Technology systems like IT, AV, security, DAS, and access control are some of the most complex and coordination-intensive elements of any modern building project. They’re also the source of more than their fair share of RFIs, change orders, and budget surprises. Not because the technology is unpredictable, but because architects often treat them as obstacles to be resolved later.
Global construction inefficiencies cost an estimated $1.6 trillion annually, with overruns ranging from 20% to 45%.1 Overruns, along with too many change orders and RFIs, can erode owner trust. The good news is that the majority of these problems are preventable – and they almost always trace back to decisions made (or deferred) well before the first shovel hits the ground.
In this blog, we break down the most common causes of construction RFIs, change orders, and budget overruns on technology-intensive projects, then walk through the strategies and practices that prevent them.
RFIs and change orders rarely appear out of nowhere. On technology-intensive projects, they’re almost always the downstream consequence of something that wasn’t resolved in the design phase.
Understanding the root causes can make them far easier to prevent. Here’s what to watch out for:
When technology specifications for architects default to performance language – “provide a system capable of” or “coordinate with owner’s IT” – contractors are left to make assumptions and price accordingly.
Every contractor will interpret differently. While some will under-scope to stay competitive, others will pad for uncertainty. Neither produces an accurate bid, and the gaps almost always surface as RFIs or change orders during construction.
Detailed, coordinated technology specifications at the CD stage give contractors the information they need to build. The more precise the specification, the less room there is for ambiguity to become a cost event.
Technology systems share physical space with mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work in ways that aren’t always obvious until someone is in the ceiling trying to run conduit. Above-ceiling pathways, equipment room sizing, power and cooling loads, and conduit routing all need to be resolved in the design phase – not discovered by a contractor in the field.
If you don’t complete technology and MEP coordination before CDs are issued, contractors will likely encounter conflicts during installation. Those conflicts generate RFIs, which generate delays, which then generate change orders. The downstream cost of a coordination gap that could have been caught in design is almost always a multiple of what it would have taken to resolve it upstream.
A bid document’s job is to give contractors everything they need to price the scope accurately. Contractors fill in the gaps with assumptions if the technology scope is too high-level, resulting in a bid spread that tells you very little about actual cost, and a contract that almost guarantees change orders when the details eventually get resolved.
Detailed bid documents compress scope ambiguity at the front end, which means fewer surprises at the back end. This is one of the clearest ways that investment in thorough upfront documentation pays for itself in project outcomes.
AV and IT infrastructure present coordination challenges that aren’t always intuitive for project teams whose primary expertise is in the built environment rather than technology systems. These disciplines involve dense interdependencies – between systems, between trades, and between the technology environment and the owner’s operational requirements.
A few of the most common complexity drivers on AV IT infrastructure architectural projects include:
TMC’s technology design services for architectural projects address this complexity through early engagement and thorough documentation – ensuring that the systems specified are the systems the owner needs, and that the documents support a clean construction process.
The question during any project isn’t whether there will be change orders, but whether they’ll reflect genuine owner-driven scope changes or avoidable gaps in your original documents.
On technology-heavy projects, avoidable change orders tend to cluster around a few predictable scenarios:
Engaging a technology consultant like TMC through construction administration can provide the continuity you need to manage these scenarios before they become cost events. When an owner wants to change something, we can evaluate that change against the existing design and infrastructure plans quickly – because we know the project. That speed matters when a contractor is waiting for direction.
Projects with well-coordinated, detailed construction documents generate fewer RFIs because contractors have the information they need. Projects with gaps, ambiguities, and unresolved coordination issues generate RFIs at every turn.
The strategies that most reliably reduce construction RFIs on technology-intensive projects are consistent:
Changes at the schematic design stage cost a fraction of what they cost at CDs or during construction. A technology consultant brought in at SD can translate owner requirements into infrastructure narratives, identify space and pathway needs, and flag coordination issues before they’re locked into the design.
The single highest-leverage action for reducing field RFIs on technology projects is completing MEP coordination before construction documents are issued. Conduit conflicts, equipment room sizing issues, and power and cooling gaps that are caught in coordination are resolved through redlines – not through RFIs, change orders, and field delays.
Systems like BIM coordination platforms and construction management tools can identify conflicts like conduit routing clashes, equipment room sizing issues, and power and cooling constraints before they surface as field problems.
However, the software is only as effective as the expertise guiding its use. A technology consultant working with these tools provides the discipline-specific knowledge and problem-solving judgment that automated detection can’t deliver.
Every ambiguity in a technology specification is a potential RFI. Make sure your specs:
Clear specifications give contractors a complete picture of what’s required, which means fewer questions and more accurate execution.
RFIs that do come in during construction should be reviewed by the same team that produced the documents. A consultant who responds to RFIs without the context of the original design intent, or who responds inconsistently because institutional knowledge has been lost, will generate more questions. Continuity through CA is what keeps the project moving.
Budget accuracy is one of the most consequential contributions a technology consultant makes to an architectural project – and one of the most frequently underestimated. In fact, only about 25% of construction projects come within 10% of their original budget.2
When architects build technology budgets on placeholder numbers or outdated benchmarks, the gap between what was estimated and what things actually cost tends to show up at the worst possible time: during a bid review or, worse, mid-construction.
Accurate building technology cost estimating requires current market knowledge, familiarity with the systems being designed, and an understanding of how installation complexity, phasing, and site conditions affect costs. A consultant who brings these inputs to the SD phase gives the owner a defensible budget – and gives architects a number they can actually stand behind.
At TMC, we build our technology cost estimates from current pricing, real system designs, and 35+ years of experience across government, healthcare, education, airport, and enterprise projects. We don’t use placeholder numbers because our clients’ owners don’t have placeholder budgets.
The difference between a specification that protects your project and one that creates exposure often comes down to a few key components:
A strong technology specification defines exactly what is and isn’t included in the contractor’s scope. Ambiguity about scope boundaries between trades – such as the interface between low-voltage technology systems and the electrical contractor – is a consistent source of disputes and change orders. Clear scope language eliminates the gray areas that become arguments.
Specifications should define not just what is being installed, but what it needs to do and how it needs to be installed to do it. Performance standards, design criteria, and installation requirements give contractors clear targets – and give the architect and owner a basis for evaluating whether the installed work meets the intent.
Failing to define submittal requirements or acceptance testing criteria can lead to contractors installing systems that meet the letter of the spec without meeting its intent. Define what should be submitted, what should be reviewed, and how systems should be tested at closeout upfront to protect the owner and support a clean handover.
Specs for AV, IT infrastructure, and other architectural project technology should include explicit coordination requirements – what the technology contractor is responsible for coordinating with other trades, what information they need from other contractors, and what they’re required to provide. This is the documentation that prevents “not my scope” disputes from holding up a project closeout.
The problems that generate RFIs, change orders, and budget overruns on technology-intensive projects aren’t inevitable. They’re almost always traceable to gaps in planning, coordination, and documentation that a qualified technology consultant addresses as a matter of course.
At TMC, we’ve been supporting architects on technology-intensive building projects since 1987 – across Divisions 25, 27, and 28, through schematic design, design development, construction documents, bidding, and construction administration. We produce coordinated drawings, accurate cost estimates, and specs that hold up under contractor and owner scrutiny – and we stay engaged through the end of the project to make sure what was designed is what gets built.
If you’re working on a project where technology complexity is a concern, contact our team to discuss how we can support your process – from early design through construction closeout.
Sources: