| ID | Claim / Request | WSDOT Response | Authority | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P012-1 | Skanska files formal Notice of Protest to SL 225 per Section 1-04.5 | Protest received and acknowledged. WSDOT will respond per Section 1-04.5. | GP 1-04.5 | Acknowledge |
| P012-2 | Skanska requests 75 calendar day extension to submit supplemental | Denied via SL 236. Granted 1 additional day for MLK holiday. Deadline set January 23. | GP 1-04.5 | Denied (extension) |
| ID | Claim / Request | WSDOT Response | Authority | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P012-3 | CLD is a “current maintenance method” per TR 2.18.5.2; WSDOT’s rejection of CLD was a change, not enforcement of an existing requirement | Disagree. TR 2.18.4.6.3 specifically requires “bucket trucks to park adjacent to the CCTV structure.” This is a CCTV-specific provision that controls over the general “current maintenance methods” in TR 2.18.5.2. Under GP 1-03.2, specific controls over general. A bucket truck IS a current maintenance method; satisfying 2.18.4.6.3 satisfies 2.18.5.2. The reverse is not true. DB’s reading renders 2.18.4.6.3 surplusage. | TR 2.18.4.6.3 · TR 2.18.5.2 · GP 1-03.2 | Deny |
| P012-4 | Appendix M1 conceptual plans showed existing camera on existing pole — implied no pullout was needed, CLD was the intended maintenance method | Disagree. Appendix M1 is classified “BC” (Reference Document) per Appendix A1. Per GP 1-03.1, “Reference Documents are for information purposes only and the Design-Builder shall rely upon Reference Documents at its own risk.” TR 2.18.4.6.3 is a Technical Requirement (higher priority per GP 1-03.2) and explicitly requires bucket truck access. | GP 1-03.1 · GP 1-03.2 · Appendix A1 | Deny |
| P012-5 | WSDOT’s RCSR rejection was a preferential engineering decision, not a contractual requirement | Disagree. The RCSR comment enforced TR 2.18.4.6.3, which explicitly requires bucket truck access for CCTV using the mandatory “shall.” Per GP 1-04.4(5)(b), design changes required during WSDOT’s review for consistency with contract requirements are the DB’s exclusive responsibility and are not eligible for change orders. There was no discretionary preference. | TR 2.18.4.6.3 · GP 1-04.4(5)(b) | Deny |
| P012-6 | WSDOT collaborated with DB on CLD at TF meetings and in field walk, “agreed” it was the best solution, then WSDOT Maintenance “changed its position” at RFC close-out — constituting a reversal | Disagree. Per GP 1-03.7, WSDOT reviews, discussions, and oversight “do not constitute approval nor acceptance of the materials or Work inspected or reviewed or waiver of any Warranty.” TF discussions and field walks are design review, not formal approvals. Only a Change Order modifies contract requirements. No Change Order approved the CLD. WSDOT Maintenance’s RFC comment enforced TR 2.18.4.6.3 — a requirement that existed from contract execution. | GP 1-03.7 · GP 1-03.9 · TR 2.18.4.6.3 | Deny |
| P012-6a | DB characterizes bucket truck pullout as “agreed-to solution with WSDOT” — implying WSDOT directed the specific design solution | Clarify. WSDOT did not direct a specific design solution. WSDOT identified that the DB’s design must comply with TR 2.18.4.6.3 (bucket truck access). The DB chose how to achieve compliance (Comm Hub expansion). WSDOT’s own PCN-00100 language (“WSDOT has seen the concept… and indicated that the design-build team should advance this concept”) shows WSDOT’s role was review, not direction. | GP 1-03.7 · GP 1-04.4(5)(b) | Clarify |
| ID | Claim / Request | WSDOT Response | Authority | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P012-7 | WSDOT’s CLD rejection constitutes an OIC under GP 1-04.4(1), entitling DB to equitable adjustment | Disagree. WSDOT did not direct a change. WSDOT identified a non-compliant design during review and required the DB to meet existing contract requirements. This is design review, not a change order. Per GP 1-04.4(5)(b), such design changes are not eligible for change orders. No OIC was issued — GP 1-04.4(1) requires WSDOT to “authorize and require changes,” which it did not do. | GP 1-04.4(1) · GP 1-04.4(5)(b) | Deny |
| P012-8 | NE 160th overcrossing creates a physical constraint making a pullout impossible at the existing pole location, requiring pole relocation — this is additional scope | Disagree. The DB is responsible for designing to meet contract requirements within existing site conditions. Per GP 1-04.1, the Contract Price includes the cost of performing all Work needed to meet Contract requirements. The NE 160th constraint was a known and ascertainable site condition at proposal time. Pole relocation is a design solution to meet an existing requirement, not additional scope. | GP 1-04.1 · GP 1-04.4(5) | Deny |
| ID | Claim / Request | WSDOT Response | Authority | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P012-9 | Redesign cost of $104,879 (AECOM $91,199 + 15% markup; Skanska $13,680). Breakdown: General/Mgmt $18,945 (48 hrs), Roadway $28,829 (120 hrs), Roadside Restoration $10,022 (40 hrs), ITS $27,944 (118 hrs), Design QM $5,460 (21 hrs) | No entitlement. The costs claimed are for redesigning to comply with existing contract requirements (TR 2.18.4.6.3). These are the DB’s responsibility per GP 1-04.4(5)(b). WSDOT did not direct a change that would create cost entitlement. | GP 1-04.4(5)(b) · GP 1-04.1 | Deny |
| P012-10 | 8-month design standstill (March 13 — November 5, 2025). “Actual delay analysis TBD” — schedule entitlement reserved | No entitlement established. The supplemental does not include a schedule analysis per GP 1-04.5(2)(d). The 8-month standstill was caused by the DB’s discovery that its CLD approach did not meet TR 2.18.4.6.3. This is a consequence of the DB’s non-compliant design approach, not a WSDOT-directed delay. Preliminary position: deny. Schedule entitlement reserved pending actual schedule analysis (if submitted in Dispute Referral). | GP 1-04.5(2)(d) · GP 1-08.8 | Reserve / Preliminary Deny |
| Disposition | Count | Items |
|---|---|---|
| Acknowledge | 1 | P012-1 |
| Denied (extension) | 1 | P012-2 |
| Deny | 7 | P012-3, P012-4, P012-5, P012-6, P012-7, P012-8, P012-9 |
| Clarify | 1 | P012-6a |
| Reserve / Preliminary Deny | 1 | P012-10 (schedule) |
“The Design-Builder shall provide access in accordance with the WSDOT Northwest Region ITS Design Requirements (Appendix T). Maintenance vehicle access shall allow bucket trucks to park adjacent to the CCTV structure for maintenance of the CCTV and shall have adequate access on and off the roadway. Maintenance access shall be designed such that maintenance vehicles do not have to back into traffic.”
“All ITS devices shall be designed and constructed so that they are accessible and maintainable using current maintenance methods and materials.”
“Maintenance access roads are required at the following locations: camera locations that are not adjacent to the roadway (see camera pole location requirements). In this case, the maintenance access road shall be built within 10 feet of the camera pole and shall be reachable by the bucket truck described in the camera pole section.”
“Any design changes required by WSDOT as part of the process of reviewing the Design Documents for consistency with the requirements of the Contract Documents” are the Design-Builder’s exclusive responsibility and are not eligible for change orders.
“oversight, spot checks, audits, reviews, tests, and inspections conducted by WSDOT do not constitute approval nor acceptance of the materials or Work inspected or reviewed or waiver of any Warranty”