Thread Subject: Re: Draft Questions

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 2:20 PM

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

Hmmmm

I believe that accessibility is in fact a civil rights issue. So it would
trump other factors - up to the undue burden line.



However, it is not always possible, so it is not absolute. The government
will need to buy things that are not accessible if accessible versions do
not exist or are not up to the task at all. And even our guidelines do not
make things accessible to all.



But accessibility is not just another factor in the purchasing process. As
far as I understand, it was / is a fundamental decision that the congress
made that the federal electronic workplace be accessible to people with
disabilities when it is not an undue burden.


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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:26 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

I believe I agree with Karen, and if we can recommend clarifying language in
this regard we will be doing an enormous service to improving "access" to
information and data for people with disabilities. If we can clarify the
pecking order to some extent as is possible, it will be up to the FAR
council to adopt that clarified language into the far appropriately as they
see fit. If we provide more fundational language for the FAR council to
work with, the work will be easier for them down the road.







Allen Hoffman

DHS Office on Accessible Systems & technology






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Lybarger,
Barbara (MOD)
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:57 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

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: Karen Peltz Strauss: "Re: Draft Questions"
• Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Draft Questions"