Thread Subject: Re: Draft Questions

Note

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: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Dec 26 2006 5:35 PM

Terry: So are you suggesting 1194.2(b), the "best meets" language of Subpart A, be eliminated?

Diane Golden

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 3:55 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions



We need to remember that the TEITAC has a very specific function - providing recommendations for updates to the accessibility standards issued under Sections 508 and 255. We do not have control of the FAR or how agencies implement the FAR.

Acquisition regulations (such as the FAR) are responsible for ensuring that the government meets its need for as balanced by a myriad of regulations. Trying to trump that by creating an inflexible requirement (i.e. buy this product that meets a core set of requirements or buy nothing) misses the point that agencies are required by law to fulfill the mission for which they were created. They need products, they need standards and they need to be able to easily buy products that meet standards. If we can remove the need for agency buyers to become Section 508 experts to deduce what "best meets" means, we will go a long way to creating an environment where agencies don't have to trade off provisions against business needs.





"Cannady TJ" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
12/22/2006 01:36 PM Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
cc
Subject Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions







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, âundue burdenâ 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 âhot buttonâ 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.

TJ Cannady

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 10:24 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

Concern about "blending" (accessibility, business need, functional performance, cost and how that was to be done consistently) was exactly what started this disscussion strand. The idea was to see if it was possible to identify a set of mandatory access standards that would be applied in a "must meet or you don't buy" approach rather than blended in with other factors in procurement decision making. At this point there doesn't appear to be any consensus on that alternative . . . which seems to leave back at square one.

Diane Golden

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 6:28 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

I have a concern that the âblendingâ approach is already being abused â even when classically not allowed.

Hmmmm.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:04 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions
"I agree that Subpart A should maintain the flexibility to allow each agency's business experts to determine the product that best meets the criteria they are evaluating, including Section 508."

Herein lies the problem, Subpart A as currently written is not flexible and does not include consideration of other issues outside of accessibility. It says "each agency shall procure products which comply with the provisions in this part when such products are available in the commercial market place" or when no product on the marketplace meets all of the standards "the agency must procure the product that best meets the standards." Taken at face value, Subpart A says agencies must buy products which conform 100% or buy the product that best meets the standards if products at the 100% conformance level are not available. Subpart A does not currently provide flexibility to consider other issues such as business need, cost, etc. While that is what is happening in real life -- it is not consistent with a plain reading of Subpart A.

If the consensus is to continue the current "blending" of considerations related to accessibility, business need, cost, etc., then Subpart A should be revised to accurately reflect that practice rather than describe an application that is not occurring. And of course it would be most helpful if the "blending" of considerations was a transparent and well described process so folks external to the procurement process could have some understanding of how those different factors are considered and weighed in the final decision.

Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 2:33 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions
Aubrey Woolley wrote:

" The reference to other federal government procurement requirements such as Buy America Act (BAA), Trade Agreements Act (TAA), and green purchasing requirements (i.e.Energy Star, FEMP* Standby Power, and RCRA*) is much appreciated. Security is another critical issue for many agencies.

It is important to keep sight of the context in which compliance with Section 508 takes place during the procurement process. For this reason, I agree that Subpart A should maintain the flexibility to allow each agency's business experts to determine the product that best meets the criteria they are evaluating, including Section 508. "

I agree, and what I'd like to determine is how acquisitions balance all these competing laws as a rule, and then apply that standard balancing procedure to 508 and see how it works.

I think there will never be a perfect formula for "be smart", and this is where the whole "sufficient techniques" component would help if we get input from Federal acquisitions folks. A question I have is, would Federal acquisitions folks actually read such a sufficient techniques document when considering Section 508 "balancing", as their bible is the Federal Acquisition Regulations, (FAR), and their local "AR"s.

Allen hoffman
Department of Homeland Security Office on Accessible Systems & Technology

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University