WSDOT Position Paper PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction

Home , Alaskan Way Viaduct

W-G-GEN-GEN-CR24-0004245-01

Submitted to: Disputes Review Board and STP

Submitted by: WSDOT

January 28, 2015

This page intentionally left blank

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 BACKGROUND ...... 2

3.0 WSDOT’S POSITION ...... 3

3.1 TW-2 Was Not a Subsurface or Latent Condition ...... 3

3.2 TW-2 Was Not Substantially or Materially Different From Conditions Identified in the GEDR ...... 6

3.3 TW-2’s Steel Casing Was Disclosed ...... 11

4.0 CONCLUSION ...... 13

Figures Figure 1: TW-2 monument shown in Google Maps (Aug. 2011) ...... 4 Figure 2: Monument Cover at Pumping Test Well TW-1 ...... 5 Figure 3: Pumping Test Well TW-1 with Cover and Cap Removed ...... 5 Figure 4: Steel Casing at Pumping Test Well TW-1 ...... 6 Figure 5: Excerpt from GEDR Figure 2 ...... 7 Figure 6: Fig. C.4-1 from GEDR Appendix C4 ...... 9 Figure 7: Table 1 from GEDR Appendix C4 ...... 10

Attachments Attachment A: Released for Construction Plans: Final Site Prep and Paving Plans Phase 1.A.2 Attachment B: Umpqua River Navigation Co. v. Crescent City Harb. Dist., 618 F.2d 588, 595 (9th Cir. 1980) Attachment C: Comtrol, Inc. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page i

This page intentionally left blank

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page ii

WSDOT Position Paper PCO #250: TBM Obstruction

1.0 Introduction

This paper presents the State’s position regarding STP’s Proposed Change Order #250. The parties referred this dispute to the Disputes Review Board (DRB) via joint letter dated January 8, 2015. The specific question provided for resolution is this:

Is the eight-inch diameter steel well casing at TW-2 an actual subsurface or latent physical condition at the Site that is substantially or materially different from the condition identified in the Geotechnical Baseline Report, the Environmental Baseline Report, or the Geotechnical & Environmental Data Report as set forth in Contract Section 5.7.2 and therefore a Differing Site Condition?

The question referred to the Board is limited to a determination as to whether the actual conditions constitute a Type 1 DSC. More specifically, as stated by STP in its letter dated May 15, 2014, “it is not the presence of TW-2 that constitutes the Differing Site Condition; it is the fact that TW-2 is an eight-inch diameter steel casing.” In other words, it is acknowledged by both parties that the Geotechnical and Environmental Data Report (GEDR) identified the existence and location of TW-2. STP is arguing that the Contract failed to identify that TW-2 was constructed with an eight-inch steel casing and is therefore a DSC.

The eight-inch diameter steel well casing of TW-2 does not constitute a DSC, as discussed in detail in this paper. The casing of TW-2 was not a subsurface or latent physical condition, because it was observable from the ground surface. The GEDR indicates that TW-2 was located within the proposed tunnel alignment, was 110 feet deep and eight inches in diameter, and had been used as a pumping well during the geotechnical investigations for the Project. The actual conditions at TW-2 are consistent with the indications in the GEDR, and therefore, do not constitute a DSC.

The fact that TW-2 had a steel casing is addressed in a Reference Document contained in GEDR Appendix F. The GEDR referred specifically to this Reference Document, indicating that more information about TW-2 is provided there. This information was not concealed. It was readily available had STP chosen to investigate the construction of TW-2 at any time.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 1

2.0 Background

The relevant part of the Contract definition of Differing Site Condition states:

Differing Site Conditions (except with respect to ATCs) means (1) actual subsurface or latent physical conditions at the Site that are substantially or materially different from the conditions identified in the Geotechnical Baseline Report, the Environmental Baseline Report, or the Geotechnical & Environmental Data Report as set forth in Section 5.7.2.

Contract Section 5.7.2 states:

In the event the Geotechnical Baseline Report or Environmental Baseline Report, as applicable, is silent with respect to a particular geotechnical or environmental condition, Design-Builder may rely upon the Geotechnical & Environmental Data Report, TR Appendix G2, as describing such condition.

