Thread Subject: Re: 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: terry.weaver@gsa.gov
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 6:15 AM

The problem with any best value determination is that a non-successful
offeror can always state that their proposal was the best value. I have
been in a best value protest (and our award was sustained - the protest
denied) that had nothing to do with accessibility. If state procurement
law is anything like the Federal, the protestor is operating under the
limited information that they received in a post-award debriefing. You
know your extensive due diligence in determining the technical ranking and
with any luck, so will the judge.

I do feel your pain, however; I lost 3 months (weekends included) to
defend our award.





"Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
03/26/2007 05:23 PM
Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = , "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-subparta] Voting machine procurement litigation






Massachusetts went through a detailed and extensive process to decide on
which machines the Secretary of State would approve. The process
included technical specifications on accessibility and accuracy, as well
as usability reviews. Several test runs were also conducted to surface
and problems before a general election. Although we are not named in
the lawsuit, my agency was part of the selection process, and we feel
everything humanly possible was done to comply with HAVA.

One can never protect oneself from being sued, only from being sued
successfully. We'll keep you posted as the case develops.

Barbara Lybarger

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:14 PM
To: TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)
Cc: David Baquis (E-mail); David Capozzi (E-mail)
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Voting machine procurement litigation

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