P014 Case File

NB405 Bridge 405/103E Widening - ATC-1 Interpretation

Citations link to the source document. Reference documents are in the left panel.

WSDOT Position Paper - Executive Summary

Protest 014 - NB405 Bridge 405/103E Widening, ATC-1 Interpretation. Contract No. 9727, I-405 Brickyard to SR 527 Improvement Project. Draft for internal review.

WSDOT Serial Letter (SL) No. 9727-201 directed the Design-Builder to design per approved ATC-1 or submit a Design-Builder Initiated Change (November 21, 2025).
Skanska LTR 288 contested the structural continuity requirement (December 5, 2025).
WSDOT SL No. 9727-237 reaffirmed the requirement (January 13, 2026).
Skanska LTR 333 maintained the disagreement (January 27, 2026).
WSDOT SL No. 9727-262 issued a Written Determination (February 6, 2026).
Skanska LTR 356 filed Notice of Protest 014 (February 20, 2026).
Skanska LTR 370 provided the supplemental Written Statement, seeking $1,406,243 (March 6, 2026).
WSDOT SL No. 9727-303 issued the Written Determination on Protest 014 (March 27, 2026).
Skanska LTR 396 filed the Notice of Dispute (April 8, 2026).

1. The Matter Referred to the Board

Does ATC-1, as approved and incorporated into the Contract, require structural continuity between the Bridge 405/103E widening and the existing structure at Intermediate Piers 2 and 3, or may the Design-Builder design the widening with substructures fully separated from the existing bridge?

2. WSDOT's Position

ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6, read together with Figure 2, require the widening to be structurally continuous with the existing structure. ATC-1 is the Design-Builder's own proposal, approved unconditionally and incorporated into the Contract through the Design-Builder's Proposal. WSDOT has issued no change to the Work. Structural continuity is baseline scope under the approved ATC, and its cost rests with the Design-Builder. No adjustment to the Contract Price or Contract Time is warranted.

3. Structural Continuity Is Baseline Scope Under the Design-Builder's Own ATC

1. The ATC-1 text requires structural continuity. ATC-1 (Page 3) commits to the design for each bridge:

ATC-1 Item 3. For the Intermediate Piers, spread footings will be combined and capacity protected to the overstrength demand from the Pier Wall along its weak axis. Please, note the final design of combining the spread footing and the existing drilled shaft will be determined during final design.

"Combined" presupposes that the existing and new foundations are joined into a single structural element. The "final design of combining" language reserves flexibility in HOW to achieve the combination, not WHETHER the foundations will be combined. Item 4 requires a Pier Wall "as shown in Figure 2," which ATC-1 describes as "an extended shear wall for the new widening." Item 6 states the pier diaphragm and pier cap will be "widened to match the existing structure." Figure 2 labels the foundation "COMBINED SPREAD FOOTING" spanning both existing and widening areas and shows no new columns. The Design-Builder's own designer labeled the ATC design "(E) Footing and (N) footing to form contin. Beam (foundation)" in its March 10, 2025 presentation, which it titled "DBIC - 103E/W Widening/Retrofit." ATC-1 is the Design-Builder's document, and ambiguity in language it authored is resolved against it as the drafter.

2. TR 2.13.4.1.2 confirms the existing pier is designed as a unified system. Technical Requirements (TR) 2.13.4.1.2 Bridge Widening Design Criteria lists the seismic retrofit measures for the existing structure:

TR 2.13.4.1.2. Provide foundation strengthening below top of existing footings to resist seismic inertial demands. Existing shallow spread footings at the intermediate piers shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier.

ATC-1 proposed modifying only the separate drilled shaft sentence of this provision. The retrofit continuity requirement remained. The Design-Builder accepted it. In response to review Comment #16, which quoted the provision, its designer committed to a footing overlay retrofit so that "the new footing will be integral with the existing footing through these dowels." The existing pier is therefore already designed to act as one structural system. ATC-1 joins the widening to that system.

3. The Comment #9 disposition was not acceptance of a contract deviation. The Design-Builder's principal argument is that WSDOT accepted the separated substructure by closing preliminary design review Comment #9. Comment #9 asked why a closure pour "in the cap and pier wall" was not shown between the widened and existing portions. The disposition code "A" means "Accept Comment - Correct, Add to, or Clarify document." It sustains the reviewer's comment. Its note reads "Comment addressed. Please show closure pour in FIN submittal." The closure pour the disposition asked to see is a substructure closure, not the deck strip the Design-Builder had proposed. General Provisions (GP) 1-03.7 Approvals and Acceptances does not allow the Design-Builder to treat a design review as acceptance:

GP 1-03.7. The oversight, spot checks, audits, reviews, tests, and inspections conducted by WSDOT do not constitute approval nor acceptance of the materials or Work inspected or reviewed.

4. The Type Selection Workshop confirmed three acceptable paths and identified the Design-Builder's preferred alternative as a change. At the October 22, 2025 Type Selection Workshop, AECOM presented eight design options for the widening. WSDOT accepted three: Option 1 (the RFP reference design), Option 2 (the ATC-1 configuration, with the widening carried on the pier wall and combined footing), and Option 4 (column jacketing without an infill wall). All three keep the widening substructure at the original foundation level and structurally tied to the existing bridge. Option 3, the Design-Builder's preferred design, is different in kind. It raises the new pier wall onto a pile cap on small-diameter shafts above the culvert and keeps the widening substructure separate from the existing bridge, connected only at the deck. WSDOT stated at the workshop: "WSDOT believes ATC is the baseline TODAY, anything else is a DBIC." Option 3 remains available to the Design-Builder through a Design-Builder Initiated Change per GP 1-04.4.

5. No change was issued and the cost of implementing the ATC is the Design-Builder's. WSDOT has issued no change to the Work. Structural continuity is what ATC-1 required when the Design-Builder proposed it. GP 1-04.4(5) Matters Not Eligible for Change Orders lists what remains the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility. Item (n) covers ATC implementation cost:

GP 1-04.4(5)(n). Unless noted otherwise in the Contract, any increases in costs or time incurred implementing an ATC.

GP 1-03.2 clause 3 independently binds the Design-Builder to ATC commitments more advantageous to WSDOT. WSDOT consistently directed the Design-Builder Initiated Change path if the Design-Builder wished to change the approved structural approach (WSDOT SL No. 9727-201, WSDOT SL No. 9727-237, WSDOT SL No. 9727-262). The Design-Builder did not use it.

6. The remaining arguments do not alter the analysis.

Reliance on the Comment #9 closure fails under GP 1-03.7.
Less adverse geotechnical conditions may inform a Design-Builder Initiated Change but do not change what the ATC text requires.
The Bridge Design Manual's closure strip and differential settlement provisions are deck-level details. They join the widened deck to the existing deck and do not authorize a separated substructure.
WSDOT Design Manager Sonia Berriz's May 9, 2025 email, which the Design-Builder cites, states "I do believe the contract requires [the Design-Builder] to take a different approach."

4. Recommendations Sought From the DRB

That ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6, read together with Figure 2, require structural continuity between the Bridge 405/103E widening and the existing structure at Intermediate Piers 2 and 3.
That WSDOT's direction that the widening be structurally continuous with the existing pier is consistent with TR 2.13.4.1.2 and imposed no new obligation.
That the Design-Builder is not entitled to an adjustment to the Contract Price or Contract Time on Protest 014.
That the Design-Builder proceed with the widening in accordance with ATC-1, or submit a Design-Builder Initiated Change per GP 1-04.4 if it wishes to propose an alternative approach.

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

WSDOT POSITION PAPER

DRB Hearing: Protest 014 -- NB405 Bridge 405/103E Widening -- ATC-1 Interpretation Project: I-405, Brickyard to SR 527 Improvement Project Contract No.: 009727

Submitted by: Washington State Department of Transportation Date: [TBD]

Introduction
Project Summary
Relevant Contractual Requirements
Discussion of Bridge 405/103E Widening
Sequence of Events
WSDOT Position
Conclusion
Recommendations Sought From the DRB
List of Attachments

1. Introduction

Pursuant to General Provisions (GP) 1-04.5(1) Disputes, WSDOT hereby submits this position paper and supporting documents to the Dispute Review Board (DRB) for the upcoming hearing on Protest 014, NB405 Bridge 405/103E Widening, ATC-1 Interpretation.

The central question in this matter is whether ATC-1, as approved and incorporated into the Contract, requires structural continuity between the Bridge 405/103E widening and the existing structure at Intermediate Piers 2 and 3. WSDOT's position is that it does.

The Design-Builder challenges WSDOT's determination that ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6, read together with Technical Requirements (TR) 2.13.4.1.2 Bridge Widening Design Criteria, require the widening to be structurally continuous with the existing superstructure and substructure. The Design-Builder seeks an adjustment to the Contract Price of $1,406,243 and an extension of Contract Time.

The correspondence chain is as follows:

ATC-1 approved unconditionally by WSDOT (April 3, 2023).
WSDOT Serial Letter (SL) No. 9727-201 directed the Design-Builder to design per ATC-1 or submit a DBIC (November 21, 2025).
Skanska LTR 288 contested the structural continuity requirement (December 5, 2025).
WSDOT SL No. 9727-237 corrected the "Forward Compatibility" characterization and reaffirmed the ATC-1 requirement, citing GP 1-03.2 and GP 1-04.4(5)(n) (January 13, 2026).
Skanska LTR 333 maintained disagreement (January 27, 2026).
WSDOT SL No. 9727-262 issued a Written Determination directing the Design-Builder to submit a DBIC or file a Notice of Protest (February 6, 2026).
Skanska LTR 356 filed Notice of Protest 014 with five key points (February 20, 2026).
WSDOT SL No. 9727-277 acknowledged Protest 014 and did not grant the extension request. Supplemental due March 6, 2026 (February 23, 2026).
Skanska LTR 370 provided supplemental information per GP 1-04.5(2), including AECOM technical analysis and a cost estimate of $1,406,243 (March 6, 2026).
WSDOT SL No. 9727-303 issued the Written Determination on Protest 014, finding no adjustment to Contract Price or Time warranted (March 27, 2026).
Skanska LTR 396 filed Notice of Dispute per GP 1-04.5(1), requesting DRB referral. AECOM PCN-00080 (the referral letter) incorporated by reference (April 8, 2026).
WSDOT SL No. 9727-325 acknowledged the Notice of Dispute and stated that WSDOT will wait for the written referral pursuant to GP 1-04.5(1).1.8 (April 14, 2026).

WSDOT's determination is that Protest 014 is not supported by the Contract. ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6, read together with Figure 2, require the widening to be structurally continuous with the existing structure. TR 2.13.4.1.2 confirms that the existing pier substructure is designed to act as a unified system. No change to the Work has been issued. The Design-Builder is not entitled to an adjustment in Contract Price or Contract Time.

2. Project Summary

The I-405, Brickyard to SR 527 Improvement Project is a design-build highway improvement project in the cities of Kirkland and Bothell, Washington, administered by WSDOT under Contract No. 009727. Skanska USA Civil is the Design-Builder. AECOM Technical Services, Inc. is the Design-Builder's lead bridge designer.

Bridge 405/103E carries northbound I-405 over 228th Street SE. The Contract requires widening of Bridge 405/103E as part of the mainline capacity improvements. The bridge widening is listed under TR 2.13.1 (Bridge Widenings and Seismic Retrofits) as a required project element.

During the procurement phase, the Design-Builder proposed Alternative Technical Concept No. 1 (ATC-1), titled "Use of Pier Wall for Bridges 405/103E and 405/103W." ATC-1 proposed replacing the RFP's drilled shaft foundation design with pier walls and combined spread footings at Intermediate Piers 2 and 3. WSDOT approved ATC-1 unconditionally on April 3, 2023. ATC-1 was incorporated into the Contract through the Design-Builder's Proposal.

The matter concerns whether ATC-1 requires the widening to be structurally continuous with the existing structure, or whether the Design-Builder may design a widening with substructures fully separated from the existing bridge. WSDOT's position is that ATC-1's text, figures, and the underlying TR all require structural continuity. The Design-Builder contends that ATC-1 contemplated design flexibility and that WSDOT's interpretation imposes a requirement not found in the Contract.

3. Relevant Contractual Requirements

3.1 TR 2.13.4.1.2 -- Bridge Widening Design Criteria

TR 2.13.4.1.2 sets out the seismic retrofit and design criteria for the widening of Bridge 405/103E. Among the seismic retrofit measures it lists for the existing structure, the provision states:

"Provide foundation strengthening below top of existing footings to resist seismic inertial demands. Existing shallow spread footings at the intermediate piers shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier."

A separate sentence of the same provision addresses the widening foundations: "Foundations for widening of Bridge 405/103E shall use drilled shafts." This is a Technical Requirement (Contract Chapter 2), at precedence level 5 in the GP 1-03.2 Order of Precedence. It is a Contract Document.

ATC-1 proposed modifying the drilled shaft sentence of TR 2.13.4.1.2. It did not propose removing the retrofit continuity requirement quoted above.

3.2 ATC-1, Page 3, Items 3, 4, and 6 -- Structural Design Commitments

ATC-1 (Page 3, lines 9 through 26) states:

"This ATC will provide the following design for each bridge:

...

For the Intermediate Piers, spread footings will be combined and capacity protected to the overstrength demand from the Pier Wall along its weak axis. Please, note the final design of combining the spread footing and the existing drilled shaft will be determined during final design. The concern is to avoid inducing excessive shear demand into the drilled shaft by combining the drilled shaft with the spread footing.

A Pier Wall will be provided for Piers 2 and 3 as shown in Figure 2 (attached).

...

For Bridge 405/103E, the Pier diaphragm and Pier Cap will be widened to match the existing structure."

ATC-1 (Page 1) further describes the Pier Walls:

"These Pier Walls will act as shear wall in between the existing columns and as an extended shear wall for the new widening for Bridge 405/103E."

ATC-1 is an approved ATC incorporated into the Contract through the Design-Builder's Proposal. Per GP 1-03.1, approved ATCs "shall be addressed at the same order of precedence as the Contract Document to which the addendum or ATC applies."

3.3 ATC-1, Figure 2 (C-227) -- Proposed Design

ATC-1 Figure 2 (drawing C-227) illustrates the proposed design. The drawing shows a combined spread footing spanning both the existing structure and the widening area. The footing is labeled "COMBINED SPREAD FOOTING." No new columns are shown. The pier wall connects the existing and widening substructures.

See Attachment A.

3.4 GP 1-03.2 Clause 3 -- Order of Precedence

GP 1-03.2 establishes the Order of Precedence for the Contract Documents. In addition to the numbered precedence levels, GP 1-03.2 includes the following provision:

"If the Proposal includes statements or incorporates approved ATC(s) that can reasonably be interpreted as offers to provide higher quality items than otherwise required by the Contract Documents or to perform services in addition to those otherwise required, or otherwise contains terms that are more advantageous to WSDOT than the requirements of the Contract Documents, Design-Builder's obligations hereunder shall include compliance with all such statements, offers, and terms."

This provision binds the Design-Builder to ATC commitments that are more advantageous to WSDOT.

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

GP 1-04.4(5) identifies matters that are the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility. Item (n) states:

"Unless noted otherwise in the Contract, any increases in costs or time incurred implementing an ATC."

This provision allocates ATC implementation costs to the Design-Builder.

3.6 GP 1-03.7 -- Approvals and Acceptances

GP 1-03.7 defines the meaning of "approved" and limits the effect of WSDOT reviews:

"The terms 'approved' and 'approval,' when used in the context of obtaining WSDOT's approval of a specific approach, proposal, plan, schedule, analysis, or design submitted by the Design-Builder, means that WSDOT's representative is in agreement with the specific approach, proposal, plan, schedule, analysis, or design and that the submittal itself and its contents appear to conform to the respective requirements of the Contract Documents for that submittal."

GP 1-03.7 further provides:

"The oversight, spot checks, audits, reviews, tests, and inspections conducted by WSDOT do not constitute approval nor acceptance of the materials or Work inspected or reviewed or waiver of any Warranty or legal or equitable right with respect thereto."

And:

"WSDOT may require remedies for Nonconforming Work, identify additional Work which must be done to bring the Project into compliance with requirements of the Contract Documents, regardless of whether previous oversight, spot checks, audits, reviews, tests, inspections, acceptances or approvals were conducted by WSDOT."

This provision limits the legal effect of WSDOT design reviews and preserves WSDOT's right to require contract compliance at any stage.

