Thread Subject: Re: Draft Questions

From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Tue, Jan 02 2007 7:00 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Draft Questions"
• Previous message in thread: Salaets, Ken: "Re: Draft Questions"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

The statutory language is pretty clear that 508 is meant to trump other
factors, except where an exemption applies. It would seem that the
regulatory language should go in a direction that makes it clear to FAR
that, as the Congress intended, enforce 508 does trumps a variety of
other factors.

Barbara Lybarger

_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 6:30 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions


Again I'm going to emphasize something Michael said --

"The problem with the "Best Meets" language is that it contradicts with
established procurement procedures by stating in effect that
accessibility trumps all other factors."

That in a nutshell is the issue with the current language of 1194.2(b).
The question seems to be does the TEITAC make any recommendations
regarding this language? If so, what should be recommended? Would
adding wording like "applied in accordance with the FAR or other adopted
agency procurement policies" or some similar type of reference into
1194.2 be a starting point?

Diane Golden

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Weinstein,
Michael
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 2:41 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions



Norman,

Thanks for the input. I believe Section 508 can reach its full
potential if effectively implemented consistent with established
procurement procedures. The IT market is fiercely competitive and a
procurement system that encourages vendors to develop innovative
accessibility solutions for their products would go a long way to
achieving the objectives of Section 508.

If accessibility is a factor in a "best value" determination vendors
would be encouraged to develop innovative accessibility solutions since
this can prove advantageous in the competition. Additionally, agencies
can weigh accessibility with the other factors to determine the best
product to meet its needs.

The problem with the "Best Meets" language is that it contradicts with
established procurement procedures by stating in effect that
accessibility trumps all other factors.

I am not a technical person but merely a procurement lawyer who strives
for consistency. It may be helpful to include language clarifying that
the relevant regulation is not intended to alter established procurement
procedures or something to that effect.








Michael Weinstein, Esq.
Contract Administrator
Systems Research and Applications Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary
of SRA International, Inc.
3434 North Washington Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22201
(P) 703-284-6165
(F) 703-284-1370
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

• Next message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Draft Questions"
• Previous message in Thread: Salaets, Ken: "Re: Draft Questions"