Search results

Mandatory and advisory wording is sometimes unclear or mixed. The draft defines “shall” as mandatory and “should” as advisory, but some clauses combine mandatory and advisory ideas in ways that make the level of compliance required uncertain. Examples include: Clause 11.4.5.2 says virtual engagement organizers “shall” identify accommodation requirements and use compliant web platforms, but Clause 11.4.5.3 says the organizer “should” complete a run-through and user testing to determine whether accessibility needs have been met. Clause 13.5 says the remaining bid period “should” be adjusted after a significant change, but then says an amendment “must” be issued. Clause 15.3.2 says people with disabilities “should” be included as key training delivery members and “shall” be compensated, leaving unclear whether inclusion is optional but compensation is mandatory only if they are included.

Several clauses require involvement of people with disabilities but do not consistently mention consent, compensation, and confidentiality. Examples include: Clause 12.4.3 includes people with disabilities or lived experience on evaluation panels; Clause 14.2 refers to inspection for barriers by persons with disabilities before delivery; and Clause 15.3.1 requires consultation with people with disabilities in training development. These are important requirements, but they should include guidelines around recruitment, compensation, confidentiality etc.

Page 8: “American Sign language (ASL)” and page 9: “indigenous communities / indigenous peoples.”

Page 10: “Standard Council of Canada’s Requirements and Guidance for Standards Development Organizations.”

Page 10: “These voluntary standards are intended for any organization or person seeking advice apply to federally regulated entities...”.

Page 14: “his majesty the king in right of Canada...” and “accessibility standards Canada...”

Page 16: license-to-comments clause is lengthy and difficult to understand.

Pages 20-21: the user groups are helpful, but the role of people with disabilities is mostly listed as “end users.”

Page 22: “Above all and in the spirit of this Standard, people with disabilities are involved in procurement.”

Page 27: “Person” uses “his or her capacity.”

Page 28: “Procurement professional — ... anyone responsible for facilitating the procurement function within an organization and has the responsibility to enter into a contract...”

Page 32: “integrate accessibility requirements into a procurement instead of excluding it.”

Page 36: “CAN-ASC-EN 301 549:20204.”

Page 37: Note 2 says a hybrid protocol “will be offered” when a person cannot attend in person. Note 2 says a hybrid protocol “will be offered.” Because notes are generally explanatory, “will” may look like a requirement even though it appears in a note. Move this requirement into the body of the clause and use “shall,” or revise the note to advisory language using “should.”

Page 39: “All required documents are provided at least two (2) business days before the engagement begins.”

Page 40: Note 2 suggests accommodation feedback should be shared with all participants. Note 2 says feedback should be shared “with all participants.” If the feedback concerns an accommodation that could identify a participant, sharing it broadly may compromise privacy. Suggested wording should clarify that only aggregated or anonymized findings are shared.

Page 41: Clause 11.4.4.3 lists “Exterior circulation” and “Vehicular access” only.

Page 42: emergency egress clause requires a list of participants with evacuation needs be provided to the facility manager. Clause 11.4.4.6 requires a list of participants with individual evacuation needs to be provided to the facility manager. This may be necessary for safety, but the clause should say the information must be limited to what is necessary, shared only with those who need it for emergency planning, and handled confidentially.

Page 45: Clause 12.1.1 says “standard competitive procurement rules may be set aside” for individual accommodation procurement. Clause 12.1.1 says standard competitive procurement rules “may be set aside” for individual accommodation procurement. The intent is important, but the phrase could be interpreted too broadly. It should be tied to applicable legal, policy, and delegated-authority requirements and limited to what is necessary to provide timely, effective accommodation.

Page 46: third-party testing clause says clients shall “include subcontracting requirements for this testing.”

Page 49: solicitation timing mentions the time required to obtain accessible formats, prepare a bid, and submit a response.

Pages 49-50: Clause 13.1.1 requires bidders to itemize costs to accommodate themselves or employees during contract performance and excludes these costs from financial evaluation. Bidders are asked to itemize costs expected to accommodate themselves or employees; those costs are to be separated from the financial proposal; the costs are excluded from financial evaluation; and they are validated before award. This could unintentionally require disclosure of disability-related or employee-specific information unless the clause clearly limits what information is collected and how it is assessed.

Page 50: site visits require the organization to “work to provide accessible solutions.”

Page 54: outcome measurement says only that organizations shall identify a process. Examples of measures could include: percentage of procurements with accessibility criteria; percentage with approved justifications for excluding accessibility; number and type of accessibility barriers reported during contract performance; resolution time for reported barriers; number of staff trained; and bidder or end-user feedback on procurement accessibility.

Page 56: “communicate with people with various disabilities.”

Page 56: “Training shall be developed in consultation with people with disabilities and they shall be appropriately compensated...”

Page 56: Clause 15.3.2 says “People with disabilities should be included as key members of the team delivering the training and shall be appropriately compensated...” If inclusion on the training team is optional, the compensation requirement only activates when people with disabilities are included. If the standard intends “nothing without us” to apply to training delivery, inclusion should be a “shall” requirement.

Page 57: training timing requires training at least every 2 years and whenever complaints or standards updates occur.

Page 59: include practical Government of Canada procurement resources as online resources.

DWCC recommends strengthening this section to clarify that Accessibility Standards Canada’s commitment to “nothing without us” must include meaningful decision-making authority for people with disabilities, not only participation, consultation, or review. The section should also more clearly recognize communication access as a core accessibility issue for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people. For DDBHH people, accessibility includes ASL, LSQ, Indigenous Sign Languages, DeafBlind communication supports, captioning, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, accessible emergency communication, and accessible customer support.

Section 2 is currently reserved for publication. DWCC recommends that the final Standards Council of Canada Statement include language confirming that accessibility standards must support the Accessible Canada Act’s purpose of identifying, removing, and preventing barriers, and that standards-development processes must meaningfully include persons with disabilities and relevant lived experience.

DWCC recommends clarifying that the legal notice should not be interpreted in a way that limits accessibility, accessible formats, communication access, or meaningful participation by persons with disabilities during the public review, standards-development, implementation, or revision process.

DWCC recommends strengthening this section to clarify that a consensus-based standards-development process should include meaningful participation by persons with disabilities with relevant lived experience and subject-matter expertise. Where Accessibility Standards Canada does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the content of standards, the process should include stronger safeguards to ensure that accessibility requirements are validated by affected users.

DWCC recommends strengthening this section so that users are clearly informed when revisions, updated drafts, alternate formats, ASL summaries, LSQ summaries, plain language versions, or other accessible versions are available.

DWCC recommends clarifying that the disclaimer and exclusion of liability do not reduce the purpose, importance, or expected use of the standard as a barrier-prevention tool. The section should also clarify that organizations using the standard remain responsible for complying with applicable accessibility, human rights, procurement, and anti-discrimination obligations.

DWCC recommends clarifying that intellectual property and ownership restrictions should not prevent people with disabilities, disability organizations, Deaf-led organizations, or accessibility reviewers from accessing, reviewing, discussing, citing, or commenting on the draft standard during the public review process.

DWCC recommends clarifying that patent rights or pending patent applications should not be used in a way that limits accessible procurement, creates vendor lock-in, or prevents organizations from selecting accessible alternatives that meet the needs of persons with disabilities.

