VPAT Evaulator
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore VPAT and ACR basics, select the right template edition, and understand how the Phase 1 evaluation supports procurement-ready documentation.
Understanding the VPAT and ACR
The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) is a standardized document created by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to help ICT vendors report how their products meet accessibility requirements. When a VPAT is completed with testing results, it becomes an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR), which public entities can review during procurement to evaluate accessibility compliance.
Depending on the edition, a VPAT may include one or more of the following standards:
- Section 508 (U.S. federal accessibility standard)
- EN 301 549 (European Union ICT accessibility standard)
- WCAG 2.0 / 2.1 / 2.2 (W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines)
- The INT edition includes all three standards
The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or vendor of the ICT product should complete the VPAT using results from manual and automated accessibility testing. Resellers may complete it in collaboration with the OEM, but accuracy and testing validity are essential.
No. ITI provides the templates but does not review or approve completed VPATs. However, Revelo Software and its channel partners offer services that include VPAT review, ACR analysis, and structured accessibility certification using the VPAT Evaluator. These services help public entities ensure vendors provide meaningful and verifiable conformance documentation.
Each accessibility requirement in the VPAT is evaluated with one of the following:
- Supports – Fully meets the requirement
- Partially Supports – Partially meets the requirement
- Does Not Support – Does not meet the requirement
- Not Applicable – Criterion does not apply
- Not Evaluated – Used only for Level AAA WCAG criteria
Choosing the Correct VPAT® {version} Template Edition
VPAT{version} editions include:
- VPAT{version} 508: Section 508 (U.S.) – Federal/federally-funded procurements
- VPAT{version} WCAG: WCAG 2.0/2.1/2.2 – Web accessibility evaluations
- VPAT{version} EU: EN 301 549 – European compliance
Depending on the edition, a VPAT may include one or more of the following standards:
- Section 508 (U.S. federal accessibility standard)
- EN 301 549 (European Union ICT accessibility standard)
- WCAG 2.0 / 2.1 / 2.2 (W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines)
- The INT edition includes all three standards
VPAT{version} INT: Section 508 + WCAG + EN 301 549 – International/multi-jurisdictional
Use VPAT{version} 508. This is required under Section 508 and applies to federally funded ICT procurements.
Use VPAT{version} 508. Most states adopt Section 508 or closely mirror it.
Use WCAG if evaluating web-based services or if WCAG is your policy. Use INT for broad multi-jurisdictional compliance.
Not recommended. Request the most current version (e.g., VPAT{version} Rev) to ensure the template reflects modern standards.
Using the VPAT/ACR Evaluator
The VPAT/ACR Evaluator is a structured evaluation tool developed by Revelo Software and its certified channel partners to assess the quality, completeness, and credibility of vendor Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs) or VPATs. It supports procurement, legal, and accessibility teams through a four-phase framework:
- Phase 1 – VPAT/ACR Document Review (automated rubric-based analysis)
- Phase 2 – Independent Accessibility Testing (manual + assistive tech evaluation)
- Phase 3 – Remediation Planning (optional workplan developed by experts)
- Phase 4 – Post-Remediation Reassessment (confirming updated conformance)
The Phase 1 Report provides a structured analysis of the uploaded VPAT/ACR and includes:
- Detection of VPAT version and edition (e.g., VPAT2.4 WCAG)
- Verification of document recency, product identification, and completeness
- Assessment of evaluator disclosures and remarks credibility
- Pass/fail ratings across multiple domains and subdomains
- Two summary indicators: Conformance Claim Level and Conformance Claim Credibility
- Evaluation flags for legal, functional, or operational accessibility risk
The Evaluator applies heuristic and pattern-based logic to inspect the document structure, metadata, and content. It looks for official VPAT markers, such as “VPAT2.x”, version/edition identifiers (e.g., WCAG, Section 508), use of standard conformance terminology (“Supports”, “Not Applicable”), and tables aligned with ITI’s guidance. It also verifies the presence of required metadata like product name/version, evaluation date, testing disclosures, and accessibility contacts. These elements help determine if the document qualifies as a VPAT/ACR and whether it meets procurement-readiness standards.
