Search results

Nothing to change. Strong explanation and oversight of procurement professional's role.

Explanation needed when accessible procurement is not applicable. Justification form example is helpful.

Nothing to change. Strong section as it highlights that procurement is not simply purchasing something, but the wholistic nature of accessible procurement considerations.

Be responsive to accessibility feedback that comes in the moment. Be prepared to meet accessibility requests in the moment, as possible.

For both in person and virtual engagements, recommend adding a sub-section on collecting feedback after sessions to inform future sessions.

Provide examples of official wording that came be repurposed to include in RFPs, general terms and conditions, those types of documents.

If the contractor does not meet those requirements, what will occur?

This clarity is very helpful. ASC may consider developing own training on procurement that can be provided to organizations. Lots of organizations do not have capacity to create their own training.

Rewrite the second paragraph

Any advice provided from me is coming from the Social Procurement team at SSC as a consolidated response on procurement policy. 1) Expansion of contracting authority role: The standard assigns procurement professionals responsibilities that extend beyond their current mandate, including: • advising on accessibility requirements • challenging clients when accessibility is not included • verifying justification for exclusion While these expectations strengthen accountability, they exceed the typical authority of contracting officers within the federal procurement model. 2) Accountability vs. control: Contracting authorities are expected to ensure accessibility is integrated into requirements and procurement processes; however: • requirements are defined and owned by clients (technical authorities) • procurement systems and tools (e.g., CanadaBuys) may limit accessibility compliance This creates a risk of accountability without corresponding control. 3) Lack of defined governance for the “challenge function”: The requirement to challenge clients where accessibility is not included is not supported by: • escalation mechanisms • decision-making authority • dispute resolution guidance This may lead to inconsistent application across organizations and potential friction between roles. 4) Need for accessibility subject matter expertise: the standard implicitly expects procurement professionals to assess and support accessibility requirements. In practice, this requires specialized expertise that is not typically embedded within procurement functions. 5) Implementation considerations (tools and processes): Certain requirements, particularly related to accessible formats and digital compliance, may be difficult to meet within current system constraints. This should be acknowledged to support realistic implementation.

Add an option to: b) A client could also commonly be referred to as...

Federally regulated entities

Shall

In general, using the same words requiring a definition in the definition itself.

Goods definition

General comment for section.

Mandatory justification for excluding accessibility section

Remove a word from first sentence

e) Solicitation and contract award documents - systemic barriers currently in place that make this hard (or impossible) to meet

This phrase/action is not possible - systemic barriers currently in place that make this hard (or impossible) to meet

This phrase/action is not possible - systemic barriers currently in place that make this hard (or impossible) to meet

Type-o in the date? CAN-ASC-EN 301 549:20204

2. One-on-one meetings with potential bidders

e) proactively implement accessibility measures that support participants who may not feel safe disclosing their disability or accommodation needs. These measures should reference and align with CAN-ASC-5.2.1:Part 1 (draft standard).

a) Exterior circulation

a. v) Elevating devices

add an option

add an option

a) To identify and define accessibility requirements for procurement, clients shall:

b) To identify and define accessibility requirements for procurement, clients should:

First paragraph: the word(s) set aside

Expectation in this area

Reasonable solicitation period

Accessibility cost considerations

b) request that bidders provide these costs separately from other costs associated to the financial proposal (e.g., these should be provided in an appendix or cost breakdown table);

c) if required, provides an equivalent accessible debrief, such as sign language translation of the debrief, in complying with EN 301 549:2024; and

Note: When accessibility or translation service is required, the steps should be taken to prevent any conflict of interest.

Additional guidance required here.

Organizations shall identify a process

Specifications by role

Training for people identified in Clause 15.1 shall include content that provides

(draft standard).

CAN-ASC-5.2.1 Part 1: Design and Delivery of Accessible Programs and Services: Accessible Service Delivery - Accessibility for federally regulated entities as defined by the Accessible Canada Act (draft standard)

Second sentence: It should also be used for procurement in the provincial, territorial, municipal, private and non-profit sectors.