DWCC recommends clarifying the licence-to-comments section so that people with disabilities and disability organizations can easily understand what rights they are granting when they submit comments, including written comments, oral comments, ASL comments, LSQ comments, video comments, translated comments, and comments prepared with communication supports.

DWCC recommends clarifying the authorized uses section so that people with disabilities, Deaf-led organizations, disability organizations, interpreters, translators, captioners, accessibility advisors, and subject-matter experts can participate meaningfully in reviewing the draft standard. The current language allows users to load, search, browse, and print the document, but it does not clearly explain whether users may share limited excerpts or accessible-format materials for the purpose of preparing public review comments.

DWCC recommends that the final standard publish the Technical Committee membership information in a way that confirms whether the committee included relevant Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard-of-Hearing, ASL, LSQ, DeafBlind communication access, telecom, digital accessibility, emergency communication, and accessible procurement expertise. Because this section is currently reserved for publication, DWCC cannot assess whether the Technical Committee had sufficient DDBHH representation and subject-matter expertise.

DWCC recommends that the Preface explain that accessible procurement is a barrier-prevention mechanism. The Preface should make clear that procurement decisions can either prevent barriers before they are purchased or embed barriers into public services, digital systems, customer support, emergency communication, and infrastructure.

DWCC recommends strengthening the Introduction to explicitly recognize communication access as a core part of accessible procurement. The Introduction should identify Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard-of-Hearing, and sign-language users as intended beneficiaries of the standard. The Introduction should also clarify that people with disabilities must not only be consulted. They must be meaningfully involved in defining requirements, evaluating accessibility, testing solutions, monitoring implementation, and confirming whether procured goods or services actually remove barriers.

DWCC recommends strengthening the Scope to explicitly include communication access, accessible digital and telecommunications services, emergency communication, customer support, AI-enabled systems, and contract management as part of accessible procurement. The current scope is strong, but it should more clearly state that accessibility in procurement includes communication access and not only physical, document, website, or general service accessibility.

DWCC recommends expanding the intended audience to explicitly include disability organizations, Deaf-led organizations, accessibility subject-matter experts, end users, evaluators, and organizations that support Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people. The standard should also clarify that it is relevant not only to federally regulated entities, but also to organizations purchasing goods, services, digital platforms, communication tools, emergency systems, customer support systems, and AI-enabled accessibility tools that may affect people with disabilities.

DWCC recommends clarifying that federal procurement requirements, trade agreements, internal procurement policies, standing offers, supply arrangements, budget rules, or administrative procedures should not be interpreted in a way that weakens accessibility, communication access, or the duty to accommodate. The section should state that accessibility must be considered a core procurement requirement, not an optional feature that can be removed because of process convenience, cost pressure, or existing procurement templates.

DWCC recommends clarifying that core accessibility requirements, including communication access requirements, should use “shall” where failure to include them would create barriers for people with disabilities. The terms “should” and “may” should not be used for essential accessibility requirements that are necessary for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people to participate in procurement processes or use procured goods and services.

What should we change? DWCC recommends expanding the References section to include or cross-reference resources that address Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing communication access, including ASL, LSQ, Indigenous Sign Languages, captioning, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, accessible emergency communication, and accessible telecommunications services. The current references are useful, but they do not fully address communication access for DDBHH people in procurement contexts.

What should we change? DWCC recommends adding definitions or clarifying existing definitions to ensure that communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people is fully recognized throughout the standard. The definitions section should include or clarify terms related to ASL, LSQ, Indigenous Sign Languages, DeafBlind communication supports, communication access, accessible video communication, relay-compatible communication, captioning, sign-language translation, Deaf-led expertise, and accessibility testing with affected users.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 9.1 by adding and clarifying definitions that are necessary for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing accessibility in procurement. The current definitions of “accessible format” and “communication supports” are useful, but they should be expanded so that communication access is not treated only as an accommodation. The definitions should recognize that communication access can be a core functional requirement of a procured good, service, platform, application, meeting, emergency system, customer support system, or digital service.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Section 10 to state that accessibility requirements must include communication access requirements where a procurement affects Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing people. The general requirements should also clarify that accessibility must be included from the beginning of procurement, not added after requirements, budgets, timelines, evaluation criteria, or contract terms have already been set.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 10.1 to clarify that accessibility requirements include communication access requirements and that these requirements must be considered regardless of dollar value. The clause should also clarify that “flexible and person-centred” includes flexibility for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing communication access needs.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 10.1.1 to explicitly state that accessibility requirements include communication access requirements. Communication access should be incorporated throughout all phases of procurement, including planning, bidding, contract award, contract management, closeout, evaluation criteria, testing requirements, solicitation documents, contract documents, and industry engagement activities.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 10.1.2 to clarify that clients and procurement professionals are responsible for identifying and involving relevant accessibility subject-matter experts and affected end users when defining requirements, developing evaluation criteria, verifying deliverables, or deciding whether accessibility requirements are not included. The roles and responsibilities should explicitly include communication-access expertise where a procurement may affect Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing people.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 10.1.3 to state that accessibility requirements must be defined with relevant lived experience, user testing, and subject-matter expertise before procurement requirements are finalized. The clause should also clarify that flexibility in procurement must be used to include and strengthen accessibility requirements, not to defer, weaken, or exclude them.

What should we change? DWCC supports this clause and recommends strengthening it to clarify that flexibility in the procurement strategy must be used to integrate accessibility requirements, including communication access requirements, instead of excluding or delaying them. The clause should also clarify that flexibility must not become a reason to accept inaccessible goods or services without clear remediation obligations, timelines, and interim access measures.What should we change it to? Add language stating that flexible procurement strategies shall be used to include accessibility requirements wherever possible, including communication access requirements for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing users. Add language stating that where full accessibility is not available at solicitation closing or contract award, the procurement strategy shall include a documented accessibility roadmap, interim communication-access measures, user testing, monitoring, and enforceable remediation timelines. Add language stating that interim measures may include ASL, LSQ, DeafBlind communication supports, captioning, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, accessible customer support, and accessible emergency communication where applicable.

What should we change? DWCC supports the use of flexible procurement requirements where full conformance is not possible at solicitation closing or contract award. However, Clause 10.1.3.2 should be strengthened to ensure that flexibility does not become a pathway for purchasing inaccessible goods or services without enforceable accessibility obligations. The clause should require that accessibility roadmaps include specific remediation timelines, interim access measures, user testing with affected users, reporting obligations, and consequences if accessibility milestones are not met.

What should we change? DWCC strongly supports requiring a mandatory written justification when accessibility requirements are excluded. DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 10.1.4 to make clear that communication access requirements cannot be excluded without specific written justification. The justification should explain whether the procurement may affect Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users, whether ASL, LSQ, DeafBlind communication supports, captioning, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, accessible emergency communication, or accessible customer support were considered, and why any of those requirements were excluded.

