In January 1994, the National Institute of Building Sciences completed a preliminary report for the Army Corps of Engineers, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs on seven federal metric construction projects. The report's findings were summarized in the March-April 1994 issue of Metric in Construction. Two projects were complete at that time: the General Services Administration warehouse, Denver, Colorado ($900,000) and the border patrol station, Sasabe, Arizona ($3 million).
Recently, the Institute followed up on the five remaining projects and looked at two new projects as well: the Richmond Federal Center renovation, Richmond, Virginia ($13 million); the Department of Veterans Affairs data center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ($70 million); the Federal Bureau of Investigation regional office building, Washington, D.C. ($60 million); the federal courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri ($185 million); the federal courthouse, Kansas City, Missouri ($90 million); the federal courthouse, Tampa, Florida ($40 million); and the Census Bureau computer center, Bowie, Maryland ($28 million).
The findings and lessons learned from these projects are substantially unchanged from those presented in the preliminary report but they bear repeating:
Design Costs. The design fees for two of the early projects were slightly higher than they would have been had the projects been designed conventionally. In both cases, small fee increases were granted because government standards had not yet been converted to metric units and the architect/engineer had to make the necessary conversions.
Construction Costs. Seven of the nine projects came in on or below budget, following a bid pattern similar to that of nonmetric projects let during the same time period. The border station project, located in a remote area, was awarded slightly above the government cost estimate. The Kansas City courthouse had a negotiated contract that was initially well over budget but for reasons having little to do with metrication.
Because only total costs are considered in competitively bid jobs, it is difficult to determine if specific metric products cost more than their inch-pound counterparts. Nevertheless, the findings concerning these nine projects (and many others bid to date) continue to indicate that metrication adds little to overall project costs.
The Metric Learning Curve. Designers and builders had to make an extra effort on their first metric job, resulting in a temporary reduction in productivity until everyone "got up to speed." Metric usage required extra time, care, and attention to detail. Rethinking familiar practices, particularly in the early stages of a project, was necessary and time had to be allowed for this. After the initial learning period, however, the advantages of the metric system became evident: it was easier and faster to use and resulted in fewer errors.
Metric Experience. Although it was not critical to have someone with metric experience on the project team, it helped. Experienced personnel gave everyone more confidence in making the many small decisions involved in the conversion process and their guidance reduced the impact of conversion on productivity, project costs, and schedules. On one project, for instance, the contractor's superintendent had previous metric experience and was able to help subcontractors interpret construction documents and prepare shop drawings.
Project Selection. An organization's early metric projects should be as large as possible because large projects provide time for everyone on the job to learn the metric system thoroughly (in fact, they cannot avoid learning it). Large projects also provide the volume orders required to purchase metric products without a cost premium. Small projects may not offer these advantages. The cutoff point varies depending on the nature of the project, but the GSA Philadelphia Region indicates that even projects of a few hundred thousand dollars sometimes can be executed in metric units without difficulty. Projects under $100,000 may be feasible if they do not require the small amounts of metric materials that could carry a premium price.
Architectural Design. Architects had little difficulty learning to design in metric units. The preparation of specifications, however, took more time and effort because the availability of metric products had to be researched and non-metric product specifications converted. As architectural firms convert their in-house specification systems and product manufacturers convert their literature, this problem will disappear.
Structural Engineering. There were no reported problems in the area of structural design. Some firms performed calculations using inch-pounds, converted the answers to metric units, and then completed the structural details.
Mechanical Engineering. There were no reported problems in the area of mechanical design. A number of firms used mechanical design software programs that calculated in metric units.
Cost Estimating. A conversion error in an early cost estimate for one project was the only reported problem associated with cost estimating.
Computer-aided Design and Drafting. Computer-aided design and drafting (CADD) programs made conversion easy because users could readily work in metric scales and units.
Codes and Standards. Few problems were encountered in this area since most codes and standards contain metric units. In one case, a building inspector was reluctant to review metric plans. In another, a product specification was based on tests of inch-pound assemblies, which resulted in the need for extra research on the part of the specifier.
Jobsite Training. Interestingly, tradesmen are adapting to metric usage so readily that jobsite training has not been widely used. Of course, everyone on the job must be equipped with metric measuring tapes.
Metric Tools. Metric measuring tapes were not provided to the trades on one project, causing confusion and delays. The availability of metric tools must be ensured. On one project, the contractor supplied metric measuring tapes to everyone and insisted that metric terms be used in all job-site discussions, a strategy that proved successful.
