ChatGPT for RFI Responses: Prompts That Save Hours

RFIs are the paperwork that keeps construction moving. They’re also the paperwork that nobody enjoys writing. A single conflict between drawing sheets can generate four or five separate RFIs, each one needing a formal problem statement, a reference to the conflicting documents, a specific question, and a deadline for response. Do that 30 times on a mid-size commercial job and you’ve burned a day and a half of project management time on administrative writing that adds zero direct value to the project.

ChatGPT is not going to replace your project manager, and it will not catch drawing conflicts you haven’t already found. What it does well is take a rough description of a problem and turn it into professional, formally structured RFI language in under two minutes. After running this workflow on commercial office and retail tenant improvement projects for several months, the time savings are real: from 25-35 minutes per RFI down to 8-12 minutes, mostly spent on verification and submittal logging, not drafting.

The prompts below cover the RFI scenarios that come up most often. Each one shows what to give ChatGPT, what it produces, and where you need to verify or edit the output before it goes in Procore or Autodesk Construction Cloud.

Prompt 1: Drawing Coordination Conflict

When to use it: You have a conflict between two drawing sets — typically structural versus architectural, or MEP versus civil — and you need to document exactly what conflicts, what each sheet says, and what clarification you’re requesting.

This is the most common RFI scenario and the one where AI saves the most time. The technical problem identification is already done (you found the conflict); the hard part is writing it clearly enough that the architect can respond without a phone call.

The prompt:

Write a formal construction RFI based on the following information.

Project: [Project name]
RFI Number: [Number]
Date: [Date]
To: [Architect/Engineer name and firm]
From: [GC/PM name and company]
Response Required By: [Date]

Drawing conflict:
Sheet A2.4 (Architectural Floor Plan, dated [date]) shows the north demising wall at Grid Line 4 as a 2-hour fire-rated assembly with 5/8" Type X gypsum board on both sides of 3-5/8" 20-gauge metal studs.

Sheet S2.1 (Structural Framing Plan, dated [date]) shows the same wall location with a moment frame column at Grid Line 4/B that extends to the underside of the roof deck. The column dimensions shown on S2.1 would require the wall assembly to be a minimum of 6" wide to maintain the required 5/8" gypsum cover to the column flanges.

Question: Which drawing takes precedence? Should the wall be detailed at 3-5/8" studs as shown on A2.4 or widened to 6" studs to maintain fire-rated cover over the structural column? Please provide an updated wall section detail.

Format as a professional, formally structured RFI using plain language. Include a brief impact statement noting that framing in this area is scheduled to begin in [X] days. Do not add technical information that is not in the prompt.

The output (paraphrased):

Subject: Conflict Between Architectural Wall Specification and Structural Column Dimension — Grid Line 4/B, North Demising Wall

Problem Statement: A dimensional conflict exists between the architectural and structural drawing sets at the north demising wall location at Grid Line 4/B. Architectural drawings (Sheet A2.4) specify a 2-hour fire-rated assembly using 3-5/8” 20-gauge metal studs. The structural framing plan (Sheet S2.1) shows a moment frame column at the same location that would require the wall assembly to be widened to a minimum of 6” to maintain the specified 5/8” gypsum cover to column flanges per UL U419 or equivalent fire-rated assembly requirements.

Question: Please confirm which dimension governs and provide a revised wall section detail at Grid Line 4/B that coordinates the fire-rated assembly with the structural column dimensions.

Schedule Impact: Framing in this area is scheduled to begin in [X] days. A response by [date] is required to maintain the current schedule.

Grade: Submit with minor edits. The output correctly identifies both conflicting documents, states the specific dimensional issue clearly, and adds the UL assembly reference, which strengthens the technical basis. The AI did add the “UL U419” reference unprompted, which is a common fire-rated wall assembly. Verify that UL assembly against what your spec section actually requires before submitting — if your spec section calls out a different assembly number, update it. Otherwise this is clean.

Prompt 2: Specification Ambiguity — Approved Equal Request

When to use it: The spec calls out a named manufacturer or product, the owner or architect listed an “approved equal” clause, and you need to formally request substitution approval for a specific alternate product.

This RFI type has a predictable structure — spec section, the basis-of-design product, your proposed alternate, and the technical comparison — but writing the comparison section clearly takes time when done from scratch.

The prompt:

Write a construction RFI requesting approval of a substitution/approved equal.