What should we change? DWCC strongly supports Clause 10.1.4.1 and recommends strengthening it to require specific justification when communication access requirements are excluded. The clause should require clients to identify whether the procurement may affect Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users and whether communication access requirements were considered before exclusion.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 10.1.4.2 so that procurement professionals do more than confirm that a written justification exists. They should confirm that the justification is complete, specific, evidence-based, and addresses the accessibility risks created by excluding requirements.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Section 11 to explicitly include communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people in procurement information, websites, applications, forms, notices, help desk support, engagement activities, and digital services. Accessible procurement information must not rely only on written text, audio, phone-based support, or general website accessibility. It must also include accessible communication options for DDBHH users.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.1 to state that clear procurement information must be provided not only in accessible formats, but also through accessible communication methods where needed. The clause should recognize Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing users, bidders, employees, business owners, evaluators, and end users who may need communication access throughout the procurement process.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.2 to clarify that plain language and accessible formats must include communication access where needed. Plain language is important, but it should not be treated as a substitute for ASL, LSQ, DeafBlind communication supports, captioning, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, or other communication supports.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.2.1 to clarify that plain language documents must not be treated as the only accessibility solution for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people. Where procurement documents affect DDBHH users, bidders, employees, or end users, plain language should be paired with accessible communication options, including ASL, LSQ, DeafBlind communication supports, captioning, transcripts, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, and text-based support.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.2.2 to clarify that plain language summaries must include essential accessibility and communication-access information. Where a full plain language document is not possible, the plain language summary should still provide enough information for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing users, bidders, employees, and end users to understand the procurement, deadlines, requirements, accessibility criteria, support options, and complaint or remediation pathways.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.2.3 to clarify that compliance with CAN-ASC-EN 301 549:2024 is necessary but may not be sufficient to ensure full communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people. Accessible formats should include not only technically accessible documents, but also communication-access formats where needed.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.3 to clarify that compliance with CAN-ASC-EN 301 549:2024 is necessary but should be accompanied by practical communication-access requirements for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing users. DWCC also notes a likely typo: “CAN-ASC-EN 301 549:20204” should be corrected to “CAN-ASC-EN 301 549:2024.”

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4 to make communication access a core requirement for all procurement engagement activities, including industry days, bidder meetings, public consultations, one-on-one meetings, site visits, debriefings, virtual meetings, and hybrid events. Engagement activities should not rely on spoken discussion, audio-only participation, phone access, inaccessible video platforms, or after-the-fact summaries as the main method of participation.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.1 to clarify that accessible and inclusive engagement activities must include communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants. The clause should also clarify that hybrid participation and stable network services are essential accessibility requirements when participants rely on ASL, LSQ, captioning, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, or DeafBlind communication supports.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.2 to state that information from engagement activities should capture accessibility barriers, communication-access needs, user experience, and required refinements identified by persons with disabilities. Where engagement activities involve or affect Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people, the information gathered should include DDBHH communication-access requirements and should be used to refine procurement requirements before solicitation documents are finalized.

What should we change? DWCC supports Clause 11.4.3 and recommends strengthening it to more fully address communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants. The clause should expand the list of communication requirements beyond simultaneous interpretation, real-time captioning, ASL, and LSQ to include DeafBlind communication supports, Indigenous Sign Languages where applicable, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, interpreter preparation materials, and accessible troubleshooting during the engagement activity.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.4 to clarify that in-person engagement accessibility includes communication access, not only physical access to facilities. In-person engagement must support Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants through accessible room setup, sightlines, lighting, interpreter placement, captioning equipment, DeafBlind communication supports, visual emergency information, and hybrid access where needed.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.4.1 to clarify that accessible in-person engagement requires both facility accessibility and communication access. The clause should not only expand on the need to ask attendees about accommodation requirements. It should also require organizers to proactively design in-person engagement so that Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants can participate effectively.

DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.4.2 to require that in-person facility assessments include communication-access conditions for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants. The site assessment should not be limited to physical access. It should also assess whether the space supports visual language, captioning, DeafBlind communication supports, accessible emergency information, interpreter placement, and hybrid or virtual participation where needed.

DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.4.3 to clarify that access to facilities for in-person engagement should include access to the communication-access environment inside the facility, not only exterior circulation and vehicular access. Physical entry into a facility does not guarantee meaningful participation if Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants cannot access interpreters, captioning, visual information, DeafBlind supports, or emergency communication once inside.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.4.4 to include facility specifications that support communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants. The current list includes important built-environment requirements, but it should more clearly address visual communication, tactile communication, captioning visibility, interpreter visibility, visual alerts, and accessible event information.

What should we change? DWCC supports Clause 11.4.4.5 and recommends strengthening it to ensure meeting rooms are designed for effective visual, tactile, and captioned communication. Meeting rooms should not only provide space for interpreters and captioning equipment. They should also ensure clear sightlines, lighting, video visibility, interpreter placement, captioning screen visibility, DeafBlind communication supports, and seating arrangements that allow Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants to participate fully.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.4.6 to include accessible emergency communication for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants. Emergency egress planning should not rely only on audio alarms, spoken instructions, or a list of individual evacuation needs. It should include visual, tactile, text-based, and communication-access procedures.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.5 to explicitly require virtual engagement platforms and procedures to support Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing communication access. Virtual engagement should not rely on audio-only participation, phone-only access, inaccessible video platforms, automatic captions without quality control, or after-the-fact summaries as substitutes for real-time participation.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.5.1 to clarify that virtual engagement accessibility must include real-time communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants. Digital accessibility and accommodations are important, but virtual engagement must also support visual language, captioning, relay-compatible communication, DeafBlind communication supports, accessible video interaction, and real-time troubleshooting.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.5.2 to specify practical communication-access requirements for virtual engagement. The clause should not rely only on general relay services and web platform compliance. It should require virtual engagement to support real-time participation by Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 11.4.5.3 by requiring event testing, not only recommending it, when accessibility accommodations or communication access are needed for virtual engagement. The clause should specifically require testing of DDBHH communication access, including ASL, LSQ, captioning, relay compatibility, accessible video quality, chat access, screen sharing, interpreter visibility, and troubleshooting procedures.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Section 12 to state that accessibility, including communication access, must be identified and built into procurement planning before requirements, budgets, timelines, evaluation criteria, testing methods, and contract terms are finalized. Planning a procurement should include early assessment of whether the good, service, system, platform, application, or contract may affect Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 12.1 to explicitly require clients to assess whether the procurement may affect communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users before requirements are finalized. The clause should also clarify that consultation with end users and subject-matter experts must include relevant lived experience and expertise. Where DDBHH users may be affected, this should include Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard-of-Hearing, ASL, LSQ, DeafBlind communication access, telecom, digital accessibility, emergency communication, and accessible procurement expertise.

