Public Entities
Guidance for procurement teams, CIOs, and accessibility reviewers.
Why do I need to complete an acknowledgment before using the Evaluator?
The acknowledgment ensures you understand that the evaluation is a Phase 1 (Document Review) focused on the quality, completeness, and credibility of the VPAT/ACR, not on the product's actual accessibility.
What does the acknowledgment confirm?
It confirms that:
- The report evaluates vendor-submitted documentation only
- It is not a certification of accessibility compliance
- It is intended to support procurement and risk assessment decisions
- Additional validation (e.g., testing) may still be required
What are the phases of evaluation and support?
- Phase 1 – Document Review: Evaluates VPAT/ACR structure, claims, and credibility
- Phase 2 – Independent Accessibility Testing: Validates actual product accessibility
- Phase 3 – Remediation Planning & Advisory: Supports issue resolution and compliance readiness
What is new about the multi-standard evaluation report?
The report evaluates VPAT/ACRs across multiple accessibility standards simultaneously, including:
- WCAG (e.g., 2.2)
- Section 508
- EN 301 549
- Section 255 (when applicable)
It provides both:
- A consolidated conformance view across standards
- A standard-specific breakdown to support regulatory and procurement needs
What does the report help me determine?
The report helps you assess:
- Whether the VPAT/ACR is complete and reliable
- Whether claims are credible and evidence-backed
- How well the product is represented across applicable standards
- Where risk, gaps, or uncertainty exist
- Whether additional evaluation (Phase 2 or 3) is needed
What is included in the Short vs. Full report?
Short Report
- Evaluation Rating + Claim Credibility
- Product overview + applicable standards
- Risk summary (Legal, Functional, Operational)
- Abbreviated narrative summary
Full Report
Includes everything above, plus:
- Standards Coverage & Consolidated Conformance Claim
- Cross-standard scorecard (pass/fail criteria)
- Detailed evaluation domains (Domains 1–3)
- Standard-specific analysis (WCAG, 508, EN 301 549, etc.)
- Recommended follow-up actions
What are the most important KPIs in the report?
The report includes several key indicators that help interpret VPAT quality and procurement risk:
- Evaluation Rating (e.g., Minimally Meets)
- Conformance Claim Level
- Conformance Claim Credibility (e.g., 3/5 Moderate)
- Standards Coverage (by standard)
- Consolidated Conformance Claim (e.g., Partially Supports)
- Cross-Standard Scorecard (Pass/Fail criteria)
- Risk Summary (Legal, Functional, Operational)
These KPIs work together to provide a multi-dimensional, evidence-based assessment.
What is the Conformance Claim Level?
The Conformance Claim Level reflects what the vendor claims about accessibility conformance across all applicable standards and criteria.
It is derived from how frequently the VPAT marks criteria as:
- “Supports”
- “Partially Supports”
- “Does Not Support”
Does a high Conformance Claim Level mean the product is accessible?
No. It reflects vendor assertions only, not verified performance. It must be evaluated alongside Credibility and Evidence KPIs.
What is Conformance Claim Credibility?
This KPI measures how trustworthy and well-supported the VPAT’s claims are, based on documentation quality and evidence.
For example, the report shows a 3/5 (Moderate) credibility rating when evidence and documentation are partial or incomplete.
What factors influence this score?
It is based on evidence-based criteria such as:
- Disclosure of testing methodology
- Presence of supporting artifacts
- Quality and specificity of remarks
- Tester qualifications
- Recency of the VPAT
How should procurement teams use this KPI?
Use it to:
- Identify high-confidence vs. low-confidence VPATs
- Determine whether additional validation is needed
- Prioritize vendor follow-up questions
How do Claim Level and Credibility work together?
- High Claim Level + Low Credibility → High risk (claims may be overstated)
- Moderate Claim Level + High Credibility → More reliable and defensible
- High + High → Strong submission (but still may require testing)
What is “Standards Coverage”?
This shows:
- Which standards are applicable
- Coverage percentage per standard
- Where gaps exist
For example:
- WCAG may show 100% coverage
- Section 508 may show partial coverage (e.g., 84%)
- Section 255 may be not applicable depending on ICT type
What is the “Consolidated Conformance Claim”?
This is a single, high-level summary (e.g., Partially Supports) that reflects overall conformance across all applicable standards.
It helps decision-makers quickly understand the overall accessibility posture.
What is the Cross-Standard Scorecard?
A pass/fail evaluation of key VPAT quality criteria, such as:
- Template correctness
- Report recency
- Criteria coverage
- Conformance accuracy
- Testing evidence
- Assistive technologies used
- Tester certifications
- Accessibility roadmap
Example findings include:
- Pass – Template, recency, coverage
- Fail – Testing evidence, certifications, roadmap
What does a “Fail” indicate?
It indicates specific, evidence-based deficiencies that are strongly correlated with:
- Increased procurement risk
- Lower confidence in vendor claims
- Need for follow-up or escalation
What is the “Risk Summary”?
The Risk Summary translates findings into:
- Legal Risk – Exposure due to unsupported claims
- Functional Risk – Likelihood of accessibility barriers
- Operational Risk – Impact on procurement and deployment
For example, the report highlights that missing evidence, credentials, and roadmap reduce defensibility, even when partial conformance exists.
What is the “Abbreviated Narrative Summary”?
A concise explanation of the primary concern for decision-makers, often emphasizing:
- The issue is frequently uncertainty, not total non-compliance
- Missing evidence and limited scope reduce confidence
What are the evaluation domains in the full report?
The report is structured into domains:
- Domain 1 – VPAT Version and Report Details
(metadata, versioning, contact clarity) - Domain 2 – Coverage of Accessibility Criteria
(multi-standard coverage and scoping) - Domain 3 – Conformance Level Assertions
(accuracy and consistency of claims)
Each domain includes:
- Strengths
- Weaknesses
- Reviewer notes
- Criterion-level results
How should I use these KPIs in procurement decisions?
A practical approach:
- Review Conformance Claim Level → What is being claimed
- Review Claim Credibility → Can the claims be trusted
- Review Standards Coverage → Are all required standards addressed
- Review Scorecard Failures → What evidence is missing
- Review Risk Summary → What this means for your agency
When should I escalate beyond Phase 1?
Escalate when:
- Credibility is moderate or low
- Evidence is missing (e.g., no artifacts, no roadmap)
- Procurement is high-risk or high-impact
- Claims cannot be independently validated
- Phase 2 (Testing) → Validate actual accessibility
- Phase 3 (Remediation) → Address identified gaps
Does this report replace accessibility testing or legal review?
No. It is a decision-support tool, not a substitute for:
- Accessibility testing
- Legal/compliance review
- Vendor due diligence
VPAT/ACR Evaluator SaaS
iAccessible - Full Lifecycle Website & PDF Testing and Reporting for Digital Accessibility and Optimal User Experience
Discovery District at the University of Maryland
5825 University Research Court, Ste 1100 | College Park, MD 20740
Our experts are available to assist you from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST
Visit our main website: iAccessible
Email: info@iAccessible.com | Phone: 833-922-2377 or (833) 9 - Access