Project: [Project name]
RFI Number: [Number]
Spec Section: 08 71 00 (Door Hardware)
Basis of Design Product: Schlage ND Series cylindrical lockset, Grade 1
Proposed Alternate: Best Access Systems 9K Series cylindrical lockset, Grade 1

Basis for equivalency:
- Both are ANSI/BHMA Grade 1 certified
- Both meet ANSI A156.2 Series 4000 Grade 1 for cylindrical locksets
- Both are available with the specified keying system (Best IC core)
- Lead time on the Schlage ND is currently 18 weeks from the distributor; Best 9K is available in 6 weeks
- Price is comparable within 4%

Question: Please confirm whether the Best Access Systems 9K Series is approved as an equal to the Schlage ND Series for this project.

Include a request for written confirmation in the response. Note that hardware must be ordered within 10 days to meet the installation window.

The output (paraphrased):

Subject: Request for Approval of Substitution — Door Hardware, Spec Section 08 71 00

The contractor requests approval of the following substitution for Spec Section 08 71 00, Door Hardware:

Basis of Design: Schlage ND Series cylindrical lockset, Grade 1 Proposed Alternate: Best Access Systems 9K Series cylindrical lockset, Grade 1

The proposed alternate meets the specified performance requirements on the following basis: [equivalency points listed as a table]

The contractor notes that the basis-of-design product currently carries an 18-week lead time from the project’s distributor, which is incompatible with the scheduled installation window. The proposed alternate is available in 6 weeks.

Please confirm in writing whether the Best Access Systems 9K Series is approved as an equal. Hardware orders must be placed within 10 days to maintain the installation schedule.

Grade: Submit with formatting adjustments. This is clean. The AI formatted the equivalency points as a comparison table without being asked, which makes the response easier to review. One thing to add before submitting: attach the manufacturer’s cut sheet for the proposed alternate. Most architects want to see the technical data sheet alongside the request, and that needs to come from you, not the AI.

Prompt 3: Undefined Scope — Who Provides the Blocking?

When to use it: The drawings show something that requires backing or blocking (TV mounts, grab bars, future equipment) but the drawings don’t show who installs it, where it goes, or what size it needs to be.

These RFIs seem small but they generate real schedule impact when blocking gets missed and drywall is already closed. Write them early.

The prompt:

Write a construction RFI addressing undefined scope for backing and blocking.

Project: [Project name]
RFI Number: [Number]

The architectural drawings (Sheet A5.2, Interior Elevations) show wall-mounted TV brackets in 12 conference rooms and 4 breakout spaces but do not indicate:
1. The location or dimensions of required blocking
2. The blocking material or specification
3. Who is responsible for furnishing and installing the blocking (General Contractor framing scope vs. AV contractor)

The AV contractor's scope of work in their contract does not include backing installation.

Questions:
1. Please provide blocking locations, dimensions, and specification (material, thickness) for the wall-mounted TV bracket locations.
2. Please confirm whether blocking installation is in the GC's framing scope or is an owner-furnished/AV contractor-furnished item.

Note that framing walls in the conference room cluster are scheduled for [date].

The output (paraphrased):

Subject: Clarification Required — TV Bracket Blocking Scope and Specification, Conference Rooms and Breakout Spaces

The architectural drawings (Sheet A5.2) indicate wall-mounted TV brackets in 16 locations but do not specify blocking requirements or responsibility for installation. The AV contractor’s contract does not include backing installation.

Questions:

1. Please provide blocking locations, dimensions, and material specification for each TV bracket location.
2. Please confirm contractual responsibility for blocking installation — GC framing scope or AV contractor scope.

Schedule Note: Conference room framing is scheduled to begin [date]. A written response is required by [date] to avoid reopening closed walls for blocking installation, which would add cost and delay.

Grade: Submit as-is. This one produced exactly the right output. The AI noted the wall-reopening cost implication without being asked — “avoid reopening closed walls for blocking installation” is the kind of professional language that gets architects to prioritize the response. Keep that line.

Prompt 4: Structural Penetration Clarification

When to use it: MEP routing requires penetrating structural members and the structural drawings don’t show or address it.

The prompt:

Write a construction RFI requesting clarification on penetration of a structural beam.

Project: [Project name]
RFI Number: [Number]

The mechanical ductwork (Sheet M2.1) requires a 24" x 18" rectangular duct to pass through the main corridor at Grid Line 7. The structural framing plan (Sheet S2.2) shows a W16x40 steel beam at this location at the underside of the roof deck. There is no penetration shown on the structural drawings.

Question: Please confirm whether the W16x40 beam at Grid Line 7 can be penetrated for this duct, and if so, provide the maximum permitted penetration size, location within the beam web, required reinforcement, and applicable weld specifications. If the beam cannot be penetrated, please indicate an alternate routing path for the ductwork.