What should we change? DWCC supports Clause 12.1.1 and recommends strengthening it to explicitly recognize communication-related accommodation procurement for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing individuals. The clause should clarify that individual accommodation procurement may include ASL or LSQ interpretation, DeafBlind communication supports, video remote interpreting, relay-compatible services, captioning, accessible video communication tools, assistive technologies, and service providers familiar with the individual’s communication needs.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 12.2 to require accessibility testing with affected users where a procurement may affect Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing people. Vendor demonstrations, self-declarations, and general third-party testing should not be the only evidence used to determine accessibility. Testing should include practical communication-access testing with relevant users and subject-matter experts.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 12.3 to clarify that solicitation documents and amendments must include clear accessibility and communication-access requirements, not only comply with accessible document-format requirements under Clause 11. Solicitation documents should clearly state what accessibility requirements bidders must meet, how accessibility will be evaluated, what evidence is required, and what remediation obligations will apply if accessibility barriers are identified.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 12.4 to require that accessibility evaluation be planned before solicitation documents are released and before bids are received. Evaluation planning should identify who will evaluate accessibility, what evidence bidders must provide, how accessibility will be scored or assessed, how user testing will be conducted, and how communication-access requirements will be evaluated where Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users may be affected.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 12.4.1 to clarify that the “best responsive bid” must include responsiveness to accessibility requirements. A bid should not be considered responsive if it does not meet mandatory accessibility requirements, does not provide required accessibility evidence, or does not demonstrate capacity to meet communication-access requirements where Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users may be affected.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 12.4.2 to clarify that sufficient evaluation time must include time for accessibility testing, communication-access testing, user testing with affected users, and review by relevant accessibility subject-matter experts. Where a procurement may affect Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users, the evaluation timeline should allow enough time to assess practical communication access, not only written bid responses.

What should we change? DWCC strongly supports Clause 12.4.3 and recommends strengthening it to require that evaluation panels include relevant lived experience and subject-matter expertise for the accessibility requirements being evaluated. Where a procurement may affect Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users, the evaluation panel should include Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing evaluators or subject-matter experts with relevant communication-access expertise.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Section 13 to ensure that bidding and contract award processes do not disadvantage Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard-of-Hearing, disabled, or Deaf-led bidders, and do not weaken accessibility requirements during award. The section should clarify that communication access, accessibility costs, accessible bidder conferences, accessible site visits, accessible amendments, and accessible debriefings are part of fair procurement participation.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 13.1 to clarify that a reasonable solicitation period must include enough time for bidders with disabilities to access, review, understand, and respond to solicitation documents using the communication supports they need. For Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing bidders, this may require additional time for ASL, LSQ, DeafBlind communication supports, captioned materials, relay-compatible communication, accessible video support, text-based clarification, and consultation with accessibility advisors or interpreters.

What should we change? DWCC strongly supports Clause 13.1.1 and recommends strengthening it to explicitly recognize communication-access costs as legitimate accessibility costs that must not disadvantage bidders. This should include costs related to ASL, LSQ, Indigenous Sign Languages where applicable, DeafBlind communication supports, captioning, video remote interpreting, video relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, text-based support, accessible customer support, and Deaf-led consultation or evaluation.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 13.2 to state that bidders conferences must provide effective communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing bidders and participants. Simply referring to Clause 11 is useful, but bidders conferences are high-risk communication events where procurement requirements, questions, clarifications, and amendments may be discussed in real time.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 13.3 to clarify that accessible site visits must include communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants. Clients and procurement professionals should proactively identify whether the site visit requires ASL, LSQ, DeafBlind communication supports, captioning, relay-compatible communication, accessible video participation, accessible safety information, or accessible emergency instructions.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 13.4 to clarify that responses to bidding inquiries must be accessible to Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing bidders and must not rely only on written text where communication access is needed. Written plain language responses are important, but accessible communication may also require captioning, transcripts, ASL or LSQ summaries, relay-compatible communication, accessible video, DeafBlind communication supports, or text-based clarification channels.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 13.5 to clarify that when a solicitation amendment affects accessibility requirements, communication-access requirements, evaluation criteria, timelines, or bid submission requirements, the remaining bid period must be adjusted to give bidders using accessible formats or communication supports enough time to respond. The clause should also clarify that amendments must be communicated through accessible formats and communication methods, not only standard written notices.

What should we change? DWCC supports Clause 13.6 and recommends strengthening it to ensure unsuccessful bidder debriefings provide effective communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing bidders. The clause should clarify that accessible debriefings may require ASL, LSQ, Indigenous Sign Languages where applicable, DeafBlind communication supports, captioning, transcripts, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, and accessible written follow-up.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Section 14 to clarify that accessibility requirements are enforceable contract deliverables, not optional features or post-award accommodations. Contract management should require clients to monitor, verify, remediate, and report on accessibility throughout the contract, including communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing users.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 14.1 to clarify how clients confirm that accessibility requirements are being met throughout the contract. Monitoring should include practical verification, user feedback, accessibility testing, communication-access testing, documentation of barriers, remediation timelines, and confirmation that task authorizations, amendments, renewals, and work orders preserve accessibility requirements.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 14.2 to clarify that deliverables should not be accepted as complete until accessibility requirements have been verified by people with relevant lived experience and subject-matter expertise. Where deliverables affect Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users, confirmation should include communication-access testing and inspection by DDBHH users or qualified DDBHH accessibility evaluators.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 14.3 to clarify that end users must have accessible ways to report accessibility issues and that reported issues must be tracked, resolved, and verified with affected users where appropriate. For Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing users, the process for reporting and resolving issues must include accessible communication options.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 14.4 to require organizations to measure whether procured goods and services are actually accessible to end users, including Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing users. Outcome measurement should not only track whether accessibility was mentioned in procurement documents. It should measure whether accessibility requirements worked in practice.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Section 15 to require accessible procurement training to include communication access for Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people. Training should not only cover general disability awareness, plain language, accessible documents, or accessible engagement. It should also train procurement professionals, clients, service-design teams, and senior management on DDBHH communication-access requirements and how to include them in procurement.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 15.1 to ensure training is provided to all people who influence accessibility outcomes in procurement, not only those formally responsible for procurement. Training should also apply to evaluators, contract managers, project authorities, technical authorities, service delivery teams, help desk and customer support teams, accessibility leads, information technology staff, communications staff, and anyone involved in testing, approving, monitoring, or remediating accessibility deliverables.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 15.2 to ensure training includes practical content on Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing communication access. Training should go beyond general communication with people with disabilities. It should teach procurement staff, clients, evaluators, contract managers, senior management, and service teams how to include, evaluate, contract, monitor, and enforce DDBHH communication-access requirements.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 15.3 to clarify that training development and delivery must be accessible to Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing participants and should include Deaf-led and disability-led expertise where the training addresses communication access. Training about accessible procurement should model the accessibility practices it teaches.

What should we change? DWCC supports Clause 15.3.1 and recommends strengthening it to require training to be developed with people with disabilities who have relevant lived experience and subject-matter expertise for the accessibility topics being taught. Where training addresses communication access, digital services, emergency communication, customer support, telecom services, AI-enabled accessibility tools, or procurement affecting Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing people, training development should include DDBHH and Deaf-led expertise.

What should we change? DWCC supports Clause 15.3.2 and recommends strengthening it so that people with disabilities are included as key members of the training delivery team when the training addresses barriers affecting their communities. Where training covers Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing communication access, delivery should include DDBHH trainers, Deaf-led organizations, or subject-matter experts with relevant lived experience.

What should we change? DWCC recommends strengthening Clause 15.3.3 to require training before a person makes or approves procurement decisions that affect accessibility. Training should also be required when a procurement involves communication access, emergency communication, telecom services, digital platforms, customer support, AI-enabled tools, or goods and services that have received accessibility complaints from Deaf, DeafBlind, or Hard-of-Hearing users.

