Thread Subject: Re: Best meets

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, Mar 21 2007 8:10 AM

I think the posts both look good also. My only question is how 'business
and technical' gets interpreted. From the discussions it seems to range
from "the basic things that must be met for the product to meet our needs"
all the way to "all the things we might weigh in making a purchase".



Clearly 508 doesn't come before the first or it would be a fundamental
change in the function of the RFP.

But when people talk about 508 just being another business value..



Perhaps we just say that the order of application should be



A)

1) the technical and business requirements as expressed in the RFP

2) the requirements as expressed in the 508 regulations

3) any other values



or



B)

1) the technical and business requirements as expressed in the RFP
including 508 standards

2) any other values





but NOT:



C)

1) the technical and business requirements as expressed in the RFP

2) 508 standards along with any other values














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

_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:19 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Best meets




At the risk of sounding like a mutual admiration society, I agree both with
Robert's post below and Allen Hoffman's on the same subject. I don't think
that we need to change the language in the FAR because it provides the
flexibility agencies need. At SSA, we can see that Robert has added to the
FAR requirements, a perfectly legitimate and approved process. If we start
trying to craft "tight" language, we absolutely run the risk of unintended
consequences and could very well undo the efforts of leading agencies such
as SSA. Including a best practice recommendation in the TEITAC report would
serve the purpose far better, in my humble opinion.






"Baker, Robert C." < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

03/21/2007 07:57 AM


Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


cc




Subject

[teitac-subparta] Best meets











As Terry Weaver notes in a previous thread, the FAR does not provide any
guidance on a "decision tree," "priority scoring", or other type of
"preferential rating scheme" that holds any mandatory business or
technical requirement over another. Because each procurement is
different, an argument can be made that the FAR could not be effectively
implemented if it imposed a mandatory decision logic on how every
procurement is evaluated. But this is a tangent, and one that Terry
Weaver can speak to far better than I can.

Within the non-fed community - there seems to be the expectation that
Section 508 standards are/should be given a higher priority than other
requirements, and that this requirement should be stated in the 508
standards.

At SSA, we gather information on what is available to meet business
needs and accessibility needs in the market research phase. Under most
cases, we typically find products that meet our mandatory business needs
and technical needs, and that fully meet the Section 508 standards.
In these circumstances we buy one of the products that fully meet all
the mandatory business and technical requirements and fully meet all
applicable standards - using a best value determination.

If we move into a formal procurement solicitation (RFP, RFQ, etc.), we
first evaluate products from each vendor who responded to the
solicitation against our mandatory business and technical requirements.
When we find one or more products that fully meet the mandatory business
and technical requirements stated in the solicitation, we create a
"short list". We then evaluate the products on the "short list" for 508
compliance. At this point we have three "decision trees". Decision
Tree One: If one or more products that fully meet our mandatory business
and technical requirement are ALSO fully Section 508 compliant - we buy
one of these (regardless of non-mandatory requirements, cost, or other
best value factors). Decision Tree Two: If none of the products that
fully meet our mandatory business and technical requirements are ALSO
fully Section 508 compliant, then we choose the product that fully meets
our mandatory business and technical requirements AND best meets the
applicable Section 508 standards (one again, regardless of non-mandatory
requirements, costs or other best value factors). Decision Tree
Three: If none of the products fully meet our mandatory business and
technical requirements, we will include Section 508 in an overall "best
value" analysis. Our weighting for individual business and technical
requirements differs based on the nature of the procurement, however our
goal is to place a high rating on Section 508 compliance.

Now, this is how SSA has chosen to implement Section 508 in our agency.
What we are doing is well within the FAR guidelines - BUT NOT REQUIRED
by the FAR in terms of how we "prioritize" 508 in the decision making
process. I have shared this example to show that the FAR already
provides the latitude for a federal agency to create a "tiered"
decision process to factor in Section 508 (such as the one we created at
SSA). However, it is important to note that because the FAR does not
define a required tiered decision process - is it appropriate for the
Section 508 standards to try and create one on a de facto basis?

Which leads me to why I appended Deborah's proposed language as follows:

(b) When procuring a product, each agency shall procure products that
comply
with the provisions in this part when such products are available in the
commercial marketplace and the product's utility and performance meet
the
agency's identified business and technical requirements. Agencies may
apply
required and generally accepted procurement procedures in accordance
with
governing procurement regulations to procurement decision-making
regarding
such products.

(c) Agencies cannot claim a product as a whole is not commercially
available because no product in the marketplace meets all the standards.
If
products are commercially available that meet some, but not all of the
standards, the agency must select the product that best meets the
agency's
business and technical needs as well as all the applicable Section 508
standards.

The main point here is that business and technical requirements matter.
It appears that the non-fed community needs to see that this is the
case. This statement does not need to be part of the Section 508
standards from a fed perspective (as I mention above - the FAR already
provides the latitude for agencies to factor in Section 508 in their own
decision tree as aggressively as they want to). However, from an
educational perspective, it may be helpful to non-feds understand that
Section 508 is not the exclusive "most important" decisioning criteria
used when making a purchase decision - as the current wording in the 508
standards may lead some to believe without further clarification.

May I propose a new way to frame this discussion
1: Should the 508 standards even mention that the agency's business and
technical requirements are considered?
2: Is it appropriate for the Section 508 standards to try and append
the existing FAR ruling with any pre-defined decision logic related to
Section 508.
- What are the implications of doing either 1 or 2.

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