Mechanical rough-in in this area is scheduled for [date].

The output (paraphrased):

Subject: Structural Penetration Request — W16x40 Beam at Grid Line 7, Mechanical Ductwork Routing

The mechanical ductwork shown on Sheet M2.1 requires a 24” x 18” rectangular penetration through the W16x40 steel beam at Grid Line 7 (Sheet S2.2). No penetration or reinforcement detail is shown on the structural drawings.

The contractor requests the following from the structural engineer of record:

1. Confirmation of whether penetration of this beam is permitted
2. Maximum permitted penetration dimensions and location within the beam web
3. Required reinforcement (doubler plates, stiffeners) and weld specifications
4. Alternate duct routing path if penetration is not permitted

Mechanical rough-in is scheduled for [date]. A response by [date] is required to maintain schedule.

Grade: Submit with one addition. Add the specific duct material and connection type (insulated flex connection, rigid sheet metal, etc.) to the RFI. The structural engineer may want to know whether the duct requires any additional framing at the penetration. A 30-second addition now saves a follow-up RFI later.

Prompt 5: Compiling a Weekly RFI Status Summary

When to use it: Owner meetings or weekly reports require a status summary of open RFIs. Writing these by hand from the RFI log takes 30-45 minutes; AI can do it in under 5 if you paste in the log data.

The prompt:

I'm going to paste a table of RFI data. Summarize the status for an owner meeting update. Include: total open RFIs, any past the response deadline, which trades are most affected, and 2-3 RFIs that need owner attention. Use a professional but direct tone — this is going into a meeting agenda.

[Paste your RFI log table here — RFI number, description, date issued, due date, status, assignee]

What it produces: A 3-4 paragraph summary identifying overdue items, flagging any RFIs with significant schedule or cost implications, and calling out which disciplines are generating the most volume. The AI won’t know which RFIs matter most without your input, so include a brief note before you paste the log: “RFI 047 and 052 are critical path items — note these prominently.”

Grade: Useful with direction. Without that flag, the AI treats all RFIs equally. With the flag, it produces meeting-ready language that would take 20-25 minutes to write from scratch.

Prompt 6: Geotechnical — Conflicting Soil Conditions

When to use it: Field conditions don’t match the geotech report and you need a formal notification to the owner and structural engineer before proceeding.

The prompt:

Write a construction RFI documenting unexpected subsurface conditions that conflict with the geotechnical report.

Project: [Project name]
RFI Number: [Number]

The geotechnical report (dated [date]) indicates bearing capacity of 2,000 psf at a depth of 4 feet below finished grade throughout the building footprint.

During excavation at Column Line A-4 on [date], we encountered undocumented fill material extending to a depth of approximately 7 feet below finished grade. The fill material consists of construction debris including concrete rubble, wood, and apparent soil with unknown compaction characteristics. No bearing capacity testing has been performed on this material.

Current footing design assumes 2,000 psf bearing at 4 feet.

Questions:
1. Is additional geotechnical investigation required before proceeding with footing installation at Column Line A-4?
2. If the existing fill cannot provide 2,000 psf bearing, what is the structural engineer's recommended remediation (over-excavation and recompaction, aggregate pier, deep foundation, etc.)?
3. Is this a changed condition under the contract?

Work in this area has been halted pending direction.

The output (paraphrased):

Subject: Differing Site Condition — Undocumented Fill Material at Column Line A-4

During excavation at Column Line A-4 on [date], the contractor encountered undocumented fill material extending approximately 7 feet below finished grade, in conflict with the geotechnical report (dated [date]) which predicted acceptable bearing material at 4 feet depth. The fill contains construction debris and has not been tested for compaction or bearing capacity.

This constitutes a potential differing site condition under Article [X] of the contract. Work at Column Line A-4 has been halted pending direction.

Questions: [numbered as provided]

The contractor requests written direction before resuming excavation or footing installation at this location.

Grade: Critical edit required. The AI added “This constitutes a potential differing site condition under Article [X] of the contract” without knowing your contract number. That language is legally significant and correct in substance — differing site conditions are a standard contract clause in AIA A201 and most public contracts — but you must fill in the correct article number from your specific contract before submitting. Do not send an RFI with “[X]” in it.

Prompt 7: Accessibility Compliance Conflict

When to use it: You’ve identified a conflict between the architectural drawings and ADA/accessibility requirements and need a formal record of the conflict before proceeding.

