Issue: Protest 014 — NB405 Bridge 405/103E Widening — ATC-1 Interpretation
Incoming Letters: Skanska LTR 356 (Feb 20, 2026) — Notice of Protest; Skanska LTR 370 (Mar 6, 2026) — Supplemental per GP 1-04.5(2)
Protesting: WSDOT SL 9727-262 (Feb 6, 2026)
Supplemental: RECEIVED March 6, 2026. Skanska LTR 370 with AECOM Notice of Protest Supplemental Information (11 pp.) and Skanska Cost Estimate (1 p.).
| ID | Incoming Assertion | WSDOT Response | Authority | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LTR356-2a | ATC-1 expressly contemplates design flexibility. Item 3 “final design…determined during final design” means details not locked in. | Item 3 addresses HOW to combine, not WHETHER. “Combining” presupposes combination. “Final design” refers to engineering details within that concept. | ATC-1, Page 3, Item 3; GP 1-03.2 clause 3 | Deny |
| LTR356-2b | ATC-1 does not require full structural continuity. “Widened to match” (Item 6) = dimensional matching. | Read together with Items 3, 4, Figure 2, “match” means dimensional AND structural compatibility. Item 3 “combining,” Item 4 pier wall per Figure 2, Figure 2 shows “COMBINED SPREAD FOOTING.” RFP Section 2.13.4.1.2 independently requires “continuous beam across the pier.” | ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6; Figure 2; RFP 2.13.4.1.2 | Deny |
| LTR356-2c | GP 1-03.2 clause 3 is misapplied. Applies to “offers of higher quality,” not locking in design. | Clause 3 covers three categories: higher quality items, additional services, OR terms “more advantageous to WSDOT.” Continuous widening qualifies. One-directional: binds DB. | GP 1-03.2 clause 3 | Deny |
| LTR356-2d | Forward Compatibility acknowledged as incorrect undermines SL 9727-201. | Corrected terminology, not position. SL 9727-237 reaffirms ATC-1 requirement. Two separate issues. | SL 9727-237; ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6 | Deny |
| LTR356-2e | DBIC not appropriate. WSDOT inconsistent on ATC figures (ATC-8). | ATC-8 = roadway cross-section (bike lanes), different domain. ATC-1 position rests on TEXT (Items 3, 4, 6), not solely figures. | ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6; ATC-8 | Deny |
| LTR356-3 | Extension request — 14 additional days. | Denied per WSDOT SL 9727-277 (Feb 23, 2026). | GP 1-04.5; SL 9727-277 | Deny |
| LTR356-4 | Reservation of rights. | Noted. WSDOT likewise reserves all rights. GP 1-04.4(5)(n). | GP 1-04.4(5)(n) | Noted |
| ID | Incoming Assertion | WSDOT Response | Authority | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LTR370-2a | Comment #9 closure (Nov 19, 2024) constitutes acceptance. WSDOT closed preliminary design comment where AECOM stated widening would be separated. | Verified RCSR shows Comment #9 (Terry Bondy, sheet BF06) asked “Please explain why a closure pour is NOT shown” — questions an OMISSION. AECOM mischaracterizes as neutral inquiry. GP 1-03.7: “approved” = conformance to contract. Pang did not close it. No DBIC filed = DB did not view as contract modification. AECOM’s language escalates from “closed” (p.2) to “confirmed acceptance” (p.7). | GP 1-03.7; GP 1-04.4 | Deny |
| LTR370-2b | Changed geotechnical conditions invalidate deep footing rationale. No liquefiable soils at Piers 2/3. | Changed conditions don’t change contract text. ATC-1 obligation is unconditional. Proper path is DBIC. WSDOT offered to support DBIC removing infill shear walls. | ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6; GP 1-04.4 | Deny |
| LTR370-2c | BDM 15.2.10 code compliance concerns. In-ground plastic hinges hard to inspect. | Design challenge, not contract interpretation. DB accepted obligation per GP 1-04.4(5)(n). If approach can’t satisfy code, submit DBIC. | GP 1-04.4(5)(n) | Deny |
| LTR370-2d | Traffic/construction impacts of closure pour on 228th Ave. | Implementation challenge, not contract issue. GP 1-04.4(5)(n). Foreseeable when DB proposed ATC for bridge over live roadway. | GP 1-04.4(5)(n) | Deny |
| LTR370-2e | Industry practice (Caltrans MTD 9-3, Talbot Road) supports separate substructures. | External standards don’t override specific contract language. Different bridges, different contracts. ATC-1 is project-specific. | ATC-1 Items 3, 4, 6; RFP 2.13.4.1.2 | Deny |
| LTR370-2f | 11 months of good-faith design reliance. Designed Nov 2024–Oct 2025 based on “accepted” approach. | DB had contract text throughout. Comment closure doesn’t create vested right. Design after Mar 2025 was despite WSDOT objection. RFI 461 shows DB knew approach was disputed. | GP 1-03.7; ATC-1 | Deny |
| LTR370-4 | Cost claim: $1,406,243. AECOM $1,071,847 + Skanska $334,396. | Not entitled. No change occurred. GP 1-04.4(5)(n) makes ATC costs DB’s responsibility. | GP 1-04.4(5)(n) | Deny |
| LTR370-5 | Schedule claim: +6 months design, +4 months RFC. | Not entitled. No change. GP 1-04.4(5)(n) and (5)(m). | GP 1-04.4(5)(n), (5)(m) | Deny |
| ID | Anticipated Counter | WSDOT Pre-emption | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA-1 | Item 3’s “final design…determined during final design” = nothing binding. | “Combining” presupposes combination. Flexibility in how does not equal freedom to not combine. | ATC-1, Page 3, Item 3 |
| CA-2 | GP 1-03.2 clause 1: ATC-1 “additional details” control. | Clause 1 supports WSDOT. ATC-1 provides details describing structural continuity. No conflict with widening requirement. | GP 1-03.2 clauses 1 and 3 |
| CA-3 | AECOM asserts “our design is contract compliant.” | DB does not unilaterally determine compliance. GP 1-03.5: ambiguities interpreted consistent with project standards. | GP 1-03.5 |
| CA-4 | GP 1-01 ATC definition — modified only the drilled shaft requirement. | ATC modified contract requirements with a COMPLETE structural system: combined spread footings, pier walls, continuous widening. DB Proposal: “228th St Foundation Optimization.” | GP 1-01; DB Proposal |
P014 Response Matrix — Last updated 2026-03-19