Buyers verify a VPAT by checking five core areas: the scope of what was evaluated, the evaluation methods used, the conformance language applied to each criterion, who authored the report, and whether a supporting audit backs the claims. A VPAT is the template; the completed document is the ACR. Procurement teams and accessibility reviewers read past the cover page to confirm the product was actually evaluated against the right standard, by qualified evaluators, with specifics that match the product they are buying.
Most rejections happen for predictable reasons. Vague scope, missing evaluation methods, or conformance claims that do not match the remarks. Knowing what reviewers look for changes how you prepare the document.
| Verification Area | What Reviewers Look For |
|---|---|
| Scope | Specific product name, version, URLs or screens evaluated, and platforms covered. |
| Edition | Correct VPAT edition (WCAG, Section 508, EN 301 549, or INT) for the buyer’s market. |
| Evaluation Methods | Description of how the product was evaluated, including assistive technology used. |
| Conformance Language | Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, or Not Applicable applied consistently with clear remarks. |
| Authorship | Who completed the ACR and whether the work is backed by an independent audit. |
Scope: Is the Right Product Actually Covered?
The first thing a buyer checks is whether the ACR covers the product they are purchasing. Reviewers look for the exact product name, version number, and a clear description of what was evaluated. A SaaS company selling an admin dashboard and a customer portal must specify which one (or both) the ACR covers.
Generic scope statements get flagged. “Our web app” tells the buyer nothing. “Customer Portal v4.2, evaluated on the dashboard, account settings, and reporting screens” gives reviewers something to verify against.
Which VPAT Edition Was Used?
The edition signals the standard the product was evaluated against. U.S. federal buyers expect Section 508. European buyers expect EN 301 549. Most commercial buyers accept the WCAG edition, which maps to WCAG 2.1 AA or 2.2 AA. The INT edition combines all three.
A mismatch raises questions immediately. A federal procurement team reviewing a WCAG edition ACR will ask for Section 508 instead. Picking the right edition up front avoids back-and-forth.
How Was the Product Evaluated?
The Evaluation Methods Used section tells reviewers how the conformance claims were determined. Buyers want to see specifics: which assistive technology was used, which browsers and operating systems were covered, whether a manual review informed the document.
A line that reads “automated scanning” raises a red flag. Scans only flag approximately 25% of issues, which means automated tools alone cannot support conformance claims across every criterion. Reviewers know this. ACRs grounded in human evaluation carry more weight in procurement.
Does the Conformance Language Match the Remarks?
Each WCAG criterion gets a conformance level: Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, or Not Applicable. The remarks column explains the reasoning. Reviewers read the remarks to verify the rating makes sense.
Common issues reviewers catch: a criterion marked Supports with remarks that describe known issues, Not Applicable used incorrectly on criteria that should apply, or remarks that are blank when an explanation is required. Consistency between the rating and the explanation is what reviewers verify.
Who Authored the ACR?
Buyers increasingly want to know whether the ACR was self-completed or independently issued. A self-issued ACR with no audit behind it is treated with more skepticism than one prepared by a qualified third party. The author’s name, credentials, and the supporting audit report are all signals reviewers weigh.
Independently issued ACRs from accessibility companies tend to receive less pushback in procurement because the conformance claims are backed by documented evaluation work. Accessible.org issues ACRs that are paired with the underlying audit report, which gives buyers the evidence they need.
VPAT details are discussed further here.
Is the Document Current?
ACRs do not have a formal expiration date, but buyers check when the document was completed. A two-year-old ACR for a product that has shipped major updates since raises doubts. The general guidance is to update the ACR after significant product changes, not on a fixed schedule.
Some procurement teams set their own freshness rules, often 12 to 18 months. If your ACR predates that window, expect questions.
FAQ
Can a VPAT be rejected during procurement?
Yes. Common reasons include unclear scope, the wrong edition for the buyer’s market, missing evaluation methods, conformance ratings that contradict the remarks, or no supporting audit. Reviewers send the ACR back with specific questions or request a revised version.
Do buyers ever ask for the audit report behind the ACR?
Some do. Sophisticated buyers, especially in government and enterprise procurement, will request the underlying audit report to verify the conformance claims. Having a documented audit ready to share is a strong position.
What is the difference between a VPAT and an ACR?
The VPAT is the blank template published by ITI. The ACR is the completed document. People often use “VPAT” to mean both, but procurement teams reading the document are looking at an ACR.
Should the ACR be filled out before or after an audit?
After. The conformance claims in the ACR should reflect what an accessibility audit identified. Completing the document first and then trying to back-fill the evaluation creates inconsistencies reviewers catch.
The ACR is a procurement document, but it is read like an audit summary. The buyers who verify it most carefully are the ones whose contracts you want to win.
Contact Accessible.org to request a VPAT and supporting audit for your product.