Neither the Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR) nor the Environmental Baseline Report (EBR) includes descriptive information regarding the geotechnical explorations and construction of the wells and instruments that were used to develop the GBR. This information is contained in the Geotechnical and Environmental Data Report (GEDR), which is a Contract Document. Therefore, in accordance with Contract Section 5.7.2, the rest of this paper focuses on the GEDR.

Two figures in the GEDR graphically show the location of TW-2 and indicate that it is within the tunnel alignment. The GEDR identifies TW-2 as a pumping test well with an eight-inch casing. The GEDR does not say what the casing was made of, but it does point to a Reference Document that includes this information. The Reference Document in question was included in the Request for Proposals (RFP) provided to the Proposers.

At the time NTP-1 and NTP-2 were issued to STP in 2011, the surface Alaskan Way roadway was still actively in use. As part of its Final Site Prep and Paving Plans Phase 1A.2, STP constructed a detour roadway so that it could use the former roadway as a staging area for the Project. STP’s Released for Construction plans Sheet SP103, dated Oct. 28, 2011, show TW-2 and other monitoring wells, with Note 4: Protect Monitor Well in Place (See Attachment A to this paper). Subsequent work in the area apparently damaged the well monument.

The TBM mined through TW-2 on December 3, 2013. Part of TW-2’s steel casing was ejected several feet out of the ground. Other parts were shredded by the tunnel boring machine and found in the muck stream on December 3-4.

STP continued mining for three days after encountering the well casing and then stopped mining on December 6, 2013, when the TBM was unable to make forward progress. STP claims that the encounter with TW-2 damaged the TBM. The question of causation is not the subject of this dispute; this allegation is provided only for background. As discussed above, the question before the DRB is whether TW-2’s eight-inch diameter steel casing constituted a Type 1 Differing Site Condition (DSC).

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 2

Relevant correspondence beginning with STP’s change notice on December 12, 2013, is included in the Common Exhibits. It should be noted that the correspondence includes discussion of other theories of entitlement asserted by STP. In particular, STP’s protest of WSDOT’s determination stated that STP considered the eight-inch steel casing at TW-2 to be both a Type 1 and a Type 2 DSC (see STP letter dated July 15, 2014, Tab 28 in Common Exhibits). STP has subsequently clarified that it is no longer pursuing its claim of Type 2 DSC (see STP letter dated Jan. 21, 2015, Tab 44 in Common Exhibits).

3.0 WSDOT’s Position

STP claims that TW-2’s eight-inch steel casing is a Type 1 Differing Site Condition. Type 1 Differing Site Conditions are defined in the Contract, Appendix 2. Because neither the GBR nor the EBR describes the development of wells, the relevant part of the definition is this:

. . . actual subsurface or latent physical conditions at the Site that are substantially or materially different from the conditions identified in the . . . Geotechnical & Environmental Data Report. . . .

STP has the burden to prove that a Differing Site Condition exists. See Contract Section 5.7.7. WSDOT’s position is that STP has not demonstrated that a DSC exists based on the undisputed facts, as explained below.

3.1 TW-2 Was Not a Subsurface or Latent Condition A Type 1 DSC must be “subsurface or latent.” Any condition existing at the ground surface and easily observable there is neither subsurface nor latent.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 3

Contract Section 2.3.4 requires the Design-Builder to inspect and examine the Site “sufficient to familiarize itself with surface conditions and subsurface conditions discernible from the surface affecting the Project” (emphasis added). TW-2 was easily observable from the surface at the time that STP was developing its Proposal and beginning its work on the project after execution of the Contract. The top of the well extended to the surface and was protected with a removable cap (Fig. 1).1

Figure 1: TW-2 monument shown in Google Maps (Aug. 2011)

1 STP has admitted that TW-2’s cap was visible in its letter of July 15, 2014 (Tab 28 in Common Exhibits). STP’s letter states that the flush-mounted steel monument for TW-2 at the ground surface was discernible from the surface.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 4

With the cap removed, the steel well casing was plainly visible. No pictures of TW-2 are available to show the steel well casing below the cap. However, TW-2 was constructed in the same manner as TW-1, another test well used on the project, as discussed in Section 3.3 of this paper. Figures 2 through 4 below shows TW-1.