What should we change? DWCC recommends expanding Annex A to include more Deaf, DeafBlind, Hard-of-Hearing, sign-language, communication-access, telecommunications, emergency communication, digital accessibility, and AI-accessibility resources. The bibliography should better reflect the evidence base needed to support accessible procurement for DDBHH users.

What should we change? DWCC recommends expanding Clause 16.1 to include other relevant federal legal references that support accessible procurement, equality, human rights, and the duty to accommodate. The Accessible Canada Act is essential, but accessible procurement is also connected to other legal obligations and public-sector responsibilities.

What should we change? DWCC recommends expanding Clause 16.2 to include standards, codes, or guidance that more directly address Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing communication access. The listed standards are important, but they do not fully address ASL, LSQ, Indigenous Sign Languages, DeafBlind communication supports, captioning, relay-compatible communication, accessible video communication, accessible emergency communication, accessible customer support, and accessible telecommunications services.

What should we change? DWCC recommends expanding Clause 16.3 to include online resources that help organizations procure accessible communication services, digital services, emergency communication tools, customer support systems, telecommunications services, and AI-enabled accessibility tools. The current resources are useful, but they should be supplemented with resources that address Deaf, DeafBlind, and Hard-of-Hearing communication access.

What should we change? DWCC supports the inclusion of Canadian Association of the Deaf’s 2023 publication, Advancing Accessibility Standards for Deaf, Deaf-Blind and Hard of Hearing Canadians. DWCC recommends expanding Clause 16.4 to include additional Deaf-led, DeafBlind, Hard-of-Hearing, communication-access, telecommunications, emergency communication, digital accessibility, and AI-accessibility publications. The publication list should better reflect the evidence base needed to support accessible procurement for DDBHH users.

See attached

Current text: “All internal and external facing websites and digital applications shall comply with CAN-ASC-EN 301 549:20204.”

Current text: “vi) All required documents are provided at least two (2) business days before the engagement begins.”

Current text: “iv) Signage”

Current text: “ww) Limited background noise.”

Current text: “ii) consult with end users, including people with disabilities, in the planning phase and throughout the procurement process;”

Current text: “a) as part of an evaluation, a demonstration is required for the good or service being procured to determine conformance to established accessibility requirements;”

Current text: “ii) people with disabilities or lived experience who are end users of the good or service;”

Current text: “yyy) Inspection for barriers by persons with disabilities before delivery whether it be at the contractor or the delivery site.”

Section 12.4 – Evaluation Criteria

A number of definitions were added to the procurement standard from other standards that were not fully vetted by the committee before release of this document. One of those definitions was circular in nature and in reviewing the document again there are other circular definition in the document. A circular definition occurs when the term being defined is used within the definition itself, or relies on a chain of definitions that loops back to the original term (e.g., "An automobile is a vehicle that has the characteristics of an automobile"). This creates a logical loop that fails to provide new information. A circular definition is not appropriate or acceptable in a standard because it introduces ambiguity and lacks operational utility. If a definition loops back on itself, it cannot be verified, measured, or audited, defeating the fundamental purpose of a standardized specification. Of the new definition the following is an example of a circular definition: Circular Term: "Service" • Original Text: "A service is obtained through formal arrangements such as contracts, memoranda of understanding, and letters of agreement, to support the realization of specific outcomes." • The Flaw: It defines a "service" by how it is acquired (contracts, MOUs) rather than explaining what a service actually is. • Proposed Alternatives: 1) An intangible commodity consisting of labor, time, expertise, or intellectual effort delivered by a contractor to achieve a specific operational outcome or capability for the organization. 2) “The performance of specialized activities or the application of expertise and resources by one party for the direct benefit of another, without transferring ownership of tangible goods, usually under agreed conditions of scope, standards, and remuneration.” 3) “The deliberate provision of specialized labor, expertise, or resources by one party to another, performed over time or on demand, primarily for the benefit of the recipient rather than for the transfer of physical goods, typically governed by explicit or implied terms regarding scope, quality, duration, and compensation.” The other definition that are circular in nature are: The following circular definitions have been identified, along with proposed alternative language to resolve the ambiguity and ensure an impartial process. 1. Circular Term: "Procurement" • Original Text: "The process of obtaining goods, services or construction from the planning and the completion of the procurement life cycle." • The Flaw: Defining "procurement" by referencing the "procurement life cycle" creates a closed logical loop. • Proposed Alternative: Procurement — The comprehensive acquisition process of securing goods, services, or construction works from external sources. It spans the identification of a need through to requirement definition, sourcing, contract award, performance monitoring, and asset disposal. 2. Circular Term: "Procurement Life Cycle" • Original Text: "The continuum of effective and efficient management of procurement phases including: planning; acquisition and execution; use and maintenance; and disposal and closeout." • The Flaw: This relies entirely on the root word "procurement" to explain its own operational timeline. • Proposed Alternative: Procurement Life Cycle — The complete multi-phase timeline governing an acquisition, beginning with initial project planning and requirement validation, progressing through solicitation and contract execution, and concluding with asset management, contract closeout, or disposal. 3. Circular Term: "Procurement Professional" • Original Text: "A procurement professional is anyone responsible for facilitating the procurement function within an organization and has the responsibility to enter into a contract or contractual agreement to purchase goods, services, and construction on behalf of a business owner." • The Flaw: Uses both "procurement" and "professional" (by implication of role) to define the person. • Proposed Alternative: Procurement Professional — An designated specialist or designated authority tasked with executing and managing an organization’s acquisition processes, ensuring compliance with relevant policies, trade agreements, and accessibility standards throughout the contracting timeline. 4. Circular Term: "Purchasing" • Original Text: "The buying process within the procurement cycle." • The Flaw: While slightly less direct, defining purchasing using "procurement cycle" (which relies on procurement) creates an indirect circular dependency in the terminology framework. • Proposed Alternative: Purchasing — The specific transactional subset of activities within an acquisition process focused on ordering, receiving, and finalizing payment for goods or services.

