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: mike paciello
Date: Thu, Dec 28 2006 5:05 PM

Thanks Gregg. We'll be sending out an updated outline of topics tomorrow. We
can add this to the list.

- Mike

_____

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Cc: 'Jim Tobais'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Creagan Tim'
Subject: RE: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions



This is a major decision if TEITAC is going to make recommendations as to
how the FAR should implement 508. If this is what the subgroup is
recommending then that should be on the agenda for the next TEITAC meeting.





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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:15 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

Jim:



I think if we do a good job clarifying what we intend in the current
sections 1194.1-5, the FAR council when convened will be more effective in
integrating our changes into existing FAR. Access to some acquisitions
minded people in the subpart-a committee would be helpful to hear how 508 is
considered in the whole perspective of requirements, and how it can be made
more clear.







Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:41 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Cc: 'Baquis David '; 'Creagan Tim'; 'Bailey Bruce'; 'Capozzi David'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

As much as I agree that this is an important issue and has been the subject
of abuse and inconsistency, I'm afraid it's in the category of "not in our
scope". Specifically, all policies and procedures about how to implement
508 is going to be refreshed -- or not -- by the FAR Council. This is why
not having them at our table, or at least in some formal liaison, is so
frustrating to me.



If anyone has a suggestion as to how to alleviate this problem, or a nice,
strong argument for why such implementation policies are within our purview,
I'd much appreciate it.




_____


From: Jessica M. Brodey [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:11 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

<Diane said:>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. <endquote>



I apologize for chiming in a bit late on this thread . . . but it seems some
of the issue is that we have some decisionmaking and prioritization
happening that is not articulated or guided in any way by statute or
procedures - it is quite haphazard, and as a result, we have quite arbitrary
enforcement of 508. We either need to take the approach that 508 must be
strictly construed and enforced, OR we need to recognize that there are
business factors and other factors in procurement that make that reality
impossible, and take action to provide guidance and articulate the "right"
or recommended path for best meeting the underlying goals of 508 while
addressing the business factors. The problem is that we have no
transparency or consistency in the process, and each entity is making it up
as they go along with little guidance. Gregg is correct that this type of
blending has led to abuse. If blending is a reality, then we need to figure
out how to recognize and acknowledge blending, and remove the abuse.
Perhaps guidance is the right way to do that.



Jessica





-----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 'blending' approach is already being abused - 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