4936_Addendum_1_FINAL.pdf

June 18, 2025

Web Content Accessibility Audit and Assessment

Solicitation No. CAPA5-918-4936

Addendum No. 1

1. General. Is there a budget set for this project? If so, can the City identify the budget amount?

Budget information will not be made available.

2. General. Is there an incumbent for this project?

No.

3. General. What is the City’s desired timeline for completing each phase of the project, especially in preparation for the DOJ’s April 2026 compliance deadline?

Interested offerors should propose a timeline for Tasks 1 and 2 assuming a start date of

September 1, 2025. For Task 3, offerors should provide a timeline for completion stated as a number of days.

4. Insurance—Automobile Liability. Is automobile liability insurance required if the Consultant does not propose any work requiring on-site work? (Page 31, Paragraph 2)

You may request that the requirement be removed in your response to the RFP.

5. Is the city currently working on reviews for compliance?

Yes, the city’s internal team has been using Siteimprove to review pages.

6. Task 1/Deliverable 1. For purposes of pricing, can the Consultant assume that Exhibit A is a complete list of all websites and mobile apps that are within the scope of this RFP and that the consultant can provide a cost estimate for additional websites and mobile apps discovered later?

(Page 8, Paragraph 3)

Yes. The hourly rates provided by offerors will be the basis for fees for any additional work that may be required.

7. For Task 1: Accessibility Audit and Assessment (Page 8, Section 1), can you specify the expected volume or number of pages across the listed websites (Page 13-14, Exhibit A) and mobile applications to be audited, or provide an estimated range to guide our planning?

Chandlerpedia is included in the approximate count provided. Chandlerpedia accounts for approximately 28,000 pages. The city may not include Chandlerpedia in this project.

With Chandlerpedia included, the approximate count is 44,000. These counts include screens for mobile apps.

8. For Task 1.d (Page 8, Section 1.d), are there specific third-party tools, widgets, or plugins that require focused accessibility review, or should all third-party integrations be evaluated equally?

Higher traffic tools and mapping sites should have a more focused review. Mapping sites may require more manual work than others.

9. Are there specific third-party tools (e.g., GIS platforms, event registration systems) that require prioritized testing due to complexity or high public usage?

The city and the successful offeror will work together to establish priorities.

10. Regarding Task 1.c (Page 8, Section 1.c), which specific assistive technologies and browsers are required for manual testing, and are there any City-preferred tools or versions we should prioritize?

Offerors should propose the recommended tools. Browsers are Google Chrome, Edge, and

Safari including mobile versions.

11. In the list of websites that are shown, are there any third-party links that are out of scope?

The only third-party links in scope are the ones that are part of the actual service the city is providing.

12. What are some examples of the architecture of the city’s sites and those provided by third parties?

Examples include Drupal, Angular, Wordpress and JQuery. The city does not have a comprehensive list of all site architectures.

13. Task 1/Deliverable 1. The RFP asks the Consultant to identify ALL accessibility issues for its web applications and mobile apps. Many of these issues may have little or no impact on members of the public (e.g. content behind an administrator login). Is this task and deliverable limited to use cases that may actually affect a member of the public in accessing a program, service, or activity of the City? (Page 9, Paragraph 1)

Only publicly accessible content is in scope.

14. Task 1/Deliverable 1. Is there a specific mix of AT tools (screen readers, speech recognition, screen magnifiers, etc.) and platforms (e.g., Windows/NVDA, Mac/VoiceOver, Android/TalkBack) to be used, or is this up to the consultant? (Page 8, Paragraph 5)

Offerors should propose the recommended tools.

15. Is there a specific mix of tools the city prefers for any requested .pdf remediation?

Offerors should propose the recommended tools.

16. Task 1/Deliverable 1. Do any of the listed websites or applications include secure or authenticated user areas (e.g., employee portals, utility billing, or court systems) that will require login credentials to test? If so, will credentials be provided? (Page 8, Paragraph 3)

Yes.

17. Task 2/Deliverable 2. Implementing the remediation recommendations for the web applications and mobile apps will require working with the vendors who created the applications and apps.

As the Consultant has no contractual relationship with these vendors, will the City conduct this outreach to its vendors? (Page 9, Paragraph 4)

Yes.

18. In Task 2: Remediation Plan (Page 9, Section 2), is the City expecting the contractor to directly implement remediation tasks or only to provide recommendations for the City’s internal team to execute?

The successful offeror will be responsible for providing a recommended remediation plan.

The city may require assistance with some remediation activities. Hourly rates will be the basis for fees for any remediation assistance.

19. Task 2/Deliverable 2. Completing the tasks outlined for this section only brings the current web applications and mobile apps into compliance with WCAG 2.1 A/AA—but it provides no guidance for future applications, apps, or documents. Does the City want a fuller plan to address these other areas or is this considered out of scope? (Page 9, Paragraph 2)

This is out of scope.

20. Task 2/Deliverable 3. Much of the remediation will likely have to be performed by the third-party vendors who created the web applications and mobile apps for the City. How can the Consultant document all of the remediation work completed? Shouldn’t this be the responsibility of the

City’s web application and mobile app vendors based on the Consultant’s accessibility audit

(Deliverable 1)? (Page 10, Paragraph 2)

Offerors should propose a methodology for validating the remediation work performed by the city and third parties.

