Maybe they should leave that up to the demolition contractors? They usually know best.

If I remeber correctly, that didn't work too well on the demolition of the Market Square Arena.

The first time they bid the project the low bidder was going to build a giant ramp and walk his excavators to the roof and hammer it down.

Then they rebid it to blast it and that didn't work out very well. The contractor in charge of the debris removal ended up suing because the debris didn't break apart.

The first time the owner tried to forbid blasting and forced an improper method. The plan was to try and used a shear to cut the center ring. Blasting was clearly the right choice.

The second time they created two seperate GC packages one for the blasting and one for the prep/cleanup. This created an obvious finger pointing arrangement. No lawsuit was ever filed. The PM works for our firm and I bid the job both times.

The real problem was the project design tried to dictate means and methods. RDZ you hit it on the head very few engineers/architects have the experience to write a good spec for large demolition projects such as stadiums.

What was the amount of the "extra" that the contractor received for debris removal?

I don't agree with you that many engineers/architects have the experience to write a good spec on stadium/arena projects. For the most part, they are structurally repetitive entities surounded by large parking areas. From a demolition standpoint it doesn't get any better than that. You have a lot of working room and limited 3rd party liability.

Besides, it is my understanding that for the last couple of stadium/ arena jobs the specs were actually written in collaboration with a demolition contractor.

The extra is not something I would share to strangers or the internet, none of my or anyones business.

We will have to disagree about the design issues. Many of the stadiums are forced to tight schedules and separations or adjacent operations like the subject project.

As you have pointed out if it were not for the often time "free of charge" collaboration that designers count on, many other extras would be paid on the shoulders of tax payers.

The Market Square Arena shot went just fine. The pile was high due to the fact that there was a reinforced concrete tunnel running through the center of the building. If you ever saw it, you would most certainly remember you could drive under the building on a City street. Again, as you remember, that road had every utility you could think of underneath. All of which were to remain live throughout the project. The building collapse as far as it possibly could. Everyone knew the tunnel was to remain, there were no surprises for anyone.

Remember this, rfk, they asked us. If they asked you, would you say no?

I guess they lucked out on the extra then. But you are straying from the initial point you raised about AE's dictating means and methods and how flexible/inflexible specs should be.

BTW What/who is rfk?

I am not straying. They asked us for a price, we gave them one, they gave us a contract, we shot the building. It was their decision, their money. We did not write the specs.

I still stand by my original post: Let the contractor's decide.

I agree with you to a point and I also agree with DemoEngr to a point. Let the contractors decide but don't try and split the contract between 2 contractors.