3.7 GP 1-04.5 -- Protest Procedure and Dispute Procedure

GP 1-04.5 establishes the following procedure:

"If in disagreement with anything required in a Change Order, or the WSDOT Engineer's Written Determination or decision for which the Design-Builder believes they are entitled to an increase in the Contract Price or Time, the Design-Builder shall: 1. Give a signed Written notice of protest to the WSDOT Engineer within 14 Calendar Days of receiving a Change Order or a WSDOT Engineer's Written Determination."

The Design-Builder is required to supplement the Notice of Protest within 14 Calendar Days with a written statement and supporting documents per GP 1-04.5(2). WSDOT's determination is due within 21 Calendar Days after receipt of the supplemental statement.

If the Design-Builder does not accept the determination, GP 1-04.5(1) provides for resolution through the DRB.

4. Discussion of Bridge 405/103E Widening

4.1 ATC-1 Proposal and Approval

In its Proposal, the Design-Builder described ATC-1 as "228th St Foundation Optimization." The Design-Builder's Proposal states that ATC-1 "reduces (4) shafts and uses only spread footings." ATC-1 proposed replacing the RFP's drilled shaft foundations at Intermediate Piers 2 and 3 with pier walls and combined spread footings. ATC-1 proposed modifying the drilled shaft language in TR 2.13.4.1.2 but did not propose removing the continuity requirement.

WSDOT approved ATC-1 on April 3, 2023. The approval letter states: "The ATC is approved." The approval was unconditional. No conditions, limitations, or carve-outs were attached.

ATC-1 (Page 2, lines 1-2) paraphrases the TR 2.13.4.1.2 requirement as requiring a "continuous beam across the pier." The actual RFP language uses "catenary or deep beam," but both formulations require continuity.

4.2 The TR 2.13.4.1.2 Continuity Requirement

TR 2.13.4.1.2 requires that existing shallow spread footings at the intermediate piers "shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier." This language existed in the RFP before ATC-1 was proposed. ATC-1's proposed modification to TR 2.13.4.1.2 (ATC-1, Page 4) addressed only the drilled shaft language. The continuity requirement remained unchanged.

4.3 Preliminary Design and WSDOT Review Comment #9

AECOM submitted the preliminary design for Bridge 103E on May 1, 2024 (BY-CRE-00552, SUB 17.01). The preliminary design reflected a separate substructure approach.

WSDOT reviewer Terry Bondy wrote Comment #9 on sheet BF06 of the RCSR. The comment reads:

"Please explain why a closure pour in the cap and pier wall is not shown between the widened and existing portions of the bridge. What bearing pressures and settlements are anticipated for the new spread footings? In addition to bridge superstructure loading, the backfill of the deep excavation will cause settlements that further increase the differential between old and new portions. Per BDM 15.2.10, Differential settlement between the new and existing structures shall be taken into account...If the widening requires additional girders or substructure, a closure strip shall be provided. Per BDM 15.4.3B3, The designer shall evaluate the potential for differential settlement between the existing structure and widening structure."

The comment questioned the absence of a closure pour and cited two Bridge Design Manual provisions requiring differential settlement evaluation and closure strips.

AECOM responded that a closure strip would be provided in the deck slab, and that the substructure would be separated using 1/2-inch pre-molded joint filler.

On November 19, 2024, Terry Bondy resolved Comment #9 via email with the following disposition: "Comment addressed. Please show closure pour in FIN submittal."

4.4 AECOM's Comment #16 Response

In the same preliminary design review, Terry Bondy wrote Comment #16, which explicitly quoted TR 2.13.4.1.2:

"Preliminary plans do not capture scope of work. How is strengthening of the existing spread footings be provided? As builts show only a bottom mat of rebar in the footings. Per 2.13.4.1.2, Provide foundation strengthening below top of existing footings to resist seismic inertial demands. Existing shallow spread footings at the intermediate piers shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier."

AECOM's response to Comment #16 stated: "Will provide a footing overlay retrofit with drilled and bonded dowel connections. The new footing will be integral with the existing footing through these dowels."

4.5 Design Review Discussions (March through May 2025)

On March 5, 2025, WSDOT consultant Jason Pang raised contract compliance concerns regarding the separate substructure design during the Structures Task Force Meeting.

On March 10, 2025, AECOM presented DBIC alternatives to WSDOT. AECOM's presentation was titled "DBIC - 103E/W Widening/Retrofit." In the presentation, AECOM labeled the ATC-1 design elements, including Element 4: "(E) Footing and (N) footing to form contin. Beam (foundation)."

On March 19, 2025, WSDOT structures engineers Jason Pang and Mohammad S. discussed the 103E design requirements. Notes from this discussion include the following statements: "HAVE TO CONNECT - coupling beams - that would be where the plastic hinge would be located." "DON'T WANT A NON-STANDARD SYSTEM." "NOT equal value." The discussion focused on seismic performance, balanced stiffness, ductility demands, and post-earthquake inspectability.

According to AECOM's account in its Notice of Protest supplemental information (Skanska LTR 370), on April 1, 2025, when AECOM cited the November 2024 Comment #9 closure, Jason Pang stated the resolution was not applicable because he did not make or resolve the previous comment. WSDOT has not located an independent meeting record of this exchange.

On May 9, 2025, WSDOT Design Manager Sonia Berriz emailed Skanska/AECOM regarding the 103E widening. The email states: "I do believe the contract requires [the Design-Builder] to take a different approach." The email also states: "there is understanding that there isn't any hammer in the contract (besides the ATC) to require [the Design-Builder] to chase a different approach." Berriz listed four specific WSDOT technical concerns: Differential Settlement, Balanced Stiffness, Ductility Displacement, and No plastic hinging.

4.6 RFI 461 and RFI 461.1

On June 18, 2025, AECOM submitted RFI 461 (BY-CRE-02874) requesting WSDOT confirm the structural approach for the 103E widening. The RFI also disclosed that culvert protection per ATC exhibits "is not feasible."

On June 25, 2025, WSDOT responded: "The proposed approach presented in the RFI is not what the ATC was based on or approved." WSDOT stated it "would be supportive of a DBIC that removed the infill shear walls due to the updated information provided through the geotechnical boring program."

On July 8, 2025, AECOM submitted RFI 461.1 (BY-CRE-02982) asking WSDOT to "provide the sections and specific lines of the contract" requiring a DBIC.

On July 18, 2025, WSDOT responded citing GP 1-03.2 clause 3 in full and quoting ATC-1 Page 3 lines 9 and 23: "The ATC would need to be updated to show a new proposed design for the pier wall."

4.7 Type Selection Workshop

On October 22, 2025, AECOM presented eight design alternatives to WSDOT. WSDOT accepted Options 1, 2, and 4. Option 3 (the Design-Builder's preferred approach) was described as a "non-starter for WSDOT" and would require a DBIC. During the workshop, WSDOT stated: "WSDOT believes ATC is the baseline TODAY, anything else is a DBIC."

4.8 The Design-Builder's Own DBIC Presentation

On March 10, 2025, AECOM presented to WSDOT under the title "DBIC - 103E/W Widening/Retrofit." AECOM's slide labeled the ATC design as "(E) Footing and (N) footing to form contin. Beam (foundation)" between existing and new footings. The Design-Builder's proposed alternative was labeled "Gap Separation" with the note "ONLY connected at top closure pour - crossbeam not connected."

4.9 Cost and Schedule Amounts Sought

The Design-Builder seeks $1,406,243 in total costs, consisting of AECOM design costs of $1,071,847 (4,119 hours) and Skanska construction costs of $334,396 (base $267,517 plus 25% markup for the footing closure pour). The Design-Builder also asserts a schedule impact of approximately six months for final design and four months for construction. These figures are AECOM estimates. A formal delay analysis has not been submitted, so the schedule analysis that GP 1-04.5(2)(d) requires to support the asserted time impact has not been provided.

5. Sequence of Events

Date	Document	Description
(Pre-ATC)	TR 2.13.4.1.2	Bridge Widening Design Criteria: footings "shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier."
Apr 3, 2023	ATC-1 Approval	WSDOT approves ATC-1 unconditionally: "The ATC is approved." Pier walls and combined spread footings replace drilled shafts.
May 1, 2024	Preliminary Design (BY-CRE-00552)	AECOM submits Bridge 103E preliminary design with separate substructure approach.
May 2024	RCSR Comment #9 (Terry Bondy)	Questions absence of closure pour. Cites BDM 15.2.10 and 15.4.3B3.
May 2024	RCSR Comment #16 (Terry Bondy)	Quotes TR 2.13.4.1.2 verbatim: "shall be made continuous."
Nov 19, 2024	Comment #9 Closure (Bondy)	Disposition: "Comment addressed. Please show closure pour in FIN submittal."
Nov 19, 2024	Comment #16 Response (AECOM)	AECOM commits to footings "integral with the existing footing through these dowels."
Mar 5, 2025	Structures Task Force	Jason Pang raises contract compliance concern.
Mar 10, 2025	AECOM DBIC Presentation	Titled "DBIC - 103E/W Widening/Retrofit." Labels ATC design as "contin. Beam (foundation)."
May 9, 2025	Sonia Berriz Email	"I do believe the contract requires [the Design-Builder] to take a different approach."
Jun 18, 2025	RFI 461 (BY-CRE-02874)	AECOM requests confirmation of structural approach.
Jun 25, 2025	WSDOT Response to RFI 461	"Not what the ATC was based on or approved." DBIC required.
Jul 18, 2025	WSDOT Response to RFI 461.1	Cites GP 1-03.2 clause 3 and ATC-1 Page 3 lines 9 and 23.
Oct 22, 2025	Type Selection Workshop	"ATC is the baseline TODAY, anything else is a DBIC." Options 1, 2, 4 accepted.
Nov 21, 2025	WSDOT SL No. 9727-201	Directs Design-Builder to design per ATC-1 or submit DBIC.
Jan 13, 2026	WSDOT SL No. 9727-237	Corrects "Forward Compatibility." Reaffirms ATC-1 requirement. Cites GP 1-03.2 and TR 2.13.4.1.2 in DBIC requirements.
Feb 6, 2026	WSDOT SL No. 9727-262	Written Determination. Reiterates TR 2.13.4.1.2 in DBIC requirements.
Feb 20, 2026	Skanska LTR 356	Notice of Protest 014. Five key points.
Mar 6, 2026	Skanska LTR 370	Supplemental per GP 1-04.5(2). AECOM analysis. Amount sought: $1,406,243.
Mar 27, 2026	WSDOT SL No. 9727-303	Written Determination on Protest 014. No adjustment to Contract Price or Time warranted.
Apr 8, 2026	Skanska LTR 396	Notice of Dispute per GP 1-04.5(1).
Apr 14, 2026	WSDOT SL No. 9727-325	Acknowledges the Notice of Dispute. WSDOT will wait for the written referral per GP 1-04.5(1).1.8.

6. WSDOT Position

6.1 ATC-1 Text Requires Structural Continuity

ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6, read together with Figure 2, establish that the widening of Bridge 405/103E shall be structurally continuous with the existing structure.

Item 3 (Section 3.2) states that "spread footings will be combined." The word "combined" presupposes that the existing and new foundations will be joined into a single structural element. Item 3 further states: "the final design of combining the spread footing and the existing drilled shaft will be determined during final design." The Design-Builder argues this language creates broad design flexibility. It does not. The phrase "the final design of combining" contemplates flexibility in HOW to achieve the combination, not WHETHER the foundations will be combined. Flexibility in engineering details is not freedom to abandon the structural concept. Item 3's stated concern reinforces this reading. It cautions against "inducing excessive shear demand into the drilled shaft by combining the drilled shaft with the spread footing." A designer manages shear transfer only across a connection that exists. The instruction to control shear demand presupposes a combined, capacity-protected load path, not a half-inch isolation joint.

Item 4 (Section 3.2) requires a Pier Wall "as shown in Figure 2." The Pier Wall is described on Page 1 of ATC-1 as acting "as an extended shear wall for the new widening." The Pier Wall is a structural link between the existing structure and the widening.

Item 6 (Section 3.2) states that the pier diaphragm and pier cap will be "widened to match the existing structure." Read in isolation, "match" could refer to dimensional matching. Read together with Items 3 and 4 and Figure 2, "match" means structural compatibility within a unified system.

Figure 2 (Section 3.3, Attachment A) corroborates this reading. The drawing labels the foundation as "COMBINED SPREAD FOOTING" spanning both existing and widening areas and depicts no new columns. WSDOT does not derive the combination requirement from the label alone. The label confirms the combined load path that Item 3's text mandates.

GP 1-03.2 clause 3 (Section 3.4) independently binds the Design-Builder to these commitments. ATC-1's structural continuity is more advantageous to WSDOT than a non-continuous widening. The provision requires the Design-Builder to comply with "all such statements, offers, and terms."

ATC-1 is the Design-Builder's own document. To the extent the Design-Builder now contends its language is ambiguous, that ambiguity is resolved against the Design-Builder as the drafter. The Design-Builder cannot propose a combined-footing concept, obtain its approval, and then read the language it authored to permit a fully separated substructure.

The Design-Builder's own DBIC presentation (Section 4.8) confirms this reading. AECOM labeled the ATC design as requiring "(E) Footing and (N) footing to form contin. Beam (foundation)." The Design-Builder's own designer understood the ATC concept to require foundation continuity. The presentation was titled "DBIC - 103E/W Widening/Retrofit," framing the alternative approach as a change to the contract, not a baseline-compliant design.

6.2 TR 2.13.4.1.2 Confirms the Existing Pier Is Designed as a Unified System

TR 2.13.4.1.2 (Section 3.1) lists the seismic retrofit measures for the existing Bridge 405/103E. Among them, it requires that the existing shallow spread footings "shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier." This measure ties the existing column footings together across each pier. It was in the RFP before ATC-1 was proposed. ATC-1's proposed modification (ATC-1, Page 4) addressed only the separate drilled shaft sentence of TR 2.13.4.1.2, not this retrofit requirement.

The Design-Builder accepted the retrofit obligation. In response to RCSR Comment #16 (Section 4.4), which quoted TR 2.13.4.1.2, AECOM committed to a footing overlay retrofit with drilled and bonded dowels so that "the new footing will be integral with the existing footing through these dowels." The existing pier substructure is therefore designed to act as a single, unified system.

WSDOT's position that the widening must be structurally continuous with that pier rests on ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6 and Figure 2 (Section 6.1). TR 2.13.4.1.2 is context. It shows that the Contract treats the pier as one structural system, into which ATC-1 combined the widening. WSDOT does not read the existing-footing retrofit sentence as a standalone command that the widening be monolithic.

In its Notice of Dispute (Skanska LTR 396), the Design-Builder asserts that TR 2.13.4.1.2 was introduced "for the first time" in the Written Determination (WSDOT SL No. 9727-303). WSDOT SL No. 9727-237 (January 13, 2026) and WSDOT SL No. 9727-262 (February 6, 2026) both identified TR 2.13.4.1.2 Bridge Widening Design Criteria in their DBIC bullet points, so the provision's relevance was identified before the determination.

6.3 The Comment #9 Disposition Did Not Constitute Acceptance of a Contract Deviation

The Design-Builder's principal argument is that WSDOT "accepted" the separate substructure approach by closing preliminary design Comment #9 on November 19, 2024 with the disposition code "A" (Accept).

First, Comment #9 was not a neutral inquiry. As described in Section 4.3, the comment asked why a closure pour "in the cap and pier wall" was not shown between the widened and existing portions, and cited two Bridge Design Manual provisions on differential settlement and closure strips. The reviewer was questioning why a required continuity element was missing.

Second, the disposition code "A" does not mean WSDOT blessed separation. On the WSDOT review form, "A" means "Accept Comment - Correct, Add to, or Clarify document." It records that the reviewer's comment is sustained and that the Design-Builder must correct the document. It is not an approval of the Design-Builder's proposed 1/2-inch joint. Read with its own note, the disposition called for a correction: "Comment addressed. Please show closure pour in FIN submittal." Because Comment #9 asked about a closure pour in the cap and pier wall, the closure pour the disposition asked to see is a substructure closure, not the deck strip the Design-Builder had proposed. The condition the reviewer set was never satisfied.

Third, the Contract forecloses the reliance the Design-Builder asserts. GP 1-03.7 (Section 3.6) provides that WSDOT reviews "do not constitute approval nor acceptance," and that a review "may not be relied upon by the Design-Builder or used as evidence in determining whether the Design-Builder has fulfilled the requirements of the Contract Documents." The Contract further provides that a failure to enforce a requirement does not relinquish WSDOT's right to compel strict compliance, notwithstanding any course of dealing (GP 1-03.9). A formal design review disposition, even one coded "Accept," does not modify the Contract.

