Thread Subject: Re: TEITAC Telecom Sub:Assurance of ADA Compliance

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: Tom Brett
Date: Tue, Jan 23 2007 5:10 AM

The problem with this is that the product is already in the government's office and may have been operational for months or years before it is discovered that it does not meet some or any of the standards. It would really make no sense to have the product removed. Other agencies have significantly stronger wording that is attached to the purchase order. In the subpart-a subcommittee there was a long and interesting discussion regarding the procuremnt process.

Basically a procurement should work this way:

1. Someone identifies a need to purchase a new telephone system.
2. The specific needs of the purchase are documented. These needs become the business needs or requirements.
3. At this point in time the specific 255 and 508 standards are attached to the needs document.
4. The procurement official sends the solicitation for bids.
5. 3 companies reply to the bid.

The first company meets all of the 255 and 508 standards but does not meet all of the business requirements. This company is immediately removed from consideration because the business needs of the government outweigh the accessibility needs.

The second company meets the business needs and meet 3/4 of the accessibiltiy needs. The last company meets the business needs and 1/2 of the accessibility needs but at a cost significantly less that the second company. The government could use one of the allowable exception in the standards called commercial non availability which means there is no product in the market place that meets the agency's business needs and meets all of the accessibility standards.

In this scenario the government would choose the 3rd company. If at a later date it was determined that the response to the solicitation was false or misleading then supposedly the government would take some sort of action to get the issue resolved.

Assuming that the agency procured a product that met the business needs and failed to consider the accessibility standards, only some one who is directly affected (public or employee) who has a disability would be able to challenge the purchase thru the Rehabilitation Act. Effectively a non-disabled person would not have any standing to question the action...of course unless that person is representing the disabled individual.


-------------- Original message --------------
From: Jagbell < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

>
> Hi Everyone-
>
> The following is the link to the section of NEA's website that
> contains the assurance of compliance with the ADA.
>
>
> http://www.nea.gov/grants/apply/GAP08/AwardAdministration.html#legal
>
> Why could this not be done for every federal procurement?
>
> Best,
>
> Janice
>

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