Skanska Assertion

On April 2, 2025, Skanska’s environmental subconsultant (OneAtlas) discovered a previously unidentified wetland during routine fieldwork at Juanita Creek West. Skanska notified WSDOT per Section 2.8.5.4.5 (LTR 175, April 11, 2025). WSDOT acknowledged the discovery as “consistent with the requirements of RFP Section 2.8.5.4.5.” Skanska incurred $14,311 in administrative costs for the SAVL addendum, JARPA updates, and wetland figures through Atlas environmental consulting.

WSDOT Position

Factual background is acknowledged. The discovery was made through surface observation of skunk cabbage — a wetland indicator species visible without subsurface investigation. The DB’s independent verification obligation under Section 2.8.5.4 anticipated exactly this type of surface-condition discovery. The $14,311 represents the cost of preparing BY-CRE-02512 (the SAVL Addendum) and associated JARPA updates — work required by the verification obligation. Atlas coded the invoices to Phase 000008: “Sensitive Area Verification Letter” — the DB’s own records confirm this is the cost of performing the contractual duty.

Skanska Assertion

Section 2.8.5.4.5, Paragraph 1 begins “In the event the Design-Builder proposes changes…” — establishing a threshold condition. The clause “or the Conceptual Plans will impact previously unidentified Sensitive Areas” is a subordinate clause that only activates when the DB has proposed changes. Because Skanska did not propose any changes, the cost allocation does not apply. (LTR 343, Section II)

WSDOT Position

WSDOT does not agree. Paragraph 1 creates two independent triggers joined by “or”: (a) impacts from DB-proposed changes, and (b) previously unidentified Sensitive Areas impacted by the Conceptual Plans. The clause “or the Conceptual Plans will impact previously unidentified Sensitive Areas” is a standalone trigger — not subordinate to the “proposes changes” condition. Reading the clause as subordinate would render it surplusage: if the trigger required DB-proposed changes, there would be no need to separately address Conceptual Plans impacts on unidentified Sensitive Areas. The Lower Juanita Wetland satisfies the second trigger independently — it is a previously unidentified Sensitive Area that would be impacted by the Conceptual Design for the realigned stream channel.

Skanska Assertion

Section 2.8.5.4.5, Paragraph 2 allocates costs only when the DB works “outside the Impact Area Line or outside of permitted impacts due to an ATC or design change.” WSDOT acknowledged in SL 247 that neither occurred here. Therefore Paragraph 2 does not apply and there is no cost allocation provision.

WSDOT Position

Paragraph 2 addresses a different scenario and is not the only basis for denial. The cost responsibility arises independently from (1) Section 2.8.5.4 (the DB’s verification obligation — the SAVL Addendum IS the contractual duty), (2) Section 2.8.5.4.5 Paragraph 1 (Conceptual Plans clause, separately triggered), (3) GP 1-02.4(1) (discoverable surface conditions), and (4) GP 1-04.1(1)(b)(c)(d) (all-inclusive Contract Price). There is no gap — there are four independent reasons the costs are allocated to the DB.

Skanska Assertion

Section 2.8.5.2.2 “is specifically applicable to circumstances involving ATCs or design changes” — not to discoveries arising from routine fieldwork. Since 2.8.5.2.2 does not apply and the “subordinate clause” reading eliminates 2.8.5.4.5, there is a gap in cost allocation that should be resolved in the DB’s favor. (LTR 343, Section III)

WSDOT Position

There is no gap. WSDOT acknowledges Section 2.8.5.2.2 requires an ATC or design change — that is not disputed. But the inapplicability of one provision does not create entitlement under the whole contract. Four independent provisions allocate costs to the DB: (1) Section 2.8.5.4 (verification obligation), (2) Section 2.8.5.4.5 Paragraph 1 (Conceptual Plans clause), (3) GP 1-02.4(1) (discoverable surface conditions), (4) GP 1-04.1(1) (Contract Price inclusive). The contract was designed with a comprehensive allocation framework. Reading the contract to have a gap in the wetland-discovery scenario would require ignoring all four of these provisions simultaneously.

Skanska Assertion

WSDOT’s pre-bid environmental documentation (WSAR, JARPA figures) did not identify a wetland at this location. “Actual site conditions differ from those represented in WSDOT’s baseline documentation.” The wetland was found “through no action or change proposed by the Design-Builder” — the resulting administrative costs should be compensable. (LTR 343, Section IV)

WSDOT Position

WSDOT acknowledges the Brickyard WSAR (E10b) did not identify a wetland on the left bank of Juanita Creek at MP 21.90. This does not establish entitlement. The WSAR is a Reference Document under GP 1-02.4 — it does not guarantee the completeness of wetland identification. Section 2.8.5.4 exists precisely because WSDOT expected the pre-bid documentation might be incomplete and required the DB to independently verify all Sensitive Areas. The DB performed this verification: the original SAVL (BY-CRE-00366, March 2024) assessed 32 wetlands and 9 streams and confirmed all consistent with the WSAR. The April 2025 discovery triggered the SAVL Addendum (BY-CRE-02512) — exactly the process the contract established. The same wetland scientist (Abi Schuetze) worked on both the original SAVL and the addendum.

The wetland was discoverable: it was found by observing skunk cabbage, lady fern, and solanum — all surface-visible indicators. The SAVL Addendum wetland determination form notes conditions were drier than normal in the three months preceding the April 4, 2025 field visit, yet the wetland was readily identifiable (water table to surface, Depleted Matrix hydric soil indicator). GP 1-02.4(1) assigns these costs to the DB regardless of whether the DB proposed changes.

Skanska Assertion

Skanska requests WSDOT reconsider the denial of $14,311 (PCO 112) and acknowledge that the wetland was not identified in the project baseline environmental documentation. Reserves the right to pursue formal protest and DRB proceedings if reconsideration is denied.

WSDOT Position

WSDOT acknowledges the Brickyard WSAR did not identify this wetland (factual). This does not establish entitlement — the WSAR is a Reference Document, not a guarantee. WSDOT’s position in SL 9727-247 is affirmed. Reconsideration is denied. Skanska’s reservation of protest and DRB rights is noted under GP 1-04.5.