Currently, the Autodesk Forma Build_RFI  does not provide a “Pending Action From” filter function similar to what is available in the Submittal tool.   This limitation creates difficulty for project teams, especially main contractors, to efficiently track and monitor pending RFIs by responsible party/user/company for follow-up purposes. Requested Enhancement: Add a “Pending Action From” filter in the RFI tool Allow filtering based on the current action owner/responsible party Similar behavior and workflow as the existing Submittal's filter Benefits: Easier tracking of pending RFIs Better accountability and follow-up management Reduced manual work and external reporting Improved project communication and response monitoring This feature would be highly beneficial for projects with multiple consultants and large volumes of RFIs. Show More

When adding these roles to a Submittal or RFI, have the ability to expand so you can see all those members listed in that role within the Submittal/RFI. Show More

Give the ability for all project members to view ALL incoming (unreviewed) Submittals and/or RFIs? Show More

Similar to how you can add review templates to Submittals would like the ability to add these for RFI's as well. Show More

When I go to respond to an RFI, when I click on submit response a window pops up and blocks the RFI question.  I cannot move the window to see the question below.  I often need to reference the question so what I do is copy and paste the question into the response window so at least I can see it and then delete it when I'm done.  Please allow up to move the pop up window or instead of a popup add a section to type the response right into the site so I can also open the attachment and see the entire RFI activity log. Show More

Please remove the contact name from the "Ball in Court" column within closed RFIs. This deceives users implying that there are actions to be taken, however the RFI is closed, no more actions are needed. The RFI manager/creator already took the appropriate action at the time of closing the RFI. As well, when entering the RFI webpage, the RFIs are organized by "Ball in Court"; thus the old closed RFIs show up first when trying to manage open RFIs.  Show More

We have a project in which there are 2 people that are Architects and only 1 is needed to answer an RFI or Submittal.  At this time Autodesk only allows you to set one default reviewer.  We would like the option added in which there can be more than one default reviewer but only 1 is needed to move the RFI/Submittal forward. Show More

I will preface this idea with a statement: I am inherently opposed to most web-based applications and interfaces, as they never provide the flexibility, power, and speed of native applications. Even on PCs with applications hooking onto databases, mass and efficient editing of content is slow and cumbersome, as it tends to be "record-centric". In other words, they are inefficient from the end-user's perspective, especially for "power users". In all honesty, I do not consider cloud-based platforms as efficient; they're collaborative at best. In addition, my background is Computer Engineering. I have managed teams of developers in the past; I am very cognizant of user interfaces and efficiency.   Please bear that in mind as you read through the following suggestions.   Next, I'll follow up with a "congruity" statement: RFI and Submittal modules should have similar - if not identical - look-and-feel ... and be efficient.   From the main summary pages, one can achieve similar content and layout, but not quite identical. For example, in the RFIs, items with me in the "Ball in court" field automatically sort to the top, while others below are in some unknown sort order. In the Submittals, no such luck, and the only sortable fields are of little to no use to me. To find submittals with my name associated, I must scroll and navigate through multiple pages, to find my name. Why does this module navigate differently? Also, why, once I've responded, is my name not removed from the Ball in court? I cannot select one of the Submit Response, Skip Reviewers, or Review options, as others continue to need to review. There should be an additional flag per user, besides Ball in court, which indicates "response submitted". Then, the overall main pages should sort / filter my un-addressed items to the top of the page. Within each of the individual RFI and Submittal cards, the workflows should be similar, and far more efficient. Within the RFI, to add/remove personnel to the Ball In Court, that portion is within the General Information box towards the top of the card. However, there is zero indication - until you hover over the names - that they're editable by the user; that is not a good user interface. However, when you click on the Pencil icon, the selection list box pops up directly there; that is efficient and good. When complete, merely clicking somewhere off to the side of the selection list updates the list and completes the edit; a "Done" button would be more consistent with other modules. Within the Submittal, to add/remove personnel to the Ball In Court, that is much further below, between the Rev and Planning section, with an obvious Pencil icon and "Edit review workflow" text in blue; that part (it being blatantly obvious) is good. However, the fact that one had to scroll to the bottom with the Submittals (whereas the same feature in RFIs was fairly close to the top) is an inconsistent user interface. And, it gets worse. Once you select the Edit review workflow, instead of a popup selection list appearing right there, it is a slide-out panel with many sections. One must move the mouse pointer up there, scroll through, etc.. When complete, move the mouse cursor to the bottom of the pane at the bottom of the page, and select the Done button. That! Is a whole bunch of mouse movement. Luckily, some user efficiency is achieved if the user as a mouse with a scroll wheel. However, this process, of going into each card, making these edits to remove myself (or my teammates) from these items, navigating back to the summary pages, waiting for it to regenerate, takes 20 to 30 seconds per card. You might not think that to be too bad. But, we get 50 to 100 of these a day. That is therefore between 1000 and 3000 seconds, or 16 min 40 sec to 50 minutes - a day - to simply remove my name. That much time in a day to merely indicate "not my problem" is 100% unacceptable. Therefore, at the summary pages for both RFIs and Submittals, for items in which my name appears under the Ball in court, there should be the ability - with the simple click of a radio button - to deselect myself. I could deselect myself for the same 50 to 100 items within a couple of minutes, tops. Show More