Yes. Vendors and OEMs may use the tool to self-assess VPAT/ACRs or request third-party evaluation services (Phases 2–4). Public entities (e.g., procurement teams or CIOs) can use the Phase 1 report to review submissions for clarity, risk, and documentation credibility, supporting both pre- and post-award decision-making.
Use WCAG if evaluating web-based services or if WCAG is your policy. Use INT for broad multi-jurisdictional compliance.
Best Practices and Interpretation
It indicates the quality of the VPAT’s content. Higher confidence = more useful and verifiable information.
No. They are vendor-provided disclosures. Testing and real-world usability validation are still required.
Use the Evaluator + Testing to validate behavior and identify inconsistencies or unsupported claims.
Yes. It supports grants, RFPs, state procurements, and academic accessibility reviews.
Conformance Claim Credibility
Conformance Claim Credibility refers to how well a VPAT/ACR is documented, substantiated, and supported by disclosed evidence. It reflects the evaluator's ability to trust the accuracy of the accessibility conformance claims based on third-party involvement, testing transparency, and overall quality of disclosures. It is not a measure of product accessibility itself but of the documentation's strength.
- Vendors can use it to self-assess the quality and credibility of their VPAT/ACR prior to sharing it externally.
- Public entities (CIOs, procurement leads) use it to triage incoming VPAT/ACRs and assess whether further evaluation (e.g., independent testing) is needed.
- Vendors responding to RFPs may be required to submit a VPAT/ACR Evaluation Report that includes this metric to demonstrate transparency and reduce procurement risk.
The metric is based on the pass/fail status of five evidence-based criteria:
- Third-Party Review – Is there disclosure of external or independent involvement?
- Testing Disclosure – Are testing methods, tools, platforms, and standards described?
- Remarks Quality – Are the VPAT/ACR remarks complete, specific, and audit-ready?
- Artifacts / Evidence – Are any test results, screenshots, or documented outputs referenced or attached?
- Date Recency – Was the VPAT/ACR created or updated within the past 12–24 months?
No. A high score indicates the VPAT/ACR is well-prepared and likely accurate, but it does not replace the need for testing the product itself. Public entities may still require independent evaluation (e.g., Phase 2 or 4) for high-impact procurements or if functional accessibility is in doubt.
Procurement teams can use the Conformance Claim Credibility rating to:
- Prioritize VPAT/ACRs that are thorough and evidence-rich.
- Flag incomplete or questionable reports for follow-up.
- Justify requiring additional evaluation phases in vendor reviews.
It helps identify risk in the documentation, even before product testing occurs.
Yes. Vendors can take steps such as:
- Engaging qualified third-party evaluators.
- Providing detailed remarks aligned with each criterion.
- Disclosing the scope and methodology of testing (manual + automated).
- Including testing artifacts or summaries where appropriate.
Conformance Claim Level
The Conformance Claim Level is a summary indicator of how fully the vendor claims their product conforms to accessibility standards (e.g., WCAG, Section 508) in the VPAT/ACR. It reflects self-reported conformance using standardized terms like “Supports” or “Partially Supports.”
The level is derived by analyzing all applicable accessibility criteria in the VPAT/ACR and scoring the proportion that are rated “Supports.” The more consistently the vendor claims full support, the higher the level. However, this level is based solely on claims; it does not verify accuracy.
Levels are tiered as follows:
- Fully Claimed – 95–100% criteria marked “Supports”
- Substantially Claimed – 80–94% “Supports”
- Partially Claimed – 60–79% “Supports”
- Minimally Claimed – 30–59% “Supports”
- Not Claimed – Less than 30% “Supports”
No. The Conformance Claim Level reflects only what the vendor asserts in the VPAT/ACR. It does not confirm whether the product actually meets those standards. Independent testing is required for validation (see Conformance Claim Credibility).
It provides procurement teams and accessibility reviewers with a quick, high-level snapshot of what the vendor is asserting about their product’s accessibility, helping prioritize which VPATs warrant deeper review.
While Conformance Claim Level summarizes what is claimed, Conformance Claim Credibility measures how trustworthy those claims are, based on evidence such as evaluation methods, tester credentials, and documentation quality.
