VPATs and ACRs that hold up when a deal depends on them

The difference between an ACR that passes review and one that doesn’t

Procurement teams and accessibility offices read these closely. The reports that get products rejected are almost always the ones that overclaim — a column of “Supports” with nothing behind it, which any competent reviewer can disprove in ten minutes.

Your ACR is part of the sale

The request usually arrives in the middle of a deal — in an RFP, a vendor-risk questionnaire, or a renewal. What happens next depends on the document. A credible ACR answers the accessibility question before it becomes an objection. An inflated one turns a routine review into a round of follow-up questions, and sometimes into a lost deal.

It also comes back. Buyers ask again at renewal, and the report has to describe the product they are renewing, not the one you shipped two years ago.

What you receive

• An ACR on the current ITI VPAT template, in the edition your buyer requires.
• Product name, version, and evaluation date, so the document is anchored to something real.
• A methodology section describing what was tested, how, and with what.
• A conformance level and a substantive remark for every applicable criterion.
• Consistent answers across the WCAG, Section 508, and EN 301 549 tables.
• A remediation roadmap for everything that does not fully conform.

And a clear statement of what an ACR is not: it is not a certification, and it does not make problems disappear. It is a documented, evidence-based account of how your product performs against the standard.

How it works

1. ScopeProduct, platforms, which editions your buyer wants, and the deadline you are working to.
2. TestManual and assistive technology evaluation of the product against every applicable criterion.
3. AuthorWe write the ACR and review it internally before it reaches you.
4. Walk throughA session on the results, and help answering your buyer’s follow-up questions.

An ACR describes one release

A conformance report is a snapshot of one version of your product. Every release changes what it should say: new features can bring criteria into scope that did not apply before, and fixes change the conformance level and remarks for others. A report that no longer matches the product is exactly what a careful reviewer catches.

So the useful arrangement is not a one-off document. As an ongoing engagement, we re-test each release — what changed, and anything it touches — and update the ACR to match, so the report your sales team sends describes the product you are selling.

Which edition do you need?

• 508 edition — US federal agencies and anyone selling to them.
• WCAG edition — most state, higher education, and commercial buyers.
• EU edition — EN 301 549, for products sold into the European market.
• INT edition — all three, when you sell into several markets at once.

If you are not sure which one is being asked for, forward us the request. It is usually obvious from the wording.

Who asks for one, and when

• Federal procurement. Section 508 obliges agencies to consider accessibility in what they buy, so the ACR arrives with the RFP.
• State and higher education. Many state systems and universities require an ACR before a purchase order exists.
• Enterprise vendor risk. Increasingly part of the standard security-and-compliance questionnaire.
• European sales. The European Accessibility Act pushed EN 301 549 documentation into ordinary commercial deals.

What is a VPAT?

The VPAT is a blank template published by the Information Technology Industry Council. Once it has been filled in for a specific product, the completed document is an Accessibility Conformance Report — an ACR. People use the two terms interchangeably; when a buyer asks for “your VPAT”, they want the completed report.

Each row records how the product performs against one success criterion, using four possible answers:

• Supports — the functionality of the product has at least one method that meets the criterion without known defects, or meets it with equivalent facilitation.
• Partially Supports — some functionality does not meet the criterion; the remark must say where.
• Does Not Support — the majority of the functionality does not meet it.
• Not Applicable — the criterion is not relevant to the product.

The remarks column is where the document earns or loses its credibility. Levels without remarks are one of the first things a reviewer questions.

Questions we get asked

Can you just fill in the template from our own testing?

We write ACRs from testing we have done, because our methodology goes in the document and our name goes with it.

What if our product does not conform?

Most do not, fully. The ACR records that accurately and the roadmap says what to fix first. An honest “Partially Supports” with a clear exception is far more useful to a buyer — and far safer for you — than an inflated “Supports”.

Is an ACR a certification?

No. There is no official accessibility certification for a product. An ACR is a documented, evidence-based statement of conformance — which is precisely why the evidence behind it matters.

WCAG 2.1 or 2.2?

The current template covers WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2. We test to 2.2 unless your buyer specifies otherwise, which also satisfies a 2.1 requirement.

How long does it take?

A typical ACR takes around three weeks, depending on the size of the product. Tell us your deadline in the form and we will tell you honestly whether it is achievable.

What happens after I send the form?

A person reads it and replies within one business day, usually with a question or two and a time for a scoping call. You will not be added to a mailing list.