(Photo taken by Shannon and Wilson, May 23, 2014) Figure 2: Monument Cover at Pumping Test Well TW-1

(Photo taken by Shannon and Wilson, May 23, 2014) Figure 3: Pumping Test Well TW-1 with Cover and Cap Removed

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 5

(Photo taken by Shannon and Wilson, May 23, 2014) Figure 4: Steel Casing at Pumping Test Well TW-1

Because TW-2 was admittedly visible on the surface and because its eight-inch steel casing was easily observed from the surface, TW-2’s steel casing was not a “subsurface or latent” condition and therefore is not a Type 1 DSC.

3.2 TW-2 Was Not Substantially or Materially Different From Conditions Identified in the GEDR To be a Type 1 DSC, a condition must not only be subsurface or latent, but it must also be substantially or materially different from the conditions identified in the Contract Documents, in this case, the GEDR. As discussed above, neither the GBR nor the EBR address TW-2 so the GEDR is the Contract Document relevant to this dispute. If the actual conditions at TW-2 were consistent with the information in the GEDR, then it is not a Type 1 DSC. Here is what the GEDR says:

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 6

a. TW-2 was located within the planned tunnel alignment. This is shown graphically on GEDR Figure 2, sheet 3 of 12:

Figure 5: Excerpt from GEDR Figure 2

b. TW-2 contained a groundwater monitoring device. GEDR Figure 2 (Figure 5 above) shows TW-2 as a blue dot with a blue superscript w. According to the legend, the blue dot means that TW-2 is a soil boring, conducted between 2001 and 2009, and it is a groundwater monitoring device, which could be a well or a vibrating wire piezometer. The superscript w indicates that a well was installed.

c. TW-2 was installed in 2002 for a previous study that was documented in “Shannon & Wilson, 2003,” a Reference Document. GEDR Section 2.5.8.1 talks about three pumping test wells installed for the 2010 study. Then it notes that

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 7

TW-2, also used in 2010, was installed in 2002 for a previous AWV study documented in “Shannon & Wilson, 2003”2:

d. TW-2 was used as a pumping test well in 2010. As noted in GEDR Section 2.5.8.1 (above) TW-2 was “incorporated into the pumping test program” in 2010. The use of TW-2 is further described in GEDR Section 2.5.8.2.1:

2 “Shannon & Wilson, 2003” is a Reference Document contained in GEDR Appendix F that was provided to Proposers as part of the RFP. It is discussed further in Section 3.3 below.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 8

Further, GEDR Sub-Appendix C.4 (a Contract Document) contains the results of the pumping tests in 2010. Figure C.4-1 of this sub-appendix depicts TW-2 as a Pumping Well within the tunnel alignment:

Figure 6: Fig. C.4-1 from GEDR Appendix C4

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 9

e. TW-2 was 110 feet deep. Table 1 of GEDR Sub-Appendix C.4 summarizes information about the pumping test wells, including the fact that TW-2 was 110 feet deep. At the location shown for TW-2, the tunnel invert would be at about 108 feet below ground surface, so TW-2 was clearly within the tunnel envelope. f. TW-2 had an eight-inch casing. Table 1 in the GEDR Sub-Appendix C.4 indicates that TW-2 was an eight-inch diameter well. In fact, all four pumping wells listed in this table were constructed with eight-inch casings. Section 2.5.1 of the GEDR discusses the new pumping wells, and states: “The pumping test wells PW-252 through PW-255 were constructed of 8-inch diameter steel casing.”