Understanding the VPAT and ACR
The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) is a standardized document created by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to help ICT vendors report how their products meet accessibility requirements. When a VPAT is completed with testing results, it becomes an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR), which public entities can review during procurement to evaluate accessibility compliance.
Depending on the edition, a VPAT may include one or more of the following standards:
- Section 508 (U.S. federal accessibility standard)
- EN 301 549 (European Union ICT accessibility standard)
- WCAG 2.0 / 2.1 / 2.2 (W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines)
- The INT edition includes all three standards
The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or vendor of the ICT product should complete the VPAT using results from manual and automated accessibility testing. Resellers may complete it in collaboration with the OEM, but accuracy and testing validity are essential.
No. ITI provides the templates but does not review or approve completed VPATs. However, Revelo Software and its channel partners offer services that include VPAT review, ACR analysis, and structured accessibility certification using the VPAT Evaluator. These services help public entities ensure vendors provide meaningful and verifiable conformance documentation.
Each accessibility requirement in the VPAT is evaluated with one of the following:
- Supports – Fully meets the requirement
- Partially Supports – Partially meets the requirement
- Does Not Support – Does not meet the requirement
- Not Applicable – Criterion does not apply
- Not Evaluated – Used only for Level AAA WCAG criteria
Choosing the Correct VPAT® {version} Template Edition
VPAT{version} editions include:
- VPAT{version} 508: Section 508 (U.S.) – Federal/federally-funded procurements
- VPAT{version} WCAG: WCAG 2.0/2.1/2.2 – Web accessibility evaluations
- VPAT{version} EU: EN 301 549 – European compliance
Depending on the edition, a VPAT may include one or more of the following standards:
- Section 508 (U.S. federal accessibility standard)
- EN 301 549 (European Union ICT accessibility standard)
- WCAG 2.0 / 2.1 / 2.2 (W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines)
- The INT edition includes all three standards
VPAT{version} INT: Section 508 + WCAG + EN 301 549 – International/multi-jurisdictional
Use VPAT{version} 508. This is required under Section 508 and applies to federally funded ICT procurements.
Use VPAT{version} 508. Most states adopt Section 508 or closely mirror it.
Use WCAG if evaluating web-based services or if WCAG is your policy. Use INT for broad multi-jurisdictional compliance.
Not recommended. Request the most current version (e.g., VPAT{version} Rev) to ensure the template reflects modern standards.
Using the VPAT/ACR Evaluator
The VPAT/ACR Evaluator is a structured evaluation tool developed by Revelo Software and its certified channel partners to assess the quality, completeness, and credibility of vendor Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs) or VPATs. It supports procurement, legal, and accessibility teams through a four-phase framework:
- Phase 1 – VPAT/ACR Document Review (automated rubric-based analysis)
- Phase 2 – Independent Accessibility Testing (manual + assistive tech evaluation)
- Phase 3 – Remediation Planning (optional workplan developed by experts)
- Phase 4 – Post-Remediation Reassessment (confirming updated conformance)
The Phase 1 Report provides a structured analysis of the uploaded VPAT/ACR and includes:
- Detection of VPAT version and edition (e.g., VPAT2.4 WCAG)
- Verification of document recency, product identification, and completeness
- Assessment of evaluator disclosures and remarks credibility
- Pass/fail ratings across multiple domains and subdomains
- Two summary indicators: Conformance Claim Level and Conformance Claim Credibility
- Evaluation flags for legal, functional, or operational accessibility risk
The Evaluator applies heuristic and pattern-based logic to inspect the document structure, metadata, and content. It looks for official VPAT markers, such as “VPAT2.x”, version/edition identifiers (e.g., WCAG, Section 508), use of standard conformance terminology (“Supports”, “Not Applicable”), and tables aligned with ITI’s guidance. It also verifies the presence of required metadata like product name/version, evaluation date, testing disclosures, and accessibility contacts. These elements help determine if the document qualifies as a VPAT/ACR and whether it meets procurement-readiness standards.
