Thread Subject: Re: teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 6, Issue 59
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: Baker, Robert C.
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2007 6:40 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Baker, Robert C.: "Re: teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 6, Issue 53"
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
>>> My concern with this new language is that it sounds very loose and
interpretation. Maybe I'm just not familiar with the terminology.
>>>What does "agency's identified business and technical requirements"
Is this the specs in the RFP? Or a broader "value" list?
>>> Are these documented somewhere? It sounds pretty open ended.
apply required and generally accepted procurement procedures in
accordance with governing procurement regulations to procurement
decision-making regarding such products.
Response: These are the procurement specific requirements that are
included with the procurement solicitation (e.g. RFP,RFQ,IDIQ, bpa,
etc.) Given that these requirements are unique to each purchasing
needed - they are not easy to specify beforehand. They may include, but
not exclusively, mandatory functionality, interoperability,
architecture, security, privacy, service requirements. The guidelines
for gathering business and technical requirements are defined in the
>>>If we move to the FAR and to generally accepted practices ? isn't
that less than what the old standards called for?
Response: I am not recommending a change to the FAR - just a
clarification to the Section 508 standards to reflect the instructions
already provided in the FAR. As I have said before, agencies do not buy
technology that is compliant with Section 508 without consideration
given for meeting mandatory business and technical needs described in
- Next message in Thread: Baker, Robert C.: "Re: teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 6, Issue 53"
- Previous message in Thread: None