Figure 7: Table 1 from GEDR Appendix C4

To summarize, the GEDR said the following about TW-2:

a. It was located within the planned tunnel alignment. b. It was a well, which is a groundwater monitoring device. c. It was installed in 2002 for a previous study that was documented in “Shannon & Wilson, 2003,” a Reference Document provided as an appendix to the GEDR. d. It was used as a pumping test well in 2010. e. It was 110 feet deep. f. It had an eight-inch casing. These are all of the indications in the GEDR that might be considered material to STP’s claim that TW-2 was a Type 1 DSC. All of these indications were accurate and all of them were fully consistent with the actual facts about TW-2. In other words, the conditions at TW-2 were not “substantially and materially different” from what was stated in the GEDR. It follows that TW-2 was not a Type 1 DSC.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 10

STP has stated that “it is not the presence of TW-2 that constitutes the DSC; it is the fact that TW-2 is an eight-inch diameter steel casing, which WSDOT failed to disclose in the Contract Documents” (STP letter dated May 15, 2014,Tab 24 in Common Exhibits). As noted above, TW-2 was expressly identified as having an eight-inch casing in the GEDR. The casing material was not identified (though that information was easily accessible). Nevertheless, it is not enough for STP to state that “you didn’t tell us it was steel.” STP must show that a steel casing was substantially and materially different from the conditions actually identified in the documents.3 STP cannot do so for the reasons explained above.

3.3 TW-2’s Steel Casing Was Disclosed The fact that TW-2 had a steel casing was indicated in GEDR Appendix F, a Reference Document attached to the RFP. Reference Documents provide important information for review and consideration by the Proposers at the proposal stage and by the Design-Builder during performance of the work. The importance of such information was emphasized by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (see Attachment B), as stated below:

A contractor cannot call himself misled unless he has consulted the relevant Government information to which he is directed by the contract, specifications, and invitations to bid. As we read them, the decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court do not permit the contractor to rest content with the materials physically furnished to him; he must also refer to other materials which are available and about which he is told by the contract documents.

Umpqua River Navigation Co. v. Crescent City Harb. Dist., 618 F.2d 588, 595 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Flippin Materials Co. v. United States, 312 F.2d 408 (Ct. Cl. 1963)).

This principle applies directly to the facts of this dispute. As previously noted, GEDR Section 2.5.8.1 provides a specific reference (Shannon & Wilson 2003) where information regarding TW-2 was available in a document that was provided as part of the RFP. STP had this document for months before it submitted its Proposal and for over two years before its TBM mined into TW-2.

3 See Comtrol, Inc. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“A contractor is not eligible for an equitable adjustment for a Type I differing site condition unless the contract indicated what that condition would be.”) See Attachment C.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 11

The diagram below shows the links between the various documents, beginning with the information contained in GEDR Section 2.5.8.1, that points to the information found in Shannon & Wilson 2003, also referred to in Appendix F as Report 4-03, where TW-2 is specifically identified as having an eight-inch steel casing.

Report 4-03, entitled “SR 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct Project: Geotechnical and Environmental Data Report Supplement,” has five pages of text describing the additional borings and pumping tests that are the subject of this supplemental report. The report includes a Vicinity Plan and Key Map along with plan view drawings for the wells discussed in the report.

The report includes three Appendices: Appendix A – Field Explorations, Appendix B – Geotechnical Laboratory Tests, and Appendix C – Pumping Test Results.

Appendix C Sections 2.1 and 2.2 (pp. 4 – 5 of the 19-page text of this appendix) address the construction of TW-1 and TW-2.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 12

Section 2.1, addressing the construction of Test Well No. 1, states:

Section 2.2 of Appendix C addresses the construction of TW-2, and states that it was constructed like TW-1:

As discussed in Section 3.2 of this paper, Table 1 in the Appendix C-4 of the GEDR clearly disclosed that TW-2, like the other pumping wells, had an eight-inch casing. The Shannon & Wilson 2003 report clearly disclosed that TW-2, like TW-1, had a steel casing. TW-2 was not peculiar or unusual; it was built like other wells of similar purpose on the Project, all of which STP either knew or reasonably should have known.

