Project Description and Request for Proposals
University of Colorado Recyclables Upgrading Facility
The goal of this project is to determine an optimal site to relocate CU’s Intermediate Processing Facility
(IPF) and design its layout. CU has one of the oldest student-run recycling programs in the nation. An
integral part of these operations include the IPF, which sorts, upgrades, and gets recyclables from CU
ready for shipment. The IPF is currently located in the Stadium, but as part of the Folsom Stadium
expansion that is underway they are being forced to move. A key to the overall cost of the integrated
recycling system at CU and its longterm success is the new location selected for the facility. Various sites
on the main campus and off the main campus are being considered, each with pros and cons. Careful
evaluation of each site is needed, including not only the direct costs but how the new facility will fit into
the larger picture of recycling at CU and its future growth. The goal is that your report will to useful to
CU by making a strong case for a new facility location.
Objectives
 Evaluate technical best practices for sorting, upgrading, and densifying recyclables
include emerging processes, capital and O&M costs
Review facilities at similarly sized institutions

Survey stakeholders in the process to develop carefully weighted criteria of an optimal location
and capabilities of the new facility. At a minimum these stakeholders include:
Jack DeBell, director
student workers at the IPF
facilities management personnel
members of the Boulder Campus Planning Commission

Evaluate a minimum of four potential sites for the new facility
this includes developing detailed “lifecycle” cost estimates for each facility location
this may require integration with the equipment/processes at the new facility, in order to account
for differences in construction costs at the two locations, etc.



Recommend a layout for processes in the facility, including equipment desired, etc.
Determine potential to use any of the existing equipment at the current IPF
Evaluate options for new equipment
Proposed Scope of Work
A. Overview of history of project need
B. Overview of Recyling Process (from generation to reuse; not specific to CU)
C. Technical Best Practices for Processing Recyclabes
D. Review of Facilities at Similarly Sized Institutions
F. Evaluation of Current Conditions at CU
G. Evaluation of Future Conditions at CU
will amount of recyclables and types of recyclables coming to the facility change in the future?
this can be based largely on the Diversion Potential Assessment (currently underway)
H. Project Criteria and Constraints
define constraints and a list of criteria that will be used to select the optimal solution – this includes the
optimal location of new facilities and the optimal “treatment” processes [a linkage is likely required locations
and processes in the facility on the basis of size limitations, etc]
will explicitly include the input various stakeholders, particularly in regards to weighting the criteria
I. Site Location Alternatives Evaluation
evaluate the 4 sites currently being evaluated by the Boulder Campus Planning Commission
develop each in enough detail to allow a comparison against the criteria. This will involve various calculations
pertaining to lifecycle costs (differences in transportation costs, land value, construction per location, ....),
rough sizing, COST, competing land uses, etc.
J. Recommended location.
based on weighted decision matrix
K. Alternative processes to include in new facility, compared, recommended for inclusion
L. Design documents for the facility itself:
include equipment selection (size and type of conveyors, bins, etc.), location of processes, “green building”
ideas, more detailed estimate of capital and operation/maintenance costs.
M. References
utilize industry standards for design such as EPA guidelines and peer reviewed documents
complete documentation of sources is required throughout the written reports
N. Public and Client Meetings
Describe when and how the local community will be involved in the decision process.
A presentation of the alternative selection and design shall be made between Dec. 2-11.
O.
Written Reports
The alternative evaluation will be submitted to the client for review, and a draft is due on Oct. 29. A revised
alternative evaluation (addressing comments from the Client) will be submitted with the design by Dec. 12.
P.
Project Management
Appropriate project management should be provided throughout the study and should consist of the following items,
as a minimum:
o complete work within budget limits and on schedule
o provide appropriate quality control of the work
o coordinate input from local personnel
The consultant shall provide a written interpretation of the scope of work (the Proposal), emphasizing aspects of the
work requiring specific attention. Recommended revisions or additions to the scope of work and schedule based on
Respondent's experience should be presented. Descriptions of specific tasks presented in the proposed scope of
work above should be expanded or modified to address any special considerations or approaches.
In addition, the Respondent should provide a draft table of contents for the written reports anticipated to be
developed as part of the scope of work.
The following factors will be considered in the selection of a consultant for this study and design:
o quality of proposal in response to the Scope of Work presented above
o evidence of a understanding local stakeholders and their preferences
o overall firm experience
o quality of staff assigned to the project: experience with similar studies, design experience with similar
projects, breakdown of staff time assigned to project
o references
o cost
Presentation of the Proposal and Workplan should be directed to Angela Bielefeldt on Sept. 16 or 18, 2003.
Provide a hard copy of the visual aids. Written submissions are due no later than 5 pm, Sept. 18, 2003.
Note that a variety of references are available, including a detailed “Business Plan Review of Recycling Activities”
completed in April 2003. Also, an IPF Relocation Committee has been meeting since 2000 and completed
preliminary evaluation of 15 potential sites that was narrowed to 4:
#4 northeast of Coors Events/Conference Center
#6 east of Regent Drive AutoPark
#8 East campus, east of the south half of parking lot 568
#10 also east of parking lot 568 but north of existing storage sheds at NE corner of lot
The planning staff recommended site #8, but Jack DeBell (director of Recycling) supports either site #4 or #6 on the
main campus. Of those 2 locations, site #6 was preferable to 2 members of the Boulder Campus Planning
Commission. It is hoped that at the end of your evaluation that all sides can endorse the site that you recommend.