Fourth, the Design-Builder's own conduct in the same review is consistent with a unified pier. In response to Comment #16 (Section 4.4), AECOM committed to making the existing footings "integral with the existing footing through these dowels." That commitment concerns the existing-footing retrofit interface. It shows the Design-Builder understood the pier substructure was to act as one system. It does not support reading the Comment #9 disposition as acceptance of a fully separated widening.

Fifth, no Design-Builder Initiated Change was filed. WSDOT does not treat the absence of a DBIC as a procedural bar to Protest 014. The Design-Builder's rights under GP 1-04.5(1) were never foreclosed, and the Design-Builder exercised them. The point is narrower. The DBIC is the contractual vehicle to change an approved design, and the Design-Builder did not use it, which is consistent with the Design-Builder not having treated the Comment #9 closure as a contract modification at the time.

6.4 No Change Was Issued and the Cost Is the Design-Builder's

WSDOT has not issued a change to the Work. WSDOT is enforcing the structural continuity that ATC-1 required when the Design-Builder proposed it (Items 3, 4, and 6 and Figure 2). Building the widening to be continuous with the existing pier is baseline scope under the approved ATC. The cost of performing baseline scope is not compensable, and no equitable adjustment under GP 1-04.4 is triggered, because WSDOT directed no change.

GP 1-04.4(5)(n) (Section 3.5) reinforces this result. It provides that, unless the Contract notes otherwise, any increase in cost or time "incurred implementing an ATC" is the Design-Builder's. ATC-1 was the Design-Builder's own proposal. If the Board agrees that structural continuity is what ATC-1 as approved requires, then the incremental cost of achieving it is a cost of implementing ATC-1 and is allocated to the Design-Builder by GP 1-04.4(5)(n), even if that cost is higher than the Design-Builder anticipated.

GP 1-03.2 clause 3 (Section 3.4) independently binds the Design-Builder to ATC-1's commitments. The clause requires compliance with "all such statements, offers, and terms" that are more advantageous to WSDOT.

The Design-Builder was directed to submit a DBIC if it wished to change the structural approach (WSDOT SL No. 9727-201, WSDOT SL No. 9727-237, WSDOT SL No. 9727-262). It did not do so.

6.5 The Design-Builder's Remaining Arguments Do Not Alter the Analysis

The Design-Builder raises several additional arguments in its Notice of Protest and supplemental filings. None alters the analysis.

Reliance on the Comment #9 closure. The Design-Builder argues it relied on Comment #9 closure for approximately four months of design work before WSDOT "reversed course" in March 2025. As discussed in Section 6.3, Comment #9 closure did not constitute acceptance under GP 1-03.7 (Section 3.6). The Contract text (ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6 and TR 2.13.4.1.2) was available to the Design-Builder throughout. The Design-Builder cannot rely on an informal action to override explicit written contract provisions.

Changed geotechnical conditions. The Design-Builder argues that geotechnical investigations confirmed no liquefiable soil layers at Piers 2 and 3, undermining ATC-1's deep buried footing rationale. Changed site conditions may affect the engineering of the foundation but do not change what the Contract text requires. The proper vehicle for adjusting the design approach based on changed conditions is a DBIC per GP 1-04.4.

Bridge Design Manual and industry practice. The Design-Builder cites BDM 15.2.10 and 15.4.3B3, Caltrans MTD 9-3, and WSDOT's Talbot Road bridge as support for a separated substructure. The Bridge Design Manual is incorporated by TR 2.13.4.1.2, which provides that the Work on widened bridges "shall be in accordance with the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual." It is a contract standard, and WSDOT does not treat it as external. BDM 15.2.10's closure strip and BDM 15.4.3B3's differential-settlement accommodation are deck-level details that join the widened deck to the existing deck. WSDOT accepts that deck-level closure. Those provisions do not authorize a separated substructure. Where the project-specific ATC-1 combined-footing configuration is more specific than the general Bridge Design Manual widening guidance, the project-specific requirement controls. The Talbot Road "Widening Example" shown at the October 22, 2025 workshop involved no ATC mandating a combined spread footing.

Sonia Berriz statement. The Design-Builder cites WSDOT Design Manager Sonia Berriz's May 9, 2025 email as evidence that WSDOT confirmed no contract basis beyond ATC-1. As described in Section 4.5, Berriz's full statement includes: "I do believe the contract requires [the Design-Builder] to take a different approach." The ATC text is the contractual basis. Acknowledging that the ATC is the basis is a description of where the obligation lives, not a concession that no obligation exists.

Forward Compatibility correction. The Design-Builder argues that WSDOT's acknowledgment in WSDOT SL No. 9727-237 that the term "Forward Compatibility" was incorrect undermines WSDOT SL No. 9727-201. WSDOT corrected the terminology, not the position. WSDOT SL No. 9727-237 expressly reaffirmed the structural continuity requirement on its own textual basis (ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6) and cited GP 1-03.2, GP 1-04.4(5)(n), and TR 2.13.4.1.2.

7. Conclusion

WSDOT maintains that Protest 014 is not supported by the Contract and that the Design-Builder is not entitled to an adjustment in Contract Price or Contract Time.

ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6, read together with Figure 2, require structural continuity between the Bridge 405/103E widening and the existing structure. The word "combined" in Item 3 presupposes combination. The Pier Wall in Item 4 structurally links existing and widening elements. "Widened to match" in Item 6 means structural compatibility within a unified system.
TR 2.13.4.1.2 requires the existing pier footings to be made continuous across the pier as a seismic retrofit. The Design-Builder accepted this obligation in its Comment #16 response. The existing pier is designed to act as a unified system into which ATC-1 combined the widening.
The Design-Builder's own preliminary design review record contradicts its current position. AECOM committed to footings "integral with the existing footing through these dowels" in response to RCSR Comment #16. The Design-Builder's own DBIC presentation labeled the ATC design as requiring a "continuous beam foundation."
Comment #9 closure did not constitute acceptance of a contract deviation. The reviewer's disposition asked the Design-Builder to show a closure pour in the final submittal. GP 1-03.7 expressly provides that WSDOT reviews do not constitute acceptance.
GP 1-04.4(5)(n) allocates ATC implementation costs to the Design-Builder. No change to the Work has been issued.
The Design-Builder was consistently directed to submit a DBIC and chose not to. The DBIC process was available. The Design-Builder did not use it.

8. Recommendations Sought From the DRB

WSDOT respectfully requests that the DRB:

Recommend that ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6, read together with Figure 2, require structural continuity between the Bridge 405/103E widening and the existing structure at Intermediate Piers 2 and 3.
Recommend that WSDOT's direction that the widening be structurally continuous with the existing pier is consistent with TR 2.13.4.1.2, which requires the existing pier footings to be made continuous, and did not impose a new obligation.
Recommend no adjustment to the Contract Price or Contract Time.
Recommend that the Design-Builder proceed with the Bridge 405/103E widening in accordance with ATC-1's structural continuity requirements, or submit a DBIC per GP 1-04.4 if it wishes to propose an alternative approach.

9. List of Attachments

Attachment	Description
A	ATC-1 Rev 2 Approval Letter with Figures 1 (C-226) and 2 (C-227)
B	TR 2.13.4.1.2 -- Bridge Widening Design Criteria
C	RCSR Comment #9 (Terry Bondy) -- original comment text
D	RCSR Comment #9 -- closure disposition ("Please show closure pour in FIN submittal")
E	RCSR Comment #16 (Terry Bondy) -- quotes TR 2.13.4.1.2 verbatim
F	RCSR Comment #16 -- AECOM response ("integral with the existing footing through these dowels")
G	RFI 461 (BY-CRE-02874) and WSDOT Response (June 2025)
H	RFI 461.1 (BY-CRE-02982) and WSDOT Response (July 2025)
I	Type Selection Workshop Notes (October 22, 2025)
J	WSDOT SL No. 9727-201 (November 21, 2025)
K	WSDOT SL No. 9727-237 (January 13, 2026)
L	WSDOT SL No. 9727-262 (February 6, 2026)
M	WSDOT SL No. 9727-303 (March 27, 2026)
N	Skanska LTR 356, LTR 370 (with AECOM Supplemental), LTR 396
O	AECOM DBIC Presentation and 103E Meeting Notes (March 10, 2025)
P	Bridge 405/103E As-Built Plans, 1967 (Contract 8375) and 1996 HOV Widening (Contract 5054), RFP Appendix N02
Q	WDFW Fish Passage Inventory, Site 102 N128, South Fork Perry Creek culvert at 228th St SE and I-405 (Level A, May 1, 2019)

Respectfully submitted,

Washington State Department of Transportation Evelyn Pao, P.E., Project Director

EP:za

INTERNAL MEMO -- DO NOT SEND

Date: 2026-04-08 Prepared by: WSDOT Claims Analysis Subject: Protest 014 -- NB405 Bridge 405/103E Widening / ATC-1 Interpretation -- Internal Analysis and DRB Preparation Responding to: Skanska LTR 356 (Feb 20, 2026) -- Notice of Protest 014 (protesting WSDOT SL 9727-262, Feb 6, 2026); Skanska LTR 370 (Mar 6, 2026) -- GP 1-04.5(2) Supplemental with AECOM Notice of Protest Supplemental Information and Skanska Cost Estimate; Skanska LTR 396 (Apr 8, 2026) -- Notice of Dispute per GP 1-04.5(1), with AECOM PCN-00080 Dispute Referral Letter incorporated by reference

Purpose: This memo documents WSDOT's detailed analysis for internal use and Disputes Review Board (DRB) preparation. Contains reasoning, rebuttals, and strategic analysis not for external sharing.

External correspondence: See SL9727-XXX_P014_Determination_DRAFT.md (V1 structured) and SL9727-XXX_P014_Determination_DRAFT_v2.md (V2 concise/hearing-ready)

Determination deadline: ~March 27, 2026 (21 calendar days after supplemental receipt per GP 1-04.5)

Evaluation Framework

WSDOT's evaluation addresses three questions:

Does ATC-1 require structural continuity between the widening and the existing structure?
Does WSDOT's correction of "Forward Compatibility" terminology withdraw the ATC-1 requirement?
Is the Design-Builder entitled to cost or time adjustments?

Finding Summary: The protest is without merit. ATC-1 was approved unconditionally and is incorporated into the contract through the Design-Builder's Proposal. ATC-1 text (Items 3, 4, and 6) and Figure 2 establish that the widening of Bridge 405/103E shall be structurally continuous with the existing structure. Skanska's reading of ATC-1 as permitting a non-continuous widening is inconsistent with the ATC text. WSDOT's correction of "Forward Compatibility" terminology in WSDOT SL 9727-237 does not withdraw the structural continuity requirement. The Design-Builder is not entitled to cost or time adjustments.

I. Contract Analysis

Controlling Provisions

Section	Title	Key Language
RFP Section 2.13.1	Bridge Widenings and Seismic Retrofits	Bridge 405/103E (NB I-405 over 228th Street SE) listed as required widening. Technical Requirement, precedence level 5.
RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2	Seismic Retrofit / Foundation Requirements	"Foundations for widening of Bridge 405/103E shall use drilled shafts." ATC-1 proposed modifying this provision.
RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2	Bridge Widening Design Criteria	"Existing shallow spread footings at the intermediate piers shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier." This continuity requirement exists in the TR independently of ATC-1. ATC-1's proposed RFP modification does NOT remove this language. Note: ATC-1 (Page 2, lines 1-2) paraphrases this as "continuous beam across the pier." The actual RFP text says "catenary or deep beam." The key requirement is "shall be made continuous."
ATC-1, Page 1	Pier Wall Description	"These Pier Walls will act as shear wall in between the existing columns and as an extended shear wall for the new widening for Bridge 405/103E." The pier wall structurally links existing and widening.
ATC-1, Page 3, Item 3	Spread Footing Combination	"For the Intermediate Piers, spread footings will be combined and capacity protected." Also: "the final design of combining the spread footing and the existing drilled shaft will be determined during final design."
ATC-1, Page 3, Item 4	Pier Wall Provision	"A Pier Wall will be provided for Piers 2 and 3 as shown in Figure 2 (attached)." References Figure 2.
ATC-1, Page 3, Item 6	Widening	"For Bridge 405/103E, the Pier diaphragm and Pier Cap will be widened to match the existing structure."
ATC-1, Page 5	Elimination Statement	"New columns and drilled shaft under the widening will be eliminated from the design."
ATC-1, Page 6	Proposed RFP Modification	Requested removing drilled shaft language from RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2.
ATC-1, Figure 2 (C-227)	Proposed Design	Shows combined spread footing, pier wall, continuous widening, no new columns.
GP 1-01	ATC Definition	"A concept proposed by the Design-Builder and approved by WSDOT pursuant to the Instructions to Proposers, which modifies the Basic Configuration or other Contract requirements."
GP 1-03.1	Contract Documents	"approved, incorporated ATCs shall be addressed at the same order of precedence as the Contract Document to which the addendum or ATC applies."
GP 1-03.2	Order of Precedence	Level 5: Technical Requirements. Level 7: Design-Builder's Proposal. Clause 1: Additional details in lower-priority document control unless "actual conflict." Clause 3: Design-Builder bound to ATC commitments "more advantageous to WSDOT."
GP 1-03.7	Approvals and Acceptances	"approved" means agreement with approach that conforms to the respective requirements of the Contract Documents for that submittal.
GP 1-04.4(5)(n)	ATC Cost Allocation	"Unless otherwise noted in the Contract, any increases in costs or time incurred implementing an ATC." Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility.
GP 1-04.5	Protests	Protest procedure. 14 calendar days for notice. 14 calendar days for supplemental. 21 calendar days for WSDOT determination.

ATC-1 Incorporation

ATCs are incorporated into the contract through the Design-Builder's Proposal. Per GP 1-01, an ATC is "A concept proposed by the Design-Builder and approved by WSDOT... which modifies the Basic Configuration or other Contract requirements." ATC-1 was approved unconditionally on April 3, 2023. Its text and figures are fully contractual.

This is significant because WSDOT is NOT arguing that ATC-1 is non-binding or merely illustrative. WSDOT's position is that ATC-1 IS contractual, and the ATC-1 text (Items 3, 4, 6) requires structural continuity between the widening and the existing structure. Skanska is bound to the structural approach it proposed.

The Design-Builder's own Proposal describes ATC-1 as "228th St Foundation Optimization" and states it "reduces (4) shafts and uses only spread footings, freeing up traffic space. The foundation substructure for retrofitting and widening the 228th bridge will be built with infill walls on one side at a time." The Proposal treats the widening as a given and ATC-1 as a structural system that accomplishes it.

WSDOT SL 9727-262 Review (Determination Being Protested)

Reviewed 2026-03-01. WSDOT SL 9727-262 is consistent with our analysis framework. Key observations:

WSDOT treats the ATC-1 spread footing approach as the current contract requirement. WSDOT does NOT dispute that ATC-1 was approved or that spread footings replace drilled shafts.
The determination addresses the widening SCOPE, including continuity with the existing superstructure and substructure.
WSDOT references the spread footing elevation of 87.0 feet from ATC-1 as operative, confirming WSDOT treats ATC-1 content as contractual.
The determination does NOT argue that ATC-1 figures are merely illustrative. It treats ATC-1 as the contract standard.

Consistency note: Our analysis treats ATC-1 as operative and contractual. We are enforcing what Skanska proposed and what WSDOT approved. The dispute is about what the ATC-1 text requires, not whether it is binding.

ATC-8 Review (Cited as Precedent by Skanska)

Reviewed 2026-03-01. ATC-8 is titled "Consolidated Bike Lanes / 17th Ave SE Multi-Modal Improvements." Key observations:

ATC-8 is a roadway cross-section modification (two-way bicycle path). It is NOT a structural/foundation modification like ATC-1.
ATC-8 has one figure showing a plan view and road cross-sections. These are fundamentally different from ATC-1's structural elevation drawings with specific foundation details.
Skanska's consistency argument fails because it compares different types of ATC content. ATC-8 figures are general roadway cross-sections. ATC-1 contains specific structural TEXT (Items 3, 4, 6) describing how foundations will be combined and how the widening will match the existing structure.
WSDOT's ATC-1 position rests primarily on the ATC TEXT, not only on Figure 2. The ATC-8 comparison is inapt because the ATC-8 position involved a figure, while the ATC-1 position involves specific textual provisions.

Assessment: Skanska's consistency argument is weak. ATC-8 involves a roadway cross-section figure in a different engineering domain. ATC-1 involves structural text (Items 3, 4, 6) describing how foundations will be combined and widened. WSDOT's positions are consistent in principle.