4.0 Conclusion

As explained above, TW-2’s steel casing extended to the ground surface and was easily observable there; it was not subsurface or latent. STP has acknowledged that the well monument protecting the top of the TW-2 well casing was visible from the surface. The Design-Builder was responsible to inspect and examine the Site, and familiarize itself with surface conditions and subsurface conditions discernable from the surface affecting the project. STP was responsible to determine how TW-2 might affect the project. (Refer to Contract Section 2.3.4, Review of Site Information.)

The GEDR indicated the location of TW-2 within the tunnel alignment. It disclosed that TW-2 was installed in 2002 as a pumping well, that it was 110 feet deep, and that it had an eight-inch casing. There was no substantial or material difference between the information provided in the GEDR and the actual facts about TW-2.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 13

Finally, the fact that TW-2 had a steel casing was disclosed in a Reference Document attached as an appendix to the GEDR and contained in the RFP. For all of these reasons, TW-2’s eight-inch steel casing was not a Type 1 Differing Site Condition.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program January 2015 WSDOT Position Paper: TBM Obstruction Page 14 Attachment A Released for Construction Plans: Final Site Prep and Paving Plans Phase 1.A.2

WSDOT Position Paper January 2015 PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction This page intentionally left blank Attachment A to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction SR 99 Tunnel Project INDEX Seattle Tunnel Partners October 28 , 2011 PLAN REFERENCE TITLE SEATTLE TUNNEL PARTNERS NO. FINAL DESIGN PACKAGE SPOOl PHASE lA.2 - SOUTH SITE PREP PLAN NOTES SPlOl-S P104 PHASE lA.2 - SOUTH SITE PREP PLAN SP10S PHASE lA.2 - SOUTH TEMPORARY PAVING PLAN SR 99 TUNNEL PROJECT SP301 PHASE lA.2 - SOUTH TEMPORARY ROADWAY PROFILE SPSOl PHASE lA.2 - SOUTH TEMPORARY PAVEMENT DETAILS

FINAL SITE PREP AND PAVING PLANS PHASE 1A.2

ACTIVITY ID ACTIVITY NAME CSRS1150 Site Prep Plans Phase 1A.2 South Roadways

1 OF 9 A I B 1 C I D I E I F I G I H Attachment A to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction SITE PREP NOTES: GENERAL NOTES : SITE PREP BOUNDARIES

."'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"I""IIIIIIIIII.t COORDINATE V'J1TH CITY OF SEATILE FOR PARKING KIOSK REMOVAl. ,. PROTECT IN PLACE EXI STING UTILITIES, UNLESS OTH ER"VVtSE ONCE KIOSK IS REMOVED, CONTRACTOR WILL REMOVE ANY BARRIER NOTED. CONTRACTOR WILL CONTACT ONE CALL AND EXI STI NG REMOVE EXISTIN G PAVEMENT MARKING PROTE CTION AND KIOSK FOUNDATION. PATCH PAVEMENT TO UTILITIES PRIOR TO WORK. MATCH EX ISTING . 1"'1"'1"''''11''1''1'''1'''''''''~ ~ •••...... •.. ~ 1 2. PROTECT IN PLACE ALL EX ISTING STREET NAME . COORDINATE WITH SCL FOR DE~ENERGIZING AND RELOCATION! SIGNS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. . . SIDEWALK, CUR B AND GUnER DEMO REPLACEMENT OF LIGHT PO LE. SEE MOT PHASE 1A.2 • SOUTH : •••...... •..... , TEMPORARY SIGNAL PLANS. 3. SEE MOT PHASE 1A.2 - SOUTH TE MPORARY SIGNALS PLANS FOR DEMO OF EXISTING SIGNALS AND INSTALLATION "...... PROTECT LIGHT/POWER POLE IN PLACE. OF TEMPORARY SIGNALS. •.....I _..... I EXISTING PAVEMENT DEMO PROTECT MONITOR WELL IN PLACE. 4. see MOT PHASE 1A.2 - SOUTH MOT LEGEND ANO SOUTH , ,.,.,_- TEMPORARY ROADWAY PLANS FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL, _...... ADJUST COMBINED SEWER MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN , INLET TO GRADE. TEMPORARY MARKI NGS, NEW CURB, AND NEW RAMPS. ~ I VEGETATION DEMO ROTATE EXISTING GRATE SO THE LENGTH OF THE GRATE OPENING ~.,. I.'.' •.• , ali IS PERPENDICULAR TO ALI GNMENT S-AW·SR LINE. 5. SEE MOT PHASE 1A.2 - SOUTH TEMPORARY ROADWAY PLAN AND PROFILE. ---- .. ADJUST COMB INED SEWER MANH OLE, CATCH BASIN , INLET TO GRADE. REMOVAL OF EXISTING SIGNS AND SIGN POSTS 6. SEE TESC PLANS FOR PROTECTION OF EXISTIN G TREES AND 1- ___ I (WHERE APPLICABLE) RELOCATE PEDESTAL. EROSION CONTROL. BAG EXISTING SIGNS DURING TRAFFIC REVISION FOR GROUND IMPROVEMENT WORK BETVv'EEN WASHINGTON ST AND YESLER WAY, ASPHALT SIDEWALK, SEE SECTION ON SP501 SEE TC107 AND TC108. ~ PROTECT ELECTRICAL CABIN ET IN PLACE. 2 FULL DEPTH PAVEME NT, SEe SECTION ON SP501 COORDINATE lIIIITH PIONEER SQUARE PRESERVATION DISTRICT II111111 111111 1 PRIOR TO SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION . TRE E REMOVAL WILL MEET CITY OF SEATILE REQUIREMENTS. OVERLAY PAVEMENT, SEE DETAIL ON SP501 EXISTIN G SIGN TO REMAIN. ~ RELOCATE EXISTING SIGN . §§§ PAVEMENT PATCH , SEE DETAI L ON SP50 1 REMOVE EXISTIN G SIGN. -- PROTECT MONUMENT IN PLACE.

