Last updated December 11, 2024
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 is committed to ensuring that our digital environment is accessible and free from barriers for all members of the campus community. For digital products or services, Contractor shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by supporting assistive software or devices such as large print interfaces, text-to-speech output, voice-activated input, screen readers, refreshable braille displays, and alternate keyboard or pointer interfaces, in a manner consistent with the Web Accessibility Initiative Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.1, at conformance level AA (“WCAG 2.1, AA”).” | Vendor is able to provide a demo environment for the university to accessibility evaluate. The vendor describes a user-centered accessible design, development, and quality assurance process that is baked into the standard practices for all product and component development. The vendor provides an accurate VPAT with accessibility barriers listed preferably in a way that is public and finable to end-users to show transparency and good faith. The vendor provides at least a projected roadmap of when accessibility barriers will be fixed. The vendor has an in-house team of skilled inclusive design and accessibility professionals who monitor and improve accessibility, with a knowledgeable point person we can interface with on elevating barrier reports. |
| 2 | Do your products and/or services conform to the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.1 (“WCAG 2.1”) at the conformance levels A and AA, and Section 508? Has a VPAT or ACR been created or updated for the product and version under consideration within the past year? Please demonstrate conformance by filling out VPAT 2.4 Rev 508 (March 2022) and VPAT 2.4 Rev WCAG (March 2022). Has a third-party accessibility expert conducted an accessibility audit of the most recent version of your product? | All functionality is accessible to screen readers, keyboard navigation, magnification reflows smoothly from 200% to 400% magnification, and passes automated testing with no errors. |
| 3 | Has the product been tested with assistive technologies (AT)? If so, which AT were used? Who did the testing? What was the testing methodology? What were the results? The Center for User Experience will request that the vendor provide a demo instance for the Center to accessibility test during the evaluation period of the RFP process. The Center evaluates vendor products for magnification, keyboard, color contrast, and screen reader accessibility. Can all functions of the application or service be performed using only the keyboard, using a screen reader, magnifying up to 400%? Does your product rely on activating a special “accessibility mode,” a “lite version,” or accessing an alternate interface for accessibility purposes? If so, does this alternative version have full feature parity with the main version? Do you have documentation to support users with disabilities in utilizing the accessibility of your product? Is your product documentation accessible? | Mac & PC as well as mobile testing with screen readers, keyboard navigation testing, reflow with magnification testing, and automated testing. |
| 4 | How is accessibility built into your quality assurance workflow? Do you have a documented and implemented process for reporting and tracking accessibility issues? Do you expect your staff to maintain a current skill set in IT accessibility? Do you have documented processes and procedures for implementing accessibility into your development lifecycle? If you roll out upgrades of the product, how do you assure that upgrades will not break accessibility? | Accessibility is baked into conceptualization, design, development, QA, release messaging, and post-release testing/feedback. |
| 5 | Do you have a documented and implemented process for verifying accessibility conformance? Have you adopted a technical or legal accessibility standard of conformance for the product in question? Are there known accessibility issues with your products or tools? If so, what are they? What are the workarounds for users of assistive technology? What is the plan to address these issues? How do you communicate those to users? Can you provide a current, detailed accessibility roadmap with delivery timelines? | Vendor is able to provide a roadmap of known accessibility barriers and schedule of fixes. Those barriers provided have accommodations or workarounds that are clearly and transparently messaged to users in a findable way. |
| 6 | How should accessibility barriers be communicated to you and how does your company respond to such issues? Please provide the name, title, and contact information for the most appropriate accessibility contact for the product under consideration. | Vendor has a large accessibility team that is heavily engaged in the company’s strategic involvement all levels including customer user experience feedback and communication. Barriers identified can be surfaced to this group and escalated easily with a transparent means to identify progress on reported tickets. |
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. To access the formal copy and add an accessibility subject matter expert to your RFP evaluation process or post-procurement planning, please submit an accessibility evaluation request through our Let’s Connect form.
“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.
To request an accessibility evaluation, please fill out the Let’s Connect form.
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.