Accessibility remediation plans when a vendor can't fix it

The evaluation is done, the preferred product is clear, and its conformance report shows gaps the vendor cannot close before award. Sometimes every bidder has gaps. Sometimes the system is the only one that integrates with what you already run. Walking away is not always realistic, and awarding without a plan is not defensible. What fills the space between is an accessibility remediation plan, and a written record of why you accepted it.

First, decide whether the gap is a blocker

Not every gap justifies the same response. Before negotiating a plan, establish what the gap actually prevents someone from doing.

• What level is it? A Level A failure such as 2.1.1 Keyboard means part of the product cannot be used at all by some people. A Level AA gap such as 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast may make it harder but not impossible.
• Where is it? A gap in the steps a resident must complete to pay, apply or register is different from one in a rarely used settings page.
• Who meets it? Public-facing web content and mobile apps are what the ADA Title II rule (28 CFR part 35, subpart H) covers.
• When does your compliance date fall? 26 April 2027 for entities of 50,000 or more, 26 April 2028 for smaller entities and special district governments. A fix scheduled before that date is a plan. A fix scheduled after it is a known period of noncompliance.

A Level A failure in a core public workflow, with no fix before your compliance date, deserves to be treated as a blocker unless there is genuinely no conforming alternative. Most other gaps can be handled with a plan.

What a credible accessibility remediation plan contains

"We are committed to accessibility and will address these items in a future release" is not a plan. A plan is specific enough that someone can check later whether it was kept. For each gap:

Field	Example
Criterion	2.1.1 Keyboard (Level A)
Affected function	Date picker on the permit application, step 3
Current behavior	Calendar cannot be opened or navigated without a mouse
Fix	Replace with a keyboard-operable date input; typed entry accepted
Target release	8.4
Target date	Quarter 1 2027
Verification	Updated ACR for 8.4; agency spot-check of the permit workflow
Interim measure	Typed date field added as a hotfix in 8.3.2

The criterion numbers should match the rows in the vendor's Accessibility Conformance Report, so the plan and the report can be read together.

Get the plan in writing and attach it to the contract, not just to the evaluation file. A plan that exists only in an email has no consequences if a date slips. The contract language article covers notice, timelines and what happens on a missed date.

Interim access, and its limits

While a gap is open, people still need to use the service. An interim measure might be staff who can complete a transaction on someone's behalf, a document provided in an alternative format on request, or a workaround the vendor can ship quickly.

These are worth arranging. Title II's effective communication provisions, which predate the web rule, already require that communications with people with disabilities be "as effective as communications with others" (28 CFR 35.160), with auxiliary aids provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in a way that protects the person's privacy and independence.

But be precise about what interim measures do not do.

They are not conformance. The web rule allows conforming alternate versions of web content "only where it is not possible to make web content directly accessible due to technical or legal limitations" (28 CFR 35.202). It is difficult to read a vendor's release schedule as a limitation of that kind.

A phone line is not a substitute for an accessible website. When it published the rule in 2024, the DOJ noted that its 2003 guidance had treated a staffed telephone line as one way to meet obligations, and said it no longer believes 24/7 staffed telephone lines can realistically provide equal opportunity, given the time, steps and waits involved compared with doing the same thing online.

The minimal impact provision is narrow. 28 CFR 35.205 treats an entity as compliant despite nonconformance only where it can show the nonconformance has so little impact that people with disabilities can still access the same information, engage in the same interactions, conduct the same transactions and otherwise participate, with substantially equivalent timeliness, privacy, independence and ease of use. A known gap in a core workflow is unlikely to fit that description. It is not a planning tool.

A word on fundamental alteration and undue burdens

The rule includes the long-standing Title II limitation: compliance is not required to the extent it would result in a fundamental alteration of a service, program or activity, or in undue financial and administrative burdens (28 CFR 35.204). The conditions are strict. The public entity bears the burden of proving it. The decision must be made by the head of the entity or a designee after considering all resources available for the service, and must be accompanied by a written statement of reasons. Even then, the entity must take other action to ensure people with disabilities receive the benefits or services to the maximum extent possible.

This is a determination about the public entity's own situation, not a label for a vendor running late. If anyone proposes relying on it for a procurement, take it to counsel before the award, not after.

Document the decision

The procurement file should show that the gap was seen, weighed and managed. A one- or two-page memo is enough:

1. The gaps. Criterion, level, affected function, taken from the ACR.
2. The alternatives. What the other offers looked like on accessibility. If they had similar or worse gaps, say so.
3. Why this award. The reasons the agency proceeded despite the gaps.
4. The plan. Reference the remediation schedule and where it sits in the contract.
5. Interim measures. What is in place for residents now, and how they find it.
6. Who approved it, and when.
7. The re-review date. Tied to the vendor's target release.

That memo is what distinguishes a considered decision from an oversight, and it is far easier to write at award than to reconstruct a year later.

Re-review when the release ships

A plan is only as good as its follow-up, and the follow-up is where most plans quietly lapse.

When the target release ships, ask for an updated Accessibility Conformance Report for that version. The ITI's VPAT instructions say a revised report should carry a new date and explain the revision in its Notes section. Then check:

• Did the rows change? The criteria in the plan should now read "Supports", with remarks describing the fix.
• Did anything else change? A new release can introduce new gaps. Compare the whole report, not just the rows you were watching.
• Does it work where it matters? Ask someone to try the specific workflow, by keyboard if the gap was 2.1.1. A short spot-check is not a full evaluation, but it confirms the fix reached your configuration.

If a date slips, get the new date and the reason in writing, record it, and decide whether the contract's remedies apply. A slip disclosed early, with a credible new date, is a very different thing from one you discover yourself.

---

Sources: 28 CFR part 35, subpart H (§§ 35.200, 35.202, 35.204, 35.205) and the DOJ's April 2024 section-by-section analysis (89 FR 31320); 28 CFR 35.160; the DOJ's interim final rule of 20 April 2026; ITI VPAT 2.5Rev template instructions. This is general guidance, not legal advice.

GOVvpat returns a dated assessment of each vendor report for the procurement file and tracks the vendor's remediation against it. Request a quote.