Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms - Tyuana L. Butler

3/23/2001

Good morning,

Below are the comments of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms regarding the above referenced FAR case addressing implementation of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended.

We would be happy to discuss our comments in person or otherwise.

1. Agree with just about everyone else that there needs to be a FAR clause, which creates a standard accessibility requirements. Standard clause language would ensure a consistent approach throughout the FAR regulated community in the procurement of IT supplies and services, while letting each agency develop their own would only create confusion in the contractor community, delay the effective implementation of Section 508 compliance, and cost the taxpayer litigation costs that would be better spent developing improved accessibility solutions.

2. It is important that the term "Requiring Official" , as identified in 39.X04(2) (i) and (ii), be defined in FAR. Who is the requiring official on contracts and simplified acquisitions? Should the agency/bureau CIO designate the requiring officials? I could also see a role for Personnel offices to advise requiring officials. I strongly agree that the requiring official should be responsible for ensuring that SOW's and spec's comply with Section 508.

3. I think there should be further clarification with regard to implementation dates. If a CO starts requiring the 508 standards to be met on an existing contract that could constitute a cardinal change- appearing to subvert CICA, as well as leading to a REA. As I understand it, the date for absolute accessibility is June 21, 2001, and that is not reflected anywhere in the FAR.

4. What sort of "grandfathering" exceptions will be used with this rule? How are we in the FAR community to handle contracts that were awarded prior to June 21, 2001? This should be stated more clearly in Part 39 of the FAR.

5. This rule does not address IT accessibility in Part 8, which provides for acquiring goods and services through Required Sources. How will this be handled through GSA, UNICOR, or NISH for example. I don't believe it's prudent to assume that just because they are government agencies, they will follow suit.

6. As currently worded, the FAR changes in the proposed final rule published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2001 do not require vendors to self- certify that their products/services meet the accessibility standards published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000 by the Architectural and Transportation Barrier Compliance Board. Government buyers (purchasing agents and contracting officers) do not have the technical expertise to evaluate EIT product compliance with the approximately 54-pages of standards developed by the U.S. Access Board. Government evaluation of EIT products/services will significantly increase acquisition time. Suggest vendors be allowed to self-certify, in the same manner they are permitted to certify they are a small business. If the self-certification turns out to be invalid or false, then the vendor should be held liable.

7. Disagree with the notion that the CO should execute a D&F or justify when 508 accessibility standards are not yet available in a commercial product. I would hate for a CO to be left hanging (i.e., personally liable for exceeding his or her official authority) if a disabled person could not accessible a piece of equipment or a system.

Thank you, and have a great weekend,

Tyuana L. Butler
Chief, Acquisition Management Branch