I’m curious if anyone else is seeing this on larger projects lately.
I’m on a fairly big job right now and it feels like the GC is using Procore as an RFI and change‑order fishing machine rather than a coordination tool. They’ve got a team of about six people on their side, and on the design side it’s basically me plus one other person who actually has this project as a primary focus.
We’re getting buried in RFIs that are technically “questions,” but in reality read like they’re hunting for any tiny ambiguity between the RFP language and the contract documents so they can either push scope onto MEP or set up a change order later. If something isn’t written exactly the way they interpreted it in the RFP, it turns into an RFI instead of a normal coordination conversation.
A few patterns I’m seeing:
• RFIs that restate notes already on the drawings/specs, just worded slightly differently
• “Clarifications” that feel more like attempts to re‑negotiate scope mid‑project
• Volume of RFIs way out of proportion to the actual design complexity
I’m all for legit RFIs that resolve real conflicts, but this feels like a business model.
Is this RFI overload and Procore‑driven paper trail just the new normal with GCs, or is this a sign that this particular contractor is gaming the system? How are you all pushing back or protecting yourselves in contracts and fee negotiations when the GC has an entire team whose job is basically to generate RFIs?