Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddendum 2 - RFP - 10042 Translation & Interpretation Services for Municipal Court ADDENDUM NO. 2 SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Description of RFP 10042: Translation & Interpretation Services OPENING DATE: 3:00 PM MT (RMEPS Clock) September 18, 2024 To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above, the following changes/additions are hereby made and detailed in the following sections of this addendum: Exhibit 1 – Questions & Answers Exhibit 2 – Colorado Technology Accessibility Rules Please contact Beth Diven, Buyer II, at bdiven@fcgov.com with any questions regarding this addendum. RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED. nd Floor 970.221.6775 970.221.6707 fcgov.com/purchasing Addendum 2 Page 1 of 19 EXHIBIT 1 – QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 1. Specifically, we are interested in knowing if vendors are allowed to bid solely for written translation services (excluding telephone, video, and/or on-site interpretation), and whether this preference could affect our chances in the contract award process. No, we are only interested in court-certified individuals who can perform both interpretation and translation. Interpretation will be the bulk of the services required. 2. In an average month how many in person interpretation assignments are there and how many virtual assignments? What days of the week are the assignments? The Court holds virtual hearings on Tuesday afternoons each week. On two Tuesdays a month, Spanish hearings are held. The other two Tuesdays are a mix of languages. In person hearings are held at least twice a month on Tuesdays for individuals speaking Spanish. Approximately three times a year, in-person interpreters are requested for a Thursday or Friday morning trial. Approximately once a month, a virtual hearing for individuals held in custody. In-custody hearings are a mix of languages. 3. From page 5 of the RFP: Service Providers will be required to perform remote video interpretation services on a platform compatible with the City’s technology and cyber security policies. Are Service Providers are required to have their own proprietary VRI software? The Court uses Zoom or Web Ex for all virtual hearings. Therefore, Service Providers are not expected to have their own proprietary VRI. 4. From Page 5 of the RFP: The Service Provider will be responsible for ensuring that, prior to providing any type of language access service for the City, each assigned staff member is certified to perform as a legal interpreter, evidenced through a nationally recognized certification program. What certification program is this referring to? Does this mean that all interpreters must be federally court certified? For Russian, Arabic, Korean there may be one Federal Court Certified interpreter in all of Colorado. The Spanish Federal Court certified interpreters work only with Federal Courts. The Chief Justice for the State of Colorado requires a language interpreter to meet minimum professional competency standards, achieve a passing score on an oral certification exam for interpreters recognized by the Colorado Judicial Department, and be listed on the active certified interpreter roster maintained by the OLA (Office of Language Access). The City already has agreements for general translation and interpretation services City-wide, which were awarded under a prior RFP. We are ONLY interested in court certified interpreters for this RFP, and the awarded agreement(s) will be for the sole use of the Municipal Court. 5. From page 6 of the RFP: Service Provider will collect and maintain public feedback regarding quality of interpretation services, through an established and accessible process. Service Provider will make this data available to the City upon request. How is this public feedback to be collected? Who would provide this feedback to the Service Provider? The City expects the Service Provider to have its own established process for Addendum 2 Page 2 of 19 obtaining feedback from its clients. The City does not define this process for you, nor does the City collect or facilitate the feedback process on behalf of the Service Provider. 6. Can you please clarify this answer from addendum 1: Can you share any pricing from previous contracts? The City has not previously had formal agreements for court certified interpretation and translation services.-----In 2021 the City of Fort Collins issued and RFP for interpretation and translation services (attached to this email). Are you stating that there were no contracts given for the 2021 RFP? The 2021 RFP was for general City-wide interpretation and translation services, and three agreements were awarded. That RFP however did not address the specific needs and requirements of the Municipal Court. This RFP is ONLY for court interpretation and translation. As stated in Addendum 1, the City has not previously contracted for translation and interpretation services for the Municipal Court, and therefore cannot provide pricing information relevant to the specific services and requirements set forth in this RFP. 7. What is the anticipated volume of translation and interpretation requests per week or month for the Fort Collins Municipal Court? See answer to Question 2. 8. Could you provide a list of the languages most frequently needed for interpretation and translation services within the Fort Collins Municipal Court? See Section I. B. on page 4 of the RFP document. 9. What specific certifications or qualifications are required or preferred for interpreters and translators working on this contract? See answer to Question 4. 