Thread Subject: Re: Buying a non-conformant test product

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: Thu, Jan 25 2007 6:30 AM

"When items are acquired by the government for evaluation purposes,
including Section 508 compliance, items which meet any of the range of
compliance from none to full may be purchased. Such items must be clearly
identified in the solicitation along with Section 508 compliance evaluation
criteria. The government shall not reuse such items for standard operations
until results of Section 508 compliance evaluations are complete and a final
selection has been completed. Only items which "best meet" the evaluation
criteria can then be reused for standard operations."

This sounds very straight forward. However from the vendor's viewpoint they
are left hanging. If we are going to add this statement then there needs to
be a time limit for the 508 evaluation.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:10 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Buying a non-conformant test product

David and Norman:

I know where this thread is coming from, but lets consider outcomes of
recommendations for updates to the standard here.

rather than considering if it is good practice to allow purchase of
items for Section 508 assessment, lets look at this from the perspective
of if a standard can set that inclusion or exclusion. I don't think the
Section 508 law in spirit or letter really was intended to say items
should only be perceived for compliance from the vendors representation,
and the government reserves the right to examine items for use as
regular business. There should not be a restriction on this for Section
508 compliance, and in fact if it will expedite people, we should make a
simple statement to clarify this situation in subpart-A.

For example:

Note this sounds more like FAR language to me, but here it is.

When items are acquired by the government for evaluation purposes,
including Section 508 compliance, items which meet any of the range of
compliance from none to full may be purchased. Such items must be
clearly identified in the solicitation along with Section 508 compliance
evaluation criteria. The government shall not reuse such items for
standard operations until results of Section 508 compliance evaluations
are complete and a final selection has been completed. Only items which
"best meet" the evaluation criteria can then be reused for standard
operations.





Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Robinson,
Norman B - Washington, DC
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 6:08 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Buying a non-conformant test product

David,

Certainly we've had trials where we didn't purchase the products
but had to obtain the products for a trial to determine the Section 508
compliance (along with verification the software met our other business
needs and performed in the environment as expected and represented by
the vendor). We've also paid for support during such trials (where
integration and learning the product was important to our evaluation and
the vendor might incur costs to support our evaluation). It is not
usually the case we would make a purchase to evaluate; the procurement
process rarely requires such an event and during evaluation I would
characterize any vendor not willing to work with us, well, isn't willing
to work with us.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 5:58 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Buying a non-conformant test product


I find it interesting that the fed will purchase a product in order
to determine whether it will allow them to meet their obligation.
There must be a better solution than to purchase a product to find that
out. I have been approached a few times to test and was told that in
order to do so, I'd have to purchase the product.. They not only lost a
sale to me, they did not get their product to the fed. I understand
that companies need to make money and I understand that the fed has
powerful tools I think that there needs though to be a better way to
work this rrelationship.

On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:

The purpose of the purchase is to determine accessibility, so requiring
it be determined ahead of the purchase would be fundamentally something
other than the purchase intended.



Allen Hoffman

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Baquis
David
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:27 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Buying a non-conformant test product

Ok let me respond to all three of you:

Tom:
The product was not evaluated yet. The product may or may not be
conformant. It is not known yet in this scenario. But if it is not
508-conformant, the agency does not want to get in trouble for getting a
sample to figure out whether it is accessible or not.

Allen:
What does fundamental alteration have to do with this? Let's assume that
the product could be made accessible, if the developer had considered
accessibility. The problem is that the agency does not want to be caught
in a Catch 22 situation where it needs to determine if a product is
accessible, but does not want to receive a complaint for having procured
a test sample that may be inaccessible.

Barbara:
I don't know what eventually happened. I assume that sometimes agencies
do a risk analysis and believe that this will not likely generate a
complaint and then cross their fingers.

David Baquis
Accessibility Specialist
U.S. Access Board
1331 F Street, NW, #1000
Washington, DC 20004
800-USA-ABLE; (202) 272-0013 (voice)
www.access-board.gov; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

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