Procuring Accessible Technology
Suggestions for Procuring IT
The University of Colorado Denver strives to ensure that IT products developed at, purchased by, or used at the university are accessible to all faculty, students, and staff, including those with disabilities. To reach this goal, those responsible for making decisions about which products to procure must consider accessibility as one of the criteria for acquisition. This is especially critical for enterprise level systems and other technologies that affect a large number of students, faculty and staff.
Campus Administrative Policy
Faculty and staff making decisions about procurement of products, services and technologies should strongly consider accessibility as one of the criteria for acquisition. This will ensure that products, services, and technologies developed at, purchased by, or used at the university are accessible to all faculty, students, and staff, including those with disabilities. CU Policy APS 6011 provides key principles to consider regarding digital accessibility. To facilitate the procurement of accessible information technology, consider the following:
1. Vendor Options
The university is committed to upholding the principles of HB21-1110 Colorado Laws For Persons With Disabilities to ensure that people with disabilities have equal, available and reliable access to technologies. All software and technology used to conduct university business must meet the digital accessibility requirements.
As outlined in the Technology Risk Assessment process, the Risk and Compliance (RAC) team will send the vendor direct links to complete two required forms during the intake phase. Ensure that the vendor completes them within 3 business days.
These two forms – Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) and the Higher Education Community Vendor Assessment Toolkit (HECVAT) – are required for every technology risk assessment.
2. Accessibility Validation
Vendors should furnish detailed information regarding the accessibility of their products or services, employing both methods outlined in step one above. The first method is typically more credible, particularly if conducted by a reputable accessibility consultancy. The second method, based on self-reports by vendors, can be informative but has limitations.
Some vendors may lack the technical expertise to accurately assess their products’ accessibility, while others may downplay accessibility issues. Vendors’ claims should undergo independent verification and not be accepted without careful examination. This information can serve as a starting point for a thorough discussion about the accessibility of products, especially for those whose products are shortlisted as finalists.
3. Accessibility Assurances
If the best product for a specific need falls short of meeting accessibility requirements, vendors should commit to improving accessibility within a specified timeline, possibly collaborating with campus staff.
Following discussions about accessibility, the procurement contract should outline the agreement between the vendor and procurer regarding how progress on accessibility will be measured. For instance, the vendor might provide a roadmap as an addendum to the contract, detailing a prioritized list of accessibility issues and a timeline for addressing each one. Contract extensions could then be contingent on satisfactory progress toward resolving these issues.
Even if the product is currently accessible, the contract should ensure continued accessibility through updates, particularly for products on a rapid release cycle.