COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 508 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT GSA strongly objects to some of the Section 508 changes proposed by the House Subcommittee on Select Education. Certain changes would cause a redirection in the Federal Government's accessibility program, which would produce unintended and undesirable results. Current Federal guidelines and programs to ensure accessibility by the disabled are models for state and foreign governments because of their flexibility and innovative thinking. Some of the proposed changes would restrict these features and, as a result, would remove the Government from a leadership role. Our major objections to the proposed legislation follow. Sec. 508 (a) directs that GSA, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) and other interested parties develop regulations to ensure that individuals with disabilities can produce and have access to the same information processing resources, with or without special peripherals, as individuals without disabilities. Such regulations are to be revised at least triennially to reflect technological changes. Comments: The proposed language emphasizes technology rather than the goals of using technology. This language, in effect, would require GSA to establish product standards and regulations for industry. GSA currently has no authority to regulate industry, but is achieving equivalent results by guiding Federal agencies to better procure accessibility features in information processing resources. This is done through regulations, guidance documents, training and evaluation. In addition, GSA works with industry to ensure that leading suppliers are familiar with, and responsive to, Government requirements. A change such as is indicated by this proposed legislation could cause problems with competition requirements set in law and with the long term needs of the disabled. As a worst case scenario, it will leave Government fewer choices in the equipment it can acquire for all users. The goal of accessibility legislation should be to ensure that disabled users can access the same information and data as non- disabled users to produce the information and data required in their jobs. The focus on technology in the proposed amendment is incorrect. Technology is changing too rapidly to be reflected in regulations. It takes at least a year to change a regulation. The system life for most smaller computer technology is eighteen months. Information processing resources could be outdated before the regulations referencing them are issued. Sec. 508 (f) provides for an appeal process to the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA) when this legislation or its implementing regulations are violated. The appeals process would be expanded to include any "aggrieved person, federal employee with a disability, firm, or organization, whose interest is adversely affected by a solicitation, award, or contract". Comments: While we understand the concerns that these provisions are attempting to address, we do not agree that a judicial solution is appropriate in this instance. There are a number of reasons for this. - The current approach taken by GSA and NIDRR to implement the original Sec. 508 requirements is proving successful. Federal regulations have been changed. Companies are organizing to ensure their products meet the needs of the disabled. Agencies are placing accessibility requirements into solicitations. - Protests can now be filed by companies to ensure that regulatory requirements are met. Increasing the number of categories of individuals or groups who may protest a contracting action would open up the procurement process to more litigation, which would further delay and complicate Federal acquisitions and affect all parties, including the disabled. It is possible that one "aggrieved" individual with a unique disability could delay the acquisition of much needed equipment for all individuals in an agency, including other disabled individuals. Additionally, this matter gets into the area of how agencies fulfill their missions. An aggrieved individual with a unique disability could appeal a solicitation because it does not address his needs, when, in fact, the agency is addressing that individual's needs in another acquisition. After an agency establishes its requirements, it needs the flexibility to determine which contracting vehicles will be used to meet those requirements. - The threat of increased protests could raise the cost of doing business with the Government. Small companies, which provide most of the accessible technology, may be unable to do business with the Government. - Many of the important decisions affecting individuals who might conceivably grieve under this process are normally made long before a solicitation is issued. For example, agencies are currently required by regulation to consider the needs, of disabled employees when they do requirements analyses for new resources. Requirements analyses are typically completed long before a solicitation is issued. Normally, it would be too late in the process to solve this problem through the GSBCA bid protest process. A preferred approach is for agencies to convene a Forum for Disabled Individuals Accessibility to ensure that the proper requirements have been built into specifications early in the process.