Procurement Resources
EOWG Internal Notes
This is an initial draft of a page that we might want to put on the WAI-Engage wiki.
(Pending actions)
Thoughts on pros, cons, issues:
- summary — comment {name, 00-month-2014}
- EOWG 28 March 2014 minutes
- Participation — Since in the past, we have not been successful in getting much community participation, might we include a plan to do some specific outreach to people outside of EO? I am thinking of those who may be experienced in the procurement arena and willing to share resources, prompt additional participation, and act as even a kind of moderator. Any ideas for people to reach out to for that kind of role? {Sharron 3-April-2014}
- +1 to Sharron's comment. A few simple phone calls to procurement departments at university campuses and other government organizations would probably yield a goldmine of feedback. I spoke with a CSU colleague at the CSUN conference who is responsible for such decisions on his campus (Fresno) and he was very forthcoming about some of the things he does. If we go this route, we should ask specific questions of each respondent. [Paul 10-April-2014]
Content:
- Summary — Comment {name, 00-month-2014}
- Organization — Do we want to list these by country? or by type of organization (university, governmental body, commercial, non-profit/NGO, etc.)? or other? or in a matrix that has both? {Shawn, 28-March-2014}
- To my mind, organization by type of entity makes more sense than by country. {Sharron, 04-April-2014}
- Comment {Name, 00-Month-2014}
- Annotation — I think instead of just links, we want to include brief comments about each resource -- e.g., what type of organization it is for, if it have unique features, etc. {Shawn, 28-March-2014}
- +1 Agreed {Sharron, 04-April-2014}
- Comment {Name, 00-Month-2014}
Misc:
- Summary — Comment {Name, 00-Month-2014}
- goals — one idea is to help procurement people have a basic understanding, and encourage them to work with developers and project managers who know more {Shawn, 01-April-2014}
- An additional goal is to encourage the adoption or development of rubrics so that all buyers are talking the same language and have common understanding of accessibility requirements and how to meet them.{Sharron, 04-April-2014}
- policy — maybe best to avoid the term "policy" in our text & headings -- so as not to confuse with our Policy resources. {Shawn, 01-April-2014}
- Not sure I agree with this, since it is policy that most often drives the adoption of specific procurement practices. Need to help buyers feel that they have a place to stand when they make these requests of vendors, that they can refer back to an overarching policy for support of their accessibility requests to vendors. Is there another way to provide that? {Sharron, 04-April-2014}
- Existing Resources — State IT database - maintained by Georgia Tech: http://accessibility.gtri.gatech.edu/sitid/stateLawAtGlance.php. Looks like it may have last been updated in 2009 {Howard, 4-April-2014}
- Link to share: The role of public procurement in improving accessibility to ICT: http://telsoc.org/tja/2013-05-v63-n2/a412#Yamada_2007{Vicki, 9-April-2014}
- Comment {Name, 00-Month-2014}
Disclaimer
This is a community-generated web page with examples of procurement language to help build an accessible Web. These are not recommendations or endorsements from W3C or WAI, and should not be considered as legal advice. [internal note: above is based on language developed by W3C legal.]
Terminology
- ATM = Approach to Market
- ITT = Invitation To Tender
- RFP = Request for Proposal
- RFQ = Request for Quote
- RFT = Request for Tender
Simple RFP Language
- Web sites (including applications) will meet WCAG 2.0 Level AA success criteria. @@
- Authoring tool / SMSs / LMSs will meet ATAG 2.0 Level AA. @@
Accessible Procurement Resources
EOWG: Add examples from countries other than the US
Australia
- Specifying Accessibility requirements in Procurement documentation for Australian Government
- Government ICT Purchasing: What differences do accessibility criteria make for people with disabilities? from ACCAN (NGO)
Canada
- Accessible Procurement Toolkit Used by the Government of Canada. Set of rubrics, not easy to use. (NB. prepared by Chuck Letourneau - ex EOWG member)
- Ontario - Incorporate accessibility when procuring goods, services and facilities
European
- Mandate 376 - now EN 301 549 [ PDF of EN 301 549 V1.1.1 (2014-02)]
- Ireland
- Procurement and Accessibility (PDF)
- Accessibility Toolkit — for public sector staff: Consider accessibility when procuring
- IT Procurement toolkit - Principles of accessible procurement
- UK
- Procurement policy note 01/13: public sector equality duty
- PAS78: A Guide to Commissioning Accessible Websites
- country
- document
India
- Press release - October 3, 2013 National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility
- The strategy for implementation includes "Developing procurement guidelines for electronics and ICTs for accessibility and assistive needs"
U.S
- General
- Public Procurement of Accessible ICTs (PDF) - 2009 presentation by Cynthia Waddel at the "Asia-Pacific Regional Forum on Mainstreaming ICT Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities", Bangkok, Thailand
- Federal Govt
- BuyAccessible Wizard - US Government
- States
- Texas HHSC
- State of Illinois Recommendations for language, but no rubrics or process information.
- Universities
- CalState University System
- University of Washington
- San Diego State University Vague language, reference to VPAT, no process information
Introduction (Background)
Consider providing within any solicitation or RFP document brief accessibility background information that references the applicable W3C accessibility standards. These might include:
- For web sites and applications
- For authoring tools (Content Management Systems (CMS), Learning Management Systems (LMS), and much more):
- For browsers and assistive technologies: