Procurement teams review Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs) to determine whether a product meets their organization’s accessibility requirements. They look at conformance status against WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA, the evaluation methods used, the scope of content evaluated, and the severity of any documented issues. A strong ACR accelerates procurement approval. A weak one stalls or kills the deal.
The VPAT is the blank template. The ACR is the completed document that procurement teams actually read. When a buyer asks for “a VPAT,” they mean a filled-in ACR that maps your product’s accessibility status to a recognized standard.
| ACR Element | What Buyers Look For |
|---|---|
| WCAG Standard and Level | Conformance evaluated against WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA, matching the buyer’s internal requirements |
| Conformance Status per Criterion | “Supports,” “Partially Supports,” “Does Not Support” for each applicable success criterion |
| Evaluation Methods | Whether the ACR is based on a manual accessibility evaluation or only automated scans |
| Scope of Product Evaluated | Which pages, screens, or features were included and whether they represent the full product experience |
| Remarks and Explanations | Specific, clear descriptions of issues rather than vague or generic language |
| Issuing Party | Whether the ACR was completed by an independent third party or self-reported by the vendor |
Why Procurement Teams Care About ACRs
Organizations buying software, web apps, or digital services need documentation that the product meets accessibility standards. This is especially true for government agencies bound by Section 508, companies subject to the European Accessibility Act (EAA), and enterprises with internal compliance policies referencing EN 301 549 or WCAG 2.1 AA.
An ACR is the standard document procurement teams use to compare vendors side by side. Without one, a vendor often cannot move past the initial screening phase.
Do Procurement Teams Actually Read Every Criterion?
Yes, but not all at once. Experienced procurement reviewers typically scan for red flags first: criteria marked “Does Not Support,” vague remarks columns, and missing evaluation methodology details. They then examine specific criteria that are high-risk for their user base.
A reviewer buying a learning management system (LMS), for example, will focus on criteria related to keyboard navigation, form inputs, and multimedia content. A reviewer evaluating a CRM will prioritize data table markup and interactive component accessibility. The product category shapes which criteria get the closest look.
Conformance Status Ratings Matter Most
Each WCAG success criterion in the ACR carries a conformance status: Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, or Not Applicable. Procurement teams count how many criteria fall into each category.
A product with most criteria marked “Supports” signals strong WCAG conformance. Multiple “Does Not Support” entries raise immediate concerns, especially on Level A criteria. “Partially Supports” is acceptable when the remarks column explains the specific issue and whether remediation is planned.
Accessible.org ACRs include detailed remarks for every criterion that is not fully supported, which gives procurement reviewers the context they need to make informed decisions.
Evaluation Methods Signal Credibility
Procurement teams pay close attention to the Evaluation Methods Used section of the ACR. This section reveals how the product was evaluated for accessibility.
An ACR based on a thorough manual accessibility evaluation by a qualified auditor carries significantly more weight than one generated from automated scans alone. Scans only flag approximately 25% of issues, which means a scan-only ACR leaves the majority of potential accessibility gaps undocumented.
Buyers increasingly ask whether the evaluation was conducted by an independent third party. Self-reported ACRs are not disqualified, but independently issued ACRs from firms like Accessible.org are viewed as more credible in competitive procurement scenarios.
Scope: What Was Actually Evaluated?
The product description and scope section tells procurement teams exactly which parts of the digital asset were assessed. A narrow scope covering only a login page and homepage is far less persuasive than one that addresses the core user workflows across the product.
Reviewers want to see that the evaluation covered representative pages and screens, including complex interactions like forms, dashboards, settings, and any content creation features. If key product areas were excluded, the ACR loses value as a procurement document.
Which VPAT Edition Do Buyers Expect?
The VPAT template comes in four editions: WCAG, Section 508, EN 301 549, and INT (International). The edition a buyer expects depends on their organization’s regulatory context.
Government agencies in the United States typically require the Section 508 edition. European buyers reference EN 301 549 for EAA compliance. Most SaaS companies serving a broad market default to the WCAG edition, which maps directly to WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA conformance levels. Accessible.org recommends the WCAG edition for most clients unless the buyer specifies otherwise.
How Fresh Does the ACR Need to Be?
ACRs do not have a formal expiration date. But procurement teams look at when the evaluation was conducted. An ACR from three years ago, based on a product version that has changed substantially, raises questions.
Updating your ACR after significant product changes is the recommended approach. A recent ACR signals that accessibility is an ongoing priority, not a one-time checkbox. Buyers notice the evaluation date, and a current document strengthens your position.
| Red Flag | Why It Concerns Buyers |
|---|---|
| Empty or generic remarks | Suggests the evaluation was superficial or auto-generated |
| No evaluation methods listed | Impossible to assess the credibility of the conformance claims |
| Outdated evaluation date | Product may have changed significantly since the evaluation |
| Self-reported with no third-party involvement | Conformance claims carry less weight without independent verification |
| Narrow scope that excludes core features | Buyers cannot assess whether the primary product experience is accessible |
These red flags, documented in the table above, are the most common reasons an ACR gets flagged during procurement review. Each one can delay approval or push a buyer toward a competing vendor.
How a Strong ACR Wins Contracts
A well-prepared ACR removes friction from the buying process. When a procurement team can quickly verify conformance status, understand the evaluation methodology, and confirm the scope covers the full product, the vendor moves forward faster.
Vendors who invest in a manual accessibility evaluation and produce a detailed ACR through a credible firm position themselves ahead of competitors submitting vague or scan-based documentation. In enterprise and government procurement, this advantage compounds across every deal.
What is the difference between a VPAT and an ACR?
A VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) is the blank template published by the Information Technology Industry Council. An ACR (Accessibility Conformance Report) is the completed document that maps a specific product’s accessibility status to WCAG or Section 508 criteria. When procurement teams request “a VPAT,” they are asking for a completed ACR.
Can an ACR help close a deal faster?
Yes. A complete, independently issued ACR with detailed conformance data and clear evaluation methods allows procurement teams to approve a vendor without follow-up questions. Missing or weak ACRs create delays and additional review cycles that slow the sales process.
How often should a vendor update their ACR?
There is no formal expiration, but updating after significant product changes is recommended. A current ACR reflects ongoing commitment to accessibility and gives procurement teams confidence that the conformance data accurately represents the product they are evaluating.
Do procurement teams prefer WCAG 2.1 AA or WCAG 2.2 AA?
Most procurement requirements still reference WCAG 2.1 AA, though requests for WCAG 2.2 AA are increasing. The right standard depends on the buyer’s internal policy. When no specific version is stated, WCAG 2.1 AA remains the most widely accepted conformance target for ACRs.
An ACR is more than a compliance document. It is a sales asset that speaks directly to procurement teams in the language they use to evaluate vendors. Getting it right, with a thorough evaluation, detailed remarks, and a credible issuing party, makes the difference between winning the contract and losing to a competitor who documented their accessibility story better.
Contact Accessible.org to get a professionally completed ACR based on a thorough WCAG conformance evaluation.