Open item: The Jan 29, 2025 communication where WSDOT stated the ATC-8 figure "did not apply and would not override" the City Standard has not been located in the reference files. This is likely an email, not a formal letter. A copy should be obtained and reviewed before finalizing the determination. If the exact language differs from what Skanska characterizes in LTR 356, that may further weaken their consistency argument. (Resolved 2026-07-04: located on disk at references/Letters/RE_ [EXTERNAL] RE_ Crowned Roadway Section - Requirement.eml, from Sonia Berriz (Consultant), dated Jan 29, 2025. It states "ATC 8 does not override the City standards showing a 2% crown," consistent with WSDOT's characterization.)

Why WSDOT's Position Is Correct

WSDOT's position rests on four pillars. Pillars 1 and 2 address the merits of the ATC-1 interpretation. Pillars 3 and 4 address the contractual allocation of risk.

Pillar 1 -- Forward Compatibility Correction Does Not Withdraw the ATC-1 Requirement

Skanska argues (LTR356-2d) that WSDOT's acknowledgment in WSDOT SL 9727-237 that "Forward Compatibility" was incorrect terminology undermines the original basis for WSDOT SL 9727-201.

Why this fails:

WSDOT acknowledged that "Forward Compatibility" was an incorrect characterization. WSDOT did NOT withdraw its position on ATC-1 structural continuity. WSDOT SL 9727-237 corrected the terminology while expressly reaffirming the ATC-1 requirement. These are separate issues.

The Forward Compatibility label was an error in how the requirement was described. The underlying requirement itself, that the widening be structurally continuous with the existing structure, stands on its own basis: ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6 and Figure 2. These provisions do not depend on the "Forward Compatibility" label. They exist in the ATC text regardless of how WSDOT characterized them.

Sequence:

WSDOT SL 9727-201 (Nov 21, 2025): WSDOT communicates ATC-1 structural continuity requirement.
Skanska LTR 288 (Dec 5, 2025): Skanska disagrees.
WSDOT SL 9727-237 (Jan 13, 2026): WSDOT corrects "Forward Compatibility" terminology. Reaffirms ATC-1 structural continuity requirement on its own basis.
Skanska LTR 333 (Jan 27, 2026): Skanska argues "widened to match" is dimensional only.
WSDOT SL 9727-262 (Feb 6, 2026): WSDOT issues determination. Treats ATC-1 as the contract standard.

The Forward Compatibility correction actually shows intellectual rigor, not weakness. WSDOT identified an imprecise characterization and corrected it without abandoning the substantive position.

Pillar 2 -- ATC-1 Text Establishes Structural Continuity

This is the core of the dispute. Skanska argues (LTR356-2a and LTR356-2b) that ATC-1 text does not require full structural continuity. WSDOT's position is that ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6, read together with Figure 2, establish a unified structural system.

Item 3 Analysis

Skanska argues that Item 3's statement, "the final design of combining the spread footing and the existing drilled shaft will be determined during final design," means design details were not locked in at ATC approval. Skanska reads "final design" as creating broad design flexibility.

Why this fails:

Item 3 addresses the detailed engineering of combining the new spread footing with the existing drilled shaft foundation. It contemplates flexibility in HOW to achieve the combination. It does not contemplate flexibility in WHETHER the foundations will be combined.

The language is critical: "the final design of combining the spread footing and the existing drilled shaft." The word "combining" presupposes that the two foundations WILL be combined. The "final design" language refers to engineering details within that concept, not a license to depart from the structural approach. Flexibility in how to combine is not freedom to not combine.

Item 4 Analysis

Item 4 states: "A Pier Wall will be provided for Piers 2 and 3 as shown in Figure 2 (attached)." This provision requires a pier wall and directs the reader to Figure 2. Earlier in ATC-1 (Page 1), the Pier Wall is described as acting "as shear wall in between the existing columns and as an extended shear wall for the new widening for Bridge 405/103E." The Pier Wall is explicitly a structural link between the existing structure and the widening. Figure 2 shows this configuration with the "COMBINED SPREAD FOOTING" spanning both existing and widening areas.

Item 6 Analysis

Skanska argues (LTR356-2b) that "widened to match the existing structure" describes dimensional matching only, not structural continuity.

Why this fails:

Item 6 states the pier diaphragm and pier cap will be "widened to match the existing structure." Read in isolation, "match" could be ambiguous. Read together with Items 3 and 4 and Figure 2, "match" means dimensional AND structural compatibility. Items 3 and 4 describe combining foundations and supporting both existing and new elements. Item 6 describes widening the pier diaphragm and pier cap to match. The context is a unified structural system, not independent components that happen to be the same size.

In structural engineering, "matching" an existing structure during widening means achieving compatibility in structural behavior, not merely replicating external dimensions.

Figure 2 (C-227)

Figure 2 shows a continuous structure with combined spread footing, pier wall, and no new columns. While WSDOT's position does not rest solely on Figure 2, the figure is consistent with the textual provisions. It illustrates what Items 3, 4, and 6 describe: a unified structural system.

RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2 Already Requires Continuity

Independent of ATC-1, the RFP itself requires structural continuity. RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2 (Bridge Widening Design Criteria) provides: "Existing shallow spread footings at the intermediate piers shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier." ATC-1 (Page 2, lines 1-2) paraphrases this as "continuous beam across the pier." The actual RFP text says "catenary or deep beam," but the controlling language is "shall be made continuous."

ATC-1's proposed RFP modification (Page 6) only changes the drilled shaft language in Section 2.13.4.1.2. It does NOT remove the continuity requirement. So even under ATC-1's proposed modifications, the RFP would still require footings to be "made continuous."

This is a Technical Requirement (level 5). It requires structural continuity independently of anything in Items 3, 4, or 6. This finding significantly strengthens WSDOT's position because the continuity requirement exists in TWO independent provisions: (1) the RFP Technical Requirement and (2) the ATC-1 text.

Read-Together Analysis

Read in isolation, individual ATC-1 provisions might be ambiguous. Read together, they establish a coherent structural concept:

RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2: Existing footings "shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier."
Item 3: Spread footings will be combined. Final design of combining with existing drilled shaft TBD.
Item 4: Pier Wall provided per Figure 2. Pier Wall acts as "extended shear wall for the new widening."
Item 6: Widening will match the existing structure.
Figure 2: Shows "COMBINED SPREAD FOOTING" spanning both existing and widening areas.

Each element reinforces the others. The ATC proposes one structural system, not independent structures that happen to be adjacent.

ATC-8 Consistency (LTR356-2e)

Skanska argues that WSDOT took an inconsistent position on ATC figures by stating on January 29, 2025, that an ATC-8 figure "did not apply and would not override" the City Standard for 17th Avenue.

Why this fails:

ATC-8 involves a roadway cross-section figure for a two-way bicycle path. ATC-1 involves structural elevation drawings with specific foundation details supported by detailed text (Items 3, 4, 6). These are fundamentally different types of ATC content.

More importantly, WSDOT's ATC-1 position rests on the ATC TEXT, not solely on Figure 2. Items 3, 4, and 6 contain specific language about combining foundations and widening to match the existing structure. ATC-8 has no comparable textual provisions. The situations are not analogous.

WSDOT's position is consistent in principle: general ATC figures do not override other contract requirements. But specific ATC text describing structural elements establishes the approved approach. ATC-1 has both text and figures. The text controls.

Pillar 3 -- GP 1-03.2 Clause 3 Binds the Design-Builder to Its ATC Commitments

Skanska argues (LTR356-2c) that GP 1-03.2 clause 3 applies only to "offers of higher quality or additional services" and does not lock in a specific design approach.

Why this fails:

GP 1-03.2 clause 3 states:

"If the Proposal includes statements or incorporates approved ATC(s) that can reasonably be interpreted as offers to provide higher quality items than otherwise required by the Contract Documents or to perform services in addition to those otherwise required, or otherwise contains terms that are more advantageous to WSDOT than the requirements of the Contract Documents, Design-Builder's obligations hereunder shall include compliance with all such statements, offers, and terms."

Skanska's reading is too narrow. Clause 3 covers three categories:

"Higher quality items than otherwise required"
"Services in addition to those otherwise required"
Terms "more advantageous to WSDOT"

A continuous widening with pier walls and spread footings is both a higher quality structural approach and more advantageous to WSDOT than a non-continuous approach. Clause 3 binds the Design-Builder to this commitment.

Clause 3 is also one-directional. It binds the Design-Builder to ATC commitments that benefit WSDOT. It does NOT work in reverse to limit WSDOT's interpretation of what the ATC requires. Skanska cannot use clause 3 to argue that WSDOT must accept a less advantageous interpretation of the ATC text.

Pillar 4 -- GP 1-04.4(5)(n) Risk Allocation Is Absolute

Regardless of the structural continuity question, GP 1-04.4(5)(n) states:

"Unless otherwise noted in the Contract, any increases in costs or time incurred implementing an ATC."

This provision makes ATC implementation costs the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility. ATC-1 was Skanska's innovation. The cost consequences of implementing it are contractually allocated to Skanska. Nothing in the Contract notes otherwise for ATC-1.

This provision does not depend on the structural continuity question. Even if the Design-Builder's costs are higher than anticipated, ATC implementation costs remain the Design-Builder's responsibility under GP 1-04.4(5)(n).

Pillar 5 -- Comment #9 Closure Does Not Constitute Acceptance of a Contract Deviation

Added 2026-03-11 in response to AECOM Supplemental (LTR 370).

PRIORITY: HIGHEST. This is the strongest new argument in the supplemental.

What Actually Happened (per AECOM Supplemental, pp.2, 7-8)

AECOM submitted preliminary design for Bridge 103E on May 1, 2024 (BY-CRE-00552, SUB 17.01). WSDOT provided review comments. Per AECOM's characterization, in Comment #9, WSDOT asked how the existing bridge and the new widening portion were connected to meet Bridge Design Manual (BDM) requirements. (Note: AECOM's characterization differs from the verified RCSR text. See Point 1 below.) AECOM responded: "a closure strip will be provided in the deck slab, and that for the substructure, the new widening portion will be separated from the existing structure using a 1/2" pre-molded joint filler to control and minimize differential settlement." WSDOT closed the comment with this response on November 19, 2024.

AECOM interprets this closure as acceptance. AECOM's language escalates within its own supplemental: on page 2, it says "WSDOT closed the comment with this response" (factual). On page 7, it says "WSDOT closed out the preliminary comments and confirmed acceptance of the design approach" (interpretive).

Critical fact: On April 1, 2025, when AECOM cited Comment #9 closure to Jason Pang, Pang stated the resolution was not applicable because he did not make or resolve the previous comment (AECOM Supplemental, p.8). This means the person who closed Comment #9 was NOT the structures expert who later raised the compliance concern. The comment was likely closed by a different reviewer during the preliminary design review process.

Their Argument

AECOM claims Comment #9 closure constituted WSDOT acceptance of the separate substructure approach. AECOM then designed for approximately 4 months on this basis before Jason Pang raised contract compliance concerns at the March 5, 2025 Structures Task Force meeting. AECOM frames this as WSDOT "reversing" its acceptance.

Why This Fails

1. Comment #9 was not a neutral question. It was a multi-part compliance concern. (Updated 2026-03-22 from full RCSR source: Segment-3-Preliminary-Structures-103E-W_RCSR_TB.xlsx, sheet BF06.) The full comment text reads:

"Please explain why a closure pour in the cap and pier wall is not shown between the widened and existing portions of the bridge. What bearing pressures and settlements are anticipated for the new spread footings? In addition to bridge superstructure loading, the backfill of the deep excavation will cause settlements that further increase the differential between old and new portions.

Per BDM 15.2.10, Differential settlement between the new and existing structures shall be taken into account...If the widening requires additional girders or substructure, a closure strip shall be provided.

Per BDM 15.4.3B3, The designer shall evaluate the potential for differential settlement between the existing structure and widening structure. Additional geotechnical measures may be required to limit differential settlements to tolerable levels for both static and seismic conditions. The bridge designer shall evaluate, design, and detail all elements of new and existing portions of the widened structure for the differential settlement warranted by the Geotechnical Engineer. Angular distortions between adjacent foundations shall not exceed 0.008 (RAD) in simple spans and 0.004 (RAD) in continuous spans."

Bondy raised three specific concerns: (1) the ABSENCE of a closure pour, (2) bearing pressures and differential settlement from deep excavation backfill, and (3) BDM code compliance for both 15.2.10 and 15.4.3B3. AECOM's supplemental (p.2) recharacterized all of this as "WSDOT asked how the existing bridge and the new widening portion were connected to meet Bridge Design Manual requirements." The actual comment is far more pointed than a neutral inquiry about "how" things connect. Bondy was questioning why required continuity elements were MISSING and citing specific code provisions that mandate them.

2. GP 1-03.7 defines what "approved" means and expressly disclaims reliance on reviews. GP 1-03.7 provides that "approved" means agreement that a submittal "appears to conform to the respective requirements of the Contract Documents for that submittal." Critically, GP 1-03.7 also provides: "The oversight, spot checks, audits, reviews, tests, and inspections conducted by WSDOT do not constitute approval nor acceptance of the materials or Work inspected or reviewed." And: WSDOT may require compliance "regardless of whether previous oversight, spot checks, audits, reviews, tests, inspections, acceptances or approvals were conducted by WSDOT." The Design-Builder "agrees and acknowledges that any such activity or failure to conduct any such activity by WSDOT... may not be relied upon by the Design-Builder or used as evidence in determining whether the Design-Builder has fulfilled the requirements of the Contract Documents." This provision was written to address exactly the scenario AECOM describes. Closing a preliminary design review comment is not an approval under GP 1-03.7. It is an acknowledgment that the reviewer's comment was addressed at that review stage.

3. Bondy closed Comment #9 himself, but his disposition directed a closure pour. Bondy closed Comment #9 on November 19, 2024 via email to Sammy Tu with "updated disposition codes." His disposition reads: "Comment addressed. Please show closure pour in FIN submittal." AECOM's response proposed separation (1/2" joint filler). Bondy's closure directed continuity (closure pour). This is not acceptance of the separate approach. Pang's April 1, 2025 statement ("he did not make or resolve the previous comment") is accurate. Pang did not close Comment #9. Bondy did. But Bondy's closure directed a closure pour, which AECOM ignored. Source: Bondy email Nov 19, 2024, verified from Segment-3-Preliminary-Structures-103E-W_RCSR_WSDOT_Response.xlsx.

4. Design review is iterative. Closing a comment at the preliminary design stage does not preclude raising the issue at a later stage. Preliminary design review addresses preliminary design. It does not foreclose future review on the same structural topic when the full implications become apparent.

5. A DBIC was the proper vehicle. If AECOM believed WSDOT was accepting a departure from ATC-1's structural concept, the Design-Builder should have formalized this through a DBIC per GP 1-04.4. The DBIC process exists precisely for this situation. The absence of a DBIC at the time of Comment #9 closure indicates even the Design-Builder did not view the closure as a formal contract modification. AECOM only retroactively characterizes it as acceptance after WSDOT identified the compliance issue.

6. The contract text was available throughout. ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6 and RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2 were in the contract the entire time. The Design-Builder cannot rely on an informal action (closing a review comment) to override explicit written contract provisions.

7. "Reversal" is a mischaracterization. WSDOT did not "reverse" its position. A different reviewer (Pang, the structures expert) identified during ongoing review that the design did not conform to the contract. This is exactly what iterative design review is for.

8. AECOM's own language reveals the spin. AECOM describes the same event two ways in a single document: "WSDOT closed the comment" (p.2, factual) versus "confirmed acceptance of the design approach" (p.7, interpretive). The factual description is accurate. The interpretive version is advocacy.

9. Comment #16 proves WSDOT was enforcing the continuity requirement in the same review cycle. (Added 2026-03-22. Source: Segment-3-Preliminary-Structures-103E-W_RCSR_TB.xlsx, sheet BF06.) In the same preliminary design review that produced Comment #9, Terry Bondy wrote Comment #16:

"Preliminary plans do not capture scope of work. How is strengthening of the existing spread footings be provided? As builts show only a bottom mat of rebar in the footings. Per 2.13.4.1.2, Provide foundation strengthening below top of existing footings to resist seismic inertial demands. Existing shallow spread footings at the intermediate piers shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier. Calculations contain illustrations of top reinforcing added and thickening of the spread footing, but submitted plans do not."

