Assertion

CO 040 has highest precedence per Section 1-03.2; explicitly incorporates GSP 2-02.5.OPT7.GR2, giving Force Account payment the force of a Change Order.

WSDOT Response

The GSP payment provisions cited in LTR 344 do not alter this result. Section 1-03.2(2) provides that, notwithstanding the order of precedence, "The Technical Requirements shall take precedence over all Mandatory Standards listed within the Technical Requirements." CO 040 corrected a version discrepancy (2023→2022 Std Specs); the GSP payment provision (dated 2006) predates both versions and is unaffected. Even if CO 040 affected the GSP's precedence position, GP 1-03.2(2) operates notwithstanding that order.

Assertion

E09a5 committed WSDOT to developing project-specific GSPs/SPs for hazmat handling. WSDOT failed to deliver. Ambiguity should be construed against WSDOT.

WSDOT Response

Section 2.8.5.8 Hazardous Materials places inspection, mitigation, handling, and disposal of disclosed contamination within "The Work." Section 2.8 further requires the Design-Builder to prepare a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan that includes sampling, analyzing, and disposal requirements. Skanska followed this framework by sampling within the parcel boundary for the contaminant categories identified in Appendix E.

"Known contamination has been identified within the ROW. The Design-Builder shall refer to the Hazardous Materials Report in Appendix E. All identified contamination shall be addressed in the RFC Documents... The Work shall include inspection, mitigation, handling, and disposal of any known or suspected contamination."

Assertion

Section 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 location.

WSDOT Response

This work IS "provided for" — Section 2.8.5.8 explicitly includes inspection, mitigation, handling, and disposal within "The Work." Section 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 and the provisions require a payment adjustment."

No change has occurred.

Assertion

Arsenic at Class 3 levels (23.6 mg/kg exceeding 20 mg/kg MTCA) is materially different from “suspected” contamination; contamination outside delineated area.

WSDOT Response

Not materially different: Atlas tested for "RCRA 8 Metals by EPA Method 6020B" (Atlas Report, p. 4) — the standard panel for "Metals" as a COC. Arsenic is one of eight RCRA metals. Lube oil tested as part of TPH analysis. LTR 308 admission: Skanska acknowledged E09a2 "specifically identifies this location as having 'TPH, Creosote, Metals.'" Section 2.8.5.8's "any" qualifier is not limited by concentration or classification.

Not outside the area: Site ID 6 defined by King County Parcel Number 0926059170 in both E09a2 and E09a5. Atlas scoped sampling "within the King County Parks/former BNSF rail line parcel boundary" (Atlas Report, p. 3). All six test pits within the parcel. E09a1 Figure 2 shading does not define the contract site.

To the extent Skanska contends that contaminated material was encountered at a location not identified in the Hazardous Materials Report, Skanska may submit supporting information in accordance with Section 1-04.7 Differing Site Conditions.

Assertion

Payment of $196,848.74 requested during protest resolution per Section 1-04.5.

WSDOT Response

Protest does not establish entitlement. Section 1-04.5: "No adjustment will be made for a protest without merit." This protest is without merit. Design-Builder's remedy is to pursue dispute procedures under Section 1-04.5(1).