Writing Accessibility Into an RFP

Most accessibility remediation projects exist because of a procurement document written two to five years earlier. The requirement was there, technically. It said something like "the site shall be ADA compliant."

That sentence is unenforceable, and everyone involved discovers it at acceptance.

Why "ADA compliant" fails

The ADA is a civil rights statute. For websites outside Title II, it doesn't specify a technical standard, so "ADA compliant" names no measurable thing.

Watch how it plays out. The vendor delivers. You raise accessibility problems. The vendor says the site is ADA compliant — they added alt text and ran a scanner. You have no contractual basis to disagree, because nothing in the document says what compliant means, how it's measured, or who decides.

Now you're paying twice: once for the build, once for remediation.

The language that works

Five elements. Each one closes a specific escape hatch.

1. Name the standard and level.

All deliverables shall conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA, published by the W3C. New interface components shall additionally meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA.

Version, level, and source. No interpretation left.

2. Define the scope explicitly.

Conformance applies to all templates, page types, interactive components, forms, downloadable documents produced under this contract, and any third-party components integrated into the deliverable.

Documents and third-party components are the two things quietly assumed out of scope. Name them.

3. Specify the test method.

Conformance shall be verified by automated testing across all templates and by manual testing including keyboard-only operation and screen reader testing on at least two assistive technology and browser combinations. Automated testing alone shall not be sufficient to demonstrate conformance.

That last sentence prevents a scanner report being offered as proof.

4. Make it an acceptance condition.

Final acceptance is contingent on delivery of an accessibility conformance report demonstrating conformance. Defects identified shall be remediated at the vendor's expense prior to acceptance.

Accessibility must gate acceptance. If it's a post-launch punch list, it becomes your problem and your budget.

5. Require evidence and warranty.

The vendor shall provide test results, methodology, and assistive technologies used. The vendor warrants conformance for the duration of the warranty period and shall remediate non-conformance identified during that period at no cost.

Ask for it in the response, too

Requirements only work if you can tell who can meet them. Ask bidders for:

• A VPAT or conformance report for any platform or CMS they're proposing
• A description of their accessibility testing process, naming tools and assistive technology
• An example of an accessibility conformance report from prior work
• Named accessibility experience on the proposed team

Responses separate quickly. Firms that do this work answer specifically; firms that don't submit marketing language about being "committed to accessibility."

Score it

If accessibility carries no evaluation weight, it's a checkbox. Give it a scored criterion, and be prepared to have it change the outcome. A vendor who is 10% more expensive and can actually deliver conformance is cheaper than the alternative the first time you pay for remediation.

Have someone review the scope

The cheapest accessibility intervention available is a specialist reading your draft scope of work before it's published. It costs a few hours and prevents the multi-year version of the problem.

If you're drafting one now, that's the moment to get it right. Once it's out for bid, you've already set what you can enforce.