In Clause 13.1.1 of the Canadian draft standard (CAN-ASC-4.1), which is titled "Accessibility cost treatment in bidding". This specific clause directs clients and procurement professionals to allow bidders to separately itemize costs for accommodating themselves or their employees, and explicitly states that they must "ensure the accommodation-related costs are not included in the evaluation of the financial proposals". The clause establishes a specific mechanism to ensure that businesses are not penalized for the costs of accommodating their own employees with disabilities. According to the standard, procuring organizations must allow bidders to separately itemize the expected costs to accommodate themselves or their employees during the contract. Crucially, these accommodation-related costs must not be included in the evaluation of the financial proposals. Instead, the procuring organization validates that the costs are fair and reasonable prior to the contract award, and then reflects them in the basis of payment for the resulting contract. There is no explicit parallel in the European Union procurement standards that mandates removing a supplier's internal employee accommodation costs from the financial evaluation of a bid. However, the EU deals with the underlying goal of promoting inclusive and accessible practices through a broader, holistic evaluation framework rather than a specific financial carve-out: The Most Economically Advantageous Tender (MEAT) Criterion instead of relying strictly on the lowest price, EU contracting authorities are required to award public contracts based on the "Most Economically Advantageous Tender" (MEAT) criterion. This approach emphasizes the best price-quality ratio, allowing procuring entities to evaluate bids based on a combination of cost, quality, and social and environmental factors. Because lowest price is not the only metric, a supplier whose bid is slightly higher due to fair labor practices or inclusive employment accommodations can still win if they score highly on the qualitative and social criteria. Social Procurement and Social Inclusion The EU strongly advocates for "Strategic Public Procurement," which includes social procurement initiatives designed to foster social inclusion and support marginalized groups. Contracting authorities can address these goals in several ways: Award Criteria: The EU Public Procurement Directive (Directive 2014/24/EU) explicitly allows authorities to use "social characteristics" as part of their award criteria linked to the subject matter of the contract. Dividing Contracts: The rules encourage the division of contracts into smaller lots and promote measures that make procurement friendlier to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and social economy enterprises. Integration of Accessibility Costs: While the Canadian model separates supplier accommodation costs from the bid's financial evaluation, the EU approach expects suppliers to integrate their costs directly into their bids. While in this document Canada uses a targeted financial exclusion rule to level the playing field for suppliers employing persons with disabilities, the European Union relies on the MEAT evaluation framework to ensure that public buyers can reward social inclusion and quality without being forced to automatically select the cheapest bid. Despite policies encouraging the evaluation of social and qualitative criteria (like the Most Economically Advantageous Tender), 55% of EU procurement procedures still use the lowest price as the only award criterion. This indicates a practical challenge in shifting the culture of public buyers away from strictly financial metrics toward prioritizing quality, sustainability, and inclusion. The EU experience indicates that despite the policies that cost is still a significant determinant in the final decision. Given that in practice in Canada there is no funding source that compensates the procuring agency for those real accommodates costs and given that in practice overall cost is still the strongest determining factor in the large major of procurement processes, the clause as it sits may still not be sufficient ensure proposal that have accommodation costs, especially if significant given the overall cost of the contract, will by fairly evaluated. Other reasons can still be used to exclude a supplier. The MEAT process suggests that points being given for social inclusion might another approach.

Loopholes in the "Flexible Procurement" & Roadmap Exception (Clause 10.1.3) The standard permits clients to buy Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) solutions that do not comply with accessibility requirements at contract award, provided the vendor delivers a "roadmap" for remediation. • The Flaw: This relies entirely on vendor promises and creates an uneven playing field. A non-compliant vendor offering a lower price could win a contract over a fully compliant vendor by submitting an ambitious "roadmap". • The Gap: There are no clawbacks, penalties, or contract-termination protocols explicitly defined if the vendor fails to meet their remediation timeline. Furthermore, leaving remediation methods to be "agreed upon by all parties" during contract execution introduces massive subjective variability and weakens enforcement.

Discretionary Vulnerabilities in "Mandatory Justification" (Clause 10.1.4) The standard requires a written, signed justification if accessibility is excluded from a procurement file. • The Flaw: While Note 1 advises "discretion must be used," the standard relies heavily on a "challenge function" performed by the procurement professional. It lacks an independent oversight board or mandatory secondary sign-off. • The Gap: If an agency operates under tight deadlines, procurement professionals face cultural and systemic pressure to accept weak justifications just to keep files moving, turning a mandatory gatekeeping exercise into a rubber-stamping formality.

Subjectivity in the "Evaluation Panel" Selection (Clause 12.4.3) Clause 12.4.3 states the panel shall include subject matter experts, individuals with lived experience, or independent third-party experts. • The Flaw: The draft uses the word "or" rather than "and". This means an evaluation panel could completely bypass individuals with lived experience or independent third parties by simply asserting that their internal project staff qualify as "subject matter experts". The standard states that the evaluation panel shall include individuals with subject matter expertise, including: o the grammatical use of the word "or" at the end of the list. In legislative and standard drafting, this construction means the list is disjunctive rather than conjunctive. Because it uses "or" rather than "and", an organization is only strictly required to fulfill one of those bullet points. Therefore, : a procuring entity could completely bypass people with lived experience by claiming their internal project staff satisfy the first bullet point ("subject matter experts") • The Gap: Without a mandatory baseline requiring cross-disability representation directly on the scoring panel, the evaluation of complex technical accessibility criteria remains vulnerable to un-vetted, non-expert interpretation. no mandatory baseline requiring cross-disability representation on the scoring panel. By leaving the inclusion of people with lived experience as an option (using "or"), the standard permits evaluation panels to grade complex technical accessibility requirements without the necessary lived expertise on the actual scoring team. This introduces massive subjectivity and undermines the core principle of inclusive procurement.

Over-Reliance on Informative/Draft References (Section 8 & Annex A) To define core execution protocols (such as training delivery or proactive physical accommodations), the standard heavily references CAN-ASC-5.2.1 Part 1, which is explicitly listed as a draft standard. • The Flaw: A standard relying on another unfinalized standard creates legal and operational instability. If the referenced draft changes significantly before publication, it introduces compliance contradictions. This is a comment more on procedure.

Include references to the intersecting published standards (ASC will likely to this, but including here regardless.)

The text in the opening paragraph

i) defining the required capabilities,

d) End users by ensuring that individuals who use or interact with the goods or services procured are consulted throughout the procurement process to identify and remove barriers.

e) ...Businesses are also expected to demonstrate how they will meet accessibility requirements and implement them. This will be monitored and evaluated no differently than other contractual obligations.

b) defining accessibility requirements for a procurement and a mandatory justification, with the decision-making process, when accessibility is not included;

e) accessibility procurement life cycle; and

Add an ASC standard

ii) include accessibility requirements when specifying criteria for goods and services procured;

iii) include technical evaluation criteria to assess the bidder’s capacity to deliver against accessibility specifications;

iv) verify that contract deliverables incorporated accessibility requirements as defined in the solicitation; and

iv) verify that contract deliverables incorporated accessibility requirements as defined in the solicitation; and

Add a definition for specifications (statement of work, statement of requirements)

Note: An example of applying a flexible approach is for the purchase of a commercial, off-the-shelf solution that does not meet accessibility standards at contract award.

c. At the request of the client and in addition to the roadmap, the contractor shall provide methods of remediation to end users when accessibility barriers are reported during the remediation period.

d. The remediation shall be agreed upon by all parties.

Note 1: Discretion must be used when determining the reasons why accessibility requirements might not be applicable. For example, there is a difference in the reasons why accessibility is not applicable for a procurement looking to acquire construction materials as compared to a procurement looking to implement a new human resource platform for employees.

Note 2: An example of such a justification form can be found at the link: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/acquisitions/temporary-help/templates-for-federal-department-clients/accessibility-criteria-procurement-justification-form.html

c) Employees responsible for procurement-related policies and programs.

d. Users who interact with the good, service, or construction.

d. Instructional training materials (internal and external facing)

h. Communications to businesses (for example, news items or correspondence)

All internal and external facing websites and digital applications shall comply with CAN-ASC-EN 301 549:20204. This includes those used in: planning; bidding and contract award; contract management; closeout phases; and clauses

3. Businesses’ information and outreach activities

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.

v. goods and services requirements; or

c. enhance their understanding of industry goods and service offerings in the areas of interest; and

Whether an engagement activity will be held in-person or virtually, the organizers shall:

vii) A clear protocol for remediation during engagements is established so participants whose needs are not met can contact the organizer directly.

