Executive Briefing — Protest 001: Existing Vault NW12 (PCO 100)

1. Executive Summary

2. What This Is About

Vault NW12 is an underground concrete drainage box — roughly 291 feet long — buried in the I-405 median near the Canyon Park Park & Ride.

The Contract listed Vault NW12 for fill-and-abandon (TR 2.14.5.6). Skanska's staging plan routed traffic over the vault, which required load rating, structural analysis, and shoring. During field verification, Skanska found the vault differed significantly from the Appendix N1 as-built drawings — approximately 96 feet longer, segmental precast rather than cast-in-place, with accumulated sediment.

Skanska seeks ~$900,000 + 91-day extension for cleaning, investigation, load rating, and related activities. WSDOT's position: Reference Documents are informational and relied upon at DB's own risk; the Contract provided an alternative design path; and the work Skanska performed resulted from its chosen staging approach. WSDOT has offered limited compensation for deferred maintenance cleaning.

3. Timeline

4. Design-Builder Assertions and WSDOT Position

a) Reference Document Reliance

DB assertion: Contract drawings, conceptual plans, and Appendix N1 all depicted the same vault dimensions. Skanska relied on this information to develop its proposal. No patent ambiguities were discoverable — vault access lids were inaccessible during bid, covered with grass, with no ladders present. (LTR 165, 176)

WSDOT position: GP 1-01.3 and 1-02.2 are explicit — Reference Documents are informational and relied upon at DB's own risk. GP 1-02.4 required site examination. The contractual risk allocation does not change based on the magnitude of the discrepancy.

b) Design Approach and Interim Works

DB assertion: Cleaning, investigation, load rating, and shoring were necessary to evaluate and prepare Vault NW12 for Skanska's staging plan. The work was required as part of Segment 3 drainage system evaluation. (LTR 124, 176)

WSDOT position: TR 2.14.5.6 listed Vault NW12 for fill-and-abandon. Skanska's decision to stage traffic over the vault — rather than proceed toward abandonment — drove the need for load rating, shoring, and structural analysis. Staging and interim works are DB means and methods under TR 2.22.1.

c) Load Rating Review and Schedule

DB assertion: The Load Rating Report was transmitted to WSDOT on May 5, 2025 (BY-CRE-02517). The ongoing review process — including multiple rounds of comments with no confirmed approval date — has prevented the planned traffic switch and caused delay. Skanska seeks a 91-day extension. (LTR 202, 221)

WSDOT position: TR 2.13.7.4 requires the Load Rating Report at least 90 days before opening to traffic. The May 5 document (BY-CRE-02517) was logged as a transmittal, not a formal submittal — the formal PRE submittal (BY-CRE-03898) did not reach WSDOT until November 12. Regardless of how the May 5 transmittal is classified, Skanska's own LTR 202 acknowledges a planned June 6 traffic date — approximately 31 days after transmittal, against a 90-day contractual requirement.

WSDOT engaged substantively with the May 5 transmittal and raised legitimate technical concerns: structural load factoring, shoring design adequacy for dynamic loading, unknown concrete and rebar properties, confined-space access for rescue, and Doka prop longevity under live traffic. The project record shows four months of iterative technical review (Jun–Sep 2025) with multiple rounds of WSDOT feedback, in-person meetings including WSDOT HQ, and delayed responses from Skanska between rounds. At the July 31 meeting, WSDOT presented analysis showing shoring may not have been needed — an alternative that would have simplified the load rating path entirely.

When Skanska did submit formally (BY-CRE-03898 PRE, Nov 12), WSDOT returned comments within 5 days. Skanska addressed comments and transmitted the RFC (BY-CRE-04073) within 7 days (Nov 24). The formal submittal process moved quickly; the extended timeline resulted from the technical complexity of Skanska's chosen shoring approach and the time required for Skanska to address WSDOT's engineering concerns.

d) Maintenance Compensation Scope

DB assertion: Vault NW12 had never been cleaned; sediment accumulation required significant removal effort. Skanska seeks compensation for all cleaning, investigation, and related activities. (LTR 165, 176, 202)

WSDOT position: WSDOT acknowledges deferred maintenance and offers limited compensation for the Feb 3-13 initial cleanout, evaluated as Force Account per GP 1-09.4/6 and Appendix D (M51-01). Work beyond that window — shoring, lid investigation, scanning, structural modifications — was driven by DB's design approach, not maintenance restoration.

e) Vault Classification (reserve argument)

DB assertion: As the highway owner, WSDOT had knowledge of and responsibility for infrastructure within its right of way. (Note: Skanska has not specifically characterized Vault NW12 as a "utility" in protest correspondence. If this characterization arises, WSDOT has a prepared response.)

WSDOT position: Vault NW12 is highway drainage infrastructure excluded from "utility" classification under WAC 468-34-110(52). The Contract's Reference Document disclaimers apply.

5. Defense Layers

6. Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths

• Three consistent written denials anchored to specific Contract provisions
• Unambiguous Reference Document contract language
• 31-day vs 90-day gap is Skanska's own factual admission
• Partnering posture demonstrates good faith
• Contract provided fill-and-abandon alternative (TR 2.14.5.6) that would have bypassed the need for load rating and shoring
• TIA 003 (LTR 261, Oct 28) includes ~$10M in delay costs; delay costs are moot without underlying entitlement

Weaknesses

• 49% length increase may generate DRB sympathy
• Tangible work was performed — DRB may be reluctant to say all at DB risk
• DRBs tend toward compromise recommendations
• Procedural defense may appear technical/form-over-substance

7. Cost Exposure

TIA 003 (LTR 261) includes approximately $10M in delay-related costs. WSDOT's position: delay costs are not compensable without underlying entitlement to the claimed work.

8. Settlement Authority

Primary: Approve DRB referral on two questions (Reference Document reliance; responsibility for Vault NW12 work).

Pre-DRB offer: Expanded maintenance window (additional cleaning days through end of February); expedited Force Account processing.

Take to Board: Design responsibility, Reference Document reliance precedent.

9. DRB Process

Upon approval: WSDOT sends referral with two focused questions → Board sets schedule → Position Papers exchanged → Hearing → Board recommendation. WSDOT presents first as referring party.