~:~ ;'43 ' 05~~~~~~======J[=====r==r!"~~.'~~"·n;r~~~~~~==r---~~~..;~~'~----~'(~SEKT~T.~LLE?u~ll:NN:'~;;;;'~~;r~W;;as;h;;n;gl;On~;;======JI------~====~ DATE 111112011 10 I WAS~ /:, ,~~" " . "-./"4'Deparlmenl I SR 99 TUNNEL PROJECT SP001 . ? '/" CONTRACT PACKAGE 14 ~B;, ~;';;------j------II---+-+=m;;!;""=,,,--l JL r< ,.10 1,v,2: ~'lF;d;;;.;THi~,h';~y ,~" ~~~~~B"y~=:j ~~1 ~~~====!======::j:====t=t-~==;:-~--==~;------l ~~ .,. 11 4 ~J.;~ '(Oatr Initials ofDQAM ..., AdminIstration 2 CHECKED BY p, CHU ""~" ~ , ~,~ ~ . ~.~,*" RELEASED FOR IR.. c;,y of PHA: '9 I PRDJ . ENGR~DM. ~ DATE BY i l./ I I iTRl.J~ "UN ~~s~ea~"~le ____-.l ___ ~SIT~E~~S;R~EEP~....!Ap~~2LLA~N·S_O-~".U;~~:[t'!!""~" __..L= .~=m~ A B C D E F G H Attachment A to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction

'::.'

I~ <' )..-<"

. - ~ .' --

~- / ~.' --- 2

'o..' 3

'. \.-'. /'\ -~--

1ST AVE S :s (~~ --_\. . 1/ > ~"', --;:""-""' :.5---- '-=---

5 o 20 40 SCALE IN FEET

FILE NAME ... \XL7999-ALL·14SP101.dl .... TIME 2:43:13 PM FED,AID PRDJ,NO, SEATTLE TUNNEL PARTNE RS ~Washington State Department of Transportation DATE 11 /1/2011 Y/I SR 99 TUNNEL PROJECT SP101 PLOTTED BY rgreenlee CONTRACT PACKAGE 14 DESIGNED BY K. KNORR (llb.I\\ 1M:r ~~ F;d;;;;Ifii;;-hw;; SHEET ENTERED BY D. BRINKMANN ~ Initia ls of DQAM ...., Administration 3 CHECKED BY P. CHU CONTRACT ~. lOCATION NO. ~ PROJ . ENGR. R. JOHNSON RELEASED FOR ~ City 01 PHASE 1A.2 • SOUTH 9 ~EETS REGIONAL ADM. L. LAIRD REVISION DATE BY SITE PREP PLAN Attachment A to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction » ----II 1

