Accessible Procurement Tom Siechert California State University, Fresno ATI Procurement Program Presentation to Montana Accessibility Interest Group May 1, 2015

Tom Siechert Campus: – ATI Procurement Program Manager (June 2013-present) – Senior IT Buyer (January 2003-present) – Chair, ATI Procurement subcommittee – Procurement, ATI Steering Committee Systemwide: – Procurement SME, CSU Accessible Technology Network – Contributor, CSU Accessible Procurement Standardization workgroup

Accessibility + Procurement ATI implementation concerns: – Impact to Buyer workload – Impact to order processing times – Role of procurement staff – Evaluation of proposals, bids – Bid language – Contract language – Time-sensitive / rush orders

Myth #1: Procurement will handle it Reality: – Staff typically don’t have technical expertise, background in Assistive Technology, or understanding of how persons with disabilities use technology – Accessibility review should be multi-disciplinary, collaborative process, and be driven by advice of subject-matter experts (e.g. IT, DSO, HR) – Staff should concentrate on procurement-related tasks

Myth #2: We’ll only buy Accessible products! Reality: – Accessibility of ICT isn’t a YES or NO proposition – All products have Accessibility gaps – Often challenging to determine relative levels of conformance to accessibility standards

CSU Accessible Technology Initiative 2006 – Established by CSU Office of the Chancellor – Implementation: Scope: Web, Instructional Materials, Procurement Procurement: Phased implementation, Dollar Thresholds

Implementing ATI – Lessons Learned Overall: Large variances among campuses – 23 campuses – 447,000 students, 45,000 faculty and staff – Varying Campus Sizes: From 1,000 – 38,000 students – Varied campus processes, levels of expertise and staffing

CSU Accessible Technology Initiative 2013 – Updated Implementation Plan: Impact-based prioritization Continuous quality improvement Document progress Drive vendor improvements to product accessibility

The Need for Prioritization

The Need for Standardization Procurement: Campuses implement Accessible procurement differently – Different forms – Different processes – Different evaluation techniques

Establishing A Standardized Process Procurement Standardization workgroup (2011-present) – Contributors: Staff from 6 campuses – Functional Areas: Procurement, DSO, IT – Size: Small to large campuses ATI Office, CSU Chancellor's Office – Goal: Document an accessible procurement process that can be adopted and adapted by CSU campuses

CSU Accessible Procurement Process Expected outcome: – Procuring the most accessible products – Creating a plan for providing accommodations – Promoting a culture of accessibility – Promoting institution-wide effort – Speaking with one voice to vendors – Establishing consistent, repeatable and meaningful processes – Driving real-world improvements to accessibility of ICT

CSU Accessible Procurement Process Keys to successful implementation: – Strong, sustained Executive Level support – Roles and Responsibilities ATI Designee (“Coordinator”) Shared responsibility across the campus

Case Study: Importance of ATI Designee Scenario: – University adoption of online student training solution – Case Details: Procurement wasn’t involved/aware $0 Agreement High-Impact + High Stakes Significant Issues with Accessibility – Take Away(s): Procurement department may not always be involved ATI Designee role is key (keeping informed, planning for what’s next) High impact ICT often require proactive response to ensure access

CSU Accessible Procurement Process Steps Forms Guidance & Training Materials FAQs

The Old Way Collect and file VPAT Limited (or no) real-world verification of claims Extensive use of exceptions/exemptions Generic plans to address accommodations Vendors remain uninformed about gaps Products remain inaccessible Procurement-centric focus

A New, Better Way Collect VPAT – Question VPAT – Revise VPAT Real-world verification of claims Very limited use of exceptions/exemptions Specific plans to address accommodations Vendors become educated about gaps Vendors commit to remediate products Products become more accessible Campus-wide effort

Process Steps Gather Information Review Information Review Product Place Order

The Purpose of Accessibility Reviews Goals: – Determine specific accessibility gaps Provides vendor with actionable information Allows for discovery of available workarounds Enables sufficient detail to be included in alternate access plans – Drive future improvements in accessibility of ICT Get vendor commitment to remediate identified gaps

STEP 1: Gather Information Primary responsibility – End-User Complete Pre-Purchase Info form – What is it? – Who are the End-Users? – How will it be used? – How many people will use it? – Does the use involve a critical program/benefit? Ask Vendor for VPAT

STEP 2: Review Information Primary responsibility – ATI Designee Review Accessibility documentation – Pre-Purchase Info – VPAT(s) Base review plan upon impact determination – Choose review type, tasks

Myth #3: A11y review only requires a checklist Reality: – Checklists can’t address qualitative aspects like: Can screen reader users complete task x? Are bitmap images used consistently throughout app? Are headings used appropriately throughout page? – Checklists are well suited for yes/no questions like: Did we complete all process steps for purchase x? Did all the right people participate in the process? Did our contract language include A11y provisions?

STEP 3: Review Product Primary responsibility – ATI Designee Review Types – VPAT review – Vendor demo – Automated testing (Free or Enterprise Tools) – Manual testing (Quick or Comprehensive) – End-User testing

STEP 4: Place Order Primary responsibility – Procurement Department Buyer Complete Buyer Checklist – Bid documents – Bid process – ATI Review documentation and process – Contract documents

CSU Accessible Procurement Pilot Fresno State is piloting process – Serves as real-world proof-of-concept – Helps vet processes, forms, guidance – Allows for development of training materials

Pilot – Current Activities New, online requisition – Accessibility integrated into new and improved requisition form Accessibility-related questions included on form Intelligent workflow based upon type of items purchased, impact New, online ATI review form – Integrated with new online requisition Triggered only when additional information is needed, based upon responses – Same form used regardless of funding source

Online Requisition Screenshot

ATI Integration + Workflow

Final Thoughts Recommendations: – Evaluate roles & responsibilities; address gaps – Integrate ATI review into existing processes – Prioritize efforts + meaningfully review products – Proactively plan for provision of alternate access – Collaborate with vendors to improve accessibility

Questions?

Thanks for your participation! A special thanks to Marlene Zentz for the invitation to present to the Montana Accessibility Interest Group