2) comply with CAN-ASC-5.2.1 Part 1 (draft standard)

Meeting rooms that are used for in-person outreach events shall provide the following, including but not limited to:

To facilitate emergency egress for in-person events, facilities shall:

i) 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;

iv) consult with accessibility subject matter experts including persons with disabilities; and

v. where no clear suitable solution can be found, follow the mandatory justification for excluding accessibility set out in Clause 10.1.4

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.

i. engage with industry (network of potential suppliers) and organizations who have procured similar goods or services to understand market capacity to help develop a procurement strategy that includes accessibility requirements; and

Where procurement is conducted to meet the specific accommodation needs of a person with a disability, standard competitive procurement rules may be set aside in recognition of obligations under the Accessible Canada Act, the Employment Equity Act, and the Financial Administration Act. In such cases: the individual shall be involved in evaluating and selecting the solution; evaluation may include personal factors such as communication preferences, provider familiarity, and service compatibility; and procurement policies shall not override the duty to accommodate. Flexibility must be exercised to ensure accommodations are timely, effective, and uphold the individual’s dignity and autonomy.

d. the time period for which a bid(s) will be valid.

The evaluation panel responsible for evaluating bids shall include: individuals with subject matter expertise to evaluate the accessibility requirements of the procurement including: subject matter experts on the good, service or construction being provided; people with disabilities or lived experience who are end users of the good or service; or if required, independent third-party experts with accessibility knowledge of the good, service or construction being procured.

Note: A reasonable amount of time will vary depending on the solution. Solicitations could consider the time required for a supplier to respond. Solicitations could also factor the time required to prepare documents in accessible formats. It would be important to note that people with disabilities may need to be given enough time to prepare and submit a response to a solicitation.

This section requires additional review to clarify a number of questions below.

Identifying the evaluation panel content

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. Where possible the service should be provided in-house to the organization, or the bidder may be invited to propose a qualified interpreter or translator for approval. This may include the translation of written debrief to sign language video format to ensure accessibility while maintaining confidentiality and impartiality.

c. Inspection for barriers by persons with disabilities before delivery whether it be at the contractor or the delivery site

Clients shall be responsible for confirming that the contracted business resolved any end user reported accessibility issues in accordance with the contract.

i) the purposes of the Accessible Canada Act;

b. before or immediately after the person joins an organization or begins work with the organization;

e) whenever a procurement involves a good or service that has received multiple accessibility complaints, or when a new or updated standard becomes available.

Example of Justification form https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/services/acquisitions/temporary-help/templates-for-federal-department-clients/accessibility-criteria-procurement-justification-form.html

d. The remediation shall be agreed upon by all parties.

This Standard provides requirements to create an equitable and accessible procurement process. These requirements provide technical guidance to help organizations facilitate an equitable and accessible procurement process

Procurement professionals can include: i. supply specialists; ii. the contracting authority; iii. contracting officers; iv. materiel management specialists; and v. procurement officers.

This includes individuals responsible for procurement, employees who support these processes, and businesses who bid on these processes or sell their products.

c. Procurement policy and program service and delivery teams within organizations by ensuring that the user experience and accessibility requirements are incorporated when developing web and non-web content, websites, forms, and digital applications. This also includes, but is not limited to services such as:...

i. usage tutorials;

d. End users by ensuring that individuals who use or interact with the goods or services procured are consulted throughout the procurement process to identify and remove barriers.

Businesses by ensuring that the procurement process is accessible to those involved in businesses, including those owned by persons with disabilities, or where employees with disabilities support procurement processes.

Above all and in the spirit of this Standard, people with disabilities are involved in procurement.

This Standard specifies the technical requirements to help an organization integrate accessibility in procurement. It includes specifications for:

This Standard respects and is complementary to the principles, purpose, and requirements of federal government procurement. Although written in the federal context, the principles should be adapted to other procurement contexts.

Accessible format — includes other formats of communicating information including, but not limited to, audio formats, braille, large print, plain language, and sign language.

Competitive contract — a contract that is entered into by soliciting more than one bid.

Non-competitive contract — a contract that is entered into without soliciting bids.

Purchasing — the buying process within the procurement cycle.

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: Lived experience relating to accessibility. Relevant industry work experience. Formal education or training. Professional practice within the subject area.

Policies and procedures shall state that accessibility requirements: a. be included throughout the procurement process including: i. all phases of procurement (planning, bidding and contract award, and contract management and closeout); and ii. any competitive or non-competitive solicitation and resulting method of supply such as contracts, standing offers, or supply arrangements; b. be included in the specifications for the procurement of goods and services including: i. developing evaluation criteria and throughout the evaluation process; ii. identifying testing requirements at the solicitation and contract phase; iii. developing solicitation and contract documents; and iv. delivering industry engagement activities; and

Policies and procedures shall state that accessibility requirements: be included throughout the procurement process including: all phases of procurement (planning, bidding and contract award, and contract management and closeout); and any competitive or non-competitive solicitation and resulting method of supply such as contracts, standing offers, or supply arrangements; be included in the specifications for the procurement of goods and services including: developing evaluation criteria and throughout the evaluation process; identifying testing requirements at the solicitation and contract phase; developing solicitation and contract documents; and delivering industry engagement activities; and when accessibility requirements are not included in the specifications for a procurement, a mandatory written justification complying with Clause 10.1.4 shall be provided.

include technical evaluation criteria to assess the bidder’s capacity to deliver against accessibility specifications;

d) verify that contract deliverables incorporated accessibility requirements as defined in the solicitation.

provide a mandatory written justification complying with Clause 10.1.4 when accessibility requirements are not included in the specifications for a procurement; and

when applicable, advise the client of their responsibility to include accessibility requirements in the specifications for the goods and services being procured;

the responsibility of the procurement professional to: when applicable, advise the client of their responsibility to include accessibility requirements in the specifications for the goods and services being procured; Note: 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. assist the client by identifying subject matter experts and relevant resources that can help to develop accessibility requirements; when applicable, play a challenge function when clients have not included accessibility requirements in the procurement; and 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.

Flexibility in the procurement strategy shall provide an opportunity to integrate accessibility requirements into a procurement instead of excluding it.

a. Procurement policies shall specify that clients adopt a flexible approach to meeting accessibility requirements when conformance at the time of solicitation closing is not possible.

Note: An example of applying a flexible approach is for the purchase of a commercial, off-the-shelf solution that does not meet accessibility standards at contract award.

The remediation shall be agreed upon by all parties.

At the request of the client and in addition to the roadmap, the contractor shall provide methods of remediation to end users when accessibility barriers are reported during the remediation period.

provide the reasons why accessibility requirements were not included in the procurement and provide information on the decision-making process to exclude accessibility requirements, including the following activities, if applicable:

developing a flexible procurement approach complying with Clause 10.1.3; and

Note 1: Discretion must be used when determining the reasons why accessibility requirements might not be applicable. For example, there is a difference in the reasons why accessibility is not applicable for a procurement looking to acquire construction materials as compared to a procurement looking to implement a new human resource platform for employees[P

a. require a mandatory written justification from clients if accessibility requirements were excluded from the procurement. b. provide the reasons why accessibility requirements were not included in the procurement and provide information on the decision-making process to exclude accessibility requirements, including the following activities, if applicable:

Information from engagement activities should provide clients with the information necessary to: determine whether to proceed with planned requirements for procurement; determine if refinements should be made to the procurement including: the procurement strategy; the procurement structure; cost estimates; timelines; goods and services requirements; or any other aspect of the procurement requirements; enhance their understanding of industry goods and service offerings in the areas of interest; and assess alternative solutions that would meet its requirements, such as accessibility requirements for goods.

follow the list of considerations below to tailor in-person and virtual activities, including but not limited to:

Any physical mobility requirements, with the opportunity to specify the requirement.