./ 4 "

I I 5 o 20 40 SCALE IN FEET

.z,~::~~~~on~ ofState Transportal, 'o SR 99 TUNNE SP102 10 - ...... ~ n CONTRACT P L PROJECT ~ Federai Hi~"'oy ACKAGE 14 ~~ Administrotio: SHUT R E Initials of DQAM 4 CONTRACT NO. LOCATION 110. LEASED FOR City of "9 SIfEETS I I SeoHle Attachment A to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction

II ' I I Ii I l~

I I I 5 o 20 40 SCALE IN FEET

FED.AID PROJ.NO. ~§J(UN~IE};!~~ ~Washjnglon ~ "II Department SR 99 TUNNEL PROJECT SP103 Wf ~~ F;d;;;,j · Hig.h;~·y CONTRACT PACKAGE 14 (\0"11 S ~ EET e- Initials of OQAM ...., AdminIstration 5 ~ RELEASED FOR City of PHASE 9 Seattle SITE .~. Attachment A to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction

TERMINAL 46 I PI ER 48

()

/ 1/

I o 20 40 SCALE IN FEET

VJ- Washington State "'tfTi, Department of !,",n'po"a'ion I - SR 99 TUNNEL PROJECT SP104 ¢.l F~d;~iH i ~~ CONTRACT PACKAGE 14 Administration SIfI!U 6 CONTR,ACT NO. LOCATION NO. ~ City of PHASE 1A.2 - SOUTH 9 Seattle SITE PREP PLAN SHEETS Attachment A to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction

'i~~ /;-.------.------, ',' S-DAWS 10+36:21- 15.75' LT '. I i~~I~~il t'II --,---____p.rru-_ _i.____ ~~l¥~'Jg(\\ 11\111 \" . , q SEE TRANSITION '. I 1\ II \,- DETAIL ON SP501 '1 ~ ""'~"l :~ 3 ."" JGI I -/ III 829+00 ~.- - -I- -

I. r . ----~, 1..·--==-~~'~=t.--:8,-·~ J --li.:'.-.:.- _ ~ jf::L;';'1:== -_.- :cib H;.;"..:::..w'-----J. {) .', '" f-1------I ... , I FIELD ADJUST - :;/'-- •.&2>2~~~il.~ L ,. -- L J,' I' GRADE TO DRAIN ~ SEE TRANSITION :::.... LIMITS OF FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT J+- I I /. I EXISTING STORM DRAIN DETAIL ON 5P501 4 ) '"I S-DAWN 20+33.80 (14.00' RT I 'I' -{~. p )"'jp IJ S-OAWN 21+18.24 (47.30' RT I ~ I

1. SEE TC002 & TC003 FOR GE NERAL NOTES, 3. SEE TC002 FOR TEMPORARY ALIGNMENT TABLES. CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND TABLES. I I 5 o 20 40 2. SEE TC001 FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL PAVEMENT SCALE IN MARKING TABLE AND LEGEND. FEET

FED.AID PROJ.NO. @~~{UNNE~E:§!§) ~WaShington Stale SR 99 TUNNEL PROJECT SP105 CONTRACT PACKAGE 14 SHEET 7 City of "9 Seattle TE SI'lEETS A I B I C I D I E I F I G I H Attachment A to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction

1 50

40 "z X'" iL ..> w > - 0 0 ~ 0 ~ f.;J:z: w 30 ci ,; ~u + + M" 0 0 N N ~ I ~- N Z 0 Z 0 ~ ; ;: : PROF LE GRAD LINE EX1S ING GRO NO ~ 20 - - Ir r ~ ; ...... ,;, ';'w ';'w w 0.07'10 I - - ---< 2 10 ~ I ~ I '-- FULL DEPTH P VEMENT I-- OVER LAY PAY MENT 0

