1. Reducing Service Debt via Accessible Procurement
External Relations
University Services
Reducing Service Debt via Accessible Procurement
Andrew Normand

2. Request for Proposal - Benefits
Clearly identifies the requirements of a proposed product or service
Invites vendors to outline how their product or service meets those requirements
Facilitates comparison of vendor responses
Creates a basis for a contract
Provides consistency and transparency

3. Shortcomings of the RFP Process
Doesn't scale well for small projects
Time-consuming
Very text heavy
Doesn't ensure that the delivered product or service will be adequate
Emphasizes functional requirements over non-functional requirements

4. Procurement Challenges
Explaining why accessibility is important in language that people will understand, and
Providing practical measures that people can build into the procurement process.

5. Why Accessibility is Important
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities treats access to ICT as an integral part of human rights, on a par with access to buildings and transport
Increasingly, we only provide services online
So if users can’t access the service online, they can’t access the service

6. The Language of Procurement
Business requirements "We need to establish an online student portal."
Functional requirements "The student portal will contain display a list of links to student subjects."
Non-Functional requirements "The portal needs to be accessed by all students, including those with disabilities."
Footer

7. Accessibility Becomes Important

8. Accessibility Becomes Important

9. Assessing Risk

10. Types of Risk Project delivery Service disruption Financial loss
User experience
Complaints
Reputation
Core goals
Footer

11. Types of Risk
Project delivery
Service disruption
Financial loss
User experience
Complaints
Reputation
Core goals

12. Accessibility Risk Indicators
Low Risk
High Risk
Number of students who will access service
None
All students
Number of staff who will access service
< 100 staff
> 1000 staff
Project budget
< $50,000
> $50,000
Frequency of access
Yearly
Daily
Degree of educational benefits
Low
High
Affects student ability to seek admission or enrol No
Yes
Affects student ability to participate in courses or programs
Affects student use of facilities and services
Affects student participation in learning experiences
Affects student support services

13. RFP Process - Verification
Footer

14. Accessibility for All Users
RFP Statement
Describe how the solution supports accessibility for all users.
Evaluation Criteria
Has the Supplier provided a general statement on how the solution supports accessibility for all users, including those with disabilities?
Has the Supplier provided links to statements and information regarding the accessibility of its product?
Are accessibility features available by default for all users, or does accessibility have to be enabled in some way?

15. Accessibility for All Users
RFP Response
Meaning
"Our product is designed with WCAG 2.0 AA in mind."
We have heard about WCAG, but haven't fully implemented it yet.
"Our product is complaint, except for exceptions."
We know our product has problems, but we haven't fixed them yet.
"We have added an extra level of accessibility."
We have invented a new way of coding standard web components.

16. Comply with WCAG 2.0 Level AA
RFP Statement
Provide a statement of how the solution complies with WCAG 2.0 Level AA including any known areas of non-compliance.
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluate statement against AS EN :2016, Accessibility requirements suitable for public procurement of ICT products and services.
Evaluate as per the protocols of the standard.

17. Comply with WCAG 2.0 Level AA
What to look for
Evidence that vendor has audited their product
Vendor has identified some defects
Testing involving users with disabilities
Timeline established for remediation of defects
Limitations of WCAG
WCAG 2.0 is designed to identify defects in web content. Almost every web site or web application has some defect. As a result, most honest responses from vendors are likely to result in a rating of 'Does not comply' or 'Partial compliance'.

18. Accessibility of the Solution
RFP Statement
Supplier to choose from one of the following:
The Supplier has not come across accessibility issues and has no particular knowledge of accessibility issues.
The Supplier has not found sufficient customer demand to acquire a basic knowledge.
The Supplier is aware of accessibility and is to some extent prepared for action on an ad hoc basis.
The Supplier has competence in developing and supplying an accessible solution.
Accessibility guidelines are well-known and applied.

19. Accessibility of the Solution
What to look for
Pro: Details of staff responsible for accessibility.
Pro: Corporate policy on accessibility.
Pro: Evidence that accessibility policies are applied.
Con: Vendors who rate themselves as a 3, 4 or 5 but don't have evidence of their accessibility activities
Con: Vendors who state that they have a high accessibility capacity, but still have a number of defects in their product

20. ATAG & Document Export RFP Statement - ATAG
Describe how the solution supports the authoring of accessible content in accordance with ATAG.
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluate response against ATAG 2.0
RFP Statement – Document Export
Describe how any documents exported comply with WCAG 2.0 Level AA and are accessible using assistive technology.

21. RFP Process - Validation

22. Validating High-Risk Proposals
RFP Statement
Suppliers are required to provide access to a standard configured environment to enable the University to confirm compliance with accessibility requirements. The objective of this environment is for the University to confirm compliance with accessibility requirements in accordance with standard WCAG 2.0 Level AA. The environment will not be used to assess functionality, performance or any other aspect of the solution. If there are multiple modules, please provide access to all the modules.

23. Validating High-Risk Proposals
Objectives
Identify WCAG 2.0 AA Failures
Identify which issues are likely to have the highest impact
Identify which items are easily fixed.
Assess the ability of the vendor to self identify defects.
Identify the accessibility capacity of the vendor, i.e. how much of an effort have they made to make their product accessible.

24. Validating High-Risk Proposals

25. Validating High-Risk Proposals

26. Validating High-Risk Proposals
Low Cost Validation
Sometimes you don't have access to an accessibility expert or a users
A low cost alternative to manual auditing is automated testing.
Siteimprove Accessibility Checker - Chrome plugin
aXe - Chrome plugin

27. Rating and Award Criteria

28. Rating and Award Criteria

29. Rating and Award Criteria

30. Rating and Award Criteria

31. Rating and Award Criteria

32. Rating and Award Criteria

33. Alternative Access
Accessibility is not the only consideration in the procurement process.
Sometimes the preferred solution will have accessibility defects.
Accessibility defects should be raised during contract negotiations.
Procedures for providing alternative access should be determined prior to the solution going live.

34. Contracts Benefits of Including Accessibility in Contracts
Responsibilities of both parties to the contract are clearly defined.
The contract matches the requirements in the RFP.
Vendors who claim accessibility should have no trouble agreeing to it in the contract.
Vendors will not be able to charge extra later to fix defects.
Contact conditions offer protection in the event of a complaint.

35. Contracts Accessibility Where Deliverables comprise or incorporate:
an Internet or intranet application, or
content, interfaces (both for administrators and end-users), or documents that will be available on the Internet or an intranet, the Supplier must ensure that that component of the Deliverables conforms to at least “Level AA” of the WCAG 2.0.

36. Contracts Accessibility
Where a Deliverable does not comply with “Level AA” of the WCAG 2.0, the University may, acting in its discretion:
require the Supplier to promptly respond to and remedy any non-compliance; and
withhold 5% of the Fees that relate to that Deliverable until the Deliverable is compliant with “Level AA” of the WCAG 2.0.

37. Contracts Accessibility
Without limitation, if the Supplier fails to comply with clause [Insert number of clause dealing with notification of non-compliance], the University may, after the requisite remedy period (if any), exercise its right of termination pursuant to clause [Insert number of clause dealing with termination].

38. Thank-you