Thread Subject: Re: Draft Questions
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Cannady TJ
Date: Fri, Dec 22 2006 11:40 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jessica M. Brodey: "Re: Draft Questions"
- Previous message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Draft Questions"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Hope this doesn't go out twice, but I inadvertently sent it out this
morning from my alias account.
Sorry for chiming in very late. There may be several reasons why
consensus cannot be reached. First, it is possible this discussion
really more the realm of the FAR rather the domain of the Access Board.
In terms of business needs, it is probably implied that government
should not be expending federal dollars on products or services that do
not meet its business needs. In terms of cost, "undue burden" provides
an avenue rich in case law that accounts for cost as a factor, but it
has never been too restrictive or prescriptive. The biggest roadblock
may be that the universe of procurement actions runs the gamut of
requirements in terms of scope, complexity, cost, etc. I cannot see a
practical way of marrying them and then quantifying these factors in a
way that could be reasonably implemented given this diversity. Aubrey
correctly points out a few areas of conflict in addition to other
competing interests such as security. In fact, 508 has now become one
of those new "hot button" requirements such as security and buying green
that have to be weighed on a case-by-case basis. These overarching
requirements are a moving target and government needs the flexibility to
weigh these factors in context with the specifics of the procurement.