Yes. Vendors and OEMs may use the tool to self-assess VPAT/ACRs or request third-party evaluation services (Phases 2–4). Public entities (e.g., procurement teams or CIOs) can use the Phase 1 report to review submissions for clarity, risk, and documentation credibility, supporting both pre- and post-award decision-making.
Use WCAG if evaluating web-based services or if WCAG is your policy. Use INT for broad multi-jurisdictional compliance.
Best Practices and Interpretation
It indicates the quality of the VPAT’s content. Higher confidence = more useful and verifiable information.
No. They are vendor-provided disclosures. Testing and real-world usability validation are still required.
Use the Evaluator + Testing to validate behavior and identify inconsistencies or unsupported claims.
Yes. It supports grants, RFPs, state procurements, and academic accessibility reviews.
Conformance Claim Credibility
Conformance Claim Credibility refers to how well a VPAT/ACR is documented, substantiated, and supported by disclosed evidence. It reflects the evaluator's ability to trust the accuracy of the accessibility conformance claims based on third-party involvement, testing transparency, and overall quality of disclosures. It is not a measure of product accessibility itself but of the documentation's strength.
- Vendors can use it to self-assess the quality and credibility of their VPAT/ACR prior to sharing it externally.
- Public entities (CIOs, procurement leads) use it to triage incoming VPAT/ACRs and assess whether further evaluation (e.g., independent testing) is needed.
- Vendors responding to RFPs may be required to submit a VPAT/ACR Evaluation Report that includes this metric to demonstrate transparency and reduce procurement risk.
The metric is based on the pass/fail status of five evidence-based criteria:
- Third-Party Review – Is there disclosure of external or independent involvement?
- Testing Disclosure – Are testing methods, tools, platforms, and standards described?
- Remarks Quality – Are the VPAT/ACR remarks complete, specific, and audit-ready?
- Artifacts / Evidence – Are any test results, screenshots, or documented outputs referenced or attached?
- Date Recency – Was the VPAT/ACR created or updated within the past 12–24 months?
No. A high score indicates the VPAT/ACR is well-prepared and likely accurate, but it does not replace the need for testing the product itself. Public entities may still require independent evaluation (e.g., Phase 2 or 4) for high-impact procurements or if functional accessibility is in doubt.
Procurement teams can use the Conformance Claim Credibility rating to:
- Prioritize VPAT/ACRs that are thorough and evidence-rich.
- Flag incomplete or questionable reports for follow-up.
- Justify requiring additional evaluation phases in vendor reviews.
It helps identify risk in the documentation, even before product testing occurs.
Yes. Vendors can take steps such as:
- Engaging qualified third-party evaluators.
- Providing detailed remarks aligned with each criterion.
- Disclosing the scope and methodology of testing (manual + automated).
- Including testing artifacts or summaries where appropriate.
Conformance Claim Level
The Conformance Claim Level is a summary indicator of how fully the vendor claims their product conforms to accessibility standards (e.g., WCAG, Section 508) in the VPAT/ACR. It reflects self-reported conformance using standardized terms like “Supports” or “Partially Supports.”
The level is derived by analyzing all applicable accessibility criteria in the VPAT/ACR and scoring the proportion that are rated “Supports.” The more consistently the vendor claims full support, the higher the level. However, this level is based solely on claims; it does not verify accuracy.
Levels are tiered as follows:
- Fully Claimed – 95–100% criteria marked “Supports”
- Substantially Claimed – 80–94% “Supports”
- Partially Claimed – 60–79% “Supports”
- Minimally Claimed – 30–59% “Supports”
- Not Claimed – Less than 30% “Supports”
No. The Conformance Claim Level reflects only what the vendor asserts in the VPAT/ACR. It does not confirm whether the product actually meets those standards. Independent testing is required for validation (see Conformance Claim Credibility).
It provides procurement teams and accessibility reviewers with a quick, high-level snapshot of what the vendor is asserting about their product’s accessibility, helping prioritize which VPATs warrant deeper review.
While Conformance Claim Level summarizes what is claimed, Conformance Claim Credibility measures how trustworthy those claims are, based on evidence such as evaluation methods, tester credentials, and documentation quality.
iAccessible - Full Lifecylce Website & PDF Testign 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