Decision Requested

Prepare WSDOT’s DRB position paper upon receipt of Skanska’s Dispute Referral per Section 1-04.5(1).18; defend denial of OIC for SR 522 Transit Hub roadway lighting requirements.

• Recommendation: Deny — mounting height requirement is established by Sound Transit Design Criteria Manual; no Change Order warranted
• Cost Exposure: $332,468 (AECOM design costs); construction TBD; schedule risk to Milestone C
• Risk Level: Moderate — dispute filed; awaiting Dispute Referral

Core Question

Does the Sound Transit Design Criteria Manual’s pole mounting height requirement for SR 522 Transit Hub roadway lighting constitute a WSDOT-directed change entitling Skanska to an Owner-Initiated Change, or is it a Contract requirement the Design-Builder must meet at its own cost?

Skanska requested an OIC for SR 522 Transit Hub roadway lighting requirements, asserting WSDOT’s interpretation of mounting height requirements was unreasonable (LTR 255, Oct 17, 2025). WSDOT denied the OIC, found the proposed fixture acceptable, but required that the mounting height comply with the Sound Transit (ST) Design Criteria Manual. WSDOT approved an increase to 24 feet (SL 9727-199, Nov 17, 2025).

Skanska filed Notice of Protest 009 (LTR 285, Dec 1, 2025), asserting WSDOT’s interpretation was unreasonable and requesting 60 days for supplement. WSDOT acknowledged the protest but denied the time extension, requiring supplement by December 15 (SL 9727-214, Dec 9, 2025). Skanska’s supplement quantified design costs at $332,468 (AECOM) with construction TBD and noted schedule risk to Milestone C (LTR 306, Dec 23, 2025).

WSDOT issued a Determination of no merit (SL 9727-234, Jan 7, 2026). Skanska filed a Dispute Notification per Section 1-04.5(1) (LTR 325, Jan 22, 2026), noting a Time Impact Analysis is required but scope is pending. WSDOT acknowledged the dispute and awaits the Dispute Referral per Section 1-04.5(1).18 (SL 9727-253, Jan 29, 2026). No Dispute Referral has been received as of March 2026.

Strengths

• The ST Design Criteria Manual is a Contract-referenced document; compliance is the Design-Builder’s obligation, not a WSDOT-directed change.
• WSDOT approved the fixture type and a mounting height increase to 24 feet, demonstrating good faith accommodation within Contract requirements.
• Skanska submitted the supplement late (Dec 23 vs. Dec 15 deadline), which may affect procedural posture.
• No Dispute Referral has been received as of March 2026, limiting WSDOT’s obligation to respond further until referral is filed.

Potential Weaknesses

• The $332,468 AECOM design cost quantum is relatively large; if the DRB finds partial merit, exposure is significant.
• Construction costs remain TBD and could substantially increase total exposure.
• Milestone C schedule risk requires a TIA; if critical path impact is demonstrated, time exposure could be meaningful.
• Interpretation of whether the ST Design Criteria Manual’s mounting height requirement applies to the specific fixture context may be contested.

Defense Layering

Layer	Defense	Use In
1.	ST Design Criteria Manual mounting height is a Contract requirement; no OIC warranted under Section 1-04.4	DRB Referral
2.	GP 1-04.4(5)(a)/(k): cost of bringing non-compliant design into compliance is Design-Builder’s responsibility	DRB Referral / Hearing
3.	WSDOT accommodated Skanska by approving 24ft height; this was not a new mandate but a compliant alternative	DRB Referral
4.	Late supplement submission (Dec 23 vs. Dec 15 deadline) — procedural argument if needed	Reserve

Fallback Position

If DRB partially favors Skanska on the mounting height interpretation, WSDOT should limit any award to incremental design costs above what a compliant initial design would have cost, excluding rework costs attributable to Skanska’s initial non-compliant design. Construction costs and schedule impacts should be evaluated independently via TIA once submitted.