Thread Subject: Re: Not downgrading to 'best value'
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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Jan 08 2007 8:05 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: Not downgrading to 'best value'"
- Previous message in thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: Not downgrading to 'best value'"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I am leaving Greg's notes below in whole since they are all valid.
I would not recommend use of "best value" terminology as accessibility
isn't always the best value from a cost perspective.
I think what we need to do is define the priority of the accessibility
requirement if possible in the standard.
1194.2(b) might be changed to say:
When procuring electronic and information technology items each agency
shall procure items which comply with the provisions in this part when
such items are available in the commercial marketplace or when such
items are developed in response to a Government solicitation. Agencies
can't claim an item as a whole is not commercially available because no
item in the marketplace meets all the standards. If items are
commercially available that meet some but not all of the standards, the
agency must procure the item that meets more functional performance
criteria than any other, and also fully meets other agency requirements
which do not directly conflict with the standards. When items are
evaluated that consist of multiple items evaluation must be performed as
the whole of the set of multiple items. When evaluation of items which
provide varying functionalities and "best values", the agency must
procure the item(s) which meet more functional performance criteria than
any other set regardless of other extra functionalities, or cost
The ideas here are that often agencies evaluate "sets" of items, and the
those sets are often Apples and Oranges, so head-to-head evaluation is
not a numbers game. But in the end meeting functional performance
I'd like to see the loophole closed in this section regarding no
requirement to provide information and data in another way when items
are commercially nonavailable.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
DHS Office On Accessible Systems & Technology
- Next message in Thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: Not downgrading to 'best value'"
- Previous message in Thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: Not downgrading to 'best value'"