Theoretically, the Feds are already required to procure in metric by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, which amended the the Metric Act of 1975. Obviously you could drive a truck through the loopholes and it has never been much enforced (Nasa seems to get away with any lame excuse not to). Further, Congress has passed a couple of acts that severely undercut the unenforced requirements with respect to highways, and in Federal buildings, bricks and lighting fixtures. However, it pretends to require: Sec. 205b. Declaration of policy It is therefore the declared policy of the United States-- (1) to designate the metric system of measurement as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce; (2) to require that each Federal agency, by a date certain and to the extent economically feasible by the end of the fiscal year 1992, use the metric system of measurement in its procurements, grants, and other business-related activities, except to the extent that such use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms, such as when foreign competitors are producing competing products in non- metric units; (3) to seek out ways to increase understanding of the metric system of measurement through educational information and guidance and in Government publications; and (4) to permit the continued use of traditional systems of weights and measures in non-business activities. --- On Sun, 9/25/11, Jim Elwell <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Jim Elwell <[email protected]> Subject: [USMA:51151] Re: Federal government procurement To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, September 25, 2011, 4:50 PM #yiv437359819 p {margin:0;} Paul: Since the Federal government procures a huge variety of products and services, saying "all federal procurement in metric" would impact many areas. Some examples: (1) Road and bridges paid (at least in part) by federal dollars would have be designed in metric units. Architects, contractors and construction personnel would all be affected. (2) Equipment purchased by the federal government, ranging from military vehicles, to USGS water monitoring stations, to medical research instruments, to armaments, would have to be designed in metric and use metric parts and fasteners. Many different manufacturers would be affected. (3) Federally-required reports and studies (environmental impact studies, airline congestion studies, etc.) would have to use metric units exclusively. Many research institutions, universities, consultants and scientists would be affected. (4) Supplies such as food, cleaners, cleaning equipment, paper, furniture, etc. would be specified in metric in RFPs (requests for proposals) and supplied to those specifications. Manufacturers, wholesalers, shipping and distribution companies, etc., would be affected. The tough question, which you touch on, is "what constitutes metric?" I would take a practical approach: use a metric equivalent where one exists (500 mL drink), but only for new procurement. If a federal maintenance facility needs to by some colloquial bolts to repair an existing machine, that is fine. But when the time comes to replace the machine, get one built in metric units. A good guideline might be: if this product or service were to be purchased under similar conditions in Europe, how would that product/service be different in terms of measurement systems? This does not mean we should reflexively adopt whatever the EU does, but it should give us valuable guidance to be applied to our particular circumstances. In spite of my saying "all federal procurement," there would have to be a transition period. For example, many US torpedoes are 12.75 inches (323.85 mm) in diameter. It would be foolish to retrofit submarines and torpedo designs to be (say) 350 mm. So the transition period would be short for many items (bottles of soda, environmental impact studies), longer for others (vehicle maintenance), and decades for others (submarines, torpedoes). Jim From: "Paul Trusten" <[email protected]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Cc: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 2:11:41 PM Subject: [USMA:51150] Federal government procurement Jim, does "all Federal procurement" mean that the government would purchase only products designed to the metric standard? In the current lingo, would it mean that non-metric design would have to be "substituted" by metric design? In what you envision, would the government refuse to buy 591 mL bottles of soft drink, thus influencing the bottlers to substitute the package size 600 mL? I'm just looking for an example of what you mean. Thanks, Paul Paul Trusten, Reg. Pharmacist Vice President U.S. Metric Association, Inc. Midland, Texas USA www.metric.org +1(432)528-7724 [email protected] On Sep 25, 2011, at 12:42, Jim Elwell <[email protected]> wrote: Folks: I am as pro-metric as anyone, but I cannot sign this petition. Since I have not posted much in a few years, before explaining why, here is some info about me: I founded a manufacturing company (QSI Corporation) in 1983, which I converted