Skip to content
Menu

Difficult conversations

The consultant who blames the contractor: answering in the room and on paper

By Review.LivePublished 3 min readHow we write

At the timber-office meeting, the consultant says the window leak is an installation problem. The superintendent remembers an earlier detail question and RFI. The owner is listening, and an angry reply would leave two accusations instead of a useful record.

A finger points to one manhole on a civil drawing next to its schedule, with handwritten notes in the margin.
Photo: ThisisEngineering on Unsplash

Correct the specific assertion with the checked document and date, then ask for an accurate meeting record and the required review. Separate what the documents establish from the cause or responsibility still being investigated. You can explain that a question was raised without claiming the RFI proves someone else's fault. Keep the reply short enough to follow and move detailed technical or commercial review to the appropriate people.

Put the facts into the room and the record

  1. Check the reference before relying on it. Locate the current detail, earlier revision, RFI and response. Read their context and distinguish a question from an agreed instruction. If you cannot verify a reference during the meeting, say you will provide it by a stated time.
  2. Correct one assertion calmly. State the fact that differs and its source. Avoid assigning motive or making a competing unsupported allegation. Ask for the observed condition and basis behind the consultant's statement so the team has a defined issue to review.
  3. Request a usable minute. Give concise proposed wording that records the competing positions, relevant reference and next review owner. Check the issued minutes and use the project's correction process promptly. A minute is a record of the discussion, not a determination of technical cause or legal responsibility.
  4. Prepare the appropriate follow-up. Have the project manager connect the facts to any cost, time or instruction question through the required process. Keep applicable notices separate and obtain adviser review where needed. A factual meeting reply does not replace formal action or settle entitlement.
  5. Keep working contact specific. Ask for the inspection, clarification or decision needed to manage the condition. Continue ordinary coordination respectfully while preserving records. If a pattern of unsupported assertions continues, take dated examples and requested corrections to the authorized management channel rather than complain about the person's character.

A correction without an accusation

  1. Superintendent:The record includes our March RFI about that detail and the response. I will provide both; we should record them before concluding the cause.
  2. Superintendent:Please identify who will review the condition and record today's positions and next action accurately.

Common mistakes

  • Answering blame with another unsupported cause.
  • Quoting an RFI without its response or context.
  • Assuming accurate minutes establish entitlement.

Checklist

The factual meeting correction

  • Verified document and date.
  • Defined assertion being corrected.
  • Cause and responsibility left to review.
  • Accurate minute requested and checked.
  • Required follow-up and notices owned.
  • Specific next technical decision.

Check your understanding

The RFI proves you asked about the detail earlier. Does it prove the consultant caused the leak?

Show the answer
No. It establishes part of the factual history. The condition, applicable requirements and causes need the appropriate investigation. Use the record to correct the meeting account and obtain the required review without turning correspondence into a liability finding.

Related articles