10. What are the City of Fort Collins' expectations or requirements regarding quality control for interpretation and translation services? Because of the legal nature of the Court’s work, the Court has high expectations for services provided along with high expectations for the confidentiality of the individuals who receive this service. 11. Is there a minimum required level of experience in legal or municipal court settings that service providers need to meet for this contract? There is no minimum required level of experience as long as the quality of the services provided is maintained. 12. Would AI translation software would be accepted as an option for the solicitation? No. 13. Would you please share the current awards and contracts in effect for Translation and Interpretation services? . The City currently has 3 agreements awarded from a prior RFP and two additional agreements from a separate informal process focused on in-person Addendum 2 Page 3 of 19 interpretation. These agreements however do not meet the certification requirements for the Municipal Court. That is why this RFP is being conducted. Any agreements awarded from this RFP will only be used by the Municipal Court and are not eligible for City-wide use. 14. Also, would you kindly share what the current annual spend on both Translation and Interpretation services are? City-wide spend for these services is not readily available. Also, those services are separate from the Municipal Court and would not be a good indicator of the Municipal Court’s utilization, which is significantly less. Please note that any agreements awarded under this RFP will only be for the Municipal Court and must meet the specific certification requirements for court interpretation. Proposals that do not meet the certification requirements and/or that are for City-wide services will be considered non-responsive. 15. Do we require background checks only in case of on-site and in-person Court hearing dockets? No. The Court does not require a background check since interpreters/translators will not have direct access to the Court’s case management system or criminal case files. 16. Can we get the Proposal Submittal in Word format? Yes, a Word version will be uploaded to BidNet. 17. Who are your current service providers? The City does not currently have any contracts in place for Municipal Court translation and interpretation. As noted in Question 13, there are generally City- wide agreements but those do not meet the needs of the Municipal Court. 18. What are your current rates for written translation, telephonic interpretation/translation, and in person and live streamed court hearing translation services? (Please provide full and detailed information). As has been previously addressed, we do not have contracts in place for these services for the Court. Therefore, there is not historical Municipal Court pricing data available. Service Providers are expected to provide their standard rates in their proposals. 19. How many minutes of in person interpretation services do you use on a monthly basis? How many hours of live streamed court hearing translation services do you use on a monthly basis? Approximately 14 hours of live streamed court hearings a month. Approximately 4 hours of in-person hearings a month. 20. How many words are usually translated on a monthly basis? The Court reviews all translated documents annually and or as needed. Annually, approximately 10,0000 words are translated. State and Federal law updates, new Addendum 2 Page 4 of 19 programing, and newly adopted ordinances would increase this amount. The Court rarely if ever needs this information translated within less than a week. 21. What is the anticipated contract value? Probably in the range of $10-15,000 per year. 22. Is this procurement solely for use by the Municipal Court, or will it be open to use by other departments within Fort Collins? This is solely for the Municipal Court and any resulting contracts will not be eligible for City-wide use. 23. Is the City open to accepting bids under a cooperative contract agreement, such as Omnia Partners, etc? No, we are not. 24. On page 5 of the RFP, it asks: “Do we require background checks?” Please clarify RFP background requirements and specify if these only apply to onsite interpreters. See answer to Question 15. 25. Given the City of Fort Collins anticipates awarding contracts to multiple qualified Service Providers, how will they be distributed? This will depend on the availability and languages offered by the awarded Service Provider(s). The City does not have a predetermined format. 26. What is the budget for this contract? The City does not have a predetermined budget for these services, as they will be on an as-needed basis. 27. What is the expected period of performance for this contract? The awarded Service Provider(s) will be expected to enter into a one (1) year agreement which can then be renewed for up to four (4) additional one-year terms. 28. What certification are you requesting for each individual providing language access service? (Section B.2) See answer to Question 4. 29. What is the benchmark/ requirement for ongoing training for staff in regard to cultural competency and standards of ethical conduct? (Section B.5) The City expects Service Providers to have their own, established processes with regard to cultural competency for all languages they offer. Service Provider should also have their own defined standards of ethical conduct. 30. Is there a preferred/ recommended vendor for background checks? (Section B.6) No. Addendum 2 Page 5 of 19 31. What challenges have you faced with similar scope of work from vendors you worked with? The City has encountered challenges finding court-certified individuals. Interpreter/translator availability has also been a challenge. 