to metric around 1992 (also when we joined the USMA). I sold the company last November to a Swedish manufacturer (our website is now www.BeijerElectronicsInc.com). In addition to converting a manufacturing company to metric, I helped a dozen or so employees receive USMA CMS and CAMS certifications; I taught perhaps 150 employees the basics of the metric system; QSI distributed tens of thousands of metric rulers around the country (now available at the USMA home page); I have been on the USMA board of advisers for years; I also worked with numerous vendors helping them deal with our metric-only procurement documents (drawings, etc.). We had to do that a lot in 1992, but essentially all manufacturers of any size can handle metric today. (BTW, I would like to say that QSI being metric played a major role in a Swedish company buying us, but that would not be the case. Beijer was delighted that we were metric, as it eases the integration, but they bought us for business reasons (i.e., our size, profitability, market penetration, key business strengths, etc.). If we had NOT been metric, they would still have bought us.) So, there are three primary reasons I cannot sign the petition: 1. I feel it is WAY too generic or un-actionable. "We petition the Obama administration to complete the US transition to the modern metric system." What specifically do you want them to do? Start issuing press releases with metric units? (Utterly useless.) Require federal agencies to procure in metric? (Extremely powerful, may need Congressional approval.) Require all businesses to use metric only? (Guarantees constitutional challenges.) In my thinking, being so unspecific has two negatives: it does not suggest to the Administration what direction they should consider, and leaves the door open to them doing stupid or ineffective things. 2. I have real heartburn over the "allowing us to manufacture items we could sell to the World." There is NOTHING stopping any company that wishes to from manufacturing items to "sell to the World." My company did it, starting when we were non-metric and had all of three employees (in late 1984). The barriers to companies converting to metric have nothing to do with any government barriers, and everything to do with individuals who run the companies seeing any benefit in converting. If there are so many market opportunities out there for companies that convert to metric, why haven't they already done so? 3. I also have heartburn over "We could increase our exports if we manufactured and sold using the metric system." Both the objection immediately above, plus the use of "we." "We" do not manufacture anything -- individual companies, run by individual persons, do. And it is those individuals who are in the position to know whether or not converting to metric would increase their export sales. The world is FAR too complex for even the brightest Administration to know even a tiny fraction of the issues that the millions of individual companies in the country have to deal with. My (prior) company exports to many countries (Canada, France, Japan, China, Brazil, etc.). When we receive an RFQ (request for quote) from a foreign country, it will frequently have certain metric requirements (e.g., cord has to be 2 meters long), but I cannot think of it ever happening that being a metric company gave us a significant advantage over other US non-metric companies (the exception would be a company that refused to comply with metric requirements (e.g., sells ONLY six-foot cords). In my opinion, the single most effective thing the Federal government could do to promote metrication in the US is simply to require that all federal procurement be done using the metric system. The Federal government is the single largest purchaser of goods and services in the entire world, and the millions of US businesses that scramble for government contracts would rapidly metricate if they had to in order to sell to the Federal government. A petition along those lines is one I could support. Jim Elwell From: "Michael Payne" <[email protected]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:06:22 PM Subject: [USMA:51140] Re: White House Petition As of Saturday 14:00 ET there were 80 signatures, there has to be 150 for the general public to even see this apparently, so I'd like to ask everyone to open an account and vote. We need to get this out to the American public. Thanks Mike Paye On 24/09/2011, at 24:03 , Harry Wyeth wrote: > I signed it, but 41 signatures is pretty pathetic. Let's get on it! > > HARRY WYETH > > > On 9/23/11 1515:15, Michael Payne wrote: >> Please go to http://wh.gov/gw1 I need 150 signatures to keep it on the list, >> 5000 to get the White House to pay attention. >> >> Mike Payne > -- Beijer Electronics, Inc. Jim Elwell | Technical Product Manager [email protected] 2212 South West Temple #50 | Salt Lake City | Utah | 84115 | USA | 801-466-8770 | Fax 801-466-8792 -- Beijer Electronics, Inc. Jim Elwell | Technical Product Manager [email protected] 2212 South West Temple #50 | Salt Lake City | Utah | 84115 | USA | 801-466-8770 | Fax 801-466-8792
