Vendors document their own accessibility conformance. We review those reports against the standard your solicitation names — identifying uncovered criteria, unsupported conformance claims and missing test evidence — and return a dated assessment you can put in the procurement file.
From $650/year.
Under most agencies’ informal purchase threshold — no solicitation, no three quotes. Quoted in writing, W-9 and certificate of insurance on request.
The DOJ’s ADA Title II web rule sets a hard compliance date for public websites and mobile apps — 2027 for populations of 50,000+, 2028 for smaller jurisdictions and special districts. The extension is your window to do this properly, not a reason to wait.
That is how the VPAT format is designed to work, and it is not a criticism of vendors. It does mean the receiving agency carries the burden of assessing whether a report substantiates what it claims.
An Accessibility Conformance Report is a self-disclosure by the vendor, and the format gives them wide latitude in how much they explain. Few procurement teams have the time or the specialist background to tell a thorough report from a cursory one. We provide a documented assessment for the procurement file.
Agencies need to establish whether a vendor’s conformance claims are substantiated. Vendors need to know how their report will be assessed before they submit it.
Every vendor conformance report on file, reviewed against the standard your contracts specify, so that gaps are identified on your schedule rather than in a demand letter.
Have the report you intend to submit reviewed the same way the receiving agency will review it, so that any gaps can be addressed or explained in advance.
An automated read is fast, thorough, and occasionally wrong in ways that matter — it can miss a disclosed keyboard failure, or flag a clean row because of one word. That is a fine place to start a review and a poor place to end one, so every report is checked by a reviewer before you ever see a grade.
You send the report
Upload the file, or paste the address the vendor publishes it at. PDF, Word or HTML.
What the software does
Automated read
Every criterion read
The vendor's own table, row by row — conformance level, and the remark behind it. Nothing sampled.
Claims checked against their own words
A row marked “Supports” whose remark describes a keyboard failure is found and quoted back.
Silence counted as silence
Criteria the report never mentions are listed by name. Unanswered is not passing.
What a person does
Independent review
A reviewer reads the draft
Every finding, against the source document. What the software flagged, and what it may have missed.
Findings corrected or confirmed
False flags removed, missed disclosures added. The draft is an opinion until a person agrees with it.
Published with their name on it
The report reaches your vault signed, dated, and defensible in a procurement file.
You get the review back
Grade, findings, the criteria nobody answered, and what to put to the vendor — with the reviewer’s name on it.
2
business days
| What you’re really getting | Reviewed in-house | Accept as submitted | GOVvpat |
|---|---|---|---|
| A named reviewer signs off before you see it | No | No | Yes |
| Tells you which criteria were never addressed | No | No | Yes |
| Checks “Supports” claims against their own remarks | No | No | Yes |
| Flags “Not Applicable” with no justification | No | No | Yes |
| Catches a report written to the wrong edition | Partlypartly | No | Yes |
| Names the testing method and assistive tech used | No | Partlypartly | Yes |
| Tracks whether the next version actually improved | No | No | Yes |
| Written by someone without a deal on the line | Yes | No | Yes |
Most of what matters in a conformance report is what it doesn’t say — criteria left out, claims with empty remarks, an edition that doesn’t match your contract. Those are invisible unless someone checks the document against the standard line by line.
Conformance reports rarely contain false claims. They contain omissions — criteria never addressed, support claimed without evidence, an edition that answers a different question. Those are the things we go looking for.
81
chapter requirements
Section 508 and EN 301 549 ask for more than WCAG: whether the product works without vision or hearing, whether it reaches assistive technology through the platform, whether the support documentation is itself accessible. An INT review checks 81 of those on top of the criteria table. A report can answer every criterion and still not answer the standard you named.
4
editions, checked against yours
A WCAG-edition report does not answer a Section 508 solicitation, however good it is. We read which edition the document declares and say plainly when it cannot answer the standard your procurement language names.
0
credit for silence
A criterion the report never mentions is unanswered, not passing. The grade is capped by how much of the standard the document actually addresses, so a thin report answering a dozen criteria cannot score well on the strength of what it left out.
Large reports repeat criteria across platform or standard tables, and the answers do not always agree. We take the least favorable reading and flag the disagreement by reference, so you can ask the vendor which one is true rather than discovering it later.
A flat “Supports” whose remark says “in most instances”, or “planned for a future release”, is a partial answer wearing a pass. It is invisible if you read only the conformance column, so we read the remark against the claim.
You can ask the report questions and get the vendor’s own words back, quoted. Ask about something it does not address and it says so rather than filling the gap — it answers from that document alone.
Proven against real reports, not sample ones.
The reader is validated against 21 conformance reports published by national GovTech and mapping vendors — with 1,004 rows checked line by line against the source documents. It reads PDF, Word and HTML, including the permission-locked PDFs some vendors publish.
When it cannot read a document, it says so and refuses to grade it. A number nobody can trace back to a table is worth less than no number.
A report written to the wrong edition is one of the most common and most easily missed gaps — a WCAG 2.1 report submitted against a 2.2 requirement, for instance.
The edition most often specified by U.S. federal agencies and recipients of federal funding.
Conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (also ISO/IEC 40500) — the standard most others build on.
The European Union's accessibility requirements, specified in EU public-sector procurement and under the EAA.
The combined edition — 508, WCAG and EN 301 549 in a single document — used where a product is procured across jurisdictions.
We come from public-sector IT and procurement. We know how a city buys, what an ADA Coordinator actually needs in the file, and how to write a read that survives scrutiny.
We review these the way a procurement office must: against the language in the solicitation, with attention to what a report does not address.
We do not author conformance reports. We disclose any prior relationship with a vendor under review, and we will decline a review where one exists.
Computer Systems Plus also publishes CivicCA and SentraCheck. GOVvpat reviews vendor products you are procuring; SentraCheck remediates documents you already own. Where a review touches a product that competes with one of ours, we disclose it on the face of the assessment and you may decline the finding.
Accessibility review is not a one-off purchase — vendors arrive with every solicitation, and the ones already on file reissue their reports. The license covers the portfolio for the year, so the cost of checking one more vendor is never the reason a check gets skipped.
From $650
per year — a license, not a per-report fee. Quoted in writing before anything starts, and it does not move because you sent one more vendor than you expected.
Buyable without a solicitation. Most agencies set an informal purchase threshold between $5,000 and $25,000 for professional services. An annual license sits well below it, which means a purchase order or p-card rather than a competitive process. We provide a W-9, certificate of insurance, and a written quote on your form if your finance office needs one. Sole-source justification language available on request.
How pricing and procurement work →The vendors already on file, plus the ones arriving with each solicitation through the year. Volume sets the tier.
Section 508, WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 AA, EN 301 549, or the combined INT edition — whichever your procurement language names.
Procurement, IT and legal usually all want in. Seats are part of the license, not billed per person.
Quotes go out the same business day. If a review isn’t warranted for what you’ve described, we’ll tell you that instead.
Whether you’re evaluating a vendor’s claims or checking your own before you submit them, it’s the same read — against the standard your contract actually names.