An accessibility services RFP is a written request that asks vendors to propose pricing and an approach for auditing, remediation guidance, VPAT/ACR work, training, or related services. A strong RFP defines the digital assets in scope, the standard (WCAG 2.1 AA or 2.2 AA), the deliverables expected, and how proposals will be evaluated. The clearer the input, the more useful the proposals. Vague RFPs produce vague quotes. Specific RFPs produce comparable bids you can decide on quickly.
This guide walks through what to include, in what order, and how to format the document so vendors can respond accurately.
| Section | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Background | Who you are, what triggered the request, and the result you want |
| Scope | The specific assets (website, web app, mobile app, documents) and page or screen counts |
| Standard | WCAG 2.1 AA or 2.2 AA, plus Section 508 or EN 301 549 if relevant |
| Deliverables | Audit report, ACR, remediation guidance, validation, training |
| Timeline | Start date, key milestones, and target completion |
| Evaluation criteria | How proposals will be scored: methodology, experience, price, references |
| Pricing format | Per page, per screen, per asset, or fixed-fee structure |
| Vendor questions | Methodology, team credentials, sample work, references |
Start with background and the result you want
Open with two short paragraphs. Who you are. What kicked off the request. What outcome you need: an audit report, an ACR for procurement, ADA Title II conformance work, EAA conformance support, or a full remediation engagement.
Vendors price based on the result. A demand letter response is different from a proactive audit. State which one applies.
Define scope precisely
Scope is where most accessibility services RFPs lose accuracy. Vendors cannot quote what they cannot count.
List every asset to be evaluated. This includes marketing websites with a page count, web apps with a screen count and key user flows, mobile apps for iOS, Android, or both with screen count, PDF documents with page totals and document count, and any LMS, CRM, ecommerce platform, or other software in scope.
For pages and screens, identify representative templates rather than every URL. A 500-page site often reduces to 20 to 30 unique templates. Templates are what get evaluated.
Specify the standard
State the conformance standard explicitly. WCAG 2.1 AA is the most common. WCAG 2.2 AA is increasingly requested by procurement teams. Section 508 applies to U.S. federal contracts. EN 301 549 applies to EAA work and EU public sector procurement.
If you need an ACR, name the VPAT edition: WCAG, Section 508, EN 301 549, or INT.
List the deliverables
Be exact about what you expect to receive. Common deliverables for an accessibility services RFP include an audit report identifying issues mapped to WCAG success criteria, issue severity ratings and prioritization guidance, remediation recommendations with code-level direction, an ACR signed by the auditing firm, a validation pass after fixes are made, user evaluation with assistive technology users, and team training tied to the issues identified.
If you only need an audit, say so. If you need the full path through remediation and validation, list each phase.
What evaluation criteria should the RFP include?
Tell vendors how they will be scored. This forces clarity on your end and produces stronger proposals.
A workable scoring breakdown: methodology and depth of evaluation at 30 percent, team credentials and accessibility experience at 25 percent, pricing and value at 25 percent, and references and sample work at 20 percent.
Vendors that rely heavily on automated scans will look weak against this rubric, which is the point. Scans only flag approximately 25% of issues. A manual accessibility audit is the only way to determine WCAG conformance.
Set a pricing format vendors must follow
If every proposal uses a different pricing structure, comparison gets hard. Require a consistent format.
Options that work well include per template or per unique page, per mobile app screen, per PDF document with a page-count tier, and fixed fee per phase (audit, remediation guidance, validation, ACR).
Ask for line items, not a single bundled number. A bundled quote hides where the cost actually sits.
Ask vendors the right questions
Build a question section into the RFP. Require written answers from every vendor.
Useful questions to include: Is your audit fully manual, or partially automated? What credentials do your auditors hold (CPACC, WAS, DHS Trusted Tester)? Do you include user evaluation with assistive technology users? Can you share a sample audit report with sensitive client data redacted? What does your validation process look like after fixes are made? Do you issue independent ACRs, or do clients self-attest? Who signs the ACR and what is their role at your company? Can you provide three references from similar engagements?
Answers to these questions separate accessibility consulting firms from companies selling automated reports.
Set a realistic timeline
Include a proposal due date, a vendor selection date, a project kickoff date, and a target completion window. If a procurement deadline or a litigation timeline is driving the work, state it. Vendors will tell you whether they can meet it.
Format and submission instructions
Specify how vendors should submit. PDF by email is standard. Page limit prevents bloated proposals. A 10 to 15 page cap is reasonable for most accessibility services work.
Include a single point of contact for questions. Set a deadline for clarification questions a few days before the proposal due date so all vendors get the same information.
What is the difference between an RFP and an RFQ for accessibility services?
An RFP asks for a proposal that includes methodology, team, references, and pricing. An RFQ asks only for pricing against a defined scope. Use an RFP when you need to evaluate approach. Use an RFQ when scope is already locked and price is the only variable.
Should the RFP require a fully manual audit?
Yes if WCAG conformance is the goal. Scans cannot determine conformance. Require that the audit methodology be human-led, with scans used only as a supporting input. State this directly so automated-only vendors self-select out.
How long should the response window be?
Two to three weeks is typical. One week is too short for a quality proposal. Four weeks is fine if scope is large or multiple assets are involved.
How many vendors should receive the RFP?
Three to five. Fewer than three limits comparison. More than five creates review work that rarely improves the outcome.
A well-written accessibility services RFP saves weeks on the back end. Vendors quote accurately, proposals compare cleanly, and the team that wins the work understands what they were hired to do.
Contact Accessibility Base to find vendors for your accessibility services RFP.