Procurement definition

Procurement professional

Service

Standing offer definition

Subject matter expert in accessibility definition

Supply arrangement definition

a. the responsibility of the client to

b.iii. when applicable, play a challenge function when clients have not included accessibility requirements in the procurement; and

b. iv. when accessibility requirements are not included in the specifications for a procurement, verify that a mandatory written justification complying with Clause 10.1.4 is provided.

Elections Canada, general comments on the Standard We see the standard as covering two broad topics: making the procurement process more accessible and using the procurement process to further accessibility. Generally, we think these two elements should be split into separate standards. The portions of this standard that deal with procurement process accessibility (meaning accessibility of procurement documents, in-person events, debriefs, etc.) are great. We fully support them and have no comments other than to say that putting this in a standard and making it a binding regulation would be welcome. Our sense is that Procurement staff often support the idea behind these changes but never have the capacity to get to them, so an external requirement might be the thing we need to actually see progress. From my point of view, I suspect that there may also be more appetite on the Minister’s side to make this a regulation if it’s separated from the other stuff. However, the second part (meaning the parts of the standard about accessibility of what’s being procured) may be more problematic to implement. I want to emphasize that we fully support the underlying goal of making sure everything that government buys is fully accessible, but we think that using procurement rules to do this could cause some issues, and these parts of the standard would benefit from more consultation, particularly with people with expertise in procurement and the legal context. As written, the standard would take away flexibility we currently have in procurement processes (for example, as we read it, the standard would not let us procure something off-the-shelf that is not accessible along with the right to modify it, then run a separate process to customize the product and make it accessible before launching it). The official languages regime may provide a better framework for addressing accessibility, as it does not limit procurement processes based on bilingualism requirements, but requires that the end product be bilingual when it is deployed. The standard instead requires that the contract include provisions for the vendor to modify the commercial product and make it accessible, but in our experience, vendors often over-estimate their ability to do this and it can lead to failed contracts and restarting the process. We’re also concerned that the standard could come into conflict with Canada’s trade agreements. Social procurement topics often lead to set-asides, but if these become too common, we may run into problems with our trade agreements. We would suggest looking to how environmental goals were considered in the procurement context (i.e., over time, negotiators raised the issue and incorporated it into trade agreements). I realize this process is not fast, and perhaps this could run in tandem to some faster policy changes, but I think it’s important to flag. It doesn’t benefit anyone if procurement accessibility work leads to trade disputes and litigation.

Finally, the standard includes provisions about the vendor’s costs to accommodate their own personnel. This could make contract negotiation more complicated to make sure that we don’t inadvertently create a perception that the vendor or their staff are employees of the government. We’re also worried that bidders may not be able to separate out these costs (meaning that the standard could be inadvertently creating an obstacle to bidding), and also that many bidders are highly protective about their pricing and may not be willing to bid if they have to include this breakdown.

The draft standard creates requirements (e.g., include accessibility standards as a mandatory requirement for bids), and while it does allow for exceptions, our impression is that procurement staff often don’t have the bandwidth to deal with exception processes even if that might be the most appropriate thing in the circumstances. This could mean that processes are delayed or fail more often. Similarly, article 12.4.3 prescribes how the evaluation team is structured, but this could end up limiting flexibility in the process (e.g., maybe we could make a subject matter expert available to the evaluators to provide expert advice, but that expert doesn’t need to be an evaluator if it doesn’t make sense).

IT provided their comments see attachment. covers a few sections

Topic missing.

"Subject matter expert in accessibility — means a person who has knowledge of a specified field such as the built environment, information and communication technology, and human resources based on a combination of the following factors, which may be weighted differently depending on the circumstances: a) Lived experience relating to accessibility. b) Relevant industry work experience. c) Formal education or training. d) Professional practice within the subject area."