32. What is the average length of an interpreting service requested? The average length of interpretation is 4 hours a session. 33. Does the Client provide equipment for on-site simultaneous interpretation (if simultaneous is needed)? See answer to Question 3. 34. What percentage of your interpreting assignments are rush request, with less than 2 full business days’ notice? This is a small percentage, less than 15% of requests for legal certified interpreters. Most assignments are requested on a reoccurring basis or with at least a week (or more) notice. In order to reschedule LEP individuals who we do not know about in advance, we do need the ability to access conversational interpreters by telephone during business hours. These interpreters do not need to be certified legal interpreters, just conversational interpreters. 35. What file types, content type, etc. will be submitted for translation? Legal advisement forms, notices of appearance, payment applications, applications for defense counsel, informational sheets on court programing 36. Is there a budget allocated to this contract? If yes, how much? See answer to Question 26. 37. Can we only provide our offer for remote services? No. In-person interpretation is critical to this RFP. 38. Could you provide more details or share a copy of the City’s accessibility standards? The technology accessibility requirements pertain to a recent CO law which requires that all Information and Communication Technology meet specific standards set by the Governor’s Office of Information Technology. Attached as Exhibit B are the accessibility rules adopted earlier this year, which adopted W3C WCAG 2.1 conformance levels A and AA, as well as the standards contained in 508 for hardware containing a user interface. You can find more information regarding the City’s digital accessibility updates, as well as links to the relevant legislation, at: https://www.fcgov.com/legal/accessibility 39. What are the average interpretation requests that you anticipate requesting monthly? See answer to Question 2. 40. What are the most requested languages? See Section I. B. on page 4 of the RFP document. Addendum 2 Page 6 of 19 41. Who is the current incumbent and what are their rates? There is not an incumbent for interpretation and translations services specifically for the Municipal Court. 42. Have you had any difficulties with the current incumbent? See answer to Question 31. 43. Do you need any proof of certification for the interpreters at the time of submission? Yes, please provide evidence of court-certification for all proposed interpreters. 44. Will you need interpretation equipment for any of these requests? See answer to Question 3. 45. Will the request be for in person, or will some be virtual? See answer to Question 2. 46. Will you allow for a two-hour minimum for in person and one hour minimum for virtual? Yes. 47. For the in-person requests, what area or cities will they be in? In-person requests will be at the Municipal Court, 215 N. Mason Street, Fort Collins, CO. 48. Will all these requests be for Court Certified interpreters? Yes. 49. We are an agency out of state, will you be allowing out of state vendors? Yes. 50. Is there a local preference on this bid? No, there is not. 51. Can we submit this via email instead of BidNet Direct? Yes. Please refer to paragraph 2 on the first page of the RFP document for submittal instructions. 52. Will you accept references from other states? Yes. 53. What is the anticipated volume of words for an emergency situation with less than 12 hours’ notice and/or same day service? See answer to Question 20. Addendum 2 Page 7 of 19 54. What languages are generally requested in emergency situations? See Section I. B. on page 4 of the RFP document. 55. “All PDFs will be rendered in an accessible format, pursuant to the most recent Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and City accessibility standards” Does this mean that 508 remediation service will be requested by default for all PDFs submitted for translation? See answer to Question 38. 56. Must vendors bid on all services, or can they bid on one or some services requested in the RFP? We would prefer vendors to provide all services, but it is not required. Court- certification is a firm requirement as these services are ONLY for the Municipal Court. 57. What is the anticipated contract value for this RFP? See answer to Question 21. 58. As a translation agency we work with many different interpreters and translators, and it will depend on their availability for any given project, if and when we will call on them to help us fulfill your interpretation or translation requests. In addition, we are bound to hold our subcontractors’ personal information confidential, unless we are under contract or are hiring them for a specific project that requires us to release their personal information, such as name, phone number and e-mail address. So, at this stage, we are hesitant to release any information pertaining to our subcontractors in the proposal. Can you please let us know if this is absolutely necessary at this stage? We require evidence that the individuals who would do interpretation and translation are court-certified. Because the services under this RFP are solely for the Municipal Court, evidence of certification is not optional. We will not consider any proposals that do not meet the certification requirement. Addendum 2 Page 8 of 19 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Governor’s Office of Information Technology RULES ESTABLISHING TECHNOLOGY ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS 8 CCR 1501-11 Table of Contents 11.1 Authority 11.2 Scope and Purpose 