Bondy explicitly cited TR 2.13.4.1.2's continuity requirement and flagged that the plans did not show how it would be met. This is the same RFP provision WSDOT relies on in the determination letter. The same reviewer, in the same review cycle, was actively enforcing the continuity requirement. This directly undercuts the "reversal" narrative. WSDOT did not first discover the continuity issue in March 2025. Bondy identified it in May 2024.

DRB Position Paper note: Comment #16 is strong evidence of WSDOT consistency. However, before deploying it at hearing, verify how Comment #16 was resolved. If it was also closed without the plans being revised, Skanska could argue WSDOT signed off on non-compliant plans twice. The resolved RCSR (with Skanska's responses in columns G-I and WSDOT's dispositions in columns K-L) has not been located. See Open Items Checklist, Item 1.

Remaining Open Items

(Updated 2026-03-26.) Full Comment #9 text verified from RCSR source (TB's individual file). Comment #9 closure now verified: Bondy closed it himself on Nov 19, 2024 via email to Sammy Tu with disposition "Comment addressed. Please show closure pour in FIN submittal." Source: Segment-3-Preliminary-Structures-103E-W_RCSR_WSDOT_Response.xlsx. AECOM's characterization confirmed as a significant softening of the actual comment. Comment #16 identified as additional evidence.

VERIFIED:

Comment #9 closure. Bondy (the structures reviewer who wrote Comment #9) closed it himself. His disposition directed a closure pour in the final submittal. AECOM's response proposed separation. Bondy's closure directed continuity. Source: Resolved RCSR, verified 2026-03-26.

Still needed:

Pang's April 1, 2025 statement. Verify independently of AECOM's characterization. Berriz says "I don't have anything on this."
Pang's November 13, 2025 statement. Verify independently. Berriz says "I don't have anything on this."
Comment #16 resolution. How was Comment #16 resolved in the returned RCSR? Bondy's disposition for Comment #16 should be checked. If it was also closed without the plans being revised, Skanska could argue WSDOT signed off on non-compliant plans twice.

Pillar 6 -- Reliance/Estoppel Fails Because the Design-Builder Cannot Rely on Informal Actions to Override Contract Text

Added 2026-03-11 in response to AECOM Supplemental (LTR 370).

Their Argument

AECOM claims that the Design-Builder relied on WSDOT's "acceptance" (Comment #9 closure) and designed for 11 months (November 2024 through October 2025) based on the separate substructure approach. WSDOT's March 2025 "reversal" caused detrimental reliance. AECOM invested 4,119 hours ($1,071,847) in design based on this reliance.

Why This Fails

1. The contract text was available throughout. The Design-Builder had ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6 and RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2 from the beginning of the project. These provisions describe structural continuity. The Design-Builder cannot claim reliance on an informal action (comment closure) that contradicts explicit contract text.

2. Closing a review comment does not create a vested right. A design review comment closure is a step in the iterative review process. It does not create a contractual right to a particular design approach. The contract's change mechanisms (DBIC per GP 1-04.4) exist precisely because informal actions do not modify contract requirements.

3. WSDOT was consistent after identifying the issue. Once Jason Pang raised the contract compliance concern in March 2025, WSDOT's position was consistent and clear throughout:

March 2025: Pang raises concern at Structures Task Force.
June 25, 2025: Sokha Men (WSDOT) responds to RFI 461 at 12:51 PM directing a DBIC. States: "The proposed approach presented in the RFI is not what the ATC was based on or approved." WSDOT also noted it "would be supportive of a DBIC that removed the infill shear walls due to the updated information provided through the geotechnical boring program." Attached ATC-1 Figure 2 (COMBINED SPREAD FOOTING). (Verified from Procore export.)
July 18, 2025: Nancy Alpuche (WSDOT) responds to RFI 461.1 at 1:41 PM, citing GP 1-03.2 clause 3 in full and quoting ATC-1 Page 3 lines 9 and 23. States: "The ATC would need to be updated to show a new proposed design for the pier wall." (Verified from Procore export.)
October 2025: Type Selection Workshop. WSDOT accepts Options 1, 2, 4 but requires DBIC for Option 3.
November 2025: WSDOT SL 9727-201 formalizes the requirement.
January 2026: WSDOT SL 9727-237 reaffirms.
February 2026: WSDOT SL 9727-262 issues determination.

4. The 11-month design period includes months AFTER WSDOT raised the issue. AECOM frames the design effort as 11 months of reliance. However, WSDOT raised the contract compliance concern in March 2025. Design work after March 2025 was not reliance on WSDOT acceptance. It was a decision to continue the separate substructure approach despite WSDOT's objection. Design costs incurred after WSDOT raised the issue in March 2025 cannot be attributed to reliance on Comment #9 closure.

5. AECOM's own actions undermine the reliance argument. AECOM submitted RFI 461 (BY-CRE-02874, Jun 18, 2025) asking WSDOT to confirm the separate substructure approach. The RFI text (verified from source document) states: "The DB Team's position is the contract documents do not require the existing substructure of 103E to be connected to the widened substructure of 103E... We respectfully request confirmation from WSDOT that this interpretation aligns with the intent of the contract documents and that no further DBICs are necessary for this approach." If AECOM truly believed Comment #9 closure constituted acceptance, there would have been no reason to submit an RFI seeking confirmation. The RFI itself demonstrates that AECOM knew the approach was disputed and needed formal confirmation.

6. RFI 461 also reveals a separate design change. In the same RFI, AECOM acknowledges that "safely protecting the existing culvert as it passes through the shear wall, as shown in the ATC exhibits, is not feasible" and proposes "installing a pile cap with a shear wall above the existing culvert, supported by small-diameter shafts." This is a second deviation from ATC-1 that AECOM acknowledges requires evaluation. The RFI 461 Pier 3 Elevation drawing (page 3) confirms the separate pile foundation approach. The RFI reveals that AECOM knew there were contract compliance questions about their approach. (Verified from source document.)

Pillar 7 -- Changed Geotechnical Conditions Do Not Change the Contract Text

Added 2026-03-11 in response to AECOM Supplemental (LTR 370).

Their Argument

AECOM claims that geotechnical investigations confirmed no liquefiable soil layers exist at Piers 2 and 3. ATC-1's deep buried footing design assumed liquefaction risk. Because the liquefaction assumption is no longer valid, the rationale for the deep footing and the associated structural continuity is undermined.

Why This Fails

1. Changed conditions do not change contract text. ATC-1's structural concept (combined footings, pier walls, continuous widening) is expressed in contract text (Items 3, 4, 6) and contract figures (Figure 2). The text does not say "combine footings IF liquefiable soils are present." It says "spread footings will be combined." The obligation is unconditional.

2. The proper path for changed conditions is a DBIC. If geotechnical conditions have changed enough to warrant a different structural approach, the Design-Builder should submit a DBIC per GP 1-04.4 proposing to modify the ATC-1 approach based on the new information. The Design-Builder cannot unilaterally depart from the contract text because conditions have changed.

3. AECOM implicitly acknowledged this, and WSDOT explicitly offered the path. By submitting RFI 461 asking WSDOT to confirm the separate substructure approach, AECOM implicitly acknowledged that departing from ATC-1's structural concept required WSDOT's formal concurrence. WSDOT directed a DBIC. Critically, Sokha Men's RFI 461 response (June 25, 2025) stated WSDOT "would be supportive of a DBIC that removed the infill shear walls due to the updated information provided through the geotechnical boring program." WSDOT acknowledged the new geotechnical data and offered a concrete path forward. The Design-Builder chose not to submit a DBIC. (Verified from Procore export.)

4. The geotechnical argument is about engineering rationale, not contract interpretation. Even if the absence of liquefiable soils makes the deep footing less necessary from an engineering standpoint, the contract still requires it. The Design-Builder accepted this obligation when it proposed ATC-1. Engineering arguments about what SHOULD be required do not override what the contract text DOES require.

Pillar 8 -- BDM and Industry Practice Do Not Override Specific Contract Language

Added 2026-03-11 in response to AECOM Supplemental (LTR 370).

Their Arguments

BDM 15.2.10: In-ground plastic hinges under WSDOT's approach are hard to inspect and create post-earthquake maintenance issues.
Caltrans MTD 9-3: Caltrans guidance supports separate substructures for bridge widenings.
Talbot Road precedent: WSDOT's own Talbot Road bridge uses separate substructures.

Why These Fail

1. External standards do not override specific contract language. BDM 15.2.10 and Caltrans MTD 9-3 are general design guidance. ATC-1 is a project-specific contractual commitment with specific text. Where the contract specifically describes the structural approach (Items 3, 4, 6), that specific language controls over general guidance.

2. Different bridges have different contract requirements. The Talbot Road bridge has its own contract documents. The fact that another bridge uses separate substructures does not mean this project's contract permits them. ATC-1 was specific to Bridge 405/103E.

3. BDM concerns are design challenges, not contract interpretation. If AECOM believes the ATC-1 approach creates design challenges (in-ground plastic hinges, inspection difficulty), those challenges are the Design-Builder's responsibility per GP 1-04.4(5)(n). The Design-Builder accepted the obligation to design per ATC-1 when it proposed the ATC. Design challenges arising from ATC implementation are not grounds for departing from the ATC.

4. November 13, 2025 RCSR meeting shows WSDOT flexibility. At this meeting, Jason Pang suggested two alternatives to avoid closure pour impacts: (1) no closure pour, or (2) closure pour for wall only. This demonstrates that WSDOT is flexible on HOW to achieve structural continuity. The dispute is not about WSDOT being inflexible. It is about WHETHER the design must achieve continuity.

Pillar 9 -- Sonia Berriz Statement Does Not Undermine WSDOT's Position

Added 2026-03-11 in response to AECOM Supplemental (LTR 370).

Their Argument

AECOM quotes a May 9, 2025 statement from Sonia Berriz (WSDOT consultant): "Sonia Berriz (WSDOT consultant) states they do not believe our design meets the contract requirements but that there is nothing in the contract for them to force the design team to use a different approach other than their position that they don't agree with Design Team's interpretation of ATC-1." (AECOM Supplemental, p.8.)

Why This Fails

1. The statement actually supports WSDOT. Read carefully, Berriz says WSDOT "do[es] not believe our design meets the contract requirements." This is a statement that WSDOT believes the design is non-compliant. The second clause says "nothing in the contract for them to force the design team to use a different approach OTHER THAN their position that they don't agree with Design Team's interpretation of ATC-1." The ATC-1 interpretation IS the contractual basis. Berriz is saying the basis for WSDOT's position is ATC-1 interpretation, which is exactly what WSDOT's formal position states.

2. Informal internal statements do not constitute WSDOT's official position. WSDOT's official position is expressed in formal correspondence: WSDOT SL 9727-201, SL 9727-237, and SL 9727-262. An internal comment by a consultant in a meeting does not override these formal determinations. Moreover, this is AECOM's characterization of what Berriz said, not a direct WSDOT communication.

3. Sonia Berriz email (same date) actually supports WSDOT. (Added 2026-03-19. Updated 2026-03-26: corrected attribution from Boris Sizivu to Sonia Berriz per verified source email: "RE_ [EXTERNAL] FW_ 405 BY - 405_103E widening Follow-Up on BDM Section 4 Requirements.eml". Berriz confirmed to Zach Archer (Mar 24, 2026) that AECOM's characterization is "accurate.") On the same date (May 9, 2025), Sonia Berriz (WSDOT consultant) emailed Ryan Abraham (Skanska/AECOM): "I do believe the contract requires you to take a different approach." Berriz also acknowledged: "there is understanding that there isn't any hammer in the contract (besides the ATC) to require you to chase a different approach." Read together, Berriz is saying: (a) the contract does require a different approach, and (b) the ATC is the contractual basis. This is consistent with WSDOT's formal position. The ATC IS the contract language that requires the different approach. Note: Berriz used "hammer" (not "nothing") and "chase" (not "choose"). These are less damaging than AECOM's paraphrase in the supplemental. Berriz's email also asked Jason Pang to stop discussing the topic until the "escalation" resolves, indicating WSDOT was routing the dispute to formal channels rather than allowing working-level debate to create additional informal statements. Berriz listed WSDOT's technical concerns: Differential Settlement, Balanced Stiffness, Ductility Displacement, No plastic hinging. These are the same structural performance concerns Pang articulated.

4. WSDOT did cite specific contract provisions. By July 2025, WSDOT's response to RFI 461.1 cited GP 1-03.2 and quoted ATC-1 text ("ATC 01 from the Design-Builder's proposal, states on page 3 lines 9 and 23 'This ATC will provide the following design for each bridge: A Pier Wall will be provided for Piers 2 and 3 as shown in Figure 2 (attached).'"). By November 2025, WSDOT SL 9727-201 formalized the requirement. Both the Berriz meeting statement and the Berriz email (May 2025) predate these formal communications and represent snapshots of an evolving internal discussion, not WSDOT's considered position.

Pillar 10 -- TR 2.13.4.1.2 Was Not "Late Introduced" (LTR 396 Dispute Argument)

(Added 2026-04-08.)

Their Argument

Skanska LTR 396 (Apr 8, 2026) asserts that WSDOT's Written Determination in SL 9727-303 introduces, "for the first time," TR 2.13.4.1.2 as an independent basis for the continuity requirement. Skanska claims prior correspondence (SL 9727-201, SL 9727-237, SL 9727-262) grounded WSDOT's position exclusively in ATC-1. This is a procedural fairness challenge: the Design-Builder allegedly had no opportunity to respond to this basis during the protest process.

Why This Fails

Skanska's factual premise is incorrect. TR 2.13.4.1.2 was explicitly cited in both SL 9727-237 and SL 9727-262.

SL 9727-237 (Jan 13, 2026), page 2: "Modify RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2, Bridge Widening Design Criteria, to reflect the revised approach as based upon the superstructure and substructure conditions that differ from those as described on ATC-1 page 3, lines 9-26." WSDOT told Skanska that any DBIC would need to modify this specific TR provision. You do not ask someone to modify a provision that does not apply.
SL 9727-262 (Feb 6, 2026), page 1: Repeats the identical DBIC bullet point: "Modify RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2, Bridge Widening Design Criteria." The DB received this citation twice before filing its protest.
RCSR Comment #16 (Bondy, May 2024): Quoted TR 2.13.4.1.2's continuity requirement verbatim: "Per 2.13.4.1.2, Provide foundation strengthening below top of existing footings to resist seismic inertial demands. Existing shallow spread footings at the intermediate piers shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier." The DB had actual notice of this provision in the design review. This predates all formal correspondence by 18 months.
AECOM's own Supplemental (Mar 6, 2026): References "Bridge Widening Design Criteria." The DB's designer was aware of this provision and discussed it in its own filing.
ATC-1 itself (Page 2): Paraphrases TR 2.13.4.1.2 as "continuous beam across the pier." The provision is woven into the ATC text that both parties have analyzed extensively.
GP 1-04.5 does not limit the Written Determination to arguments previously raised in correspondence. The WSDOT Engineer's determination under GP 1-04.5 cites all applicable contract provisions. The contract is a public document that both parties possess.

The Distinction Between SL 237/262 and SL 303

SL 9727-237 and SL 9727-262 cited TR 2.13.4.1.2 in the context of what a DBIC would need to modify. SL 9727-303 cited it as an independent basis for the continuity requirement. The distinction is one of emphasis, not introduction. WSDOT identified the provision as relevant to the dispute in January 2026. The Written Determination presented the full contractual analysis.

DRB Hearing Strategy Note

The TR 2.13.4.1.2 "late introduction" argument is the only genuinely new position in LTR 396 (the other two arguments -- Comment #9 pushback and Berriz reliance -- are restatements of positions already addressed in Pillars 5 and 9). Since the factual premise is incorrect, this argument can be dispatched with direct citation to SL 237, page 2, and SL 262, page 1. The DBIC bullet points in both letters name "RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2, Bridge Widening Design Criteria." At hearing, present the two letters side by side with the Written Determination to show continuity of citation.

II. Rebuttal Table

This table maps each LTR 356 and LTR 370 protest basis to WSDOT's rebuttal.

