WSDOT Position Paper - Executive Summary

Protest 011 - Revised PSE Power Routing to SR 522 Transit Hub and Stage 2 Temporary Power. Issue 0230. Contract No. 9727, I-405 Brickyard to SR 527 Improvement Project. Draft for internal review.

• November 7, 2025. The Design-Builder noticed design impacts from the power source location change (Skanska LTR 273, approximately $340,362 in design costs).
• November 21, 2025. WSDOT determined temporary signal power is base scope (WSDOT Serial Letter (SL) No. 9727-203).
• December 5, 2025. The Design-Builder filed its Notice of Protest (Skanska LTR 289), transmitting its design consultant's Notice of Protest identifying two items: the permanent power source revision and the Stage 2 Phase 3 temporary power design.
• December 19, 2025. The Design-Builder filed its supplemental Written statement (Skanska LTR 300, $1,112,423.95, Contract Time reserved).
• January 9, 2026. WSDOT issued its Written Determination of no merit (WSDOT SL No. 9727-238).
• January 23, 2026. The Design-Builder filed its Notice of Dispute (Skanska LTR 328).
• January 26, 2026. WSDOT acknowledged and awaits the written referral (WSDOT SL No. 9727-251).

1. The Matter Before the Board

The SR 522 Transit Hub requires permanent electrical service from Puget Sound Energy (PSE), the named Utility Owner. During design, PSE's originally contemplated service arrangement, an overhead extension from the vicinity of UW Bothell, proved infeasible, and the service concept moved to an underground route from the North Creek Business Park. The question is whether the Contract assigns the work of establishing that service, including the routing to PSE's connection point and the temporary power that bridged the resulting delay, to the Design-Builder, or whether the change in PSE's service arrangement is a compensable WSDOT change.

2. WSDOT's Position

The Contract assigns the SR 522 Transit Hub electrical service to the Design-Builder in plain terms, and it separately enumerates temporary traffic signal power within base scope. The routing revision originated with the Utility Owner, and no WSDOT change instrument exists. The Design-Builder is not entitled to an adjustment in Contract Price or Contract Time.

3. The Work Is Assigned Scope, and No WSDOT Change Occurred

1. The Contract assigns the hub electrical service, including the routing, to the Design-Builder. Technical Requirements (TR) 2.27.6 Utilities provides:

The Design-Builder shall provide water, electrical service, and communications at each BRT Station. The Design-Builder shall furnish, permit, design, construct, test, and commission the Utilities.

TR 2.27.6 makes the Design-Builder "responsible for all service connection costs, including but not limited to permit fees, materials, Utility inspection fees, and the cost of the Utility installation." TR 2.27.6.2 Electrical Service and Distribution names PSE as the Utility Owner for the SR 522 Transit Hub, requires the Design-Builder to "identify the nearest electrical service point of connection and size the electrical service," subjects connections to "Utility Owner requirements," and makes the Design-Builder "responsible for excavating a pathway between the electrical service point of connection and the transformer." The single sentence of TR 2.27.6.2.2 the Design-Builder relies on ("coordinate with the Utility Owner to install a power connection point within the interior of the transit hub") adds station-specific detail to those obligations. Under GP 1-03.1 and GP 1-03.2 it supplements the general assignment and does not subtract from it.

2. The Design-Builder's pricing confirms the assignment. Its own supplemental cost breakdown credits $550,000 described as "UW Bothell O/H route base bid." The Design-Builder carried the construction of the power routing in its base bid. That is consistent with TR 2.27.6 and irreconcilable with its reading of TR 2.27.6.2.2.

3. The bid-phase answer cannot carry the case. The Design-Builder rests on a WSDOT response dated April 19, 2023 relaying PSE's confirmation of the UW Bothell circuit. Instructions to Proposers (ITP) 2.5 provides that responses to questions "are not considered part of the Contract, and shall not be relevant in interpreting the Contract," and GP 1-03.5 admits procurement answers only "as they may clarify provisions otherwise considered ambiguous." The response answered a circuit-capacity question. It clarified no ambiguity in the scope assignment and says nothing about which party designs or constructs the service.

4. The routing change came from the Utility Owner, and nothing WSDOT did amended the Contract. PSE's September 11, 2024 email states the overhead extension was infeasible "between PSE access and WSDOT/environmental permitting issues" and identifies three PSE alternates, with the North Creek path preferred. No Change Order exists, and a Change Order is the sole instrument that amends the Contract Documents (GP 1-01). GP 1-02.1 provides that no field explanations at meetings and no comments on Design Documents amend the Contract or relieve the Design-Builder. The RFI 00420 response ("WSDOT concurs this is a NDC") acknowledged a design-document change in the Document Control System (TR 2.1.5.6.1). It is not a Change Order and made no entitlement finding. For eight months after the possibility of Design-Builder construction responsibility was first raised, the Design-Builder processed the routing through design channels without asserting a WSDOT change.

5. Temporary signal power is enumerated base scope. TR 2.17.1 includes "Temporary traffic signal system" in the traffic signal scope and requires the Design-Builder to "install electrical services or utilize existing services to provide power for all signal systems." The implemented solution drew power from existing service cabinet SUA 4386, the literal path the provision prescribes. On time, the supplemental statement contains no schedule analysis, and the design consultant only reserves a future time extension request.

4. Recommendations Sought From the DRB

1. That the design and construction of the permanent electrical service to the SR 522 Transit Hub, including the routing to PSE's service point of connection, and the temporary power for Stage 2 Phase 3 traffic signals, are Design-Builder scope under TR 2.27.6, TR 2.27.6.2, TR 2.27.6.2.2, and TR 2.17.1.

2. That neither the April 19, 2023 response to a Proposer question, nor the RFI 00420 response, nor any design-review activity constitutes a Change Order or amends the Contract.

3. That the Design-Builder is not entitled to an increase in the Contract Price or an extension of the Contract Time on Protest 011.

---

Summary of the WSDOT Position Paper for the Dispute Review Board. See the complete Position Paper for full context.

WSDOT Position Paper

Protest 011: Revised PSE Power Routing to SR 522 Transit Hub and Stage 2 Temporary Power

Contract 9727, I-405, Brickyard to SR 527 Improvement Project Issue 0230. Prepared for the Disputes Review Board. DRAFT.

---

1. Introduction

This Position Paper presents WSDOT's position on Protest 011, in which the Design-Builder seeks an equitable adjustment of approximately $1,112,423.95 for two related items at the SR 522 Transit Hub: the revision of the permanent electrical power source location from the vicinity of the UW Bothell campus to the North Creek Business Park, and the design of temporary power for Stage 2 Phase 3 traffic signals. The matter comes before the Disputes Review Board (DRB) under General Provisions (GP) 1-04.5, following the Design-Builder's Notice of Dispute.

The central question is one of scope assignment. The Contract requires the Design-Builder to furnish, permit, design, construct, test, and commission the Utilities serving each BRT Station, and separately enumerates temporary traffic signal systems and their power within the traffic signal scope. The question before the Board is whether a change to the Utility Owner's service arrangements during design converts that assigned scope into compensable extra work. WSDOT's determinations concluded it does not.

The correspondence chain is as follows:

Date	Document	Description
November 7, 2025	Skanska LTR 273	Notice of design impacts for the SR 522 Transit Hub power source location. Approximately $340,362 in additional design costs identified.
November 21, 2025	WSDOT Serial Letter (SL) No. 9727-203	Determination that the design and construction of temporary signal power are included in the base scope of the Contract.
December 5, 2025	Skanska LTR 289	Notice of Protest 011 (Issue 0230), transmitting the design consultant's Notice of Protest identifying two items: the permanent power source revision and the Stage 2 Phase 3 temporary power design.
December 8, 2025	WSDOT SL No. 9727-211	Denial of the requested 60 Calendar Day extension. Supplemental statement due December 19, 2025.
December 19, 2025	Skanska LTR 300	Supplemental statement. Total request of $1,112,423.95. Contract Time reserved.
January 9, 2026	WSDOT SL No. 9727-238	Written Determination that Protest 011 does not have merit.
January 23, 2026	Skanska LTR 328	Notice of Dispute per GP 1-04.5(1).
January 26, 2026	WSDOT SL No. 9727-251	Acknowledgment of the Notice of Dispute. WSDOT awaits the written referral per GP 1-04.5(1).1.8.

2. Project Summary

The I-405, Brickyard to SR 527 Improvement Project (Contract 9727) is a design-build project delivering express toll lane, interchange, and transit infrastructure improvements along I-405 and SR 522/SR 527 in the cities of Bothell and Woodinville. The Project includes four Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations supporting the Sound Transit Stride program: the Brickyard BRT Station, the SR 522 DA BRT Station, the SR 522 Transit Hub BRT Station, and the Canyon Park BRT Station. Skanska USA Civil West is the Design-Builder. AECOM is the Design-Builder's lead designer.

The SR 522 Transit Hub BRT Station requires permanent electrical service from Puget Sound Energy (PSE), the named Utility Owner for that station. This matter concerns the work associated with establishing that service. During design development, PSE's originally contemplated service arrangement, an overhead line extension from the vicinity of the UW Bothell campus, was determined infeasible, and the service concept moved to an underground route from the North Creek Business Park. The Design-Builder requests the design and construction costs associated with the revised routing, and the design cost of a temporary power source for Stage 2 Phase 3 traffic signals pending permanent service. The requested amount is $1,112,423.95. The Design-Builder has reserved rather than requested Contract Time.

3. Relevant Contractual Requirements

3.1 GP 1-02.1 Responsibility for Design

It is the intent of the Contract Documents that the Design-Builder undertake full responsibility for delivery of the Project. The Contract Documents do not provide details of the design necessary to carry out the intent of the Contract Documents. Such detailed designs are the sole responsibility of the Design-Builder to develop. If the Contract Documents omit or misdescribe the Work necessary to be performed in order to deliver the Project in accordance with the intent of the Contract Documents and the standards and criteria for performance of the Project, the Design-Builder shall not be excused from performing such omitted Work (no matter how extensive) or misdescribed details of the Work, and such Work shall be performed as if fully and correctly set forth and described in the Contract Documents, without entitlement to a Change Order hereunder except as specifically allowed by the Contract Documents.

GP 1-02.1 closes with the following paragraph:

Notwithstanding anything in the Contract Documents to the contrary, no field explanations or interpretations provided by WSDOT at any meetings, and no comments by WSDOT on Design Documents or Released for Construction (RFC) Documents, shall be deemed, construed, or interpreted to (a) amend, supersede, or alter the terms, requirements, limitations, or meaning of any Contract Document or (b) release or relieve the Design-Builder from full responsibility for the design of the Project in accordance with the Contract Documents. (However, Written Interpretive Engineering Decisions from WSDOT pursuant to Section 1-03.5 may be relied upon to provide information, clarifications and interpretations of ambiguous or uncertain design requirements set forth in the Contract Documents.)

These paragraphs establish the design responsibility framework within which the events at issue occurred.

3.2 Instructions to Proposers (ITP) 2.5 Request for Proposal Addenda and Responses to Questions

A final set of questions and answers will be compiled and distributed prior to the Proposal Due Date. Responses to questions are not considered part of the Contract, and shall not be relevant in interpreting the Contract.

ITP 2.5 further provides:

WSDOT will not be bound by, and the Proposer shall not rely on, any communication or representation regarding the RFP documents, unless it is an addendum to this RFP and is not superseded by a later addendum to this RFP, and except to the extent provided above regarding responses to questions.

ITP 2.5 governs the status of the April 19, 2023 response to a Proposer question on which Protest 011 relies.

3.3 GP 1-01 Definitions and Terms (selected definitions)

Utility(ies) – A privately, publicly, or cooperatively owned line, facility, or system (including municipal and government lines, facilities, and systems but excluding WSDOT-owned lines, facilities, or systems) for transmitting or distributing communications, cable television, power, electricity, gas, oil, crude products, water, steam, waste, or any other similar commodity, including any irrigation system.

Change Order – An amendment to the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents issued in accordance with Section 1-04.4.

The electrical service to the SR 522 Transit Hub is a Utility, and a Change Order is the instrument by which the Contract Documents are amended. Utility Appendix U2, the Existing Utilities Listing that identifies existing utility installations including UI-0467, is designated a Contract Document in Appendix A1.

3.4 Technical Requirements (TR) 2.27.6 Utilities

The Design-Builder shall provide water, electrical service, and communications at each BRT Station. The Design-Builder shall furnish, permit, design, construct, test, and commission the Utilities.

The Design-Builder shall follow each Utility Owner Standards for service connections required for each BRT Station. The Design-Builder shall determine all Utility services required for the BRT Stations and coordinate connection points to the platforms.

The Design-Builder shall prepare service applications for Sound Transit to apply for service. The Design-Builder shall be responsible for all service connection costs, including but not limited to permit fees, materials, Utility inspection fees, and the cost of the Utility installation.

TR 2.27.6 assigns the provision of BRT Station electrical service, and its costs, to the Design-Builder.

3.5 TR 2.27.6.2 Electrical Service and Distribution

The Design-Builder shall coordinate and provide electrical service connections at each BRT Station from the following Utility Owners:

• Brickyard BRT Station – Puget Sound Energy
• SR 522 DA BRT Station – Puget Sound Energy
• SR 522 Transit Hub BRT Station – Puget Sound Energy
• Canyon Park BRT Station – Snohomish County Public Utility District

The Design-Builder shall coordinate with the Utility Owner to identify the nearest electrical service point of connection and size the electrical service for each location. Utility service connections shall comply with Utility Owner requirements.

The Design-Builder shall be responsible for excavating a pathway between the electrical service point of connection and the transformer. The Design-Builder shall be responsible for restoring said pathway after the Utility Owner has completed their work.

TR 2.27.6.2 names PSE as the Utility Owner for the SR 522 Transit Hub BRT Station, places identification of the service point of connection on the Design-Builder, subjects service connections to Utility Owner requirements, and assigns the Design-Builder the physical pathway between the service point of connection and the transformer.

3.6 TR 2.27.6.2.2 SR 522 Transit Hub BRT Station and SR 522 DA BRT Station

The Design-Builder shall coordinate with the Utility Owner to install a power connection point within the interior of the transit hub. The Design-Builder shall develop and submit a service application that accounts for the power needed for BEB, BRT Station Areas, and WSDOT facilities.

The Design-Builder shall install conduit between the SR 522 Transit Hub electrical room and the power cabinet at the pick-up platform, drop-off platform, and the northbound and southbound BRT Platforms at the SR 522 DA BRT Station.

The Design-Builder shall provide civil infrastructure equipment pads and provisions for all transformers.

TR 2.27.6.2.2 is the station-specific subsection on which Protest 011 relies, and it is quoted here through the transformer provisions to present its affirmative requirements in full.

3.7 TR 2.17.1 General (Traffic Signals)

The Design-Builder shall perform all Work necessary to meet the Contract requirements for the traffic signal systems. The traffic signal systems for the Project shall include, at a minimum, the following:

The enumerated list includes:

• Temporary vehicle detection system
• Temporary traffic signal system

TR 2.17.1 continues:

The Design-Builder shall install electrical services or utilize existing services to provide power for all signal systems, in accordance with the Contract.

TR 2.17.1 enumerates temporary traffic signal systems and their power within the Design-Builder's traffic signal scope.

3.8 GP 1-04.4(5) Matters Not Eligible for Change Orders

The Design-Builder acknowledges and agrees that no increase in the Contract Price is available except in circumstances expressly provided for in the Contract, that such price increases shall be available only as provided in Section 1-04.4, and that the Design-Builder shall bear full responsibility for the costs of all other changes. Matters which are the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility include the following:

(b) 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, except to the extent directly attributable to errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or other defects in the Basic Configuration as provided herein.

GP 1-04.4(5) confines Contract Price increases to circumstances the Contract expressly provides.

3.9 GP 1-03 Interpretation of Contract Documents (selected provisions)

GP 1-03.1 Contract Documents provides:

Each of the Contract Documents identified in the Contract Form is an essential part of this Contract, and a requirement occurring in one is as binding as though occurring in all. The Contract Documents are intended to be complementary and to describe and provide for a complete contract.

GP 1-03.2 Order of Precedence provides:

Additional details and more stringent requirements contained in a lower priority document will control unless the requirements of the lower priority document present an actual conflict with the requirements of the higher-level document.

GP 1-03.5 Ambiguities provides:

WSDOT's final answers to the questions posed during the procurement process for the Contract shall in no event be deemed part of the Contract Documents and shall not be relevant in interpreting the Contract Documents except as they may clarify provisions otherwise considered ambiguous.

These interpretation provisions govern how the Technical Requirements subsections read together and the weight of procurement-phase answers.

4. Discussion of the SR 522 Transit Hub Power Source

4.1 The bid-phase question and response

During the proposal phase, the Design-Builder team sought clarification regarding the sufficiency of an existing electrical circuit near the UW Bothell campus, identified as UI-0467 in Utility Appendix U2. WSDOT's response dated April 19, 2023 stated: "PSE has confirmed that the line near the UW Bothell campus is the connection point to use for the 522 Transit Hub and that it has adequate capacity for the load demands of the bus charging yard." Skanska LTR 300 dated December 19, 2025 describes this response as having "formed a core basis of Skanska's bid assumptions." Utility Appendix U2 lists UI-0467 as an existing utility installation. The April 19, 2023 response was issued through the ITP 2.5 question and answer process and was not issued as an addendum.

4.2 Design development and the routing revision

The Design-Builder submitted its Preliminary Design on May 17, 2024, showing overhead routing from the UW Bothell area. Per the memorandum of the Design-Builder's electrical design subconsultant (Perteet, December 18, 2025), that review produced no comments requiring a change to the power routing. The Design-Builder's Preliminary Utilities submittal for Package 7 carries sheets plotted May 17, 2024, including sheet UT28 Transit Hub Station Utility Plan. That sheet labels the service feed to the transit hub "PSE OVERHEAD POWER," without the "EX." prefix the same sheet set uses for existing facilities. The sheet is stamped "PRELIMINARY" and "NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION."

On September 11, 2024, PSE wrote to the project team following a coordination meeting: "Between PSE access and WSDOT/environmental permitting issues, we've agreed that the current design showing an overhead line extension is infeasible. We discussed three alternate pathways." PSE's email identified three underground alternatives, including "a completely different path coming from a business park to the north," which PSE described as "probably the preferred option for now." On September 25, 2024, PSE noted the route from the north was preferred. On October 16, 2024, per the Perteet memorandum, WSDOT asked Skanska to request a design from PSE for the North Creek routing.

The Design-Builder's Final Utilities submittal for the same package carries sheets plotted October 4, 2024. The same sheet UT28 no longer carries the "PSE OVERHEAD POWER" label. It adds "PSE HDD DRILLING OPERATIONS PIT," and the submittal adds sheet UT11 Transit Hub Station Utility Plan, which was not part of the Preliminary submittal, carrying the buried power line along the corridor to the drilling pit. The high voltage transmission line remains overhead in both submittals.

The North Creek Business Park routing requires an amendment to an existing easement across the Home Depot parcel and a bore under I-405. Per the Perteet memorandum, easement negotiations proceeded from January 2025 (conceptual routing discussed) through October 1, 2025 (easement nearly complete). On February 20, 2025, the bore under I-405 was noted as not included in PSE's submitted permit. On March 18, 2025, per the Perteet memorandum, it was "first mentioned that the construction of the PSE owned power line might become the responsibility of the DB."

Between March 18, 2025 and November 7, 2025, the record contains no Design-Builder assertion that the routing revision constituted a WSDOT change. The Design-Builder's first impact notice is Skanska LTR 273 dated November 7, 2025. No Change Order was issued for the routing revision, and no party requested one during that period.

4.3 Temporary power for Stage 2 Phase 3

Stage 2 Phase 3 is a stage of the Project's construction traffic staging whose temporary signal and illumination plans assumed permanent electrical service would be available. The Design-Builder's temporary power design change notice describes the change as revising the Stage 2 Phase 3 plans "due to the permanent electrical service not being available for the temporary stage as originally planned."

On April 4, 2025, the Design-Builder initiated RFI 00420, titled "Need Temporary Power at SR522 through Stage 2 Due to PSE Delay," requesting a design to switch the power source for temporary traffic signals and lighting for Stage 2 Phase 3 from the permanent service cabinets (SUA J 3336 and SUA K 3337) to the existing service cabinet SUA 4386. The RFI recorded cost impact as "Yes (Unknown)" and schedule impact as "TBD." WSDOT's response of May 14, 2025 stated: "WSDOT concurs this is a NDC." The Design-Builder's signal design subconsultant (Concord Engineering) issued NDC 111 for the temporary power source design. The temporary power solution draws from the existing electrical service SUA 4386.

The Contract's reference to Notices of Design Change appears in TR 2.1.5.6.1, which lists "Notice of Design Changes (NDCs)" among the Construction Documentation record types the Design-Builder maintains in its Document Control System, together with Nonconforming Issues (NCIs) and Nonconformance Reports (NCRs). The term is not a defined term in GP 1-01.

4.4 The request and its composition

Skanska LTR 273 identified approximately $340,362 in additional design costs, comprising a temporary power design change notice ($61,168, 236 hours) and a PSE power routing design change notice ($279,194, 1,072 hours). The letter stated Skanska was "unable to further develop or submit a more comprehensive design cost proposal until an executed easement and a defined preliminary bore path have been established."

Skanska LTR 300 presented a total of $1,112,423.95, composed of $919,000 in direct construction costs plus a 25 percent markup ($229,750), less a credit of $550,000 described in the cost breakdown as "UW Bothell O/H route base bid," plus $513,673.95 in design services ($446,673 AECOM plus a 15 percent markup). The direct cost lines include a PSE design and construction cost estimate of $225,000, temporary power construction for traffic signals of $150,000, and temporary power design of $67,000. The design services subtotal separately includes temporary power design of $67,000. The AECOM design estimate presented in December 2025 ($379,673, 1,399 hours) exceeds the October 2025 change notices ($340,362, 1,308 hours). The supplement describes the estimates as preliminary, and the design consultant states its estimates "should not be considered binding."

On Contract Time, Skanska LTR 300 states: "Skanska requires RFC design by 2/20/26 in order to meet Contract Schedule." The design consultant separately estimates the power reroute will require approximately 30 weeks to submit for RFC and states it "will request a time extension" once impacts are known. The supplemental statement does not include a schedule analysis.

5. Sequence of Events and Chronology

Date	Event
April 19, 2023	WSDOT bid-phase response to a Proposer question regarding circuit UI-0467 near UW Bothell.
May 17, 2024	Preliminary Design submitted showing overhead routing from the UW Bothell area.
September 11, 2024	PSE email following coordination meeting: overhead line extension infeasible. Three underground alternates identified by PSE. North Creek Business Park path noted as preferred.
October 16, 2024	Per the Perteet memorandum, WSDOT asked Skanska to request a design from PSE for the North Creek routing.
January 22, 2025	PSE conceptual routing discussed. Easement across the Home Depot parcel identified as necessary.
February 20, 2025	Bore under I-405 noted as not included in PSE's submitted permit.
March 18, 2025	Per the Perteet memorandum, first mention that construction of the PSE-owned power line might become the responsibility of the Design-Builder.
April 4, 2025	RFI 00420 initiated regarding temporary power for Stage 2 Phase 3.
May 14, 2025	WSDOT RFI response concurring the temporary power design is a Notice of Design Change. NDC 111 issued by the Design-Builder's signal designer.
June through October 2025	Home Depot easement negotiations progress to nearly complete.
November 7, 2025	Skanska LTR 273. First impact notice. Approximately $340,362 in design costs identified.
November 21, 2025	WSDOT SL No. 9727-203. Temporary signal power determined base scope.
December 5, 2025	Skanska LTR 289. Notice of Protest 011, transmitting the design consultant's Notice of Protest identifying the two items at issue.
December 8, 2025	WSDOT SL No. 9727-211. The requested extension was not granted. Supplement due December 19, 2025.
December 19, 2025	Skanska LTR 300. Supplemental statement. $1,112,423.95 requested. Time reserved.
January 9, 2026	WSDOT SL No. 9727-238. Written Determination of no merit.
January 23, 2026	Skanska LTR 328. Notice of Dispute.
January 26, 2026	WSDOT SL No. 9727-251. Acknowledgment. WSDOT awaits the written referral.

6. WSDOT Position

6.1 The Contract assigns the SR 522 Transit Hub electrical service, including the routing to the connection point and temporary signal power, to the Design-Builder

TR 2.27.6 requires the Design-Builder to "provide water, electrical service, and communications at each BRT Station" and to "furnish, permit, design, construct, test, and commission the Utilities." TR 2.27.6.2 names PSE as the Utility Owner for the SR 522 Transit Hub, requires the Design-Builder to "identify the nearest electrical service point of connection and size the electrical service," subjects service connections to "Utility Owner requirements," and makes the Design-Builder "responsible for excavating a pathway between the electrical service point of connection and the transformer." TR 2.27.6 further makes the Design-Builder "responsible for all service connection costs, including but not limited to permit fees, materials, Utility inspection fees, and the cost of the Utility installation." The routing work at issue is the pathway between PSE's service point and the transit hub. That work, and its cost, is assigned in plain terms.

Protest 011 reads a single sentence of TR 2.27.6.2.2 ("coordinate with the Utility Owner to install a power connection point within the interior of the transit hub") to exclude routing design and construction from the Design-Builder's scope. The subsection does not say that, and it cannot be read in isolation from its parents. TR 2.27.6.2.2 itself requires the Design-Builder to develop and submit the service application, install conduit between the electrical room and the platform power cabinets, and provide equipment pads and provisions for all transformers. A station-specific subsection that adds detail to a general obligation does not subtract the obligation.

The Contract's rules of interpretation foreclose the carve-out reading. GP 1-03.1 provides that the Contract Documents "are intended to be complementary" and that "a requirement occurring in one is as binding as though occurring in all." GP 1-03.2 provides that additional details in a lower priority document control only where they "present an actual conflict" with the higher-level document. TR 2.27.6.2.2 adds station-specific detail and imposes affirmative duties of its own. It supplements TR 2.27.6. It does not conflict with it, and it does not subtract from it.

The Design-Builder's contemporaneous pricing confirms this reading. As set out in Section 4.4, the Design-Builder's cost breakdown credits $550,000 described as "UW Bothell O/H route base bid." The Design-Builder carried the construction of the power routing in its base bid. That is consistent with TR 2.27.6 and inconsistent with that reading of TR 2.27.6.2.2.

Temporary signal power requires no inference at all. TR 2.17.1 enumerates "Temporary traffic signal system" within the traffic signal scope and requires the Design-Builder to "install electrical services or utilize existing services to provide power for all signal systems." As set out in Section 4.3, the implemented solution draws power from the existing service cabinet SUA 4386. The Design-Builder performed the enumerated work by the enumerated means.

6.2 A response to a Proposer question is not a Contract basis for entitlement

Protest 011 rests on the April 19, 2023 response quoted in Section 4.1, which the Design-Builder describes as "a core basis of Skanska's bid assumptions." ITP 2.5 forecloses that reliance in both directions: responses to questions "are not considered part of the Contract, and shall not be relevant in interpreting the Contract," and the Proposer "shall not rely on" any communication regarding the RFP documents unless issued as an addendum. No addendum revised TR 2.27.6 or its subsections.

The substance of the response changes nothing. It relayed PSE's confirmation, as of April 2023, of which existing circuit would serve the hub. Utility Appendix U2 is a Contract Document, and it lists UI-0467 as an existing utility installation. Neither the response nor the listing assigns the permanent power source, guarantees a service arrangement, or relieves the Design-Builder of the TR 2.27.6.2 obligations to identify the service point of connection and to comply with Utility Owner requirements. When the Utility Owner's position on serving the hub changed, the Contract's assignment of the service connection work did not.

GP 1-03.5 does not change this result. That provision permits procurement answers to be considered only "as they may clarify provisions otherwise considered ambiguous." The April 19, 2023 response does not clarify any ambiguity in the assignment of scope. It addressed a different question, whether an identified existing circuit had adequate capacity for the load, and it relayed PSE's then-current service point. It says nothing about which party designs or constructs the service to that connection point. TR 2.27.6 assigns that work to the Design-Builder without ambiguity. A response confirming a circuit's capacity cannot be read to reassign designed-and-constructed Utility scope.

6.3 The routing revision arose from the Utility Owner, and no WSDOT change instrument exists

Protest 011 assembles a direction narrative from a Utility Owner email, a coordination request, and a document-tracking concurrence. None is a change instrument. The record described in Section 4.2 attributes the routing revision to PSE. PSE's September 11, 2024 email states the overhead extension was infeasible for "PSE access and WSDOT/environmental permitting issues," identifies three alternate pathways, and states PSE's preference for the North Creek route. The Design-Builder's signal designer attributed the temporary power need to "PSE's delay." PSE is the Utility Owner, and TR 2.27.6.2 subjects the Design-Builder's service connections to "Utility Owner requirements." The reference in PSE's email to "WSDOT/environmental permitting issues" describes constraints the Contract obligated the Design-Builder to resolve, because TR 2.27.6 assigns the Design-Builder to "furnish, permit, design" the Utilities. A Utility Owner revising its service arrangements is a coordination risk the Contract assigns, not a WSDOT change.

No Change Order exists for the routing revision. Under the GP 1-01 definition, a Change Order is the amendment instrument for the Contract Documents. Under the closing paragraph of GP 1-02.1, no field explanations at meetings and no comments on Design Documents amend the Contract or relieve the Design-Builder, the sole exception being a written Interpretive Engineering Decision under GP 1-03.5. No Interpretive Engineering Decision exists here. The October 16, 2024 request that Skanska obtain a routing design from PSE facilitated the coordination that TR 2.27.6.2 already required of the Design-Builder.

The Design-Builder's conduct matched that allocation for eight months. As set out in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, the possibility of Design-Builder construction responsibility was raised March 18, 2025, and RFI 00420 recorded a cost impact in April 2025, yet the Design-Builder processed the routing development through design channels, easement procurement, and RFC packaging without asserting a WSDOT change until November 7, 2025. The Board can give that contemporaneous conduct its natural reading: the Design-Builder treated the work as its scope while performing it.

6.4 The RFI 420 acknowledgment is a design-document record, not a Change Order

Protest 011 treats WSDOT's May 14, 2025 concurrence ("WSDOT concurs this is a NDC") as recognition of an Owner-Initiated Change. The Contract does not support that characterization. As set out in Section 4.3, a Notice of Design Change is a Document Control System record type listed in TR 2.1.5.6.1 alongside NCIs and NCRs. It records that a design document is changing. It is not among the GP 1-01 defined terms, and it is not the GP 1-01 Change Order that amends the Contract Documents. The closing paragraph of GP 1-02.1 places comments on Design Documents outside the category of Contract amendments altogether. GP 1-04.4 provides that changes in the Design Documents by the Design-Builder to meet Contract requirements are not a change in the Work and carry no Price or Time adjustment. WSDOT's concurrence acknowledged that the signal power source design was changing from the permanent cabinets to SUA 4386. It made no entitlement finding, and the RFI's cost impact field records the Design-Builder's assertion, not WSDOT's.

6.5 The request does not satisfy the Contract's change framework

WSDOT's primary characterization is set out in Sections 6.1 through 6.3: the work is assigned scope, and the routing revision was a Utility Owner development that no WSDOT change instrument adopted. GP 1-04.4(5) confines Contract Price increases to circumstances the Contract expressly provides. Even if the Board were to view the routing revision as a design change arising through WSDOT's review of the Design Documents, item (b) places such changes within the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility except where directly attributable to a Basic Configuration defect, and providing electrical power to Project facilities is a Technical Requirement obligation, not a Basic Configuration element. The exception has no application.

WSDOT SL No. 9727-238 observed that a design approach can prove "not possible due to Contract requirements (permitting, maintenance access) not initially considered." That observation records no WSDOT oversight and creates no entitlement. The Contract placed the obligation to identify and satisfy permitting and maintenance-access requirements on the Design-Builder: TR 2.27.6 assigns the Design-Builder to "furnish, permit, design" the Utilities, and GP 1-02.1 makes detailed design "the sole responsibility of the Design-Builder to develop." A design approach that proves infeasible once its permitting and access constraints are worked through is a Design-Builder design outcome, not a Basic Configuration defect. Protest 011 also arrives without the schedule analysis required by GP 1-04.5 item 2(d): the supplemental statement conditions schedule neutrality on an RFC date while the design consultant separately estimates 30 weeks and reserves a future time extension request. The submitted amounts are described in the Design-Builder's material as preliminary and not binding, are contingent on an unexecuted easement and an undefined bore path, and include the composition issues identified in Section 4.4, among them a $550,000 credit confirming base-bid pricing of the routing, a $67,000 temporary power design figure appearing in both the construction and design components, and a $225,000 pass-through of the Utility Owner's costs.

7. Conclusion

WSDOT's position may be summarized as follows:

1. TR 2.27.6, TR 2.27.6.2, and TR 2.27.6.2.2 assign the provision of SR 522 Transit Hub electrical service to the Design-Builder, including identification of the service point of connection, compliance with Utility Owner requirements, the pathway between the service point of connection and the transformer, and all service connection costs including the cost of the Utility installation.
2. TR 2.17.1 enumerates temporary traffic signal systems and their power within the Design-Builder's base scope, and the implemented solution utilized an existing service in accordance with that provision.
3. The April 19, 2023 response to a Proposer question is not part of the Contract and is not relevant in interpreting it (ITP 2.5, GP 1-03.5). It answered a circuit-capacity question, clarified no ambiguity in the scope assignment, and no addendum altered that assignment.
4. The routing revision originated with the Utility Owner. No Change Order, and no written Interpretive Engineering Decision, changed the Contract. Comments, meetings, and design-document processing cannot do so (GP 1-02.1).
5. The May 14, 2025 concurrence that the temporary power design is a Notice of Design Change is a document-control acknowledgment under TR 2.1.5.6.1, not a determination of entitlement and not a Change Order.
6. The Design-Builder's cost breakdown credits $550,000 for the UW Bothell overhead route carried in its base bid, confirming that power routing construction was priced as Design-Builder scope.
7. The supplemental statement lacks the schedule analysis required by GP 1-04.5 item 2(d), and its amounts are preliminary, contingent, and internally inconsistent.

8. Recommendations Sought From the DRB

WSDOT respectfully requests that the Board find:

1. The design and construction of the permanent electrical service to the SR 522 Transit Hub, including the routing between PSE's service point of connection and the transit hub, is Design-Builder scope under TR 2.27.6, TR 2.27.6.2, and TR 2.27.6.2.2.
2. The design and construction of temporary power for Stage 2 Phase 3 traffic signals is Design-Builder scope under TR 2.17.1.
3. The April 19, 2023 response to a Proposer question does not create or support entitlement under ITP 2.5 and GP 1-03.5.
4. No WSDOT-initiated change occurred, and neither the RFI 00420 response nor any design-review activity constitutes a Change Order or amends the Contract.
5. The Design-Builder is not entitled to an adjustment in Contract Price or Contract Time for the matters raised in Protest 011.

9. List of Attachments

Attachment	Document
A	Skanska LTR 273 dated November 7, 2025, with design change notices for temporary power and PSE power routing
B	WSDOT SL No. 9727-203 dated November 21, 2025
C	Skanska LTR 289 dated December 5, 2025, with the design consultant's Notice of Protest
D	WSDOT SL No. 9727-211 dated December 8, 2025
E	Skanska LTR 300 dated December 19, 2025, with cost breakdowns and subconsultant memoranda
F	WSDOT SL No. 9727-238 dated January 9, 2026
G	Skanska LTR 328 dated January 23, 2026, with the design consultant's Notice of Dispute
H	WSDOT SL No. 9727-251 dated January 26, 2026
I	PSE email dated September 11, 2024, with PSE plan sheets
J	RFI 00420 and WSDOT response dated May 14, 2025
K	Contract provisions excerpted in Section 3 (GP 1-01 definitions, GP 1-02.1, ITP 2.5, TR 2.17.1, TR 2.27.6 and subsections, GP 1-04.4(5), GP 1-04.5)
L	Utility Appendix U2 excerpt (UI-0467) and Appendix A1 document designation table excerpt

P011 Internal Memo -- Revised PSE Power Routing to SR 522 Transit Hub and Stage 2 Temporary Power

Status: Dispute (Notice of Dispute Skanska LTR 328, 1/23/26). Awaiting written referral per GP 1-04.5(1).1.8. Position Paper in preparation per Evelyn's direction (7/13/26). Claimed: $1,112,423.95. Time reserved (no live TIA). Built: 2026-07-13 from the Stage 1 full-record read. Internal analysis only. Not for transmission.

1. What the dispute is

Skanska, on behalf of AECOM, disputes two WSDOT determinations: WSDOT SL 9727-203 (temporary signal power is base scope) and WSDOT SL 9727-238 (the Design-Builder is responsible for the permanent power routing to the SR 522 Transit Hub). The factual spine: at bid time the Design-Builder team expected PSE to serve the hub from an existing overhead line near UW Bothell, and a WSDOT bid-phase Q&A response (4/19/2023) relayed PSE's confirmation of that connection point. In September 2024 PSE declared the overhead extension infeasible (PSE access plus environmental permitting) and steered to an underground route from the North Creek Business Park, which requires a Home Depot easement and an HDD bore under I-405. Permanent power slipped, so Stage 2 Phase 3 traffic signals needed a temporary power source (existing cabinet SUA 4386), documented in RFI 420 and NDC 111. Skanska claims the routing change and the temporary power design are compensable changes. WSDOT held both are within Design-Builder scope.

2. WSDOT's theory (the paper's architecture)

Layer 1 -- Scope assignment by text. TR 2.27.6 requires the Design-Builder to "provide water, electrical service, and communications at each BRT Station" and to "furnish, permit, design, construct, test, and commission the Utilities." TR 2.27.6.2 names PSE as the Utility Owner for the SR 522 Transit Hub and requires the Design-Builder to "coordinate and provide electrical service connections," "identify the nearest electrical service point of connection and size the electrical service." GP 1-01.3 defines Utilities to include electrical power. Temporary signal power is separately enumerated base scope under TR 2.17.1 ("Temporary traffic signal systems"; "install electrical services or utilize existing services"). The implemented temporary fix (existing service SUA 4386) is literally the 2.17.1 path.

Layer 2 -- The bid-phase response cannot carry the claim. ITP 2.5: responses to Proposer questions "are not considered part of the Contract, and shall not be relevant in interpreting the Contract." The 4/19/2023 response relayed PSE's then-current position on which circuit would serve the hub. It did not amend the scope assignment. VERIFIED 7/13/26 (corrects the earlier working assumption): Utility Appendix U2 "Existing Utilities Listing" is a CONTRACT DOCUMENT (Appendix A1 code "C"), not a Reference Document. The reliance bar therefore does NOT run through U2's document status. It runs through (a) ITP 2.5 against the Q&A response, and (b) U2's substance: an existing-utilities listing that identifies UI-0467 as an existing installation. It does not assign the permanent hub power source, guarantee any routing, or diminish the TR 2.27.6 scope assignment.

Layer 3 -- No WSDOT direction and no change vehicle. The routing change originated with the Utility Owner: PSE's 9/11/2024 email declares the overhead route infeasible and offers three PSE alternates. No Written Change Order exists, and a Change Order is the sole instrument that amends the Contract (GP 1-01 definition: "An amendment to the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents issued in accordance with Section 1-04.4"). GP 1-02.1 (verified 7/13/26, closing paragraph of Responsibility for Design): "no field explanations or interpretations provided by WSDOT at any meetings, and no comments by WSDOT on Design Documents or Released for Construction (RFC) Documents" may amend the Contract or relieve the Design-Builder, with a sole carve-out for Written Interpretive Engineering Decisions under GP 1-03.5. No IED exists here.

Timeliness framing (corrected 7/13/26): the Contract states NO general day-count for noticing a constructive change, and Skanska's formal protest steps were timely against the GP 1-04.5 windows (protest 12/5 within 14 Calendar Days of SL 203 dated 11/21; supplement 12/19 within 14 days; dispute notice 1/23 within 14 days of SL 238 dated 1/9). Do NOT argue a notice-window violation. Use the eight-month gap (3/18/2025 first mention of possible DB construction responsibility, RFI 420 filed 4/4/2025 with "Cost Impact: Yes (Unknown)", first impact notice 11/7/2025) as EVIDENCE OF CONTEMPORANEOUS UNDERSTANDING: for eight months the Design-Builder team processed the routing development through design channels (NDC 111, RFC packages, easement procurement) without asserting a WSDOT change, which is consistent with work it understood to be its scope.

The strongest single exhibit is Skanska's cost breakdown itself: the $550,000 credit for the "UW Bothell O/H route base bid." The Design-Builder priced power routing construction into its base bid. That admission is irreconcilable with the theory that TR 2.27.6.2.2 never assigned routing to the Design-Builder, and it independently corroborates WSDOT's reading of the TR 2.27.6 chain.

3. Skanska's best points and the inoculation plan

Ranked by danger, with the paper's answer for each. db-defense (Stage 4) must pressure-test all six.

1. RFI 420 NDC concurrence. WSDOT's official response (R. Gehrlein, 5/14/2025): "WSDOT concurs this is a NDC." Concord frames the temporary power design as resulting from an Owner-Initiated Change. Answer (VERIFIED 7/13/26): "Notice of Design Changes (NDCs)" exists in the Contract only as a Document Control System record type in TR 2.1.5.6.1, listed alongside NCIs and NCRs. It is not a defined instrument in GP 1-01 and is not a Change Order (the sole amending instrument per the GP 1-01 definition and GP 1-04.4). GP 1-02.1 (closing paragraph) bars WSDOT comments on Design Documents from amending the Contract, and GP 1-07 provides that review or approval does not relieve the Design-Builder and lack of comment is not concurrence. GP 1-04.4 further provides that Design-Builder changes to Design Documents to meet Contract requirements "are not considered a change in the Work" with no Price or Time adjustment. The NDC concurrence acknowledged a design-document change for tracking. It made no entitlement finding. RFI 420's cost field records the Design-Builder's assertion ("Yes (Unknown)"), not a WSDOT determination. The paper must address this expressly. Silence would let Skanska run it as an admission.
2. SL 9727-238's "not initially considered" sentence ("a given design approach, while potentially feasible in concept, is rendered not possible due to Contract requirements (permitting, maintenance access) not initially considered"). Concedes concept feasibility and is ambiguous about who failed to consider the constraints. Answer: the paper does not repeat the sentence. Position framing stays on scope assignment: whichever constraints emerged, resolving them within "furnish, permit, design, construct" is assigned work.
3. GP 1-04.4(5)(b) framing implication. SL 238's reliance on the design-review-changes bar arguably concedes a WSDOT-review origin for the change. Answer: the paper leads with affirmative scope (Layer 1), uses 1-04.4(5)(b) only as a backstop, and pairs it with the Technical-Requirement-vs-Basic-Configuration classification from SL 238.
4. Specific-controls-general at TR 2.27.6.2.2. Answer: the full text of 2.27.6.2.2 (reproduced by the Design-Builder in PCN-00093) imposes affirmative install/provide/apply duties. The subsection details hub-interior work. It does not negate the parent provisions. The $550K credit shows the Design-Builder's contemporaneous pricing agreed.
5. The 10/16/2024 Perteet entry ("WSDOT asked Skanska to request a design from PSE for the North Creek routing"). Closest thing to WSDOT direction in the record. Answer: asking the Design-Builder to obtain the Utility Owner's design input is coordination facilitation within the Design-Builder's own TR 2.27.6.2 coordination duty. It is not an order to change the Contract, and it produced no Written Change Order. Watch: db-defense should test whether this plus the NDC reads as a course of conduct.
6. The 4/19/2023 Q&A response paired with fairness framing ("any reasonable owner"). Answer: ITP 2.5 is categorical. The DRB applies the Contract as written. The equities are also not one-sided: PSE, not WSDOT, withdrew the UW Bothell option, and the Contract assigned utility coordination risk to the Design-Builder.

