Accessibility requirements in an RFP: what to write

Most accessibility requirements in an RFP are a single line: "The solution must be ADA compliant" or "Section 508 compliant". That line produces exactly the reports you would expect. Vendors send whatever Accessibility Conformance Report they already have, written to whichever standard they chose, for whichever version was current when someone last updated it. The evaluation committee then has no clear basis for comparing them.

The fix is to ask a precise question. This article covers what to put in the solicitation, in the order a vendor will need it, and ends with sample wording you can adapt.

Name the standard, and its version

"ADA compliant" is not a technical standard. Neither, strictly, is "WCAG". Name the exact thing:

• State and local government: WCAG 2.1 Level AA is what the ADA Title II web rule (28 CFR part 35, subpart H) requires for web content and mobile apps, from 26 April 2027 for entities of 50,000 or more and 26 April 2028 for smaller entities and special district governments.
• Federal, or where state law adopts it: the Revised Section 508 Standards. Note that these incorporate WCAG 2.0, not 2.1. If you are a state or local buyer who also has a 508 obligation, require both. Section 508 vs ADA Title II explains the difference, and the state accessibility laws pages summarize what each state has adopted.
• Going further: requiring WCAG 2.2 Level AA is reasonable forward-looking practice, but it is beyond what the Title II rule requires. If you name it, expect fewer vendors to have a report that answers it today.

Write the level and version together: "WCAG 2.1 Level AA". Level AA conformance includes the Level A criteria, but stating both avoids argument.

Ask for the right report

Require an Accessibility Conformance Report on the current ITI VPAT template (VPAT 2.5Rev, released April 2025), and say which edition. For a Title II requirement, that is the WCAG edition or the INT edition reporting on WCAG 2.1. A report in the Section 508 edition alone covers WCAG 2.0 and so does not address twelve of the Level A and AA criteria in 2.1. The edition guide covers the four editions.

Then specify what the report must cover:

• The product and version proposed. Not the previous release, not a related product.
• A report date within a period you set. Twelve months is a reasonable default for actively developed software; see how often a VPAT should be updated.
• Every component residents or staff will use. If the offer includes a mobile app, an administrator console or generated documents, say whether each must be covered, and require a separate report where the vendor's covers only the web product.
• Evaluation methods. The template asks vendors to describe them. Require it: who tested, with which assistive technologies, manual or automated or both.
• Remarks for every non-Supports entry, identifying the affected features and how they fall short, as the template's own instructions say. For Not Applicable, the reason it does not apply.

Ask for the plan, not just the report

Section508.gov's guidance for federal buyers recommends asking vendors for remediation plans for features that do not fully conform, and for accessibility improvement plans for the products offered. The same request works well in a state or local RFP.

A useful remediation response names the criterion, the affected feature, the release in which it will be fixed and the target date. "We are committed to accessibility" is not a remediation plan.

Decide how it will be evaluated

There is no legal formula for how much weight accessibility should carry. The choices are yours, and they should be written down before proposals arrive.

Pass/fail, scored, or both. A common structure is a pass/fail gate for submitting a compliant report on the right standard, followed by scoring of what the report shows. A gate alone rewards any report; a score alone may let an offer through with no report at all.

What a high score means. For example: no unremediated Level A failures; Partially Supports entries explained and with dated remediation; credible evaluation methods; an improvement plan. Write the rubric so evaluators apply it the same way.

Reserve the right to test. Section508.gov suggests stating that the agency reserves the right, before award, to test some or all of the offered product. Even if you rarely use it, it tells vendors the report may be checked.

Carry it into the contract

What the RFP asks for should survive into the award. Section508.gov's sample federal contract language includes provisions that upgrades and replacements must not reduce the original level of conformance, and that non-conforming products be repaired or replaced at no cost to the agency within a period the contracting officer specifies. Comparable terms in a state or local agreement might cover:

• the vendor's ACR as a contract exhibit,
• an updated ACR after major releases or annually,
• notice of known regressions and a remediation timeline,
• delivery of committed fixes by the dates in the remediation plan.

These are business terms with legal consequences. Take them to your counsel; the sample language below is not a substitute.

Sample accessibility requirements for an RFP

The following is a starting point to adapt with your procurement office and counsel. It is not legal advice, and it is not drawn from any official template.

Accessibility. The proposed solution, including all public-facing and staff-facing web interfaces, mobile applications and electronic documents it generates, shall conform to WCAG 2.1 Level A and Level AA success criteria and conformance requirements.

Offerors shall submit an Accessibility Conformance Report for each proposed product, using the current ITI VPAT 2.5 template in the WCAG or INT edition and reporting on WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Each report shall identify the product name and version proposed, be dated no more than twelve months before the proposal due date, and describe the evaluation methods used, including any assistive technologies tested.

For every criterion reported as other than "Supports", the Remarks and Explanations field shall identify the affected functionality and how it does not conform. For every criterion reported as "Not Applicable", the remarks shall state why. Offerors shall submit a remediation plan identifying, for each nonconforming criterion, the planned release and target date for remediation.

The [Agency] reserves the right to evaluate the accessibility of any proposed product before award, and to request evidence supporting any conformance claim.

Replace the bracketed entity, and change the standard if your obligation differs.

What the solicitation buys you

A precise requirement does not make every report good. It makes every report comparable, and it makes the gaps visible in the documents rather than discovered after go-live. It also creates the record you will want later: what you required, what each offeror disclosed, and how you evaluated it.

For more on how accessibility fits into each stage of buying, see procurement.

---

Sources: 28 CFR part 35, subpart H (the DOJ's 2024 Title II web rule, as amended by the interim final rule of 20 April 2026); the Access Board's Revised 508 Standards (36 CFR part 1194); ITI VPAT 2.5Rev template instructions (April 2025); Section508.gov, Request Accessibility Information from Vendors and Define Accessibility Criteria in Contracts. Sample wording is a starting point, not a template endorsed by any agency. This is general guidance, not legal advice.

GOVvpat reviews the reports offerors submit against the standard your solicitation names and returns a dated assessment for the evaluation file. Request a quote.