I-- S-DAII liN LI E PR OFILE

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + + ~ .., 0 .. '" '" '" '" '" 3

50 - 40

0 0 ci 30 0 ~ N 4 ~ '"~ on 20 .. -

10 '\ ------.:::::::", '- FULL 0 PTH PAV MENT L EXISTING GROUND I'--TRAN iliON OVERLA PAVEME~T - o

NOTES S -AW-SR LINE & -DAllliS LINE PROF LE 1. SEE P501 FO PAVEME,r.n SECT! NS. o o o o o o o o 0 o o + + + + 0 o o 5 o + + .., ;;; ..,'" 0+ ~ .,'" ~ '" ., ., ., ~ '"~

FILE NAME .. \X ~ I TIME "~ "'" FED.AID PROJ.NO. DATE 11111201 SR 99 TUNNEL PROJECT SP301 I PLOTTED BY "roenl.. 10 WASH CONTRACT PACKAGE 14 ~~Y ~~~LE~R _____~ ______-+ ___+- ~ ~' '"'" SMI!ET 8 BY K. KNORR cOIIT" .o. m NO. lOCATION NO. I PROJ. ENGR. R. "9 SHEETS ADM. l. LAIRD DATE I BY , I rHJI.. IIUN Seattle Attachment A to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction

LEGEND:

o HMA CL 1/2 IN. PG 58·22 S-DAWS LINE 1 if. (3) HMA CL 1/2 IN . PG 58·22 VARIES · see NOTE 1 I VARIES· see NOTE 1 o CITY OF SEATTLE TYPE 17 AGGREGATE o MILL EXISTING PAVEMENT SAWCUT ALONG EXISTING PAVEMENT SAWCUT ALONG EXISTING PAVEMENT GRADE TO DRAIN GRADE TO DRAIN 'D· SAW CUT ------, TRANSITION ~~-=~~~~------OVERLAY PAVEMENT

COMPACT IN-SITU SUBGRAOE OR eSBe / NOTES: 10' MIN (MATCH EXISTING) ,----,V",A",R"IE",S,---{ 4 1. see SPi0S FOR PAVEMENT LIMITS.

EXISTING BUILDING FULL DEPTH PAVEMENT TRANSITION DETAIL 15 LB TAR PAPER EXTRUOEO ASPHALT CONCRETE CURB SECTION A r STATION RANGE Ir::====:::;;;:..n S-DAWS 10+27.39 TO S·DAWS 21+96,09 "L-- -r------_'r 3

EXISTING BRICK 0.33'

,---V~A~R~I ~ES~0~" L7'~M~IN~-< 3

ASPHALT SIDEWALK DETAIL

~. ~~.!!~!J~.~!, ASPHALT CONCRETE EXISTING CURB AND SIDEWALK REQUIRED)

SAWCUTEXISTING ~';-;~VE;"ENT, '-~ -r-'--{------

OVERLAY PAVEMENT DETAIL COMPACT IN·SITU SUBGRADE

PAVEMENT PATCH DETAIL

~Washington State Deportment of Transportation YII SR 99 TUNNEL PROJECT SP501 ~~ F~ ~~ Hi ~h;-;; CONTRACT PACKAGE 14 \ lA::;Y ~ Administration lf11 tia ls of DQAM 9 0' City of PHASE 9 SttE£1S I I Seattle TEMPORARY This page intentionally left blank Attachment B Umpqua River Navigation Co. v. Crescent City Harb. Dist., 618 F.2d 588, 595 (9th Cir. 1980)

WSDOT Position Paper January 2015 PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction This page intentionally left blank Attachment B to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment B to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment B to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment B to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment B to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment B to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment C Comtrol, Inc. v. United States, 294 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

WSDOT Position Paper January 2015 PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction This page intentionally left blank Attachment C to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment C to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment C to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment C to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment C to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment C to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction Attachment C to WSDOT Position Paper, PCO #0250: TBM Obstruction