11.3 Applicability 11.4 Definitions 11.5 Technical Standards for Technology Accessibility 11.6 Technology Accessibility Statement 11.7 Compliance 11.8 Conforming Alternate Versions 11.9 Equivalent Facilitation 11.10 Undue Burden, Fundamental Alteration, or Direct Threat 11.11 Reasonable Accommodations or Modifications 11.1 Authority The Chief Information Officer in the Office of Information Technology is authorized by the provisions of section 24-37.5-106 (4), C.R.S. and section 24-85-103, C.R.S. to establish rules regarding accessibility standards for an individual with a disability for information technology systems employed by state agencies. EXHIBIT B Addendum 2 Page 9 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards The rules are intended to be consistent with the requirements of the State Administrative Procedures Act, section 24-4-101 et seq., C.R.S. (the “APA”). 11.2 Scope and Purpose A. The purpose of these rules is to define the accessibility technical standards and compliance parameters for individuals with a disability for information technology systems. The reason for the rules is to improve the accessibility and usability of government information technology products and services in Colorado. B. The rules recognize that technology and accessibility standards are evolving and, given the diversity of needs of residents of our state, there is no standard that can guarantee universal access. Therefore, while making best efforts to make information technology accessible, these rules also acknowledge that reasonable accommodations or modifications are an important component of compliance. C. The rules apply to all information and communication technology (ICT) that is both public-facing and internal-facing, that is procured, developed, maintained, or used by public entities and state agencies. 1. This information and communication technology (ICT) includes but is not limited to websites, applications, kiosks, digital signage, digital documents, video, audio, and third-party tools that are owned or controlled by the public entity. 2. The rules apply to the components of hardware that transmit information to a user or have a user interface. D. Compliance with these rules does not necessarily ensure compliance with other laws, rules, and regulations. 11.3 Applicability Section 24-34-802(1)(c), C.R.S. specifies that the accessibility standards for individuals with a disability as established by these rules apply to public Addendum 2 Page 10 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards entities as defined in section 24-34-301(18), C.R.S. Public entities must fully comply with these standards established pursuant to section 24-85-103(2.5), C.R.S. The rules apply to all information and communication technology (ICT) that is in active use on or after July 1, 2024 and any ICT that is newly created, developed, acquired, or purchased on or after July 1, 2024. For ICT not in active use, the rules apply when the ICT is altered or updated, or when an accessible version is requested by an individual with a disability. These rules do not require a public entity to take any action that would fundamentally alter the nature of its programs, services, or activities, impose an undue burden, or pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others. 11.4 Definitions Accessible or accessibility: has the same meaning as defined in section 24-85-102(1.5), C.R.S., or as superseded by a future statute, which is perceivable, operable, and understandable digital content that reasonably enables an individual with a disability to access the same information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services offered to other individuals, with the same privacy, independence, and ease of use as exists for individuals without a disability. Accessibility standards for individuals with a disability: as used in section 24-34-802(1)(c), C.R.S. means these rules, 8 CCR 1501-11 Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards. Active use:means regularly used by members of the public to apply for, gain access to, or participate in a public entity's services, programs, or activities. Active use also means currently used by employees to perform their job duties. ICT in active use includes the authorized, official version or versions, not Addendum 2 Page 11 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards previous versions that may still be available, archives, working products, or drafts. Conforming alternate version: has the same meaning as defined in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), which is a version that: A. conforms at the designated level, and B. provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language, and C. is as up to date as the non-conforming content, and D. for which at least one of the following is true: 1. the conforming version can be reached from the non-conforming page via an accessibility-supported mechanism, or 2. the non-conforming version can only be reached from the conforming version, or 3. the non-conforming version can only be reached from a conforming page that also provides a mechanism to reach the conforming version Direct threat:a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services. Fundamental alteration:something that would change the essential nature of the entity’s programs or services. Hardware: a tangible device, piece of equipment, or physical component of ICT, such as telephones, computers, multifunction copy machines, and keyboards. Information and communication technology (ICT): Information technology and other equipment, systems, technologies, or processes, for which the principal function is the creation, manipulation, storage, display, receipt, or