(relevant to whole section)

"a) comply with CSA/ASC B651:23 for: .... iv) Signage"

"Meeting rooms that are used for in-person outreach events shall provide the following, including but not limited to: ... b) Reserved seating for people who use wheelchairs or mobilized scooters or who are accompanied by their guide dog, service dog, or support person."

"To facilitate emergency egress for in-person events, facilities shall: ... b) have a list of participants with individual evacuation needs and provide this list to the facility manager."

"identify applicable accessibility standards, guidelines, and best practices, and in such cases where no applicable references are available, continue to follow the procurement process and make reasonable efforts to identify a solution;"

(relevant to whole section)

Requiring the inclusion of accessibility requirements for all procurements, regardless of dollar value.

" It is not sufficient to state that accessibility was “not appropriate” or “not applicable”"

Note 2: Where it is not possible for an individual in the procurement process to attend a meeting in person, a hybrid protocol will be offered such that this person can attend an event virtually, in concert with others that are there in-person.

Change the wording of Shall to Should.

Change shall to should

e: Item b) i) of this Clause applies to the procurement professional if they are responsible for creating and defining the requirements for a method of supply such as a supply arrangement or standing offer.

at a minimum of every 2 years;

Is Accessible Canada going to provide a standard training to ensure that everyone is getting adequate training? Or are organizations going to have to bear the financial implications and find their own training that might not meet the minimum requirements or expectations?

consult with end users, including people with disabilities, in the planning phase and throughout the procurement process; consult with accessibility subject matter experts including persons with disabilities; and

identify requirements for user and accessibility conformance testing;

Note: Organizations are encouraged to collaborate with vendors to develop curated source lists that prioritize accessibility, while also identifying suppliers and organizations with demonstrated accessibility expertise to maintain a current and reliable list of resources and services.

validate, prior to contract award, that the accommodation-related costs are fair and reasonable; and,

Add a tiered training requirement based on involvement

Need to balance accessibility objectives with procurement obligations (eg. CFTA, CETA, etc) and not including unnecessarily restrictive specifications.

According to the draft standard, the importance of having a written justification and outlining the mandatory decision-making process was emphasized in multiple sections. OPO supports the requirement that accessibility considerations should not be exempted by simply stating it was “not appropriate” or “not applicable.” To further strengthen accountability, transparency, and auditability, the draft standard could benefit from providing additional guidance regarding the documentation requirements associated with the justification process.

OPO notes that the draft standard may benefit from acknowledging existing procurement complaint and recourse mechanisms under Section 14.3 – Resolving End User Issues.

OPO has noted that the draft standard does not explicitly address how accessibility considerations should be applied during emergency procurement or procurements to which National Security Exceptions (NSE) or Trade Agreements apply.

My main concern is that the standard focuses on the steps organizations must follow to procure accessible products and services, but it does not clearly define what successful implementation looks like. For example, organizations may be required to consult people with disabilities during the procurement process, but there is no requirement to consider, respond to, or implement the feedback received. As a result, it is possible to meet the requirements by simply checking a box that consultation occurred, without demonstrating that the input had any meaningful impact on decisions. Organizations could remain compliant even if accessibility recommendations are ignored.

During the bid evaluation process, procurement agencies are not allowed to consider the cost of workplace accommodations required by a supplier's employees. For example, if a supplier employs Deaf staff who require sign language interpreters, those accommodation costs may be included in the supplier's bid, but procurement agencies cannot take them into account when reviewing proposals. While the intent is to prevent discrimination, I am not convinced this will achieve the desired outcome. In practice, many procurement decisions are heavily influenced by cost and fixed budget constraints. As a result, there is a risk that suppliers could be screened out using other evaluation criteria rather than cost, making it difficult to ensure the policy has its intended impact.

The Standard requires organizations to have policies and procedures, but does not require a named accountable senior executive. Without a named officer, accessible procurement becomes everyone's job and nobody's responsibility. The training clause (15.1) lists senior management as a training audience but stops there.

