RFI-0019, answered Monday 28 September 2026 by structural engineer of record, "Embed plate EP-1 at column base": "Use EP-1 as shown on S-501 revision A." Cited: S-501 rev A. Cites revision A; current is B.
- RFI-0031, answered Tuesday 20 October 2026 by structural engineer of record, "Embed plate EP-2 at stair landing": "EP-2 is as shown on S-501 revision A detail 3." Cited: S-501 rev A. Cites revision A; current is B.
- RFI-0036, answered Monday 2 November 2026 by architect's coordinator, "Ramp edge curb height": "Curb height is 6 in. as shown on A-310 revision C." Cited: A-310 rev C.
Mentioned but not supplied
- "the rebar at gridline 5": no reinforcing drawing or measurement is in the index or the extracts.
- Site context: not supplied.
Possible effects on cost or time, for the project manager
- "additional": "If the larger plate is used, the rebar at gridline 5 may not clear it, and we may need additional detailing time."
Routing proposed
- Addressed to structural: structural engineer of record. If relevant: architectural: architect's coordinator. Commitments: project manager.
Questions for the responsible engineer
1. S-201. The sender cites revision C; the index shows revision D, dated Friday 6 November 2026. The extract supplied is from revision D, and the text of revision C is not supplied. What does the person want done about the revision the sender worked from?
2. EP-3. S-201 revision D prints 12 in. by 12 in. and S-501 revision B prints 10 in. by 10 in. What does the person want done about the two printed sizes?
3. RFI-0019. It cites S-501 revision A; the index shows revision B. What does the person want done about this earlier response?
4. RFI-0031. It cites S-501 revision A; the index shows revision B. What does the person want done about this earlier response?
5. ASI-07. Its title shares ramp and edge with the subject, and no extract is supplied. What does the person want done about whether it is added?
6. Rebar at gridline 5. The sender mentions it, and no reinforcing drawing, measurement or site context is supplied. What does the person want done to obtain it?
Questions for the project manager
7. The sender writes that it "may need additional detailing time", and says the plates are to be fabricated on Monday 23 November 2026, 7 days away; the response is due Friday 20 November 2026. What does the person want done about the possible effect on time?
Interpretation and approval of the response rest with the responsible engineer, approval of any commitment rests with the project manager, and nothing here answers the question.
Draft for the project engineer's decisions. No response has been drafted, no one has been contacted, and no log or record has been changed.
Where it fits
- Engineering firms, where the design team receives questions from the contractor while the drawings keep changing.
- Construction, for a firm whose own design team receives questions from the trades and wants each one tied to the right revision before it is routed.
- Project and delivery, which owns the response times the schedule depends on.
- Quality management, which wants a record of what was in front of the reviewer when the response was given.
- Established businesses, with a standing request log and a routine for it.
- Growth & scaling, when the number of open requests has outgrown one coordinator's memory.
What has to change for your company
Set the response period your project allows and the field names your log uses. Write your routing rules: which role reviews each discipline and who approves a commitment. Decide which words should send a request to the project manager as a possible effect on cost or time. Agree how revisions are written so the index and the requests match exactly. This capability reads text and quotes it; it does not read drawings as images, check calculations or decide what a design means.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this capability template in its own words from its own map of the work, with no third-party text. It was editorially reviewed on 10 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 10 November 2026; the record is published with it. Small wording edits made to the instructions and example after that trial have not been run again. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing on your project means running it on requests your project engineer already answered, with cases written in advance: a cited revision that is out of date, two documents that disagree, a request that mentions a condition nobody supplied. The project engineer checks every quotation and date against the documents before anyone relies on the packet. Pilot acceptance-test preparation sets those cases up, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
The full capability template
Everything above is the outline. The complete capability template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this capability to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this capability template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: