Decision Requested

Prepare for Disputes Review Board (DRB) referral on Protest 012. WSDOT’s position is that TR 2.18.4.6.3 explicitly requires bucket truck maintenance access for CCTV systems, and that the Design-Builder’s Camera Lowering Device (CLD) approach was a non-compliant design that the DB must correct at its own cost. WSDOT’s protest denial (SL 9727-225, SL 9727-261) was correct. The dispute awaits Skanska’s written Dispute Referral per RFP Section 1-04.5(1).18.

• Recommendation: Deny all claims — protest is without merit
• Cost Exposure: $104,879 claimed (AECOM $91,199 + Skanska $13,680)
• Risk Level: Low-to-moderate — contract language is explicit; main vulnerability is DB’s collaborative-development equitable argument

Core Question

Did TR 2.18.4.6.3 require bucket truck maintenance access for the CCTV system at SB I-405 ~Sta. 4014+50, making the Design-Builder’s Camera Lowering Device approach a non-compliant design correctable at the DB’s cost — or did WSDOT’s rejection of the CLD approach during design review constitute a change to the Contract entitling the DB to an equitable adjustment?

The Contract (TR 2.18.4.6.3) explicitly requires that “Maintenance vehicle access shall allow bucket trucks to park adjacent to the CCTV structure.” The Design-Builder proposed a Camera Lowering Device instead of a bucket truck pullout, citing the NE 160th Street overcrossing as a physical constraint. WSDOT and the DB informally discussed the CLD approach during early design coordination. At RFC close-out in March 2025, WSDOT Maintenance rejected the CLD approach and required bucket truck access per TR 2.18.4.6.3.

After an 8-month design standstill, the parties agreed at a November 2025 Task Force meeting to expand the Comm Hub site to accommodate bucket truck access, requiring pole relocation. Skanska submitted a change order request via LTR 294 (December 9, 2025). WSDOT denied the change order via SL 9727-225 (December 24, 2025). Skanska protested via LTR 313 (January 7, 2026) and supplemented via LTR 330 (January 23, 2026) with a $104,879 claim. WSDOT denied the protest via SL 9727-261 (February 6, 2026). Skanska filed a Dispute Notification via LTR 354 (February 20, 2026); WSDOT acknowledged via SL 9727-278 (February 23, 2026).

Strengths

• TR 2.18.4.6.3 is explicit and unambiguous: “bucket trucks” is specifically named, uses “shall,” and is CCTV-specific — cannot be overridden by general “current maintenance methods” language in TR 2.18.5.2
• Appendix T1 §1.12.2.1 and §2.3.2.3 independently confirm bucket truck requirement for CCTV — the word “bucket truck” appears in three separate contract locations
• GP 1-03.7 negates reliance on TF discussions and field walks as formal approvals
• GP 1-04.4(5)(b) expressly excludes design review corrections from change order eligibility
• The DB’s own PCN-00100 acknowledges bucket truck as the correct endpoint solution
• Parallel provision TR 2.18.4.7.1 (VMS) uses identical language — confirms intentional, consistent specificity
• DB never submitted a DBIC despite being aware the CLD approach was in question

Potential Weaknesses

• Equitable reliance: 8-month design standstill (March–November 2025) occurred while parties explored alternatives; DRBs may be sympathetic to delay cost arguments even if legal position is clear
• AECOM’s narrative (PCN-00100) characterizes early discussions as a “collaborative agreement” — emotionally compelling even if legally insufficient
• Physical impossibility of CLD at original location was genuine and visible; DRBs may view the standstill as at least partly attributable to WSDOT’s delayed formal enforcement
• Schedule analysis incomplete in LTR 330 (GP 1-04.5(2)(d)); if DB provides full CPM analysis in Dispute Referral, schedule entitlement could re-emerge

Fatal Flaw in DB’s Position

The DB’s reading of the Contract renders TR 2.18.4.6.3 meaningless. If TR 2.18.5.2 permits any “current method” including CLD, then the explicit “bucket trucks” language in TR 2.18.4.6.3 has no operative effect. This is a textbook surplusage argument: contract provisions must be interpreted to give effect to all terms, not to render provisions superfluous.

Defense Layering

Layer	Defense	Use In
1.	TR 2.18.4.6.3 is explicit: “bucket trucks” + “shall” + CCTV-specific. Specific controls over general (TR 2.18.5.2). Three independent contract references (TR, T1 §1.12.2.1, T1 §2.3.2.3). DB’s reading renders TR 2.18.4.6.3 surplusage.	DRB Referral / Primary
2.	GP 1-04.4(5)(b): Design review corrections are not change orders. WSDOT identified a non-compliant design; DB must correct at its own cost. No OIC was issued.	DRB Referral / Secondary
3.	GP 1-03.7: TF discussions and field walks are not formal approvals. No Change Order approved the CLD. DB cannot claim equitable reliance on informal review interactions.	DRB Hearing / Anti-reliance
4.	Appendix M1 is a Reference Document (GP 1-03.1). It shows existing conditions for reference only and cannot override TR 2.18.4.6.3.	DRB Hearing / Document classification

Fallback Position

If DRB finds some equitable credit is warranted for the 8-month standstill, WSDOT should argue that (a) the delay was caused by the DB’s own non-compliant design approach, not WSDOT’s enforcement, and (b) any credit should be limited to incremental costs during the standstill period only — not the full redesign cost ($104,879). The redesign itself is clearly the DB’s responsibility under GP 1-04.4(5)(b).