Thread Subject: Voting machine procurement litigation

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: Diane Golden
Date: Mon, Mar 26 2007 2:10 PM

I just excerpted and pasted in a few sentences about a new lawsuit in
Massachusetts related to their procurement of "accessible" voting machines.
While the standards for accessibility used should have been either the FEC
2002 or the VVSG access standards, rather than 508, the issues are exactly
what the Subpart A group has been struggling to address. How does "best
value" drive a procurement decision and how does conformance to
accessibility standards fit into that scheme with cost, company
experience/expertise and conformance with other technical requirements?

-- One of the nation's top manufacturers of voting machines is taking the
state to court Monday to try to block distribution of machines for the
disabled in Massachusetts, saying it was unfairly denied the lucrative
contract. An attorney for Diebold Election Systems Inc. said the company
should have been awarded the $9 million contract if Secretary of State
William Galvin followed his own criteria when deciding which firm the state
should contract with for the new machines. "Diebold's proposal provided the
best value to the commonwealth," said William Weisberg, an attorney for
Diebold. "We believe that using those criteria correctly Diebold should have
received the award." Those criteria include cost, the ability of the
company to meet the scope of the request, and the degree to which the
machines met technical requirements. --

Maybe Barbara and/or Joe have more info on this litigation?

Diane Golden
NASCIO

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