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). While not all accommodations can be universally applied, many can be adopted without overburdening the process or reducing the quality of engagement.

When an outreach session is planned in-person, the client shall conduct a site assessment to comply with the requirements of Clauses 11.4.4.3 through 11.4.4.6.

The following built environment elements that facilitate in-person events shall:

Reduce functional and cognitive barriers Environmental intolerances;

Meeting rooms that are used for in-person outreach events shall provide the following, including but not limited to:

If an engagement event is hosted virtually, the organizer of the event shall:

b) provide relay services complying with CAN/ASC EN-301 549:2024;

provide documents complying with Clause 11; and

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;

v. where no clear suitable solution can be found, follow the mandatory justification for excluding accessibility set out in Clause 10.1.4.

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.

engage with industry (network of potential suppliers) and organizations who have procured similar goods or services to understand market capacity to help develop a procurement strategy that includes accessibility requirements; and

Where procurement is conducted to meet the specific accommodation needs of a person with a disability, standard competitive procurement rules may be set aside in recognition of obligations under the Accessible Canada Act, the Employment Equity Act, and the Financial Administration Act. In such cases:

the individual shall be involved in evaluating and selecting the solution;

b) evaluation may include personal factors such as communication preferences, provider familiarity, and service compatibility; and

include subcontracting requirements for this testing within the requirements of the procurement; and

state that third-party testing will be required in solicitation documents.

Any solicitation documents including amendments shall comply with Clause 11.

the complexity of the bid, including accessibility requirements, of the bid;

the time period for which a bid(s) will be valid.

12.4.3 Identifying the evaluation panel The evaluation panel responsible for evaluating bids shall include: individuals with subject matter expertise to evaluate the accessibility requirements of the procurement including: subject matter experts on the good, service or construction being provided; people with disabilities or lived experience who are end users of the good or service; or if required, independent third-party experts with accessibility knowledge of the good, service or construction being procured.

13.1.1 Accessibility cost treatment in bidding To promote equitable and inclusive participation in procurement opportunities, clients and procurement professionals shall: provide bidders an opportunity to itemize any costs expected to be incurred to accommodate themselves or their employees during the performance of the work under the contract; 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); describe in the solicitation document how these accommodation-related costs will be assessed; ensure the accommodation-related costs are not included in the evaluation of the financial proposals; validate, prior to contract award, that the accommodation-related costs are fair and reasonable; and, ensure that the accommodation-related costs are reflected in the basis of payment of the resulting contract.

When preparing responses to bidding inquiries, procurement professionals and clients shall prepare a written response in plain language complying with Clause 11.2.

provides documents in an accessible format and in plain language complying with Clause 11;

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

if required, ensures sign language interpretation is provided to debrief meetings, and allow reasonable time extension past the deadline to unsuccessful bidders.

Inspection for barriers by persons with disabilities before delivery whether it be at the contractor or the delivery site

Clients shall be responsible for confirming that the contracted business resolved any end user reported accessibility issues in accordance with the contract.

15.3.3 Timing Training complying with Clause 15.2 shall be provided: to all individuals listed in Clause 15.1; before or immediately after the person joins an organization or begins work with the organization; when there are changes to policies, practices, and information regarding accessible procurement; at a minimum of every 2 years; and whenever a procurement involves a good or service that has received multiple accessibility complaints, or when a new or updated standard becomes available.

The following documents shall comply with CAN-ASC-3.1:2025: ... Solicitation and contract award documents

- What is the expectation with regards to the roadmap in 10.1.3.2 (b), if remediation is not achieved? - Is the expectation to comply with accessibility standards in all situations, including for procurement to respond to emergency situations?

- There are several references to “organizers” without a clear definition, and this could lead to possible confusion regarding certain responsibilities between the Contracting Authority and the Client. - More specifically, paragraph 11.4.3 outlines a list of responsibilities assigned to organizers in relation to engagement activities. - There is a concern that these responsibilities may be interpreted as falling under the contracting authorities. Could we clarify that , in this context, “organizers” refers to the “client”? - Is the requirement to summarize documents in the context of solicitations referring to the Notice of Proposed Procurement (NPP) or something else in 11.2.2.

- PSPC has a high volume of procurement and schedule may be impacted with the requirements related to the evaluation panel.

- Is it expected that a separate line item for accommodation-related costs be included in the basis of payment for the resources providing the services requested under a contract? o If so, will standard clauses be provided in CMI to support this? At a minimum, the PG community would require examples of basis of payment clauses and basis of payment line items to ensure consistency across all procurements. - Additionally, how will we validate that accommodation-related costs are fair and reasonable? Given that these costs will not form part of the financial evaluation (see 13.1.1 d)), how do we mitigate the risk that bidders may include unrelated costs in this line item to make their financial proposals more competitive? This approach appears to create a heightened risk of complaints from unsuccessful bidders.

Providing mandatory written justification related to this section on each procurement can potentially delay or stop activities meaningful to operations, including, but not limited to emergencies

Providing mandatory written justification (regardless of the dollar value) can cause a significant delay in the procurement process. Include exceptions as not all procurements have accessibility requirements, for example: some that are technical in nature, such as mechanical equipment and parts.

b) Vague statement, there is a lack of clarity on who determines applicability

b) (i) - This is a new requirement, which is assumed that an internal structure is in place, however it may even require a consultation model, slowing down procurement activities. Needs to be an achievable model that doesn't slow down the procurement.

b) (vi) - There is a need to clearly define the scope and components of the risk assessment

Looking for clarity on the type of procurement

It is not clear if this is a new mandatory requirement to have engagement in person or virtual events for procurements or only when it arises. Currently, engagements are not requirement with all procurements

12.1 (a) - Not all procurements have a related accessibility, for example engine parts or electrical components). This statement needs to allow flexibility for these types of exclusions

(a) (ii) - This is a new requirement, which is assumed that an internal structure is in place, however it may even require a consultation model, slowing down procurement activities. Needs to be an achievable model that doesn't slow down the procurement.

(a) (ii) - The evaluation panel includes subject matter experts and it will be difficult to comply from a resource, governance and regulatory compliance perspective

Cost treatment is a vague statement that requires clarity

Need clarity regarding the expectation around accessibility requirements being established, are they being reviewed upon each amendment

Need to define what type of monitoring and measures are required

Guidance to include exceptions as not all procurements have accessibility requirements, for example: some that are technical in nature, such as mechanical equipment and parts.

This Standard provides requirements to create an equitable and accessible procurement process. These requirements provide technical guidance to help organizations facilitate an equitable and accessible procurement process.