Reverse Conversion. A mistake by a contractor in converting metric dimensions back to inch-pounds led to a significant ordering error on one project. Continuous effort is needed to discourage reverse converting.
Shop Drawings. Shop drawing submittals have been the only metric-related problem on the jobsite; a higher rate of shop drawing rejections and a significant number of mark-ups have been reported. In a few instances, subcontractors submitted metric shop drawings but used drawings with dual notations in the field. A metric orientation program for subcontractors prior to the beginning of a job can reduce such problems.
Building Products. Some project participants were concerned that metric modular products (brick, block, drywall, plywood, suspended ceiling components, and raised floor systems) might not be available locally or produced by enough manufacturers to promote competitive bidding. However, all product availability concerns have been resolved with no project delays or increased costs. On several jobs, the lack of availability or the increased cost of metric block became an issue and inch-pound block was substituted.
A limited number of metric construction products may cost more due to a relatively low level of competition or production capacity. Project designers must contact suppliers during the design stage to ensure that the products being considered are available locally.
Building product data increasingly are available in metric units. Some manufacturers have always provided metric data. Others have begun to add it to their catalogs and advertising literature. Discussions with manufacturers during the development of product specifications help ensure a competitive supply of metric components. Effective communication among designers, managers, contractors, subcontractors, and manufacturers and the identification of critical metric dimensions will reduce contractor requests for product specification changes.
Systems Furniture. Office furniture systems are manufactured in inch-pound modules but will work in metric layouts if care is taken in choosing the appropriate module sizes. Problems can be minimized by avoiding shortcuts and checking calculations.
Utilities. Local government and utility records are not maintained in metric units and local authorities may require submittals in inch-pound units. On one project, the utility company resisted reviewing metric drawings.
Clients and Tenants. Clients and tenants often have difficulty understanding space requirements when metric units are used. Allow for the extra time needed to assist them in this regard.
Federal Commitment. Many study participants emphasized the need for the federal government to show an unequivocal commitment to metrication. Only a strong federal commitment will provide the necessary incentive for the construction industry to smoothly convert to the metric system.
Positive Approach. A positive approach to metric construction seems to work best. It involves:
The above findings are excerpted from Nine Metric Construction Case Studies. The full report is available for $15 (including shipping and handling) from the National Institute of Building Sciences, 1201 L St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20005; phone 202-289-7800. Major credit cards and phone orders are accepted.
Here are new entries to add to the metric resources listed in the July-August 1995 Metric in Construction newsletter:
The following letter is from Otto Schick, formerly of the General Services Administration's Philadelphia Region and now living and working in Germany. Mr. Schick wrote the M2 Metric Design Guide, probably the most widely used metric design document in the United States, and has been a seminal figure in the metrication of federal construction. He was GSA's project manager for the $70 million Veterans Administration data center project in Philadelphia, now well on its way to completion. The project came in under budget and has had virtually no metric-related problems. It is the first large commercial building in the United States built using the metric system.
Dear Friends and Colleagues,
After many years of wanting to live and work in Europe, I was fortunate to be offered a position last October with the Army Corps of Engineers near Frankfurt, Germany. My jobs takes me to design and construction projects all over Germany. The work is not only challenging but it gives me a great chance to experience another culture first hand and to refine my German.
Late in 1989 I attended my first meeting with Tom Rutherford and a handful of others interested in moving forward on federal construction metrication. At the time we had little more than a vision, a few small GSA metric pilot projects, and the 1988 amendments to the Metric Usage Act. Now, seven years later, almost all federal construction programs are converted to the metric system and most agencies are designing and building in metric units.
Those intervening seven years were special for me. As a young GSA project manager, I was given full reign and support by some forward thinking supervisors to experiment with progressively larger metric projects that culminated in the Veterans Administration project.
Over time, my metric work brought me into contact with design and construction professionals throughout the country who shared the common goal of adopting the metric system.
I'm mindful of the many people who, through their persistence and dedication, helped chart the course of conversion by initiating metric pilot projects, converting handbooks and specifications, developing standards, introducing new products, and doing the thousand other tasks, big and small, necessary to make metric construction a reality.
Now I'm living in a country where everything is built in the universal language of the metric system. I can assure you that when your organization has finished its conversion you'll find your efforts well worthwhile.
Thanks for the support you gave me and I hope our paths cross again. Maybe I'll see some of you in the beer tents in Munich next Oktoberfest! Meanwhile, please keep in touch: Otto Schick, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CMR 410, Box 91, APO AE 09096; telephone 011 49 611 816 2510; fax 011 49 611 816 2531; e-mail schicko@smtp.tad.usace.army.mil.