Subclause (b)(iii) says the procurement professional shall, "when applicable, play a challenge function when clients have not included accessibility requirements". This is too soft to be operational. "Play a challenge function" is not a defined act. There is no escalation path, no designated authority to receive the challenge, and no record-keeping requirement. As written, a procurement professional satisfies this obligation by raising a concern in an email and moving on.

Where a procurement uses a non-conforming commercial off-the-shelf solution, the contractor is to provide a remediation roadmap. The clause does not specify a maximum remediation timeframe, does not require interim accessibility measures during the remediation period (it only allows the client to request them), and does not provide for remedies if the contractor fails to deliver against the roadmap. As drafted, the roadmap could run indefinitely with no consequence.

The mandatory justification is signed by the client and kept on file. There is no independent review and no appeal route. A client who wants to avoid accessibility requirements writes the justification and signs it themselves. The procurement professional's only job under 10.1.4.2 is to confirm a justification was provided. This is a self-certification regime.

The clause refers to "CAN-ASC-EN 301 549:20204". This is a typographical error.

Subclause (b)(vi) requires that "all required documents are provided at least two (2) business days before the engagement begins". Two business days is too tight for participants who need braille, large print, sign language interpretation of pre-read materials, alt text review, or screen-reader-compatible reformatting. Two business days is also a tight window for sign language interpreters to prepare for a technical procurement engagement.

Subclause 11.4.4.4(a) lists items that are to comply with CSA/ASC B651:23. Several of the listed items are not within the scope of B651, including "Reduce functional and cognitive barriers" and "Environmental intolerances". B651 is the built environment standard; cognitive accessibility and environmental sensitivities are addressed elsewhere or are not yet fully covered by a single Canadian standard.

The single line "A scent-free environment" appears in the meeting room subclause without any implementation guidance. In practice, scent-free policies fail when: (a) the policy is limited to the meeting room but the path of travel through the building is not scented-controlled; (b) participants are not told in advance; (c) no signage is posted; (d) catering, cleaning products, and HVAC are not addressed; and (e) the policy collides with religious or cultural practices around scent without a resolution process.

This clause carves out individual accommodation procurement from standard competitive rules. The carve-out is necessary and welcome. The problem is that the clause is too brief to be operational. It does not address the most common real-world scenario, which is the procurement of assistive technology (screen readers, dynamic braille displays, hearing aids, communication devices, ergonomic equipment), where the wrong device is worse than no device, and the person being accommodated must control the selection.

The clause requires that accommodation-related costs be separated from the financial proposal and excluded from financial evaluation. This is the right principle. It is missing a transparency and audit mechanism. Without one, organizations can quietly reload accommodation costs into a later contract amendment or claw them back through the basis of payment.

When a site visit is required and is not accessible, the clause says clients and procurement professionals shall "work to provide accessible solutions". This is too vague to be enforceable. In practice, the default outcome is that the bidder with a disability either attends an inaccessible site under protest or withdraws from the procurement.

The clause requires responses to bidding inquiries to be in plain language. It does not require them to be in accessible format. A plain language PDF that is not screen-reader-compatible is still inaccessible.

The clause says organizations "shall identify a process for measuring, monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on the inclusion of accessibility in procurement". There are no specified metrics. Organizations will identify whatever process they wish, which will produce inconsistent data and no ability to compare across the federal estate or against trend.

Subclause (d) says interpretation and a reasonable time extension are provided "if required". The same conditional appears throughout. This places the onus on the unsuccessful bidder to identify the need and request the accommodation, after they have already lost the bid. The Note acknowledges conflict-of-interest concerns but does not turn the right into a standing one.

The clause requires training at a minimum of every 2 years. Accessibility standards, federal directives, regulations, and case law change faster than that. A two-year cycle means that approximately half the workforce will be operating on superseded guidance at any given time.

