INTERNAL / PRIVILEGED — DRAFT
Incoming: Skanska LTR 344 (Feb 6, 2026), LTR 357 (Feb 20, 2026), LTR 376 (Mar 13, 2026)
Prior WSDOT Action: SL 9727-248 (Jan 23, 2026) — denied DSC and FA claim
WSDOT Responses: SL 9727-271 (Feb 20, 2026) and SL 9727-282 (Feb 27, 2026) — protest denied
Status: Protest resolved. DSC 007 track active (LTR 376).
| ID | Skanska Assertion | WSDOT Response | Authority | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LTR344-1 | CO 040 has highest precedence (Position 1 per GP 1-03.2); explicitly incorporates GSP 2-02.5.OPT7.GR2; Force Account has force of a Change Order and overrides Section 2.8.5.8 | Three independent defenses, each sufficient: (1) Section 2.8.2 lists Special Provisions (Appendix B) as Mandatory Standard #1 within TR; GP 1-03.2(2) “notwithstanding” clause: TR controls over all Mandatory Standards regardless of CO 040 precedence. (2) GP 1-03.3 excludes “measurement and payment Sections” from Standard Specifications integration — GSP 2-02.5 is titled “Payment” and is excluded. (3) GSP 2-02.5 routes to GP 1-09.6, which excludes original scope items — GSP defeats itself. CO 040 was a no-cost version correction, not a substantive modification. | Section 2.8.2; GP 1-03.2(2); GP 1-03.3; GP 1-09.6 | Deny |
| LTR344-2 | E09a5 committed WSDOT to develop project-specific GSPs/SPs for hazmat handling at Site ID 6; WSDOT failed to deliver; ambiguity should be construed against WSDOT | Section 2.8.5.8 IS the provision WSDOT developed to address contamination risk — it places disclosed contamination in lump sum scope through a deliberate two-track framework (2.8.5.8 vs. 2.8.5.8.1/.2). Standard Specification GSPs in Appendix B are general-purpose provisions, NOT project-specific provisions E09a5 contemplated. Sampling commitment was fulfilled (E09a5 itself, incorporated via Appendix E). E09a5 was written for Low-risk staging context; Skanska’s design choice to excavate does not retroactively create a WSDOT obligation. GP 1-03.5 precludes the ambiguity argument. | Section 2.8.5.8; Sections 2.8.5.8.1/.2; GP 1-03.5; Appendix E09a5 | Deny |
| LTR344-3 | GP 1-09.6 authorizes Force Account for work “not otherwise provided for”; no bid item or lump sum line exists for contamination handling at this specific location | This work IS provided for. Section 2.8.5.8: “The Work shall include inspection, mitigation, handling, and disposal of any known or suspected contamination.” GP 1-04.1(1): Contract Price includes all Work. GP 1-09.6 itself excludes original scope items: “An item which was included in the original scope of the Work will not be paid as force account unless a change as defined in Section 1-04.4 has occurred.” No change has occurred. Absence of a specific bid item does not mean unprovided-for in a lump sum design-build contract. | Section 2.8.5.8; GP 1-04.1(1); GP 1-09.6 | Deny |
| LTR344-4 | Arsenic at Class 3 levels (23.6 mg/kg exceeding MTCA 20 mg/kg) is materially different from “suspected” contamination; contamination was outside the delineated area in E09a2 | Materially different: E09a2 identified “Metals” as COC. Atlas tested RCRA 8 Metals (EPA 6020B) — the standard panel for “Metals”; arsenic is one of eight RCRA metals. Lube oil = TPH. Section 2.8.5.8 “any” qualifier is not limited by concentration or classification. LTR 308 admission: Skanska stated E09a2 “specifically identifies this location as having ‘TPH, Creosote, Metals’” — finding what was disclosed is not a material difference. Outside the area: Site ID 6 defined by parcel 0926059170 in both E09a2 and E09a5, not by shaded areas on E09a1 Figure 2 overview map. Atlas scoped sampling “within the King County Parks/former BNSF rail line parcel boundary.” All six test pits within the parcel. | Section 2.8.5.8 (“any”); E09a2; E09a5; Atlas Report; LTR 308 admission | Deny |
| LTR344-5 | Payment of $196,848.74 requested during protest resolution per GP 1-04.5 | Protest does not establish entitlement. GP 1-04.5: “No adjustment will be made for a protest without merit.” This protest is without merit (see LTR344-1 through LTR344-4). GP 1-04.5(1) provides that the DB’s remedy is to pursue dispute procedures — not interim payment. | GP 1-04.5 | Deny |
| ID | Skanska Assertion | WSDOT Response | Authority | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LTR357-1 | Section 2.8.5.8 defines scope (responsibility for handling disclosed contamination); CO 040’s GSP 2-02.5 separately establishes Force Account as payment mechanism. These are complementary, not conflicting. | In a lump sum design-build contract, scope defines payment. GP 1-04.1(1): “The Contract Price covers and includes the cost of all Work.” If work is within scope per Section 2.8.5.8, it is within the lump sum Contract Price. The Contract Price IS the payment mechanism. GP 1-09.6 confirms: original scope items cannot be paid as Force Account. The scope/payment distinction Skanska draws does not exist in this Contract. | GP 1-04.1(1); GP 1-09.6; Section 2.8.5.8 | Deny |
| LTR357-DSC | Preserves GP 1-04.7 rights; will file separate notice under GP 1-04.7 for DSC claim | Acknowledged. WSDOT will evaluate any GP 1-04.7 notice per Contract. Site ID 6 defined by parcel 0926059170. | GP 1-04.7 | Acknowledged |