ID	LTR 356 Assertion	Why It Fails	Authority	Memo Pillar
LTR356-2a	ATC-1 Item 3 expressly contemplates design flexibility. "final design... determined during final design" means details not locked in.	Item 3 contemplates flexibility in HOW to combine foundations, not WHETHER to combine them. "combining" presupposes combination. "Final design" refers to engineering details, not a license to depart from the structural approach.	ATC-1, Page 3, Item 3	Pillar 2
LTR356-2b	"widened to match the existing structure" (Item 6) means dimensional matching, not structural continuity.	Read together with Items 3 and 4 and Figure 2, "match" means dimensional AND structural compatibility. Items 3 and 4 describe combining foundations and supporting both elements. "Match" in structural engineering context means structural compatibility.	ATC-1, Page 3, Items 3, 4, 6; Figure 2	Pillar 2
LTR356-2c	GP 1-03.2 clause 3 applies to "offers of additional services," not locking in a design approach.	Clause 3 covers three categories: higher quality items, additional services, OR terms "more advantageous to WSDOT." A continuous widening is both higher quality and more advantageous. Clause 3 is one-directional: binds Design-Builder, does not limit WSDOT.	GP 1-03.2 clause 3	Pillar 3
LTR356-2d	Forward Compatibility acknowledged as incorrect undermines WSDOT SL 9727-201.	WSDOT corrected terminology, not position. WSDOT SL 9727-237 reaffirms ATC-1 continuity requirement on its own textual basis. Forward Compatibility was an error in characterization. The ATC-1 requirement stands independently.	WSDOT SL 9727-237; ATC-1, Items 3, 4, 6	Pillar 1
LTR356-2e	DBIC is not appropriate. WSDOT has taken inconsistent positions on ATC figures (citing ATC-8).	ATC-8 is a roadway cross-section modification (bike lanes). ATC-1 involves structural text (Items 3, 4, 6) with specific foundation details. Different domain, different type of ATC content. WSDOT's ATC-1 position rests on the TEXT, not solely on Figure 2.	ATC-1, Items 3, 4, 6; ATC-8	Pillar 2

Supplemental Rebuttals (LTR 370 / AECOM Supplemental, March 6, 2026)

ID	LTR 370 Assertion	Why It Fails	Authority	Memo Pillar
LTR370-2a	Comment #9 closure (Nov 2024) constitutes acceptance of separate substructure approach.	Comment #9 (Terry Bondy, sheet BF06) asked: "Please explain why a closure pour in the cap and pier wall is not shown." This questions an OMISSION, implying the reviewer expected a closure pour. AECOM mischaracterizes as neutral inquiry. Closing a Q&A is not endorsement. GP 1-03.7: "approved" means conformance to contract requirements. Pang stated he did not make or close the comment. Absence of DBIC shows DB did not view closure as contract modification.	GP 1-03.7; GP 1-04.4	Pillar 5
LTR370-2b	Changed geotechnical conditions (no liquefiable soils) invalidate deep footing rationale.	Changed conditions do not change contract text. ATC-1 obligation is unconditional ("spread footings will be combined"). Proper path is DBIC per GP 1-04.4.	ATC-1, Items 3, 4, 6; GP 1-04.4	Pillar 7
LTR370-2c	BDM 15.2.10 compliance concerns (in-ground plastic hinges).	Design challenge, not contract interpretation. DB accepted obligation to design per ATC-1. GP 1-04.4(5)(n) allocates ATC implementation challenges to DB.	GP 1-04.4(5)(n)	Pillar 8
LTR370-2d	Traffic/construction impacts of closure pour on 228th Ave.	Implementation challenge, not contract interpretation. GP 1-04.4(5)(n). Foreseeable when DB proposed ATC for bridge over live roadway.	GP 1-04.4(5)(n)	Pillar 8
LTR370-2e	Industry practice (Caltrans MTD 9-3, Talbot Road) supports separate substructures.	External standards do not override specific contract language. Different bridges have different contracts. ATC-1 is project-specific.	ATC-1, Items 3, 4, 6	Pillar 8
LTR370-2f	11 months of good-faith design reliance on "accepted" approach.	DB had contract text throughout. Comment closure does not create vested right. Design work after March 2025 was not reliance. RFI 461 shows DB knew approach was disputed.	GP 1-03.7; ATC-1	Pillar 6
LTR370-4	Cost claim: $1,406,243 total.	Not entitled. No change occurred. GP 1-04.4(5)(n).	GP 1-04.4(5)(n)	Pillar 4
LTR370-5	Schedule claim: +6 months design, +4 months RFC.	Not entitled. No change occurred. GP 1-04.4(5)(n) and (5)(m).	GP 1-04.4(5)(n), (5)(m)	Pillar 4

Pre-empted Counter-Arguments

ID	Anticipated Counter	WSDOT Pre-emption	Authority
CA-1	Item 3's "final design... determined during final design" means nothing in ATC-1 is binding on the structural approach.	Item 3 contemplates flexibility in engineering DETAILS, not in the structural CONCEPT. The language "final design of combining" presupposes that the foundations WILL be combined. Flexibility in how to combine is not freedom to not combine.	ATC-1, Page 3, Item 3
CA-2	GP 1-03.2 clause 1: ATC-1 provides "additional details" that control.	Clause 1 supports WSDOT. ATC-1 provides additional details (Items 3, 4, 6) that describe structural continuity. These details control because they do not conflict with the widening requirement in RFP Section 2.13.1. The ATC details describe HOW to accomplish the widening, not WHETHER to widen.	GP 1-03.2 clause 1
CA-3	AECOM asserts "our current design is contract compliant" and WSDOT's disagreement will impact schedule.	The Design-Builder does not unilaterally determine contract compliance. GP 1-03.5 (Ambiguities): "In the event of any ambiguity or uncertainty... the Contract shall be interpreted and construed, insofar as is reasonably possible, to be consistent with the standards and criteria for the performance of the Project."	GP 1-03.5
CA-4	GP 1-01 defines ATC as concept "which modifies the Basic Configuration or other Contract requirements." So ATC-1 modified the drilled shaft requirement and nothing more.	The ATC definition confirms that the approved ATC modified contract requirements. ATC-1 replaced drilled shafts with a specific structural system: combined spread footings, pier walls, and continuous widening. The modification encompasses the complete structural concept, not only the removal of drilled shafts. The Design-Builder's own Proposal describes ATC-1 as "228th St Foundation Optimization" and states it "reduces (4) shafts and uses only spread footings." The optimization is the full system.	GP 1-01; Design-Builder Proposal

III. Gaps in Their Submittal

Note: These gaps may be useful in DRB proceedings.

A. No Analysis of "Combining" Language

Skanska does not address the word "combining" in ATC-1 Item 3. Item 3 says "the final design of combining the spread footing and the existing drilled shaft will be determined during final design." Skanska focuses on "final design" while ignoring that "combining" presupposes the foundations will be combined into a unified system.

B. Selective Reading of ATC-1 Items

Skanska reads Items 3 and 6 in isolation. It does not address how Items 3, 4, and 6 read together as a coherent description of a unified structural system. Item 4 provides a Pier Wall "as shown in Figure 2." Figure 2 shows the "COMBINED SPREAD FOOTING" spanning both existing and widening areas. The Pier Wall (described on Page 1 as "an extended shear wall for the new widening") is the structural link. Together, the items describe one integrated system.

C. No Analysis of GP 1-04.4(5)(n)

Skanska does not address GP 1-04.4(5)(n), which makes ATC implementation costs the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility. This provision is directly relevant to any cost claim arising from ATC-1 implementation.

D. Conflation of Terminology Correction with Substantive Withdrawal

Skanska treats WSDOT's correction of "Forward Compatibility" terminology as a withdrawal of the structural continuity position. WSDOT SL 9727-237 explicitly reaffirms the ATC-1 position after correcting the terminology. Skanska does not address the reaffirmation.

E. Sonia Berriz Statement Is Internal and Predates Formal Position

Added 2026-03-11. AECOM quotes a May 9, 2025 statement from Sonia Berriz. This is an internal consultant comment that predates WSDOT's formal correspondence. It does not constitute WSDOT's official position. By July 2025, WSDOT had cited specific contract provisions in the RFI 461.1 response.

F. RFI 461 Undermines Reliance Argument

Added 2026-03-11. AECOM submitted RFI 461 in June 2025 asking WSDOT to confirm the separate substructure approach. If AECOM truly believed Comment #9 closure constituted acceptance, there was no reason to submit an RFI seeking confirmation. The RFI demonstrates that AECOM knew the approach was not formally accepted.

G. Pat's Admission Undercuts Design Flexibility Argument

Added 2026-03-19. Source: 103E Notes.pdf, Oct 9, 2025. At the pre-workshop meeting, when Jason Pang asked "what was your plan in the ATC," Pat (Skanska) responded: "thought they would be ok with getting additional information on the existing condition and construction challenges." This is an admission that the Design-Builder did not interpret ATC-1 as establishing design flexibility. Rather, the DB acknowledged ATC-1 established a concept and ASSUMED WSDOT would accept changes based on field conditions. This is the exact scenario a DBIC is designed for. The DB understood it needed WSDOT's concurrence to change the approach. It did not obtain that concurrence.

H. Type Selection Workshop Demonstrates WSDOT Consistency and Flexibility

Added 2026-03-19. Source: 10-22 Alternative Meeting Notes.pdf, Oct 22, 2025. At the workshop, WSDOT stated: "WSDOT believes ATC is the baseline TODAY, anything else is a DBIC." WSDOT accepted three of eight options (1, 2, and 4), all of which are ATC-consistent approaches. WSDOT focused on Options 2 & 4 as the path forward. Only Option 3 (DB's preferred approach with raised pier wall and separate substructure) was a "non-starter." This demonstrates: (1) WSDOT was flexible on HOW to implement the ATC, (2) WSDOT consistently required a DBIC for any departure from ATC-1, and (3) WSDOT offered concrete alternatives rather than simply rejecting the DB's approach.

I. ATC-1 Is a Package Deal: Eliminations and Replacements Are Inseparable

Added 2026-03-26. ATC-1 Page 3, lines 27-30 states: "This ATC will eliminate the following design components: Bridge 405/103E: New columns and drilled shaft under the widening will be eliminated from the design." Skanska accepted the cost savings from eliminating four drilled shafts and their associated columns. The structural system that replaces them is Items 3, 4, and 6: combined spread footings, pier walls, and widening to match the existing structure. The Design-Builder cannot retain the eliminations (no drilled shafts, no new columns) while discarding the replacements (no combined footings, no structural continuity). ATC-1 is a single structural concept. The eliminations only work because the replacement system provides equivalent structural performance.

Procedural Status (GP 1-04.5(2) Requirements)

Per GP 1-04.5(2), the Design-Builder's supplemental must include:

(c) The estimated dollar cost, if any, of the protested Work and a detailed breakdown -- RECEIVED (LTR 370, Skanska Cost Estimate: $1,406,243 total). Preliminary. Reserves right to supplement.
(d) An analysis of the progress schedule showing the schedule change or disruption -- PARTIALLY RECEIVED. AECOM estimates +6 months design / +4 months RFC but states formal delay analysis is pending.

IV. Direction Already Provided

Rebuts any claim that WSDOT has not provided sufficient direction.

Date	Document	Direction Given
Nov 21, 2025	WSDOT SL 9727-201	WSDOT communicates ATC-1 structural continuity requirement for Bridge 405/103E widening.
Jan 13, 2026	WSDOT SL 9727-237	WSDOT corrects Forward Compatibility terminology. Reaffirms ATC-1 structural continuity requirement.
Feb 6, 2026	WSDOT SL 9727-262	WSDOT issues formal determination. Treats ATC-1 as the contract standard.

WSDOT has provided three written communications over approximately three months. The Design-Builder has had ample opportunity to understand WSDOT's position.

V. Entitlement Analysis

A. Change Claim

This does NOT constitute a change to the Work. WSDOT is enforcing the ATC-1 text that Skanska proposed and WSDOT approved. No new requirement has been imposed. The structural continuity described in ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6 has been part of the contract since ATC-1 was approved on April 3, 2023.

Finding: Does not constitute a change. WSDOT enforces existing ATC-1 requirements.

B. Cost Entitlement

The Design-Builder is NOT entitled to a cost adjustment. Two independent bases:

No change has occurred. WSDOT is enforcing existing contract requirements.
GP 1-04.4(5)(n) makes ATC implementation costs the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility.

Finding: Not entitled to cost adjustment. GP 1-04.4(5)(n).

C. Schedule Entitlement

The Design-Builder is NOT entitled to a time extension. Two independent bases:

No change has occurred.
GP 1-04.4(5)(m): "Delays in obtaining or failure to obtain any third-party approvals required to implement any approved ATCs" are not eligible for change orders. GP 1-04.4(5)(n): ATC implementation costs and time are the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility.

Finding: Not entitled to time extension. GP 1-04.4(5)(m) and (n).

VI. Disposition of Relief Requested

Request	Disposition	Rationale
Reverse WSDOT SL 9727-262 determination	DENIED	Determination is consistent with ATC-1 text (Items 3, 4, 6). Structural continuity is required by the ATC that Skanska proposed.
Recognize ATC-1 as not requiring structural continuity	DENIED	ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6 and Figure 2, read together, establish a unified structural system. "Combining" presupposes combination. "Match" means structural compatibility.
Cost adjustment	DENIED	GP 1-04.4(5)(n): ATC implementation costs are the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility.
Schedule adjustment	DENIED	GP 1-04.4(5)(m) and (n). No change has occurred.

VII. Path Forward

Option A -- Deny Protest After Supplemental Review

Wait for Skanska's supplemental information. Evaluate the supplemental for any new arguments or evidence not addressed in this memo. Issue written determination within 21 calendar days per GP 1-04.5, denying the protest. Prepare DRB materials in parallel.

Pros: Follows contractual procedure. Allows full evaluation of supplemental. Cons: Timeline extends into late March or early April 2026.

Option B -- Proactive DRB Preparation

Begin DRB preparation immediately, concurrent with Option A. Given the complexity and the ATC-8 precedent argument, early DRB preparation reduces risk of being unprepared if Skanska escalates.

Pros: Reduces DRB timeline. Identifies any weaknesses before DRB filing. Cons: Additional effort if Skanska does not escalate.

Recommendation: Pursue both Option A and Option B concurrently. The complexity of this protest warrants early DRB preparation. Skanska LTR 356 reserves rights including DRB per GP 1-04.5(1), indicating likely escalation.

Design-Builder Obligations (Regardless of Path)

Proceed with the Work as directed per GP 1-04.5: "In spite of any protest, the Design-Builder shall proceed promptly with the Work as the WSDOT Engineer orders."
Submit supplemental information by March 6, 2026 per GP 1-04.5(2). Extension request denied per WSDOT SL 9727-277.
Maintain records of protested Work per GP 1-04.5.