The Standard speaks of "persons with disabilities" as a single category. The realities of accessibility in procurement intersect with Indigenous identity, race, gender, language, rurality, and other axes. The disability community is not a monolith, and procurement that treats it as one will miss the compounding barriers that Indigenous, racialized, women-led, and Francophone disability-led businesses encounter.

Clause 4 defines the procurement life cycle as including "disposal and closeout". The body of the Standard does not address disposal at all. Where assistive technology, ICT, or accommodated equipment is being disposed of, accessibility considerations apply: end users may rely on the equipment, replacement timelines must accommodate them, and disposal may include data on individuals' accommodations that must be protected.

The Standard does not address procurement set-asides or participation targets for businesses owned by, led by, or significantly employing persons with disabilities. The Government of Canada has a set-aside framework for Indigenous businesses (Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Business) and is developing one for Black businesses. There is no parallel for disability-led businesses, even though the Accessible Canada Act commits to economic participation by persons with disabilities and CRPD Article 27 requires it.

Procurement of AI-enabled systems is now a substantial and growing share of federal ICT acquisition. CAN-ASC-6.2 sets accessibility requirements for AI systems. This Standard does not cross-reference CAN-ASC-6.2 or address AI procurement specifically. As a member of the technical community for CAN-ASC-6.2, I think this is a real omission that will become more visible quickly.

The Standard references CAN-ASC-3.1:2025 (Plain Language) only in Clauses 11.2.1 and 11.2.2. Plain language is relevant throughout the procurement life cycle, including in evaluation criteria, contract clauses, bid debriefings, and feedback responses to end users.

Clause 14 requires the client to confirm deliverables meet accessibility requirements and to resolve end user issues, but the Standard is silent on what happens when the client and the contractor disagree on whether a barrier exists, whether remediation is adequate, or whether a roadmap milestone has been met. In practice this disagreement is routine. A contractor will point to automated WCAG testing results and call the matter closed. A screen reader user will report that the product is unusable. Without a defined dispute process, the parties default to standard commercial dispute clauses that route the disagreement to neutrals with no accessibility expertise.

Several clauses of the Standard contemplate the collection of accommodation-related personal information: participants identify accommodation needs before engagement activities (Clause 11.4.3), the standard requires "absolute confidentiality" of that information at the engagement stage, and accommodation costs are tracked through bid evaluation and contract performance (Clause 13.1.1). The Standard does not address what happens to this personal information through the contract life cycle, including data handling by contractors, retention periods, contractor data return or destruction, or end-of-contract handling. Accommodation-related personal information is sensitive personal information under the Privacy Act and PIPEDA.

The Standard addresses accommodation needs in engagement activities (Clause 11.4.3) and at site visits (Clause 13.3). It does not address accommodation requests during the bid preparation period itself. A bidder with an episodic disability may need an extension to submit. A bidder using a screen reader may need an accessible version of a solicitation that was not produced in an accessible format. A bidder with a print disability may need a printed exhibit reissued in a format compatible with their assistive technology. The Standard's solicitation-period requirements (Clause 13.1) deal with reasonable time generally, but do not contemplate disability-specific accommodation requests during the bid preparation phase.

The Standard requires the use of communication supports (sign language interpretation, captioning, simultaneous interpretation, alternate-format production) in engagement activities, bidder debriefings, and other procurement-adjacent contexts. It does not address how organizations procure those communication-support services. Quality varies enormously across the federal supplier base. Under-qualified ASL/LSQ interpreters, captioning provided by automated systems where human captioning is required, and alternate-format production by vendors who do not understand the differences between an accessible PDF and a tagged PDF are recurring problems.

The Standard provides a carve-out for individual accommodation procurement at Clause 12.1.1 but does not address what happens to accessibility requirements when an organization invokes emergency, urgent, or sole-source procurement authorities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, accessibility was the first thing dropped from emergency procurements, including procurements of video conferencing and communication tools that excluded Deaf and hard-of-hearing employees from their own workplaces. The Accessible Canada Act has no emergency exception. Trade agreements and federal procurement directives recognize emergency procurement authorities, but none of them displaces the duty to accommodate.