| LTR357-MAP | Offers to provide mapping overlay as Supplemental No. 2 if WSDOT requests | Acknowledged without requesting. Any geographic analysis may be submitted through the GP 1-04.7 process where it can be evaluated in DSC context. | GP 1-04.7 | Acknowledged |
| LTR357-TIMING | Characterizes WSDOT SL-271 as having “requested same-day supplementation,” implying WSDOT compressed the supplemental timeline | Record corrected. The 14-calendar-day supplemental period is established by GP 1-04.5, running from the protest notice (Feb 6, 2026). The Feb 20 deadline was set by the Contract, not by SL-271. SL-271 noted the existing deadline — it did not create or compress the timeline. | GP 1-04.5 | Corrected |
| ID | Skanska Assertion | WSDOT Response | Authority | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LTR376-1 | Site ID 6 is defined by parcel 0926059170; the Appendix E delineation “establishes the geographic boundary of disclosed contamination risk” | WSDOT agrees the parcel identifies the site. However, the parcel number identifies the site, not the exclusive geographic reach of disclosed contamination. Section 2.8.5.8 applies to “any known or suspected contamination” — not limited to contamination within specific parcel sub-boundaries. Railroad contamination migrates beyond property lines. | Section 2.8.5.8; E09a2; E09a5 | Partially agree / reframe |
| LTR376-2 | GPS coordinates of TP-1 through TP-6 plotted against parcel boundary show excavation and sampling occurred “in part, outside” the Site ID 6 hazardous materials boundary (per EC209 TESC overlay) | Five deficiencies: (1) GPS accuracy — Atlas used UTM Geo Map app on consumer phone; typical accuracy ±3–5 meters. (2) GIS boundary accuracy — King County Parcel Viewer: “Lot lines are approximate. Not for legal use.” (3) Atlas scoped sampling “within the King County Parks/former BNSF rail line parcel boundary” — Skanska’s own consultant considered all work within the parcel. (4) Same contamination types whether within or marginally outside GIS boundary — former railroad contamination does not stop at approximate property lines. (5) GP 1-04.7(c): DSC treatment applies to HazMat “not identified in the Hazardous Materials Report” — contamination type, source, and general location were identified. Combined accuracy limitations (~6–10 ft total) account for any apparent boundary offset. | GP 1-04.7(c); Atlas Report p. 3; King County Parcel Viewer disclaimer | Deny |
| LTR376-3 | Class 3 soils with arsenic exceeding MTCA Level A (23.6 vs. 20 mg/kg) and lube oil in Category 3 represent a “material difference” from the “vague ‘suspected’ contamination description” | Previously addressed in SL-271 and SL-282. Arsenic is squarely within “Metals” (RCRA 8 metals panel). Lube oil is within “TPH”. “Suspected in soil” is a risk characterization, not a concentration limit. The HazMat Report identified contaminant types, not thresholds. Finding what was suspected is confirmation, not a material difference. LTR 308 admission on file. | Section 2.8.5.8; E09a2/E09a5; Atlas Table 2; LTR 308 | Deny |
| LTR376-4 | E09a5 stated WSDOT would “develop GSPs and SPs to address the risk”; no such provisions were developed; this omission “further distinguishes” the actual condition from what the Contract indicated | Previously addressed in SL-271 and SL-282. Section 2.8.5.8 IS the provision WSDOT developed. The Soil and Groundwater Management Plan was also developed. Sampling requirement was fulfilled. E09a5’s recommendations were written for a Low-risk staging context; Skanska’s design choice to excavate does not retroactively create an unfulfilled obligation. | Section 2.8.5.8; E09a5 Table 7; Soil and Groundwater Mgmt Plan | Deny |
| ID | Request | WSDOT Response | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| LTR344-R1 | Reverse SL-248 denial of Force Account claim | Denied. SL-248 correctly determined Section 2.8.5.8 places known contamination handling in lump sum scope. LTR 344 raises no argument that alters this determination. | Deny |
| LTR344-R2 | Pay $196,848.74 Force Account claim per LTR 312 | Denied. Work is in lump sum Contract Price per GP 1-04.1(1). Force Account under GSP 2-02.5.OPT7.GR2 is not available for work already within scope. | Deny |
| LTR344-R3 | Interim payment during protest per GP 1-04.5 | Denied. GP 1-04.5 does not provide interim payment during protest evaluation. No adjustment for protests without merit. | Deny |
| LTR376-R1 | Equitable adjustment for all costs ($196,848.74) for contaminated soils “encountered outside the disclosed Hazardous Materials Report boundary” | Denied. (1) No DSC — contamination identified in HazMat Report per GP 1-04.7(c). (2) No credible evidence work occurred outside parcel — GPS and GIS data are both approximate; Skanska’s own consultant scoped within parcel. (3) Even if DSC existed, $196,848.74 falls below GP 1-04.7’s $1,500,000 threshold for adjustment. (4) Work in lump sum scope per Section 2.8.5.8 regardless of DSC status. | Deny |
| Disposition | Count | IDs |
|---|---|---|
| Deny | 9 | LTR344-1, LTR344-2, LTR344-3, LTR344-4, LTR344-5, LTR357-1, LTR376-2, LTR376-3, LTR376-4 |
| Partially agree / reframe | 1 | LTR376-1 |
| Acknowledged | 2 | LTR357-DSC, LTR357-MAP |
| Corrected | 1 | LTR357-TIMING |