At the moment Concrete Construction is not prepared to take an editorial position for or against metrification, a fact which will scarcely bring joy or despair to either the supporters or the opponents of the movement. But we think our readers will be interested in the following testimony given before the recent U.S. Metric Study Conference on Construction in behalf of the Consulting Conference on Construction. The CEC statement was prepared and delivered by Thomas R. Kuesel, partner in the engineering firm of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas. "I should like to address briefly one aspect of potential effects of adoption of the metric system not covered by the technical societies. It is unfortunately my observation that those government agencies that impose addition duties than those government agencies that approve reimbursement for costs associated with these requirements. I understand that any legislation mandating conversion to the metric system would provide reimbursement of costs. Unfortunately, most of the costs to the engineering profession would be difficult to segregate and identify, and would be largely absorbed in inefficiency and overhead. "We currently find that government agencies are exceedingly vigilant in monitoring the costs of engineering services, lest engineers be contaminate by having anything so unsavory as profit' accrue to their accounts. One gambit is the administrative ceiling on allowable overhead, whereby an agency decrees that event though individual items of direct costs are allowable, their total may not exceed an arbitrary percentage of direct costs. We many therefore confidently expect that even if the costs of metric conversion are specifically approved for reimbursement, some auditor or comptroller can be found who will declare that these costs are in excess of authorized ceilings, and thereby deemed to be part of the engineer's profit, along with interest on working capital, taxes, and costs of attending government hearings."