The definition restricts "procurement professional" to a person who has "the responsibility to enter into a contract or contractual agreement". This is too narrow. In federal practice, procurement officers, supply specialists, materiel management officers, and contracting officers regularly advise on, structure, and evaluate procurements without having delegated contracting authority. Excluding them from the definition excludes them from the obligations of the Standard.

The Standard repeatedly requires consultation with persons with disabilities, including in engagement design (11.4.3), evaluation panels (12.4.3), and training development (15.2.1). Compensation is required only for trainers (15.2.1). The other clauses are silent. In practice, this means persons with disabilities are routinely asked to contribute lived experience to procurement processes without being paid for their time and expertise.

The clause says the evaluation panel "shall include" SMEs or persons with disabilities, with "or" between them. "Or" allows the organization to satisfy the requirement with SMEs alone. The same clause uses "should include" rather than "shall include" for persons with lived experience. The combined effect is that no person with a disability is required to sit on the evaluation panel.

The Standard regulates the contract between the client organization and the prime contractor. It does not require the prime contractor to flow accessibility obligations through to its subcontractors. In practice, accessibility obligations end at the first contractual layer, and subcontracted work (which often is the bulk of the work) is not held to the same standard.

Section 8 of the Accessible Canada Regulations requires regulated entities to maintain a feedback process. The procurement Standard does not require organizations to ensure that the procurement itself produces a feedback mechanism for end users who encounter barriers in the procured good or service post-deployment.

There is no independent review or appeal route for bidders or end users who believe a procurement breached this Standard. The Procurement Ombudsman has jurisdiction over federal procurement complaints but the Standard does not cross-reference that jurisdiction or extend it to accessibility specifically.

The Standard requires bidders to demonstrate accessibility of their offering. It does not require the organization's own e-procurement system, bid portal, or supplier registration system to be accessible. In practice, this is one of the largest barriers to participation for businesses owned by or employing persons with disabilities.

The Standard does not include a no-preclusion rule. In practice, accessibility requirements written into solicitations can be misapplied as a basis to disqualify bidders led by or significantly employing persons with disabilities (for example, where the bidder requests an extension of the bid period as an accommodation, or where the bidder's own product is in remediation against the same standard the bid requires).

The Standard does not require bidders for ICT procurements to provide an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) or equivalent vendor statement. This is the most widely used accessibility evidence document in public procurement worldwide. U.S. federal agencies require it under Section 508. Public sector organizations across Europe rely on equivalent declarations under the EU Accessibility Act and EN 301 549. CNIB's accessible procurement framework requires it. Its absence from this draft is conspicuous.

Subclause (c) reads "Inspection for barriers by persons with disabilities before delivery whether it be at the contractor or the delivery site." This is buried mid-list and gives almost no operational detail. There is no statement of who selects the inspectors, who pays them, how their findings affect acceptance, or what happens if barriers are identified.

The heading mixes content types (information) with delivery channels (websites, applications), creating overlap and clutter. Procurement information is delivered through websites and applications, so the three are not parallel categories.

“Clients…responsible for…defining capabilities…benefits…outcomes…”

“ensuring that individuals… are consulted”

xii) Environmental intolerances

b) Reserved seating for people who use wheelchairs or mobilized scooters or who are accompanied by their guide dog, service dog, or support person. c) Seating space for sign language interpreters or simultaneous interpreters. d) Seating near interpreters, captionists, or note takers.

iv) Availability of accommodation, and ability to easily contact a person with decision making or remediation authority if an accommodation is not effective. Ensure that participants are aware of this availability. ... vii) A clear protocol for remediation during engagements is established so participants whose needs are not met can contact the organizer directly.

vi) All required documents are provided at least two (2) business days before the engagement begins.