VPAT & ACR Review
Know what the evidence actually says. A full review report plus a separate risk and conformance worksheet—evidence gaps, vendor questions, a documented risk score. Works even when a vendor sends only an accessibility statement.
Accessibility review, from the first VPAT to the next renewal
WCAG 2.1 AA is our current default evaluation standard. Other standards can be agreed by request.
Professional accessibility review with a shared workspace for your evidence, results and follow-up. Get clear recommendations and a continuing record of remediation and reassessment.
Choose the support your team needs
Hands-On Testing
When the paperwork isn’t enough. Keyboard and assistive-technology testing of the workflows your students and staff actually use, scoped and quoted separately from a documentation review.
Portfolio Management
Stop re-discovering the same vendor risk every renewal cycle. Every vendor, every review and every renewal date in one place, with proactive follow-up before a flagged product quietly auto-renews.
A service arrangement that fits your institution
Choose a service arrangement that reflects your review volume, product complexity and timelines. We agree the deliverables and scope before work begins. Secure online payment, eligible bank payments and agreed purchase-order or invoice arrangements are available.
Your organization can submit evidence, follow request progress, communicate with our team and download completed reports and portfolio records.
What a review does—and what its evidence can support
A documentation review evaluates submitted evidence. A live-product evaluation is a separately defined activity. Neither an ACR nor a numerical score alone certifies complete accessibility. Each report identifies its scope, limitations and required follow-up.
Early screening before a full review
Record whether the vendor has supplied accessibility evidence, whether it addresses your required standard and scope, how current it is, what testing methods it describes, which assistive technologies were used, and whether the vendor has an accessibility contact and remediation plan.
We generally request evidence from the last 12 months. Older documentation can still be reviewed when its limitations and product currency are clear. Missing evidence, unexplained all-Supports claims or automated-only testing prompt questions; they do not automatically establish failure.
Customers can save a screening and carry its product, version and intended workflows into a professional review request. Saving a screening creates no review order or invoice. A full review uses the agreed service allowance and approved scope.
A procurement lifecycle your team can maintain
- Identify the technology need and the people who depend on the essential workflows.
- Screen the vendor’s available accessibility evidence and request clarification.
- Review the evidence and perform any separately agreed product testing.
- Evaluate conformance and institutional risk separately.
- Document the institution’s purchasing decision, conditions and responsible authority.
- Agree vendor contract commitments before purchase and implementation.
- Monitor barriers, remediation, material updates and renewals.
Shared responsibility and continued vendor accountability
Accessibility, procurement, IT, project governance, legal teams, administration and the requesting department each have a role. Accessican supplies evidence-based recommendations and follow-up support. Authorized institutional staff retain purchasing and risk-acceptance authority.
When a department proceeds despite significant concerns, record its authorized decision, responsible owner, mitigation, alternative-access arrangements and reassessment date. Recording risk acceptance does not waive accessibility obligations or make an inaccessible product compliant.
Vendor contract expectations can address accessibility maintenance, updated evidence, issue notification, remediation ownership and timelines, and the effects of product updates. Our draft resources support institutional and legal review; commitments become binding through the institution’s executed agreement.
Develop a sustainable accessibility practice
A reactive process deals with barriers after they arise. A developing process adds early screening, documented review and responsible owners. A mature process connects purchasing decisions to contract commitments, ongoing monitoring and vendor accountability.
This progression is a planning guide, not a maturity certification or automatically calculated score. We can help your team identify its next practical improvement and measure the results through an agreed engagement.