Addendum 2 Page 12 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards transmission of electronic data and information, as well as any associated content. Examples of ICT include, but are not limited to: computers and peripheral equipment; information kiosks and transaction machines; telecommunications equipment; customer premises equipment; multifunction office machines; software; applications; web sites; videos; and, electronic documents. The term does not include any equipment that contains embedded information technology that is used as an integral part of the product, but the principal function of which is not the acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. However, if the embedded information technology has an externally available web or computer interface, that interface is considered ICT. For example, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment such as thermostats or temperature control devices, and medical equipment where information technology is integral to its operation are not considered information technology. Public entity: has the same meaning as defined in section 24-34-301(18), C.R.S., or as superseded by a future statute, which is (a) Any state or local government; or (b) Any department, agency, special district, or other instrumentality of a state or local government. Reasonable accommodation: as it pertains to ICT, reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment to a program, service, activity, job, or the work environment that will enable an individual with a disability to participate in the program, service, activity, application process, or perform essential job functions. Reasonable modification: as it pertains to ICT, reasonable modification is a modification in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability. Addendum 2 Page 13 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards Single digital product: as used in section 24-34-802(2)(b), C.R.S. means ICT that share a common purpose, intended to support a single program or service, created by the same author, group, or organization, including: A. Electronic communications B. Digital documents like PDFs and graphics C. Mobile applications D. Desktop applications E. Websites F. Digital kiosks G. Input devices H. Digital video files I. Audio recordings Technical standards: as used in these rules, technical standards refers to the standards for conformance in section 11.5 Technical Standards for Technology Accessibility. Undue burden: an action that requires significant financial, technical, or administrative difficulty or expense. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG): a single shared standard for web content accessibility that meets the needs of individuals, organizations, and governments internationally, as published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag) 11.5 Technical Standards for Technology Accessibility The technical standards for technology accessibility for ICT include the following to the extent that they would not require a public entity to take any action that would fundamentally alter the nature of its programs or services, impose an undue burden, or pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others: A. W3C WCAG 2.1 conformance levels A and AA Addendum 2 Page 14 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards B. Hardware that contains a user interface may also need to meet, as applicable, the technical standards contained in US Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Chapter 4: Hardware 11.6 Technology Accessibility Statement A. Each public entity shall develop and publicly post in a conspicuous place a technology accessibility statement. B. The technology accessibility statement shall include, at a minimum: 1. A commitment to a timely response to reports of inaccessible ICT or requests for a reasonable accommodation or modification. 2. A prominent notice informing individuals with disabilities on how to request reasonable accommodations or modifications or to report inaccessible ICT. The notice shall provide more than one contact method, which could include an accessible form to submit feedback, an email address, or a toll-free phone number (with TTY), to contact personnel knowledgeable about the accessibility of the ICT. 11.7 Compliance A public entity is in compliance with these rules for ICT that does not fully conform with the technical standards in the following cases: A. An individual with a disability is not substantially hindered, with reasonable accommodations or modifications if needed, from accessing or engaging effectively in the same or substantially equivalent services, programs, and activities that the public entity offers through its ICT to those without disabilities, with substantially equivalent ease of use. B. The public entity meets the requirements of the technology accessibility statement described in section 11.6, while also providing reasonable accommodations or modifications for ICT that does not fully conform with the technical standards, and the public entity can provide evidence Addendum 2 Page 15 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards of making good faith progress on its plan to remove accessibility barriers across its inventory of ICT. A plan could include but is not limited to the following: 1. Annual status updates demonstrating progress on advancing technology accessibility. 2. Prioritization of ICT considering how the ICT will impact the public entity and its users, including aspects such as legal requirements, user impact, usage metrics, and importance to the program, service, or activity. 