Music city showdown: a Nashville project studies the benefits of re-using segregated and salvaged materials - Demolition Trends

Recycling Today, Feb, 2003 by Bob Brickner

A MENU OF OPTIONS

As provided for within the terms of the RFP, the bidder could propose three specific methodologies for the project's work effort. However, the bidder was not required to propose on all options. The alternatives for the on-site work included:

(1) Traditional demolition- with limited salvage as determined to be economically viable by the proposer. Under method one, it was assumed that the majority of all project materials (probably everything but metals) would be removed from the Work Zone and disposed of in a nearby C&D landfill.

(2) Selected demolition- with the on-site inerts (concrete, block, brick, asphalt, dirt, rocks, etc.) segregated from the non-inert materials at the Work Zone and processed by the demolition contractor into "fill material" at properties within the Work Zone or as part of the bridge-building project.

(3) Optimum Material Segregation and Salvage- with the same work parameters as detailed in method two above, except that the red brick facades would be peeled from all of the buildings to the greatest extent possible, cleaned of all mortar and any other disfigurations and organized/stockpiled/wrapped on pallets for future use on site as part of a new construction project. For purposes of this proposal option, the demolition contractor was to assume that the palletized bricks would be relocated and transported for storage by the demolition contractor until needed within the Work Zone.

Using cost forms provided in the RFP, the bidder provided the related costs for each building for which the firm would provide the work described in the RFP. As a result of the RFP process, Levy Wrecking Co., Nashville, was the demolition company selected as the contractor, subject to successful negotiations with each prime contractor. Based on the competitive RFP structure developed by GBB, the "selective demolition" process with inerts processing for use as fill material during the subsequent construction process (method two) was the least expensive by approximately $60,000, or about 6 percent less than the traditional demolition with materials (exclusive of salvaged metals) hauled to a disposal site (method one).

Within the materials markets of Nashville, the method three cost proposal for adding a large-scale red brick segregation/cleaning/stacking/palletizing activity for future re-use came in at slightly more than $1 million. The cost to set up and operate a segregation/cleaning operation for the entire project was proposed at a marginal cost of $170,000. This created a total cost that was 18.9 percent more expensive than the method-two option ultimately selected. Equally important was the fact presented in Levy's RFP response that they only expected to be able to recover about 30 percent of the face-brick available on the outside of the project buildings.

CONCLUSIONS

In finalizing the Metro contract with Levy, Metro also received a supplemental price from Levy of $9.00 per cubic yard for bringing additional fill material onto the site (price delivered and spread onto the site) if needed for final site grading of the new construction Work Zone.