Last updated March 27, 2025
This guide shares help and resources for considering digital accessibility during procurement and while seeking and evaluating potential vendors, such as Requests for Proposals (RFP), Requests for Bid (RFB), Simplified Bids, Sole Source Justifications, and other waivers and contracts. It also describes support offered by the Center for User Experience.
Quick tips
1. Include accessibility requirements in the RFP or RFB
Share accessibility requirements with vendors and request information about their accessibility practices.
2. Involve a subject matter expert
Reach out to the Center for User Experience to request scoring guidance from an accessibility subject matter expert (SME).
3. Request accessibility feature demos
Ask vendors for demos of accessibility features and roadmaps for future development.
4. Include requirements in contract language
Include information about our accessibility requirements in contracts with vendors.
5. Request evaluations for vendor finalists
Request accessibility evaluations from the Center for User Experience for finalists in major procurement efforts.
RFP/RFB requirements language
Use the following language to incorporate accessibility into RFP/RFB requirements (note that the rating guidance applies to RFPs to assist the scoring team. The requirements are pass/fail for RFBs so adjust language to allow for a yes/no response.)
| ID | Requirement | Rating Guidance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The University of Wisconsin–Madison requires all digital products and services in use at the university to meet the technical accessibility standards set forth in the Web Accessibility Initiative Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.1, at conformance level AA (“WCAG 2.1, AA”). Please state your product’s WCAG conformance level and provide an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) or Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) to show its conformance. | Excellent
The vendor attests to meeting WCAG 2.1 AA standards and provides documentation and reporting to back up those claims. Fair The vendor attests to some level of WCAG compliance and can provide documentation to back up those claims. Fail The vendor makes no claims to meet WCAG compliance or provides no evidence. |
| 2 | Does your product support functional accessibility including sufficient color contrast, screen magnification and reflow, keyboard navigation, and the use of assistive technology such as screen readers? Does your product require the use of an overlay or separate version to meet these needs? | Excellent
The vendor attests to providing seamless functional accessibility and support of assistive technology in one version of their product. Fair The vendor’s primary focus is technical accessibility (WCAG standards), or the product relies on an accessibility overlay, parallel accessible version of their product, or other workarounds to support people with disabilities. Fail The vendor provides no evidence of the consideration of the functional accessibility of their product. |
| 3 | Describe how accessibility best practices are applied in your design, development, and quality assurance processes. | Excellent
The vendor describes a comprehensive, in-house approach to accessibility, including design, development, and quality assurance performed by vendor staff. Fair The vendor describes accessibility processes that rely on contract or third party reviewers, often after product development. Fail The vendor provides no evidence of internal or external review. |
| 4 | Provide the most appropriate contact information for support and reporting should an end user encounter an accessibility barrier. | Excellent
The vendor provides specific contacts for accessibility barrier reporting and support. Fair The vendor handles accessibility barrier reporting through a generic helpline or customer service contact. Fail The vendor provides no pathway for reporting or remediating barriers faced by customers. |
| 5 | Should the vendor provide a product demonstration, please include a demonstration of accessibility features and functional accessibility support. Additionally, please provide a sandbox environment for internal review by the Division of Information Technology. | Excellent
The vendor provides a demo of accessibility features and functional accessibility, and provides access to a sandbox environment for internal review. Fair The vendor provides an accessibility feature demo or a sandbox environment. Fail The vendor does not provide a demo of accessibility features or access to sandbox environments. |
Accessibility subject matter experts (SMEs)
For guidance on scoring accessibility requirements, you can request an accessibility subject matter expert (SME) from the Center for User Experience. They will assess each vendor’s responses with a rating of “excellent,” “very good,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” or “fail” and will provide details to support their scoring recommendations.
For major procurement efforts, we recommend asking the vendor to provide a sandbox (test) environment for the Center to conduct an internal accessibility evaluation of the product. Your accessibility SME can perform pass/fail accessibility evaluations of up to 3 vendor finalists.
Accessibility feature demos
When discussing demo sessions with vendors, request specific information about the accessibility of their product, such as the following:
- Whether their design, development, and quality assurance practices support accessibility
- Whether their products are tested with assistive technologies
- Who their primary contact is for accessibility questions and concerns
- Timelines for addressing accessibility complaints
- Demonstrations of accessibility features and keyboard navigation during their demos
Contract language
Below is the accessibility contract language the Center for User Experience provides for inclusion in RFP signed contracts.
“For all products or services, the Vendor shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in a manner consistent with the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), version 2.1 (“WCAG 2.1”), at conformance levels A and AA. If the Product does not fully conform to WCAG 2.1 A and AA, the Vendor shall inform the University of non-conformance prior to the execution of this Agreement and shall provide a plan and timeline to achieve conformance. If during the Term of this Agreement, the Vendor fails to maintain compliance with WCAG 2.1 A and AA, or the University identifies an Accessibility Barrier in the Product that renders the Product inaccessible or unusable to people with disabilities, the University shall notify the Vendor of non-compliance. If conformance is not reached within 30 days of the Vendor receiving the notification of non-compliance (“Notice”), the Vendor and the University shall meet and mutually agree upon an appropriate timeline for resolution of the Accessibility Barrier(s). Should Vendor: (i) fail to acknowledge receipt of the notice within 30 days of receipt of the Notice, or (ii) fail to materially resolve the Accessibility Barrier(s) within the agreed-upon timeline, Vendor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless University from any claims arising out of its failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements. Failure to comply with these requirements shall constitute a material breach and may be grounds for termination of this Agreement by the University.”
Request an evaluation
Accessibility evaluations identify the barriers a user may encounter. This information is key to preparing the project team and university’s disability services offices to provide accommodations. For the Center to conduct an accessibility evaluation, we recommend asking the vendor to provide test instance access to the product.
As part of the evaluation process, the Center creates an Accessibility Evaluation Report and provides it to the RFP team. If the product is purchased, the report will also be provided to the ADA Coordinator at UW–Madison’s Office of Compliance. The evaluation report includes:
- The accessibility barriers and users impacted
- Recommendations for accommodation, vendor relations, and campus communications, including documentation in our Accessibility and Usability KB, to support users, the project team, and institutional risk management
In addition to the evaluation report, the ADA Coordinator may also require an Equally Effective Alternate Access Plan (EEAAP), which the Center for User Experience may assist with developing.
The Center for User Experience
At the Center for User Experience, we are committed to working with you to make digital spaces more accessible, usable and inclusive for all students, faculty and staff at UW–Madison. We help the university follow its Digital Accessibility Policy by offering free evaluation and consultation services to all UW–Madison community members.
Get in touch
- Meet with us: Book a quick chat with one of our team members to ask any questions you have.
- Start a project with us: We support accessible design and development. Fill out our Let’s Connect form to begin working with us on your project or to request an accessibility evaluation.
- Email us: Not sure if you’re ready to meet? Email us to start talking and figure out what to do next.