Procurement with Teeth: Accessibility Requirements and SLAs for Your Vendors

Your organization can invest heavily in making your own digital properties accessible, but that work is undermined every time you deploy a third-party tool with accessibility barriers. That inaccessible analytics dashboard your team uses daily? Those are your employees being excluded. That embedded payment widget on your checkout? Those are your customers being blocked.

The good news: procurement is a leverage point. You can require accessibility upfront, before signing contracts, when you have maximum negotiating power. This accessibility RFP guide shows you how to define requirements, write enforceable SLAs, and manage vendor accessibility throughout the relationship.

Defining Accessibility Expectations in RFPs

Baseline Standards and Testing Requirements

Your RFP should specify exactly what accessibility means in the context of this procurement.

WCAG version and conformance level. Be explicit: "The solution must conform to WCAG 2.2 Level AA for all user-facing functionality." The W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines are the industry standard. Requiring AA conformance is reasonable; requiring AAA may limit your vendor pool unnecessarily.

Supported assistive technologies. Specify which AT combinations the vendor must support. At minimum: "The solution must work with current versions of JAWS, NVDA, and VoiceOver screen readers, and support keyboard-only navigation on current versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge." The WebAIM screen reader survey provides data on AT usage patterns.

Browser and device coverage. Define the matrix of browsers, operating systems, and devices that must be accessible. Match this to your own organization's support requirements.

Testing methodology. Ask how the vendor tests for accessibility: "Describe your accessibility testing process, including automated scanning tools used, manual testing procedures, and any user testing with people who use assistive technologies."

Required Documentation

Documentation requirements filter out vendors who haven't thought seriously about accessibility.

VPATs (Voluntary Product Accessibility Templates). Request a current VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) based on the ITI VPAT template. VPATs document how a product conforms to accessibility standards. A vendor who can't provide one likely hasn't evaluated their product systematically.

Internal test reports. Beyond standardized VPATs, ask for recent accessibility test results: "Provide accessibility audit results from the past 12 months, including any issues identified and their remediation status."

Accessibility roadmap. If known issues exist, ask for the plan: "Describe your accessibility improvement roadmap, including planned enhancements and expected timelines."

Third-party audit reports. For critical procurements, require evidence of independent evaluation: "Provide accessibility audit reports from a qualified third-party assessor conducted within the past 24 months."

Writing Accessibility SLAs

Accessibility requirements in RFPs are aspirational until they're backed by enforceable SLAs in the contract.

Metrics and Targets

Time-to-fix for critical issues. Define what happens when accessibility barriers are discovered: "Critical accessibility issues (those blocking users from completing essential tasks) must be remediated within 5 business days. Serious issues (significant barriers that don't completely block functionality) must be remediated within 30 days."

Severity definitions. Align severity levels with impact. The CVSS severity framework used in security provides a model. Critical issues completely block user journeys; serious issues create significant barriers; moderate issues create inconvenience; minor issues are cosmetic.

Frequency of testing and re-certification. Require ongoing assessment: "Vendor will conduct comprehensive accessibility testing quarterly and provide updated conformance documentation annually, or within 30 days of any major product update."

Regression requirements. Prevent accessibility backsliding: "New releases must not introduce regressions in accessibility conformance. Any release introducing accessibility regressions must be remediated or rolled back within 5 business days."

Consequences and Incentives

SLAs without teeth are just suggestions.

Penalties for non-compliance. Options include:

• Service credits for SLA misses
• Rights to withhold payment until issues are resolved
• Contract termination clauses for persistent non-compliance
• Right to remediate and deduct costs (for severe cases)

Benefits for exceeding expectations. Consider positive incentives: preferred vendor status, contract extensions, public recognition. Vendors who invest in accessibility deserve reward, not just avoidance of punishment.

Audit rights. Include the right to independently audit accessibility: "Customer reserves the right to conduct or commission accessibility audits of the solution at any time during the contract term. Vendor will cooperate fully with such audits."

Escalation procedures. Define what happens when issues aren't resolved: escalation to vendor leadership, formal breach notices, and paths to contract termination.

Managing Accessibility Throughout the Vendor Lifecycle

Pre-Contract Evaluation

Don't take vendor claims at face value. Validate before signing.

Run your own scan on demos or sandboxes. Use automated accessibility tools on any demo environment. WAVE, axe DevTools, or TestParty can quickly identify obvious issues. A vendor whose demo has critical accessibility barriers likely has worse problems in production.

Conduct hands-on evaluation. Have someone navigate the demo using only keyboard. Try it with a screen reader if you have that capability. Five minutes of manual testing reveals issues automated tools miss.

Interview the vendor about their accessibility practices. Ask:

• Who is responsible for accessibility in your organization?
• How is accessibility tested during development?
• How do you handle accessibility bug reports from customers?
• What accessibility training do your developers receive?

Thoughtful answers indicate genuine commitment. Vague responses signal that accessibility is an afterthought.

Check references on accessibility. Ask the vendor for references who can speak to accessibility specifically—not just general satisfaction. Ask those references: "Have you encountered accessibility issues? How responsive was the vendor in addressing them?"

Ongoing Monitoring

Accessibility evaluation doesn't end at contract signing.

Periodic scans and review meetings. Schedule regular accessibility reviews: "Quarterly, both parties will review accessibility conformance status, outstanding issues, and remediation progress." Continuous monitoring prevents drift.

Track issues and resolution. Maintain a log of accessibility issues reported, response times, and resolution status. This data is essential for SLA enforcement and contract renewal decisions.

Re-evaluate after major updates. When vendors release significant updates, re-test. New features often introduce new accessibility issues.

User feedback channels. Ensure your users can report accessibility problems with vendor components. Route those reports to vendor accountability processes.

How TestParty Supports Vendor Governance

TestParty provides the visibility and evidence procurement and GRC teams need to hold vendors accountable.

Scanning third-party login and embedded experiences. TestParty can scan vendor components deployed in your environment—payment widgets, chat tools, embedded forms. You see accessibility issues in context, not just in vendor-controlled demos.

Providing evidence for your GRC and procurement teams. When you identify issues, TestParty provides documentation: specific WCAG failures, affected elements, and severity assessments. This evidence supports SLA enforcement discussions.

Benchmarking vendor performance over time. Track how vendor accessibility changes across contract periods. Is it improving? Stable? Degrading? Data-driven conversations are more productive than subjective complaints.

Pre-procurement evaluation. Before signing, scan vendor properties to establish a baseline. Go into negotiations knowing what you're actually buying.

Conclusion – Accessibility as a Non-Negotiable Procurement Criterion

Vendor accessibility isn't a nice-to-have—it's a requirement that protects your organization legally, serves your users ethically, and often reveals vendors who take quality seriously in other areas too.

The accessibility RFP process doesn't have to be burdensome. With clear requirements, meaningful vendor accessibility SLAs, and systematic monitoring, you can:

• Filter out vendors who haven't invested in accessibility before you waste time evaluating them
• Set clear expectations so vendors know exactly what's required
• Hold vendors accountable when they don't meet commitments
• Protect your organization from liability for third-party accessibility failures

Procurement is leverage. Use it to make accessibility a condition of doing business, not an optional feature request that gets deprioritized against your other asks.

Want to scan your key vendors before renewal? We'll help you benchmark them against your accessibility standards so you negotiate from a position of knowledge.

Related Articles:

• Automated WCAG 2.1 Testing: AI Implementation Guide 2025
• RFP Ready: Questions Every Buyer Should Ask Accessibility Vendors in 2025