Addendum No. 5 - OJD RFP No. S-19800-00014589_Final.pdf
PDF 100 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-19800-00014589
- Issued by
- Marion County, Oregon
About this file
Addendum No. 5 to RFP No. S-19800-00014589 is a clarification document issued by the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD) addressing questions and requests for modifications submitted by prospective proposers in response to the Digital Accessibility Audit for OJD Public Facing Content solicitation. The addendum resolves nine substantive inquiries regarding project scope, methodology, and deliverables. Key clarifications include confirmation that OJD does not require use of the W3C WCAG-EM Reporting Tool, provided that all mandatory reporting elements are included in a custom format; OJD expects contractors to perform both identification of WCAG responsive design failures and proactive recommendations for design pattern adjustments; YouTube video accessibility testing must include closed captioning evaluation; and post-remediation validation will follow the approach proposed by the selected contractor rather than a mandated iterative or batch model. OJD acknowledged it lacks specific data breakdowns on webpage complexity, document composition (scanned versus digitally created), and will not pre-triage documents, placing inventory and categorization responsibility on the vendor. The addendum confirms that PDF remediation scope and approach should reference responses provided in Addendum No. 4, indicating linked clarifications that define remediation responsibilities between OJD and the contractor.
This addendum represents responses to detailed technical and operational questions that reflect the RFP's comprehensive nature, covering assessment methodology, reporting formats, validation processes, and the scope of work across multiple digital platforms including websites, sub-domains, and SharePoint sites. The clarifications indicate flexibility in contractor methodology while maintaining strict adherence to accessibility standards and reporting requirements, enabling prospective proposers to develop informed proposals based on OJD's priorities and expectations for the digital accessibility audit engagement.
View the file
Other files
Show all 17
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP No. S-19800-00014589 – Digital Accessibility Audit – OJD Public Facing Content – Addendum No. 5
RFP S-19800-00014589
DIGITAL ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT – OJD PUBLIC FACING CONTENT
ADDENDUM NO. 5
SECTION 1: PURPOSE
The purpose of this Addendum No. 5 is to provide perspective Proposers with the questions and requests for clarification or requests for change received in response to the Addendum No. 4 to the RFP and OJD’s response to those questions and requests.
Public-facing web content
1. Can OJD please provide a count of webpages across in-scope sites?
OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #60, #79, and #104 in Addendum No. 4.
2. Of the webpages that are not managed by third-party contractors, approximately what percentage:
A. Provide complex or functional content such as calendars, docket listings, forms, search tools, or other interactive workflows?
OJD Response: OJD does not have this breakdown.
B. Are primarily simple informational pages that consist mostly of text elements such as headings, paragraphs, lists, and links, with minimal interactive functionality?
OJD Response: OJD does not have this breakdown.
Design review scope
3. The RFP references a design accessibility review, and WCAG includes success criteria that address responsive behavior and reflow. Would identifying failures of those success criteria and providing recommendations on how to implement responsive design that meets WCAG be sufficient, or does OJD also want proactive suggestions on how to adjust current design patterns and layouts to better accommodate responsive accessibility requirements?
OJD Response: OJD expects the contractor to provide both.
Document accessibility scope
4. Of the documents in scope, approximately what percentage are scanned images (or image-only PDFs) versus digitally created, text-based files?
RFP No. S-19800-00014589 – Digital Accessibility Audit – OJD Public Facing Content – Addendum No. 5
OJD Response: OJD does not have this breakdown.
5. Will OJD pre-triage documents (for example, by identifying in-scope repositories, file types, or priority sets), or is the selected vendor expected to inventory, categorize, and prioritize documents as part of the engagement?
OJD Response: No.
Methodology and reporting
6. Does OJD require that audit assessment results be delivered using the W3C WCAG-EM Reporting Tool (https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/), or is it acceptable to use WCAG-EM methodologies for audit scoping and testing, and provide findings in a custom reporting format or platform, as long as all information outlined in RFP Attachment A Section 2.1.3 Step 3 is included in the report?
OJD Response: The reporting tool is not required. It is acceptable to use WCAG-EM methodologies for audit scoping and testing, and provide findings in a custom reporting format or platform, as long as all information outlined in RFP is included in the report.
Validation and recheck process
7. For post-remediation validation, does OJD expect all remediated work to be submitted in a single batch for a one-time validation cycle, or will validation be structured as multiple, smaller iterative cycles? We recommend an iterative validation model. In our experience, reviewing smaller batches and providing feedback early and often reduces rework and helps development teams implement fixes correctly and consistently across similar components and templates.
OJD Response: OJD does not have a preferred approach. OJD expects Proposer to use its expertise and include the approach it proposes to employ in its Proposal.
Additional
8. Regarding the YouTube video component — could you please confirm what specifically is expected in the testing? Are we to perform closed captioning or simply test the accessibility of the platform and videos themselves?
OJD Response: OJD expects contractor to test the accessibility of the platform and videos, including testing the closed captioning.
9. For the PDF deliverables, are we expected to remediate all PDFs as part of the engagement, or to provide tooling and collaborate with your team to determine which documents should be remediated internally versus by our team?
OJD Response: Please see OJD’s response to questions #65 and #125 in Addendum No.
4.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/
SECTION 1: PURPOSE
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .