Decision Requested

Prepare for Disputes Review Board (DRB) referral on Protest 011. WSDOT’s position is that the Design-Builder is responsible for the PSE power routing design to the SR-522 Transit Hub under the contract and that no additional compensation or Contract Days are warranted. The dispute is awaiting Skanska’s written Dispute Referral per RFP Section 1-04.5(1).18.

• Recommendation: Deny all claims — proceed to DRB upon Dispute Referral
• Cost Exposure: $1,112,424 claimed (Skanska $598,750 + AECOM $513,674)
• Risk Level: Analysis in progress — position paper and internal memo not yet complete

Core Question

Did the revised PSE power routing to the SR-522 Transit Hub constitute a WSDOT-directed change entitling the Design-Builder to additional compensation and Contract Days, or was the power routing design the Design-Builder’s contractual responsibility?

In November 2025, Skanska notified WSDOT via LTR 273 that changes to the PSE power routing to the SR-522 Transit Hub had caused design delays and additional AECOM costs of approximately $340,362. WSDOT responded via SL 9727-203 (November 21, 2025), finding no merit for extra cost on temporary signal power design.

Skanska protested via LTR 289 (December 5, 2025) and requested a 60-day extension to submit supplemental information. WSDOT denied the extension via SL 9727-211 (December 8, 2025), setting the supplemental deadline at December 19. Skanska’s supplemental (LTR 300, December 19, 2025) increased the claim to $1,112,423.95 and stated no additional Contract Days would be required if RFC design was complete by February 20, 2026. WSDOT again determined no merit via SL 9727-238 (January 9, 2026).

Skanska filed a Dispute Notification via LTR 328 (January 23, 2026). WSDOT acknowledged via SL 9727-251 (January 26, 2026) and requested a written Dispute Referral per Section 1-04.5(1).18. The dispute referral is pending. DRB preparation is in progress.

Analysis Status

Full internal analysis and position paper are in progress for DRB preparation. This section will be updated as the DRB submission is developed. Key risk factors are noted below based on available information.

Initial Strengths

• WSDOT issued two consistent no-merit determinations: SL 9727-203 and SL 9727-238
• Skanska itself conditioned the schedule claim on RFC completion by February 20, 2026, suggesting limited schedule exposure
• No Change Order was issued for the PSE routing change; without an OIC, there is no contractual basis for an equitable adjustment under GP 1-04.4(1)
• PSE coordination for utility routing is typically within DB’s scope on design-build projects

Potential Weaknesses

• Position paper not yet developed; detailed contract basis needs to be documented before DRB
• AECOM’s initial estimate ($340,362) versus supplemental ($513,674) suggests evolving cost analysis that may generate DRB questions
• If PSE routing was driven by WSDOT-controlled right-of-way or utility coordination constraints, the DB may have a colorable change argument

Defense Layering

Layer	Defense	Use In
1.	No OIC was issued. GP 1-04.4(1) requires WSDOT to “authorize and require changes” via a Change Order. Without an OIC, no equitable adjustment is owed. PSE coordination is a DB design responsibility.	DRB Referral / Primary
2.	GP 1-04.4(5)(b): Design changes required to achieve contract compliance are the DB’s exclusive responsibility and are not eligible for change orders.	DRB Referral / Secondary
3.	Skanska’s conditional schedule waiver (0 days if RFC by 2/20/26) limits the schedule exposure to the cost claim only.	Schedule Defense

Fallback Position

If DRB finds that PSE routing involved WSDOT-driven constraints outside the DB’s control, WSDOT should be prepared to limit any relief to direct AECOM redesign costs that are clearly attributable to the specific routing change, excluding Skanska’s overhead and management markup. Schedule entitlement should remain denied given Skanska’s own conditional waiver.