The prompt:

Write a construction RFI documenting a conflict between architectural drawings and ADA accessibility requirements.

Project: [Project name]
RFI Number: [Number]

Sheet A3.1 shows the accessible parking stall access aisle at 4'-0" wide. Per ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Section 502.3, van accessible parking spaces require an access aisle of not less than 8'-0" wide. The accessible stall shown adjacent to the designated van-accessible stall (Stall #1) appears to serve as the required access aisle but is dimensioned at 4'-0".

Per the architectural plans, this is the only van-accessible stall in the parking lot.

Question: Please confirm the intended dimension for the accessible parking access aisle adjacent to Stall #1 and provide revised site plan dimensions. If the current 4'-0" dimension is intentional, please provide the code basis for compliance.

The parking lot base course is scheduled to begin on [date].

The output: The AI produced a clean, well-structured RFI that cited the ADA section correctly (502.3) because it was included in the prompt. The output asked for the same clarification without adding unverified code citations.

Grade: Submit after verifying the ADA section number. I included Section 502.3 in the prompt, and the AI correctly referenced it. If you leave that out, the AI may cite a section from memory — and I’ve seen it get ADA section numbers wrong by one digit. Always look up the actual section in the 2010 ADA Standards and include it in your prompt, then verify the output matches what you provided.

Tips for Customizing These Prompts

Add your standard RFI format. If your project uses a specific RFI form (Procore’s default, AIA G716, or a custom template), paste the field names into the prompt. The AI will fill them out in order: “Format the output as fields: RFI Number, Subject, Description of Problem, Applicable Documents, Request/Question, Required Response Date, Schedule Impact.”

Specify reading level and formality. “Professional and direct” produces clear, formal prose. “Technical, concise, no passive voice” produces shorter, denser text that engineers sometimes prefer. For owner-facing communications, “professional but accessible to a non-technical reader” works better.

Control length. Add “maximum 150 words” or “maximum 300 words” to constrain output length. RFIs are not the place for lengthy explanations — short, specific, and documented is better than thorough.

Provide document references explicitly. The AI cannot read your drawings. Every sheet number, specification section, dimension, and date has to come from you. If you leave gaps, the AI will fill them in with plausible-sounding but incorrect details. This is the single biggest risk in AI-assisted RFI drafting.

Common Prompt Mistakes

Leaving out document references. “There’s a conflict in the drawings” is not enough. The AI needs: which drawings conflict, what each one says, and the specific sheet numbers and dates. Without this, you’ll get a well-formatted RFI that references “the architectural drawings” in generic terms — useless for a formal submittal.

Asking for conclusions the AI can’t reach. “Write an RFI requesting a credit for the architect’s error” requires a legal determination that AI isn’t qualified to make. Write the RFI to document the discrepancy and ask for clarification. Save the credit request for a change order after the architect responds.

Not specifying a deadline format. If you don’t tell the AI when a response is due and why, it will write “a timely response is requested.” That phrase means nothing. Always include the specific date and a one-sentence explanation of the schedule consequence.

Trusting code citations without checking. The AI knows a lot about ADA, IBC, OSHA 1926, and standard contract documents. It also confuses section numbers with some regularity. Any code citation the AI generates should be verified against the actual published standard before the RFI goes out.

Too much background. Two paragraphs of project history before the actual problem statement slows down the architect’s review and buries the question. A good RFI has one sentence of context, a clear description of the conflict, and a specific question. The AI will sometimes produce more background than you need — trim it.

What ChatGPT Does Not Do Well Here

RFI drafting is one of the stronger use cases for AI in construction project management, but it has real limits.

The AI cannot read drawings. Every document reference — sheet numbers, drawing revision dates, specification section numbers, dimensions — has to come from you. If your project uses Autodesk Construction Cloud, Procore, or PlanGrid, you still have to pull the relevant information yourself before writing the prompt.

It will invent details to fill gaps. If your prompt says “there’s a conflict between the structural and mechanical drawings” without specifics, the AI will write a complete-sounding RFI that may describe a completely different conflict than the one you have. This is worse than a blank form.

It cannot assess schedule impact without your input. The AI will write whatever schedule language you tell it to. If you say “framing starts in 10 days,” it will note that. If you don’t say anything about schedule, the response-required date field will be vague or missing.

That said: for the mechanical work of translating field observations into professional, formally structured written documentation, ChatGPT is genuinely faster than doing it manually. The workflow — identify the problem, gather document references, write the prompt, verify output, submit — is faster than writing from scratch even with the verification steps. For teams managing 20+ open RFIs on an active project, that adds up.