2026-05-17 · 6 min read

WCAG Audit RFP for Government Agencies: What to Require and What to Avoid

# WCAG Audit RFP for Government Agencies: What to Require and What to Avoid

Most government WCAG audit RFPs produce one of two outcomes: proposals from automated-scanner vendors who call their reports an "audit," or proposals from large enterprise consultancies with six-figure price tags and six-month timelines that put compliance at risk.

The gap between these outcomes is the RFP language. Vague scope language invites vague proposals. Specific scope language — methodology requirements, deliverable specifications, tester qualifications — filters the field to vendors who can actually do what the Title II Final Rule requires.

This post gives you the specific language to include and the specific patterns to avoid.

Why Most Government WCAG RFPs Fail

They don't define methodology. An RFP that asks for "a WCAG 2.1 Level AA accessibility audit" without specifying that it must include manual testing with assistive technology will receive proposals from vendors who run axe-core and format the output with a company header. That is a scanner report, not an audit. It is also not defensible compliance documentation.

They don't specify deliverables. "An accessibility report" could mean a 3-page executive summary or a 200-page findings inventory with code-level examples and a remediation roadmap. Vendors write to the minimum asked; if you don't specify, you won't receive what you need.

They don't specify tester qualifications. WCAG manual testing requires trained evaluators with active experience using screen readers and keyboard navigation. An RFP that doesn't require this gets proposals from consultancies who will assign the work to junior staff who run automated tools.

They don't require government experience. Government websites have specific patterns — complex navigation hierarchies, large document libraries, form-heavy service delivery, GIS integrations — that require auditors who have tested similar systems.

The Scope Language That Matters

Your RFP should specify the following:

Testing methodology — required language:

> "The vendor shall conduct a WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance evaluation using both automated testing tools and manual testing procedures. Automated tools shall include, at minimum, [axe-core or equivalent]. Manual testing shall include keyboard-only navigation testing and screen reader testing using NVDA with Chrome and VoiceOver with Safari (iOS). The evaluation methodology must conform to the W3C Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM). Automated-only evaluations shall not be submitted in response to this solicitation."

This language explicitly excludes scanner-only vendors without naming them.

Page sample — required language:

> "The evaluation shall cover a representative sample of [150-200] pages, including: the main navigation and all first-level pages, all public-facing service application forms, all public-facing payment interfaces, the five highest-traffic page templates (as identified by the agency from analytics data), any third-party portal accessible through the agency website and under the agency's vendor contract, and a sample of [50] PDF documents representative of the document library's format types."

Specifying the sample composition prevents vendors from auditing only the homepage.

Deliverables — required language:

> "The vendor shall deliver: > 1. A findings report organized by WCAG 2.1 success criterion number. Each finding shall include: the criterion number and name, the failure description, the specific URL(s) affected, a severity rating (Critical / Major / Minor), a screenshot or code example demonstrating the failure, the estimated remediation effort in developer hours, and a recommended remediation approach. > 2. A remediation roadmap prioritizing findings by severity and suggesting a sequencing for the agency's development team. > 3. A draft accessibility statement conforming to the DOJ Title II Final Rule requirements, naming the evaluation methodology and auditor, listing known limitations, and including a contact mechanism. > 4. A testing methodology summary documenting the tools, assistive technology configurations, browser/OS combinations, and page sample used in the evaluation. > 5. A re-test of critical findings within [90] days of initial remediation at no additional cost."

Tester qualifications — required language:

> "Personnel conducting manual testing must have documented experience using NVDA, JAWS, and VoiceOver as primary assistive technology evaluation tools. Vendor shall provide CVs or brief bios for all personnel assigned to manual testing activities. Personnel assigned to automated-only tasks (scripted scanning, report formatting) need not meet this requirement but must be identified as such."

Government site experience — required language:

> "Vendor shall provide two references from government agency clients for whom the vendor has conducted a WCAG conformance evaluation within the past three years. References shall be from comparable entities — county or municipal governments, school districts, or state agencies — not from private sector clients. Reference contacts shall be available for direct conversation with the evaluation team."

Red Flags in Proposals to Reject

The sample report is an axe-core or Lighthouse export. If the sample report provided in the proposal is formatted tool output with a company logo, the vendor is reselling a scanner report as an audit. Reject.

The timeline is under two weeks for a 100+ page site. A genuine 100-page manual audit with NVDA and VoiceOver testing takes at minimum two to three weeks. A proposal promising delivery in five business days is automated-only.

The deliverable list doesn't include a remediation roadmap or accessibility statement. These are standard compliance deliverables. A vendor who doesn't include them is either inexperienced with government compliance needs or deliberately scoping to provide less.

The proposal includes an overlay product. Some accessibility vendors bundle an overlay widget with their audit — positioning the overlay as the remediation solution. Overlays do not satisfy WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance. A vendor proposing this model does not understand the standard they are auditing against.

No references from government clients. Government websites have distinct characteristics. Lack of government sector experience means the auditor is learning on your engagement.

Vague methodology description. A strong proposal describes methodology precisely: which automated tools, which screen readers, which browser/OS combinations, what the page sample selection process is. Proposals that say "we use industry-standard tools" without specifics are a yellow flag.

Evaluation Criteria to Include

When scoring proposals, these criteria separate capable vendors from commodity scanners:

| Criterion | Weight | What to Look For | |---|---|---| | Testing methodology | 30% | Explicit NVDA/VoiceOver testing, WCAG-EM conformance, no automated-only deliverables | | Deliverable completeness | 25% | All five deliverables present in sample; findings organized by criterion, not by page | | Government experience | 20% | References from comparable government entities, familiarity with gov patterns | | Timeline realism | 15% | Proposed timeline consistent with the scope (manual testing cannot be compressed to days) | | Cost reasonableness | 10% | Evaluate in context of scope; lowest cost often signals automated-only methodology |

A Ready-to-Use Starting Point

If you need the full RFP template language and don't want to draft from scratch, the WCAG Pre-Audit Readiness Kit ($149) includes a procurement guide written specifically for Florida government agencies — with pre-drafted RFP scope language, evaluation criteria matrix, vendor interview questions, and sample deliverable specifications that match what the DOJ Title II Final Rule's compliance documentation requires.

The Parallax WCAG audit from Morton Technology Consulting is built to meet every deliverable specification listed in this post. If you are evaluating the $9,500 Parallax audit as a sole-source procurement rather than a competitive RFP (permissible under Florida Statute 287.017 for certain professional services procurements), the sample audit report at morton-digital.com/parallax-sample-audit provides the documentation needed for your procurement file.

---

*Morton Technology Consulting LLC, Tallahassee, FL. WCAG 2.1 audits designed for Florida government procurement. [email protected]*

Morton Technology Consulting LLC — WCAG 2.1 AA audits for Florida government agencies. Parallax audit → · WCAG Readiness Kit → · All posts →