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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 11:00 PM

I believe the product first has to meet the specifications. Then the most
accessible wins. I don't see anywhere where it says that you have to
purchase the version that is most accessible but doesn't meet the needs of
the users.



Best value begins to sound like 'best price' which is an overlap with undue
burden.



"Best function" is a question - but specs should show what is needed..



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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 6:02 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

Sorry for the length of this, but if I can summarize --



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



I'd call that the Best Meets Access Standards approach where access trumps
everying but undue burden (which is primarily related to cost). In this
approach the degree of conformance to the access standards alone is the sole
decision making factor unless undue burden is applied. Regardless of
competition (or lack thereof) or the extent to which business needs are met
(or not), the product that meets the access standards to the greatest degree
is purchased. (Seems to be the plain reading of current Subpart A.)



"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."



This is more along the line of a Best Meets Access Standards plus Best Meets
Business Needs approach where there is a blending of business need ("is the
product up to the task") and accessibility as two factors to be considered
in the purchasing decision. This is not what Subpart A currently describes.
Language could be added to Subpart A adding business need to the application
something like "the agency must procure the product that best meets the
access standards and the business need requirements." There is also a
suggestion that there should be some kind of special weighting of
accessibility so it doesn't get unreasonably "trumped" by business need.
That would take some more language.



Neither of these is consistent with a Best Value approach which is typical
of most procurement policies. (I would guess Best Value is what the FAR
describes.) Best Value is a blended consideration of not only business need
and accessibility, but also cost. Once undue burden is off the table
related to cost (which will be the case in the vast majority of situations),
there will still be differences in cost between competing products. Best
Value considers those cost differences along with the degree to which
buisness needs are met and degree of conformance to access standards. It
would appear clear that providing clear guidance on the relative position
(weight, "pecking order") of each of these factors in a Best Value approach
would be helpful if not absolutely necessary.



I'm guessing from the listserv discussion, we have folks supportive of each
of these approaches and some iterations in between. We could just describe
the different approaches with all the pro's and con's and who supports which
for the Access Board and leave it at that. However, it would seem that not
resolving this issue will have an impact on the revision of the technical
access standards. In general, the more flexible the application (Best Value
approach), the more robust and subjective the access standards can be as
they are only a part of the purchasing decision. The more rigid the
application (Best Meets Access Standards), the less robust and subjective
the standards can be as they become the controlling factor in the purchasing
decision and you have to ensure an adequate pool of "accessible" products to
reasonably meet business needs.



No simple answers here . . .



Diane Golden, Ph.D.


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:19 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

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 =

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