21. For the remediation phase (Task 2), will the City prioritize automated fixes, manual code adjustments, or a hybrid approach?

A hybrid approach.

22. Are we to remediate all the issues we find as well or use your development team? We will need to have full access to code if so.

The successful offeror may be asked to remediate only the issues the city is not able to.

20. Are PDF remediations part of scope of work? If so, we’ll need a list of them.

.pdf documents are out of scope.

21. In relation to PDF remediation (Page 9, Section 5.b), approximately how many PDFs are expected to require updates to meet WCAG 2.1 standards, or can you provide a range to inform our pricing?

.pdf documents are out of scope.

22. For Task 3.c (Page 9, Section 3.c), can you clarify the expected scope of ongoing support for validating accessibility complaints? For example, is there an anticipated volume of complaints or a defined period for this support post-project?

The city is not anticipating the need for ongoing support at this time, however if additional support is needed, fees will be based on hourly rates provided.

23. Does the City anticipate needing ongoing accessibility monitoring post-validation (Task 3), and if so, what KPIs would define success?

No, we do not anticipate that need.

24. Task 3/Deliverable 4. Remediation is outside of the control of the consultant. How can the

Consultant complete Task 3 (validation and certification) within a reasonable time period if the

City’s vendors never fully remediate their products? Would the City consider pricing for this task on a product-by-product basis because the Consultant otherwise risks never being paid for this work. (Page 10, Paragraph 3)

We understand that the remediation is out of the scope for the successful offeror. Task 3 is asking the offeror to validate whether the remediation was completed.

25. Task 3/Deliverable 4. If additional accessibility issues are discovered post-remediation during final validation, will the Consultant be expected to re-validate repeatedly at no cost, or will that be considered a separate engagement? (Page 9, Paragraph 6).

No, we do not expect the consultant to re-validate beyond the initial audit and validation.

26. Task 4/Deliverable 5. Is the City only seeking technical training? Is the City also interested in higher-level training to educate staff on why accessibility is needed and when electronic documents need to be made accessible in the first place? (Page 9, Paragraph 10).

Yes, only technical training is required, which would include .pdf remediation.

27. Task 4/Deliverable 5. Along with developers, designers, content creators, and quality assurance personnel, is training required for other audiences such as procurement and legal? (Page 9, Paragraph 10).

No.

28. Regarding Task 4: Training (Page 9, Section 4), how many staff members are expected to participate in the training sessions, and are there preferences for the format or duration of each session?

We do not have an exact number of staff, however our preference is for a group training session that can be recorded for future use.

29. Task 4/Deliverable 5. Do you prefer live virtual sessions, in-person workshops, or pre-recorded/on-demand training modules? (Page 9, Paragraph 12).

Our preference is for live virtual or in person workshops that can be recorded.

30. Task 5/Deliverable 5. Is there interest in ongoing accessibility monitoring and support after the initial project ends (e.g., quarterly scans, support retainers, quarterly testing)? (Page 9, Paragraph 16)

Pricing can be provided for these services.

31. For the optional Implementation and Support (Page 9, Section 5), can you confirm if the City prefers specific examples of code or solutions from other government entities to be provided in a particular format?

No specific format is required.

32. For the Deliverables (Page 9-10), are there specific templates, formats, or tools that the city prefers for the Accessibility Audit Report, Remediation Plan, Implementation Reports, and Final

Validation Report?

We don’t require a specific format or template.

33. Regarding Exhibit D: Special Conditions (Page 35), does the requirement for the contractor’s software to comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA apply to tools used during the audit or only to deliverables provided to the City?

No, only deliverables.

34. We provide project rates not hourly rates, is that OK?

For the purposes of evaluation, please provide pricing as requested. Offerors may provide additional fee information with their proposal.

35. Offerors will submit fees in accordance with the Fee Proposal Page included in the following pages in this Addendum.

FEE PROPOSAL PAGE

Submit all-inclusive fees for the Scope of Scope of Services, as proposed in the response to the

Proposal Evaluation Criteria.

Description Fees

Task 1: Accessibility Audit and Assessment

(excluding manual testing) $

Task 2: Remediation Plan $

Task 3: Validation and Certification $

Task 4: Training $

Project Total $

Provide pricing for manual page testing as requested below.

Number of pages Fee

100 – 500 $

501 – 1,000 $

1,001 – 2,000 $

2,001 – 3,000 $

3,001 – 4,000 $

Please provide pricing for .pdf remediation work as requested below.

Number of pages Fee

1 – 20 $

21 – 50 $

51 – 100 $

101 – 200 $

201 - 500 $

Submit hourly rates for project team members. Should the city choose to proceed with the services identified as optional in the Scope of Services or require services in addition to the Scope of Services, these rates will serve as the basis of fees for services.

Team Member Role Hourly Rate

In addition to this Fee Proposal Page, include a detailed breakdown of costs associated with each phase of the project, including the audit, remediation, training, and validation phases. If the Offeror is able to provide ongoing monitoring and maintenance, provide fees for these services.

End of Addendum

Christina Pryor, CPPO

Procurement and Supply Senior Manager

Email: christina.pryor@chandleraz.gov mailto:christina.pryor@chandleraz.gov