Current Date Picker does not allow a user to type the date. It also does not show previous months days. Sometimes there is a need to pick day outside the current month, which requires an additional clicks to switch months. However, if it's within the same week as a month change, many other date pickers will show the overlapping days greyed out, which allows a more functional selection without having to change months. Additionally please allow a user to use the scroll wheel to change months, so that there is no need to move your cursor.   Show More

We want to be able to select the working days instead of calendar days by inputting what a working day is either by marking up a calendar with working vs non-working days or preferably loading in a file containing this data that the system can import and reference to find the working days and apply to the due dates of the RFIs & Submittals instead of using calendar days Show More

Currently there is no webhook support for the RFI module, which forces integrations to rely on polling to detect status changes and updates. For active construction projects, this means a high volume of unnecessary API calls just to stay in sync.   Webhook support for RFIs would enable event-driven integrations that only fire when something changes — reducing API call volume and improving reliability for connected applications. Suggested events: rfi.created, rfi.updated, rfi.status_changed. Show More

When an RFI is closed and distributed, there is no way to explicitly send it to the responsible subcontractor to alert them to the response. The only options are to add them as a Watcher or @ mention them in the Activity Log, neither of which assigns it to them. We'd like to be able to create a Correspondence item that emails the responsible subcontractor(s), alerting them to the closure of the RFI and instructing them to review the response and inform us of any cost or schedule impacts within X number of days (using templated language requested in a separate Correspondence feature request). Correspondence can be added, but it's generic and not tied to the closure and distribution process. And there's no way to indicate that it is now Ball In Court with the subcontractor company to take action.  Show More

Summary Request enhancements to RFIs to support OR‑based reviewer logic and multiple coordinators. These capabilities would prevent RFIs from stalling, reduce administrative overhead, and better reflect real‑world design and consultant review workflows. Problem Description Currently, RFIs can stall indefinitely in two common scenarios: When multiple designers or consultants are configured as required reviewers, RFIs remain open until all required reviewers respond. In practice, not every reviewer needs to respond to every RFI, which causes RFIs to remain open indefinitely and creates unnecessary administrative overhead. When using RFIs that rely on a coordinator-based workflow, only a single coordinator can be assigned. If that individual is out of office or unavailable, RFIs remain stuck until the coordinator role is manually reassigned. Manually skipping reviewers or reassigning coordinators is possible, but these workarounds are not scalable, auditable, or sustainable on large, multi‑discipline projects. Requested Capabilities 1. OR‑Based Reviewer Logic Allow configuration of multiple individual reviewers and/or reviewer groups (outside of role or company based assignments), where approval from any one reviewer satisfies the review requirement.   Example: Designer 1 or Designer 2 or Designer 3 responds → RFI progresses. This would prevent RFIs from remaining open when full group participation is unnecessary and allow teams to maintain accountability without workflow bottlenecks. 2. Multiple Coordinators for RFIs Allow assignment of multiple coordinators (or a coordinator group) to RFIs that use a coordinator-based workflow, such as the RFI with Coordinator template or RFI type. This would: Prevent RFIs from stalling due to coordinator absence Reduce reliance on manual reassignment Better reflect how teams share coordination responsibilities in practice Show More

It would be highly beneficial to allow rearranging the sequence of fields in the RFI module. Currently, custom fields are automatically added to the bottom of the list, with no option to reorder them, unlike in the Issues module, where field arrangement is supported. Show More

Feedback from construction site was that the creation of an RFI pin (previously used on B360 was) stopped the same query being raised. When performing this via a markup, the markup can be deleted and losing that previous history that a query had been raised.   The current setup makes sense for our design team but doesn't translate very well for on site questions.   This is a current pain point our teams are facing. Show More

On desktop you are able to create an RFI from an issue fairly easily, however the same functionality is not available on mobile. The workflow should match from Mobile to Desktop.  Show More

We would like the RFI Detail Report to be able to in Excel format. We need the "Suggested Answer" to show up on our report (and we need this in Ecxel format), but the Detail Report does not allow this - only .pdf.  The Summary Report can be downloaded as an excel file, but does not show the Suggested Answer. Show More

Often, RFIs and submittals follow the same exact workflows.  Currently, the RFI module is just to rigid.  We would like to add steps, assign a role or company as responsible reviewer, etc.  The current set-up just doesn't work. Have the submittal and RFI teams work together! Show More

It would be useful to be able to customise the colours of the RFI status'. A small but easy win I think as a few people have asked me whether this can be done Show More