Key Contract References

Section	Purpose
RFP Section 2.13.1	Widening requirement (TR, level 5)
RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2	Drilled shaft requirement (subject of ATC-1 modification)
RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2	"shall be made continuous" requirement (NOT removed by ATC-1 modification)
ATC-1, Page 1	Pier Wall description: "extended shear wall for the new widening"
ATC-1, Page 3, Items 3, 4, 6	Structural continuity text
ATC-1, Figure 2 (C-227)	Proposed design showing continuous widening
GP 1-01	ATC definition
GP 1-03.1	ATC precedence rule
GP 1-03.2	Order of Precedence and three notwithstanding clauses
GP 1-03.5	Ambiguities
GP 1-03.7	Definition of "approved"
GP 1-04.4(5)(m)	ATC third-party approval delays. Design-Builder responsibility.
GP 1-04.4(5)(n)	ATC implementation costs. Design-Builder exclusive responsibility.
GP 1-04.5	Protest procedure

Correspondence Chronology

Date	Letter	Direction	Subject
Apr 3, 2023	ATC-1 Approval	WSDOT -> Skanska	"The ATC is approved." Unconditional.
Nov 19, 2024	Comment #9 Closure	WSDOT	Bondy closes Comment #9 via email to Sammy Tu. Disposition: "Comment addressed. Please show closure pour in FIN submittal." VERIFIED 2026-03-26.
Jan 29, 2025	ATC-8 / 17th Ave	WSDOT -> Skanska	ATC-8 figure interpretation (cited as precedent by Skanska)
Mar 5, 2025	Structures Task Force	Internal	Jason Pang first raises contract compliance concern.
Mar 10, 2025	DBIC Presentation	Joint	AECOM presents DBIC concept: two solutions for 103E widening. "Let sleeping dogs lie" rationale. Verified from 103E Notes.pdf.
Mar 19, 2025	Pang/Mohammad Discussion	Internal	"HAVE TO CONNECT." "DON'T WANT A NON-STANDARD SYSTEM." "EVERYTHING IS NO." Structural basis for concern. Verified from 103E Notes.pdf.
May 9, 2025	Sonia Berriz Email	WSDOT -> Skanska	"I do believe the contract requires you to take a different approach." ATC is sole basis. Asked Pang to stop discussing. Verified from source .eml file 2026-03-26. Previously misattributed to Boris Sizivu per 103E Notes.pdf.
Jun 18, 2025	RFI 461 (BY-CRE-02874)	Skanska -> WSDOT	AECOM asks to confirm separate substructure. Also discloses culvert protection infeasible. Verified from source.
Jun 25, 2025	RFI 461 Response	WSDOT -> Skanska	Sokha Men (WSDOT) responds: DBIC required. "The proposed approach presented in the RFI is not what the ATC was based on or approved." Would support DBIC for infill shear walls. Verified from Procore export.
Jul 8, 2025	RFI 461.1 (BY-CRE-02982)	Skanska -> WSDOT	From Sammy Tu (AECOM). Asks WSDOT to cite specific contract lines. Verified from source.
Jul 18, 2025	RFI 461.1 Response	WSDOT -> Skanska	Nancy Alpuche responds. Cites GP 1-03.2 clause 3 and ATC-1 Page 3 lines 9/23. Verified from Procore export.
Oct 9, 2025	Pre-Workshop Discussion	Joint	Pang: "what was your plan in the ATC." Pat (SKA): "thought they would be ok." Verified from 103E Notes.pdf.
Oct 22, 2025	Type Selection Workshop	Joint	"WSDOT believes ATC is the baseline TODAY, anything else is a DBIC." Options 1,2,4 accepted. Option 3 = DBIC. Focus on 2 & 4. Verified from 10-22 Alternative Meeting Notes.pdf.
Nov 13, 2025	RCSR Meeting	Joint	Pang suggests two alternatives. Flexibility on HOW, not WHETHER.
Nov 21, 2025	WSDOT SL 9727-201	WSDOT -> Skanska	NB405 Bridge 405/103E Widening. Structural continuity requirement.
Dec 5, 2025	Skanska LTR 288	Skanska -> WSDOT	Response re: Bridge 405/103E Widening. Disputes continuity.
Jan 13, 2026	WSDOT SL 9727-237	WSDOT -> Skanska	Corrects Forward Compatibility. Reaffirms ATC-1 requirement.
Jan 27, 2026	Skanska LTR 333	Skanska -> WSDOT	Argues "match" is dimensional only.
Feb 6, 2026	WSDOT SL 9727-262	WSDOT -> Skanska	Determination. Treats ATC-1 as the contract standard.
Feb 20, 2026	Skanska LTR 356	Skanska -> WSDOT	Notice of Protest 014. Five protest bases plus extension request.
Feb 23, 2026	WSDOT SL 9727-277	WSDOT -> Skanska	Acknowledgment. Denies extension. Supplemental due March 6, 2026.
Mar 6, 2026	Skanska LTR 370	Skanska -> WSDOT	Supplemental. AECOM technical narrative + cost estimate. $1,406,243 total claim.
Mar 27, 2026	WSDOT SL 9727-303	WSDOT -> Skanska	Written Determination. Protest denied. TR 2.13.4.1.2 and ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6 require continuity.
Apr 7, 2026	AECOM PCN-00080	Skanska (AECOM) -> Skanska	AECOM Dispute Referral. Jon Guerrero PE. Subcontractor dispute referral.
Apr 8, 2026	Skanska LTR 396	Skanska -> WSDOT	Notice of Dispute. GP 1-04.5(1). 12 days after SL 303. TIMELY. TR 2.13.4.1.2 "late introduction" argument (factual premise incorrect).
Apr 14, 2026	WSDOT SL 9727-325	WSDOT -> Skanska	Acknowledgment of Notice of Dispute. Procedural only. WSDOT will wait for the written dispute referral per GP 1-04.5(1).1.8. No determination, concession, or waiver.

Document Thread

Thread: ATC-1 Approval -> Design Review -> Widening Dispute -> Protest -> Supplemental

Origin: ATC-1 submittal proposes pier walls and combined spread footings for Bridge 405/103E widening.

ATC-1 submittal -> proposes modifying RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2 -> pier walls and spread footings in lieu of drilled shafts
ATC-1 Approval (Apr 3, 2023) -> "The ATC is approved" -> unconditional
Preliminary design (May 2024) -> AECOM submits design with separate substructures
Comment #9 closure (Nov 19, 2024) -> Bondy closes Comment #9, disposition: "Comment addressed. Please show closure pour in FIN submittal." AECOM ignores closure pour directive. -> AECOM later interprets as acceptance (verified 2026-03-26)
Jason Pang raises concern (Mar 5, 2025) -> AECOM frames as "reversal" 5a. DBIC Presentation (Mar 10, 2025) -> AECOM presents "Let sleeping dogs lie" rationale and two solutions (verified from 103E Notes.pdf) 5b. Pang/Mohammad discussion (Mar 19, 2025) -> "HAVE TO CONNECT," "EVERYTHING IS NO," structural basis for connection requirement (verified from 103E Notes.pdf) 5c. Sonia Berriz email (May 9, 2025) -> "I do believe the contract requires you to take a different approach" but acknowledges ATC is sole contractual basis (corrected attribution 2026-03-26; verified from source .eml file)
RFI 461 (Jun 18, 2025) -> AECOM asks for confirmation + discloses culvert protection infeasible -> Sokha Men (WSDOT) responds Jun 25: "not what the ATC was based on or approved"; would support DBIC for infill shear walls (verified from Procore export)
RFI 461.1 (Jul 8, 2025) -> follow-up -> Nancy Alpuche (WSDOT) responds citing GP 1-03.2 clause 3, ATC-1 Page 3 lines 9/23 (verified from Procore export) 7a. Pre-workshop discussion (Oct 9, 2025) -> Pang: "what was your plan in the ATC." Pat (SKA): "thought they would be ok." (verified from 103E Notes.pdf)
Type Selection Workshop (Oct 22, 2025) -> "WSDOT believes ATC is the baseline TODAY, anything else is a DBIC." WSDOT accepts Options 1, 2, 4. Focus on 2 & 4. Option 3 = non-starter. (verified from 10-22 Alternative Meeting Notes.pdf)
RCSR meeting (Nov 13, 2025) -> Pang suggests alternatives -> flexibility on HOW
WSDOT SL 9727-201 (Nov 21, 2025) -> ATC-1 requires structural continuity for widening
Skanska LTR 288 (Dec 5, 2025) -> disputes structural continuity requirement
WSDOT SL 9727-237 (Jan 13, 2026) -> corrects Forward Compatibility -> reaffirms ATC-1 continuity
Skanska LTR 333 (Jan 27, 2026) -> argues "match" is dimensional only -> cites ATC-1 Items
WSDOT SL 9727-262 (Feb 6, 2026) -> formal determination -> ATC-1 is the contract standard
Skanska LTR 356 (Feb 20, 2026) -> Notice of Protest 014 -> five bases plus extension request
WSDOT SL 9727-277 (Feb 23, 2026) -> Acknowledgment -> extension denied -> supplemental due March 6, 2026
Skanska LTR 370 (Mar 6, 2026) -> Supplemental -> Comment #9, reliance, changed conditions, BDM, industry practice -> $1,406,243 claim
AECOM PCN-00080 (Apr 7, 2026) -> Subcontractor dispute referral -> Jon Guerrero PE to Patrick Prendergast -> requests Skanska present to WSDOT -> follows pattern of LTR 328/P011, LTR 389/P005
Skanska LTR 396 (Apr 8, 2026) -> Notice of Dispute per GP 1-04.5(1) -> 12 calendar days after SL 9727-303 -> TIMELY -> new arguments: TR 2.13.4.1.2 "late introduction" (factual premise incorrect), Comment #9 pushback, Berriz reliance -> incorporates AECOM PCN-00080 -> P014 moves to Dispute phase

Thread: ATC-8 Precedent (Parallel)

Origin: ATC-8 / 17th Avenue correspondence (Jan 29, 2025)

WSDOT issues position on ATC-8 figures for 17th Avenue (roadway cross-section, bike lanes)
Skanska LTR 356 (Feb 20, 2026) -> cites ATC-8 position as inconsistent precedent
WSDOT position: both positions are consistent. ATC-8 figures are general roadway cross-sections. ATC-1 contains specific structural text (Items 3, 4, 6). Different domain, different type of ATC content.

Analytical Strengths and Vulnerabilities

Strengths

RFP itself requires continuity. RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2 requires that existing shallow spread footings at the intermediate piers "shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier." This is a Technical Requirement (level 5) that exists independently of ATC-1. ATC-1's proposed RFP modification does not remove this continuity requirement. WSDOT's position is supported by the TR, not just the ATC.

1a. ATC-1 text is specific and coherent. Items 3, 4, and 6, read together, describe a unified structural system. "Combining" in Item 3 presupposes combination. Item 4 provides a Pier Wall per Figure 2. Item 6 describes widening to "match." The Pier Wall is described as "an extended shear wall for the new widening." This is a strong textual argument.

WSDOT is enforcing what Skanska proposed. WSDOT's position is that the Design-Builder must build what it proposed and what WSDOT approved. This is a defensible posture.
GP 1-04.4(5)(n) is absolute. ATC implementation costs are the Design-Builder's exclusive responsibility. This provision is clear and directly applicable.
Forward Compatibility correction shows rigor. WSDOT identified an imprecise characterization and corrected it. WSDOT SL 9727-237 explicitly reaffirms the substantive position.
Design-Builder's own Proposal supports WSDOT. Skanska's Proposal calls ATC-1 "228th St Foundation Optimization" and treats the widening as a given.
RFI 461 and workshop positions confirm WSDOT consistency. (Added 2026-03-11.) After the March 2025 concern, WSDOT's position was consistent across every interaction: RFI 461 response (June 2025), RFI 461.1 response (July 2025), Type Selection Workshop (October 2025), RCSR meeting (November 2025), and formal correspondence (SL 9727-201, SL 9727-237, SL 9727-262). WSDOT consistently directed a DBIC for any departure from ATC-1. This undermines the "reversal" narrative.
WSDOT showed flexibility on implementation. (Added 2026-03-11.) Jason Pang suggested alternatives at the November 13, 2025 RCSR meeting (no closure pour, or closure pour for wall only). This demonstrates WSDOT was flexible on HOW, not WHETHER.
RFI 461 undermines reliance argument. (Added 2026-03-11.) AECOM submitted RFI 461 seeking confirmation of the separate substructure approach. If Comment #9 closure constituted acceptance, the RFI would have been unnecessary. The RFI demonstrates that AECOM knew the approach was disputed.
Design-Builder did not submit a DBIC. (Added 2026-03-11.) Despite being directed to submit a DBIC multiple times (RFI 461 response, RFI 461.1 response, Type Selection Workshop), the Design-Builder chose not to. This undercuts the argument that WSDOT's position is unreasonable. The DBIC process was available. The Design-Builder did not use it.
Pang did not close Comment #9. (Added 2026-03-11. Updated 2026-03-26.) AECOM's own supplemental (p.8) reports that on April 1, 2025, when AECOM cited the Comment #9 closure, Jason Pang stated "the resolution was not applicable because he did not make or resolve the previous comment." Pang's statement is accurate. Bondy closed Comment #9, not Pang. But Bondy's closure directed a closure pour, which AECOM ignored. The structures expert who raised the compliance concern (Pang) was not the person who closed the comment (Bondy). The person who wrote and closed the comment (Bondy) directed continuity. This directly undermines the "WSDOT accepted then reversed" narrative.

10a. Bondy's disposition directed a closure pour, contradicting AECOM's "confirmed acceptance" claim. (Added 2026-03-26. Source: Resolved RCSR verified 2026-03-26.) The WSDOT reviewer who wrote Comment #9 closed it with the directive "Please show closure pour in FIN submittal." AECOM's response proposed separation (1/2" joint filler). Bondy's closure directed continuity (closure pour). AECOM ignored the directive and later claimed WSDOT had "confirmed acceptance." The reviewer's own words contradict the acceptance narrative.

10b. AECOM's own Comment #16 response committed to structural continuity. (Added 2026-03-26. Source: Resolved RCSR verified 2026-03-26.) AECOM stated: "Will provide a footing overlay retrofit with drilled and bonded dowel connections. The new footing will be integral with the existing footing through these dowels." This is a commitment to making footings integral -- structural continuity. AECOM's own response to the same reviewer, in the same review cycle, committed to structural continuity at the foundation level. This contradicts AECOM's current position that ATC-1 permits a fully separate substructure.

AECOM's own language reveals advocacy over fact. (Added 2026-03-11.) Within a single document, AECOM describes Comment #9 closure as "WSDOT closed the comment with this response" (p.2, factual) and later as "WSDOT closed out the preliminary comments and confirmed acceptance of the design approach" (p.7, interpretive). The escalation from "closed" to "confirmed acceptance" is advocacy, not fact reporting. The factual description is sufficient for the record.
Type Selection Workshop notes are primary-source verified. (Added 2026-03-19. Source: 10-22 Alternative Meeting Notes.pdf.) The workshop notes contain WSDOT's most explicit contemporaneous statement: "WSDOT believes ATC is the baseline TODAY, anything else is a DBIC." This was said in a joint meeting with Skanska/AECOM. WSDOT accepted Options 1, 2, and 4 (all ATC-consistent) and focused on Options 2 & 4. Only Option 3 (DB's preferred) was rejected as a "non-starter" requiring a DBIC. This proves WSDOT was flexible on the design approach within ATC-1 parameters and consistently required a DBIC for any departure.
Pat's admission undercuts Skanska's ATC flexibility argument. (Added 2026-03-19. Source: 103E Notes.pdf, Oct 9, 2025.) When Jason Pang asked "what was your plan in the ATC," Pat (Skanska) responded: "thought they would be ok with getting additional information on the existing condition and construction challenges." This is an admission that the Design-Builder ASSUMED WSDOT would be flexible once field conditions were known. This is exactly the situation a DBIC is designed for. The DB did not read ATC-1 as establishing design flexibility. It read ATC-1 as establishing a concept, and assumed WSDOT would accept changes later. This undercuts Skanska's textual argument that ATC-1 "contemplates design flexibility."
Jason Pang's structural objections are well-documented. (Added 2026-03-19. Source: 103E Notes.pdf, Mar 19, 2025.) Notes from a March 19, 2025 discussion between Jason Pang and Mohammad S. show WSDOT's position was grounded in substantive seismic performance concerns: "HAVE TO CONNECT - coupling beams," "DON'T WANT A NON-STANDARD SYSTEM," "ductility limited to 2.5 - not going to need to inspect this after a seismic event." Pang's concern was not arbitrary. It was based on balanced stiffness, ductility demand, and post-earthquake inspectability.
Sonia Berriz email supports WSDOT's position. (Added 2026-03-19. Updated 2026-03-26: corrected attribution from Boris Sizivu to Sonia Berriz per verified source .eml file.) On the same day as the Berriz meeting statement, Sonia Berriz (WSDOT consultant) emailed Skanska/AECOM: "I do believe the contract requires you to take a different approach." While Berriz acknowledged the ATC is the sole contractual basis ("there is understanding that there isn't any hammer in the contract (besides the ATC) to require you to chase a different approach"), her affirmative statement that the contract DOES require a different approach is a direct rebuttal to Skanska's compliance claim. Note: Berriz used "hammer" (not "nothing") and "chase" (not "choose"). These are less damaging than AECOM's paraphrase. Berriz also listed four specific technical concerns (Differential Settlement, Balanced Stiffness, Ductility Displacement, No plastic hinging), showing WSDOT's objections were technically grounded.
DB's own DBIC presentation labels the ATC design as requiring a continuous beam foundation. (Added 2026-03-19. Source: 103E Notes.pdf, page 3, DBIC presentation slide.) The DB's own slide labels the ATC retrofit design elements. Element 4 reads: "(E) Footing and (N) footing to form contin. Beam (foundation)." This is AECOM's own characterization of the ATC-1 design: the existing footing and new footing form a CONTINUOUS BEAM at the foundation level. This directly confirms WSDOT's reading of ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6. The DB's designer understood the ATC concept requires foundation continuity. The slide also shows "Gap Separation" in the DB's proposed alternative design (not the ATC design), with notes: "ONLY connected at top closure pour - crossbeam not connected." This confirms the DB's proposed approach is a departure from the ATC design. The DB's own presentation acknowledges the difference.
The DBIC presentation title is itself an admission. (Added 2026-03-19. Source: 103E Notes.pdf, title.) The entire document is titled "DBIC - 103E/W Widening/Retrofit." The DB's own internal presentation frames their alternative approach as a DBIC, not as a baseline contract-compliant design. If the DB believed their separate substructure approach was contract-compliant, they would not have titled their presentation "DBIC." This undercuts Skanska's protest argument that their design was always contract-compliant and that WSDOT is imposing a new requirement.
TR 2.13.4.1.2 "late introduction" argument fails on its factual premise. (Added 2026-04-08.) Skanska LTR 396 claims TR 2.13.4.1.2 was first raised in SL 9727-303. Verified INCORRECT. SL 9727-237 (Jan 13, 2026, p.2) and SL 9727-262 (Feb 6, 2026, p.1) both cite "RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2, Bridge Widening Design Criteria" in their DBIC bullet points. RCSR Comment #16 (Bondy, May 2024) quoted the provision verbatim. AECOM's own Supplemental references "Bridge Widening Design Criteria." The DB was on notice since January 2026 (formal correspondence) and May 2024 (design review). At DRB, present SL 237 and SL 262 side by side with SL 303 to show continuity of citation. See Pillar 10.