4. Quantum posture

Entitlement-only paper. No WSDOT independent estimate exists (no Mike Wilson work-product for P011). The record figures are party-submitted, preliminary, and self-labeled not binding. If cost is engaged at the DRB, the flags are in the Response Matrix: the $67,000 temp power design double-count (two markups), the $225,000 PSE pass-through, the 25% construction markup against the GP 1-09.6 structure, the unexplained $39,311/91-hour December growth, and the $550,000 credit. RESOLVED 7/16/26: GP 1-07.17 (now fully transcribed at references/Contract_Provisions/1-07.17_Utilities.md, printed pages 133-148) gives the Design-Builder NO credible reimbursement path for the $225,000. The section's own scoping clause reaches only work 'with respect to existing Utilities impacted by the Project' (Relocations). New service to a Project-built facility is outside it, and TR 2.27.6 ('all service connection costs, including ... the cost of the Utility installation') is the specific controlling assignment. Even inside the Type framework: Type #1 routes cost to the Utility Owner with no Contract Price change (1-07.17(13).1(c)), Type #2 puts it in the Contract Price on the Design-Builder. Rating: None. Recommendation: commission a Wilson estimate only if the DRB process reaches quantum.

5. Time posture

No live time claim. Skanska's supplement conditions schedule neutrality on RFC design by 2/20/26. AECOM estimates 30 weeks to RFC and reserves a future time extension request. The GP 1-04.5(2)(d) schedule analysis is absent from the supplement. The paper notes the omission and does not validate the reserved TIA. Whether RFC design actually completed by 2/20/26 is unverified in the repo. If the paper needs the fact, pull the submittal record from the Z: mirror (17.03 RFC). Decision: draft without it, flag to Zach if it becomes load-bearing.

6. Verifications required before drafting (Stage 3 gate list)

0. RESOLVED 7/16/26: GP 1-07.17 transcribed in full (no Z: retrieval needed, it was in the local 1-07 source PDF pages 43-58). $225K assessment: None. See Section 4.
1. Transcribe verbatim: TR 2.17.1, TR 2.27.6 / .2 / .2.2, GP 1-01.3 definitions, ITP 2.5, GP 1-04.4(1), (2), (5)(b), GP 1-04.5 and (1).1.8, GP 1-02.1, GP 1-02.2. IN PROGRESS (transcription agent). Add from the 7/13 verification: GP 1-07 "Responsibility for Work" and "Reliance on the Design-Builder's Performance" passages, and the GP 1-01 Change Order definition. Drop GP 1-05.1(1) (unverified) -- GP 1-02.2 carries the no-oral-amendment point.
2. RESOLVED 7/13/26: Appendix U2 "Existing Utilities Listing" = Contract Document (Appendix A1 code "C"; verified against the A1 source PDF). Reliance bar runs through ITP 2.5 and U2's substance, not U2's status.
3. RESOLVED 7/13/26: NDC = Document Control System record type (TR 2.1.5.6.1), not a GP 1-01 defined instrument, not a Change Order. Concurrence has no amending or entitlement effect (GP 1-02.1 closing paragraph, GP 1-07, GP 1-04.4).
4. RESOLVED 7/13/26: No stated day-count exists for constructive-change notice, and Skanska's protest steps were timely against GP 1-04.5's windows (14/14/14, WSDOT determination 21). No notice-window violation argument. Eight-month gap used as contemporaneous-understanding evidence only.
5. RESOLVED 7/13/26 and re-confirmed 7/16/26: No independent WSDOT record on the 5/17/2024 Preliminary Design review exists. The Z: mirror retrieval (7/16/26) recovered the submittal itself (now exhibits V/W) but the only RCSR workbooks in the transmittal folders are BLANK NUMBERED TEMPLATES for the ILLUMINATION submittals, and no Utilities RCSR is in the mirror at all. Blank RCSR columns are never evidence of no comments. The paper correctly attributes the no-comments assertion to Perteet rather than asserting it as WSDOT fact. Original note follows. Perteet's "no comments" assertion is Skanska-sourced only. Contractually immaterial either way: GP 1-07 (lack of comment is not concurrence) and GP 1-02.2 (comments cannot amend or relieve). If an affirmative exhibit is ever needed, the RCSR record lives in the DCS/Z: submittal-review record (refdocs/zdrive/17 Design Submittals/).
6. Confirm PSE's status and the WSDOT-PSE relationship documents (any utility agreement in Appendix U2/U3) only if the paper relies on them. Currently the paper does not.

7. Recommendation

Proceed to Stage 3 (provision transcription, then draft). The paper leads with affirmative scope assignment (TR 2.27.6 chain plus TR 2.17.1), uses ITP 2.5 as the shield against the bid-phase response, presents the PSE-driven causation chain from the Design-Builder's records, addresses RFI 420/NDC 111 head-on, and closes with the $550,000 credit as the Design-Builder's contemporaneous pricing admission. Strongest 3-5 argument lines only. The two determinations braid as complementary scope rulings (SL 203 temporary, SL 238 permanent) so the bundled dispute is fully covered.