3. The steps the public entity is taking to remove accessibility barriers in their ICT. 4. Timelines when inaccessible ICT will be addressed and the plan for providing reasonable accommodation and modification in the interim. 5. Policies for regularly testing and remediating ICT. C. The public entity procures and provides reasonable accommodations or modifications if needed for the ICT that best meets the technical standards and also the public entity’s business needs, which could include but are not limited to considerations such as audience needs, capacity, reliability, interoperability, organizational needs, privacy, and security. D. The public entity has created and provides a conforming alternate version according to the requirements of section 11.8. E. Making the ICT fully conform with the technical standards would constitute an undue burden, fundamental alteration, or pose a direct threat, or is otherwise exempted under section 11.10. Addendum 2 Page 16 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards 11.8 Conforming Alternate Versions A public entity may use conforming alternate versions of ICT to comply with these rules only where it is not possible or practical to make the ICT directly accessible due to undue burden, safety, or legal limitations. Examples of conforming alternate versions could include, for instance, a website that provides identical information to a geographic information system in a non-graphical format, or a web application that uses accessible controls as an alternative to one with inaccessible controls. 11.9 Equivalent Facilitation Nothing in these rules prevents the use of designs, methods, or techniques as alternatives to those prescribed, provided that the alternative designs, methods, or techniques result in substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability of the ICT. As an example, for instance, WCAG success criterion 3.3.4 requires that user submissions are automatically checked to prevent common errors in legal or financial transactions made through websites. If a public entity failed to do this (thus violating WCAG) but requires all users to separately verify important transactions in person and outside of its website prior to processing the transaction, it would meet this requirement through equivalent facilitation. 11.10 Undue Burden, Fundamental Alteration, or Direct Threat A. Where a public entity can demonstrate that an action, full conformance with the technical standards, or a reasonable accommodation or modification would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity, undue burden, or a direct threat to the health or safety of others, conformance is required to the extent that it Addendum 2 Page 17 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards does not result in a fundamental alteration, undue burden, or direct threat. B. In determining whether an action, conformance to the technical standards, or a reasonable accommodation or modification would impose an undue burden, the public entity shall consider all resources available to the program or component for which the ICT is being procured, developed, maintained, or used. Undue burden may be demonstrated when, depending on the type of financial, technical, or administrative barrier, at least one of the following applies: 1. The resources of the program, service, or activity are not readily available, or the use of such resources would fundamentally alter the nature of the program, service, or activity; 2. Contractual, legal, regulatory, or technical constraints prevent the modification of the program, service, or activity; or 3. When the necessary auxiliary aids or services are not feasibly available. C. In determining whether an action, conformance to the technical standards, or a reasonable accommodation or modification would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public entity must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: 1. the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; 2. the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and 3. whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk. D. If an action would result in a fundamental alteration, undue burden, or a direct threat, a public entity shall take any other reasonable action, including providing reasonable accommodations or modifications that would not result in such an alteration, such burden, or such a direct Addendum 2 Page 18 of 19 8 CCR 1501-11, Rules Establishing Technology Accessibility Standards threat but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity. 11.11 Reasonable Accommodations or Modifications A. In general and in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Titles I and II (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), if an individual with a disability, on the basis of disability, cannot access or does not have equal access to a program, service, or activity through a public entity’s ICT, the public entity shall make reasonable accommodations or modifications for alternative access when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity, present an undue burden, or pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others. B. Each public entity shall post a prominent notice describing the methods to request reasonable accommodations or modifications for ICT. C. A public entity may not provide services or benefits to individuals with disabilities through programs that are separate or different, unless the separate programs are necessary to ensure that services are equally effective. D. A public entity cannot require an individual with a disability to pay to cover the cost of measures, such as providing auxiliary aids or barrier removal, that are required to provide that individual with nondiscriminatory treatment. Addendum 2 Page 19 of 19