Vulnerabilities

Comment #9 closure is now significantly weaker for Skanska. (Updated 2026-03-26.) AECOM claims WSDOT "confirmed acceptance" by closing Comment #9. However, verified facts now contradict this narrative: (a) Comment #9 was not a neutral question but a multi-part compliance concern questioning the ABSENCE of a closure pour; (b) The structures reviewer who wrote Comment #9 (Terry Bondy) also closed it himself. His disposition directed a closure pour: "Comment addressed. Please show closure pour in FIN submittal." AECOM's response proposed separation (1/2" joint filler). Bondy's closure directed continuity (closure pour). AECOM ignored the directive and later claimed "confirmed acceptance." (c) AECOM's characterization escalates from "closed the comment" (p.2) to "confirmed acceptance" (p.7). A DRB panel could still view the 4-month gap as procedurally uncomfortable, but the facts now strongly favor WSDOT. Mitigation: GP 1-03.7 limits what "approval" means. Bondy's own disposition directed a closure pour, contradicting the "acceptance" claim. Design review is iterative. Absence of DBIC shows DB did not treat closure as contract modification.
Item 3 "final design" language. The phrase "the final design of combining the spread footing and the existing drilled shaft will be determined during final design" does create some ambiguity. A DRB panel could read "final design" as preserving broader flexibility than WSDOT argues. Mitigation: Emphasize "combining" as presupposing combination. Flexibility in how to combine is not freedom to not combine.
"Match" interpretation. "Widened to match the existing structure" is not self-evidently about structural continuity. Skanska's dimensional-matching reading is not frivolous. Mitigation: Context. Read Item 6 together with Items 3 and 4, not in isolation.
Two-year gap plus design reliance narrative. (Updated 2026-03-11.) Over two years passed between ATC-1 approval (April 2023) and the first widening dispute correspondence (November 2025). The supplemental strengthens this vulnerability by adding the Comment #9 closure (November 2024) and the 4-month design period before the March 2025 concern. Skanska can argue WSDOT watched them design for months before objecting. Mitigation: The gap arose because detailed design had not yet reached this issue. WSDOT communicated its position when the design implications became apparent during the iterative review.
GP 1-03.1 precedence ambiguity. ATC-1 was submitted as part of the Proposal but proposes modifying a TR provision. Under GP 1-03.1, ATCs inherit the precedence of "the Contract Document to which the addendum or ATC applies." Does ATC-1 "apply to" the Proposal (level 7) or the TR it modifies (level 5)? Mitigation: Regardless of precedence level, GP 1-03.2 clause 3 independently binds the Design-Builder to ATC commitments advantageous to WSDOT.
Sonia Berriz statement and email. (Updated 2026-03-26. Corrected attribution: the May 9, 2025 email was from Sonia Berriz, not Boris Sizivu. Both the meeting statement and the email are from Berriz.) The May 9, 2025 statements from Berriz (WSDOT consultant) could be quoted at a DRB hearing. Meeting statement (per AECOM's characterization): "there is nothing in the contract for them to force the design team to use a different approach other than their position that they don't agree with Design Team's interpretation of ATC-1." Email: "there is understanding that there isn't any hammer in the contract (besides the ATC) to require you to chase a different approach." These show a WSDOT consultant acknowledging the ATC text is the only contractual hook. Berriz also asked Jason Pang to stop discussing the topic, which Skanska could frame as WSDOT suppressing dissent. Mitigation: (a) Berriz's email also says "I do believe the contract requires you to take a different approach," which supports WSDOT. (b) Both statements predate WSDOT's formal position, which cites specific contract provisions. (c) Berriz asked Pang to stop discussing because the dispute was being escalated to formal channels, a reasonable management decision. (d) The statements confirm the dispute is about ATC-1 interpretation. The ATC-1 text IS the contractual basis. Acknowledging that the ATC is the basis is not an admission of weakness. It is a description of where the contractual obligation lives. (e) Berriz used "hammer" and "chase," not the more damaging "nothing" and "choose" that AECOM paraphrased.
"All options assume separate in substructure" statement at workshop. (Added 2026-03-19. Source: 10-22 Alternative Meeting Notes.pdf, page 6, Widening Example slide.) The workshop includes a "Widening Example" slide showing the I-405 Main Line Bridge over Talbot Road with the note: "All options assume that the existing structure and the widening portion are separate in substructure." Skanska could argue that even WSDOT's accepted options assumed separate substructures. Mitigation: (a) In bridge engineering, "separate in substructure" means the widening has its own foundation elements (columns, shafts, footings) rather than sharing the existing substructure. This does NOT mean the substructures are disconnected. Options 1 and 2 both show infill walls and pier walls that CONNECT the existing and widening substructures. (b) The DB's own DBIC slide (103E Notes, p.3) labels ATC element 4 as "(E) Footing and (N) footing to form contin. Beam (foundation)" -- the DB's designer understood the ATC involves continuous foundation even with "separate" substructure elements. (c) The Widening Example slide uses the Talbot Road bridge (a different project with different contract requirements) as a general illustration, not as a statement about ATC-1 requirements for Bridge 103E.
TR 2.13.4.1.2 "late introduction" -- minimal residual vulnerability. (Added 2026-04-08.) The factual premise is incorrect (SL 237/262 cite the TR by section number). However, a DRB panel could still note that the prior letters cited TR 2.13.4.1.2 in the DBIC context (what needs to change), while SL 9727-303 cited it as an independent basis (why it's already required). This is a shift in emphasis. Mitigation: Present the three letters (SL 237, 262, 303) as a natural progression: WSDOT identified TR 2.13.4.1.2 as relevant in January 2026, explained why a DBIC would need to modify it, and then in the Written Determination, presented the full contractual analysis including why the TR independently requires continuity. This is thorough analysis, not sandbagging.
Pat's admission could cut both ways. (Added 2026-03-19.) Pat (Skanska) saying "thought they would be ok with getting additional information on the existing condition and construction challenges" could be read as the DB admitting it KNEW ATC-1 established a concept and hoped WSDOT would bend later (supports WSDOT). But it could also be read as the DB's reasonable expectation during ATC development that the concept was flexible (supports Skanska). Mitigation: The proper vehicle for "getting additional information and adjusting the approach" IS a DBIC. Pat's admission confirms the DB understood it needed WSDOT's agreement to change, which it did not obtain.

VIII. DRB Preparation -- Protest 014

(Scaffolded 2026-04-08 upon receipt of Skanska LTR 396, Notice of Dispute.)

A. Defense Layering (Hearing Strategy)

Primary Defense (Lead): ATC-1 Items 3, 4, and 6 text analysis. Read-together analysis of "combining," "Pier Wall per Figure 2," and "widened to match." This was fully briefed through the protest process. DB had full opportunity to respond. (Pillar 2)

Secondary Defense (Reinforce): TR 2.13.4.1.2 "shall be made continuous to form a catenary or deep beam across the pier." Independent contractual requirement at precedence level 5. ATC-1's proposed RFP modification does not remove this language. Cited in SL 237 and 262 (DBIC context) and SL 303 (independent basis). Deploy as reinforcement. (Pillar 2, Section "RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2 Already Requires Continuity")

Tertiary Defense (Backstop): GP 1-04.4(5)(n). ATC implementation costs are DB's exclusive responsibility regardless of interpretation. This is an absolute risk allocation provision. (Pillar 4)

Reserve Defense (Deploy if needed): GP 1-03.2 clause 3. One-directional. ATC commitments more advantageous to WSDOT bind DB. Held in reserve from SL 9727-303 per V2 minimal-surface-area strategy. Deploy at hearing if needed. (Pillar 3)

B. Key Evidence for Hearing Package

#	Evidence	Source	Significance
1	ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6 text	Contract	Core defense: "combining," "Pier Wall per Figure 2," "widened to match"
2	ATC-1 Figure 2 (C-227)	Contract	"COMBINED SPREAD FOOTING" label. Visual confirmation.
3	TR 2.13.4.1.2 text	Contract	"shall be made continuous." Independent requirement.
4	RCSR Comment #16 (Bondy)	Resolved RCSR	Quotes TR 2.13.4.1.2 verbatim. DB had notice May 2024.
5	RCSR Comment #9 disposition (Bondy)	Resolved RCSR	"Please show closure pour in FIN submittal." Contradicts "acceptance."
6	DB's own DBIC slide (103E Notes)	103E Notes.pdf	"(E) Footing and (N) footing to form contin. Beam." DB's designer understood ATC requires continuity.
7	RFI 461 response (Sokha Men)	Procore export	"not what the ATC was based on or approved." WSDOT consistency.
8	RFI 461.1 response (Nancy Alpuche)	Procore export	GP 1-03.2 clause 3, ATC-1 Page 3 lines 9 and 23. Specific citations.
9	Type Selection Workshop notes	10-22 Meeting Notes	"ATC is the baseline TODAY." WSDOT consistency + flexibility.
10	Pat's admission (Oct 9, 2025)	103E Notes.pdf	"thought they would be ok." DB assumed flexibility, not contract right.
11	Sonia Berriz email (May 9, 2025)	.eml file	"I do believe the contract requires you to take a different approach."
12	SL 237 + SL 262 DBIC bullets	SL letters	Both cite "RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2, Bridge Widening Design Criteria." Rebuts "late introduction."

C. Anticipated DB Hearing Arguments

#	Argument	Memo Coverage	Risk
1	TR 2.13.4.1.2 "late introduced"	Pillar 10	LOW -- factual premise incorrect (SL 237/262 cite it)
2	Comment #9 = acceptance	Pillar 5	LOW -- Bondy disposition contradicts; GP 1-03.7
3	Sonia Berriz = admission	Pillar 9	MEDIUM -- "no hammer besides ATC" is quotable
4	Item 3 "final design" = flexibility	Pillar 2 (CA-1)	MEDIUM -- "final design" creates some ambiguity
5	"Match" = dimensional only	Pillar 2	MEDIUM -- not frivolous reading in isolation
6	WSDOT reversed position	Pillars 5, 6	LOW -- RFI 461, workshop confirm consistency
7	Changed geotechnical conditions	Pillar 7	LOW -- contract text controls regardless
8	Industry practice (Caltrans, Talbot)	Pillar 8	LOW -- different contracts, different requirements
9	Pat's admission cuts both ways	Vulnerability 8	MEDIUM -- interpret carefully at hearing

D. Open Items for DRB Preparation

#	Item	Priority	Status
D1	Verify SL 201/237/262 for TR 2.13.4.1.2 citations	CRITICAL	RESOLVED (2026-04-08). SL 237 p.2 and SL 262 p.1 cite "RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2, Bridge Widening Design Criteria." SL 201 does not cite it. Factual premise of LTR396-1 is incorrect.
D2	Determine hearing presentation strategy for TR 2.13.4.1.2 (lead vs. reinforce)	HIGH	RESOLVED. Deploy as reinforcement (Secondary Defense). Lead with ATC-1 Items 3/4/6.
D3	Obtain April 1, 2025 and November 13, 2025 meeting records	MEDIUM	OPEN (carry from existing Open Items 8)
D4	Assess AECOM SL number typo significance (9727-261 vs 262/303)	LOW	NOTED. Not worth raising in correspondence.
D5	Draft position paper	HIGH	OPEN. Outline scaffolded (Position_Paper_OUTLINE.md).
D6	DRB referral decision -- proactive WSDOT referral or wait for DB?	HIGH	OPEN. Requires team discussion.

[INTERNAL MEMO -- Prepared 2026-03-01, updated 2026-04-08 (Pillar 10 added: TR 2.13.4.1.2 not "late introduced." DRB Preparation scaffolded (Section VIII). Strength 18 added. Vulnerability 9 added. Document thread and correspondence chronology updated for LTR 396 and AECOM PCN-00080. Updated 2026-07-04: WSDOT SL 9727-325 procedural acknowledgment added to Correspondence Chronology; ATC-8 Jan 29, 2025 email (Berriz, "Crowned Roadway Section") located on disk.)]

P014 Case File

WSDOT Position Paper - Executive Summary

1. The Matter Referred to the Board

2. WSDOT's Position

3. Structural Continuity Is Baseline Scope Under the Design-Builder's Own ATC

4. Recommendations Sought From the DRB

WSDOT POSITION PAPER

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Project Summary

3. Relevant Contractual Requirements

3.1 TR 2.13.4.1.2 -- Bridge Widening Design Criteria

3.2 ATC-1, Page 3, Items 3, 4, and 6 -- Structural Design Commitments

3.3 ATC-1, Figure 2 (C-227) -- Proposed Design

3.4 GP 1-03.2 Clause 3 -- Order of Precedence

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

3.6 GP 1-03.7 -- Approvals and Acceptances

3.7 GP 1-04.5 -- Protest Procedure and Dispute Procedure

4. Discussion of Bridge 405/103E Widening

4.1 ATC-1 Proposal and Approval

4.2 The TR 2.13.4.1.2 Continuity Requirement

4.3 Preliminary Design and WSDOT Review Comment #9

4.4 AECOM's Comment #16 Response

4.5 Design Review Discussions (March through May 2025)

4.6 RFI 461 and RFI 461.1

4.7 Type Selection Workshop

4.8 The Design-Builder's Own DBIC Presentation

4.9 Cost and Schedule Amounts Sought

5. Sequence of Events

6. WSDOT Position

6.1 ATC-1 Text Requires Structural Continuity

6.2 TR 2.13.4.1.2 Confirms the Existing Pier Is Designed as a Unified System

6.3 The Comment #9 Disposition Did Not Constitute Acceptance of a Contract Deviation

6.4 No Change Was Issued and the Cost Is the Design-Builder's

6.5 The Design-Builder's Remaining Arguments Do Not Alter the Analysis

7. Conclusion

8. Recommendations Sought From the DRB

9. List of Attachments

INTERNAL MEMO -- DO NOT SEND

Evaluation Framework

I. Contract Analysis

Controlling Provisions

ATC-1 Incorporation

WSDOT SL 9727-262 Review (Determination Being Protested)

ATC-8 Review (Cited as Precedent by Skanska)

Why WSDOT's Position Is Correct

Pillar 1 -- Forward Compatibility Correction Does Not Withdraw the ATC-1 Requirement

Pillar 2 -- ATC-1 Text Establishes Structural Continuity

Item 3 Analysis

Item 4 Analysis

Item 6 Analysis

Figure 2 (C-227)

RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2 Already Requires Continuity

Read-Together Analysis

ATC-8 Consistency (LTR356-2e)

Pillar 3 -- GP 1-03.2 Clause 3 Binds the Design-Builder to Its ATC Commitments

Pillar 4 -- GP 1-04.4(5)(n) Risk Allocation Is Absolute

Pillar 5 -- Comment #9 Closure Does Not Constitute Acceptance of a Contract Deviation

What Actually Happened (per AECOM Supplemental, pp.2, 7-8)

Their Argument

Why This Fails

Remaining Open Items

Pillar 6 -- Reliance/Estoppel Fails Because the Design-Builder Cannot Rely on Informal Actions to Override Contract Text

Their Argument

Why This Fails

Pillar 7 -- Changed Geotechnical Conditions Do Not Change the Contract Text

Their Argument

Why This Fails

Pillar 8 -- BDM and Industry Practice Do Not Override Specific Contract Language

Their Arguments

Why These Fail

Pillar 9 -- Sonia Berriz Statement Does Not Undermine WSDOT's Position

Their Argument

Why This Fails

Pillar 10 -- TR 2.13.4.1.2 Was Not "Late Introduced" (LTR 396 Dispute Argument)

Their Argument

Why This Fails

The Distinction Between SL 237/262 and SL 303

DRB Hearing Strategy Note

II. Rebuttal Table