Attachment I - Accessibility Compliance Report Cover Sheet S-DASOBO-00014853.docx
DOCX document 47 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RFP for Litigation Case Tracking Solution
- Solicitation number
- S-DASOBO-00014853
- Issued by
- Oregon
About this file
This is an Accessibility Compliance Report Cover Sheet for the State of Oregon's Litigation Case Management System (LCMS) procurement, establishing digital accessibility standards and evaluation criteria for vendor proposals. The document outlines requirements for vendors to demonstrate compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA standards. Vendors are required to submit completed cover sheets with full accessibility reports for each program component tested, including documentation of compliance status, any identified issues with priority levels and correction timelines, and a digital accessibility narrative addressing their development processes, corrective action systems, dedicated accessibility personnel, staff training approaches, product certification methods, and comprehensive testing methodologies.
The evaluation framework includes a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) and narrative scoring mechanism with a maximum combined score of 10 points (5 points for VPAT compliance, 5 points for narrative response). Scoring guidelines range from zero (no information provided) to five (exceptional knowledge with documented roadmaps for future compliance). Vendors must address specific testing requirements including automated and manual accessibility testing, involvement of people with disabilities in testing, evaluation across multiple platforms and assistive technologies, reliance on third-party testers if applicable, and provision of sample materials demonstrating previous accessibility-compliant work. The document serves as both a compliance verification mechanism and a scoring tool to assess vendors' accessibility maturity, capability, and commitment to maintaining digital accessibility standards throughout the contract lifecycle.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment E Price Proposal Form_S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment J eis-css-oregon-standards-spreadsheet-S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Answers to Questions Clarification 1_WCB RFP S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment H Solution Requirements S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Answers to Questions Clarification 2_WCB RFP S-DASOBO-00014853.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment A - Sample Contract 3.23.26.docx | DOCX document | |
| Addendum_2_WCB_DASOBO-00014853.docx | DOCX document | |
| Addendum_1_WCB_DASOBO-00014853.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP_WCB Litigation Tracker 4.16.26 - As Posted.docx | DOCX document |
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
S-DASOBO-00014853- Litigation Case Management System (LCMS) EXHIBIT I
Accessibility Compliance Report Cover Sheet Please submit a completed cover sheet along with your full report for each program tested.
All web content, applications, and documents adopted by the State of Oregon must meet the requirements of ADA Title II as clarified in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA standards. Vendors may contract with an independent third party to provide a report for each electronic component that verifies that the components are in conformity.
Accessibility Conformance Report Summary Component(s) tested for this program Please copy the table below for each component tested.
Component Title
Component ISBN (if applicable)
Component Type (Online, DVD, CD, Software, Applications)
Is the component compliant with the Federal Rehabilitation Act, WCAG 2.1 AA?
Findings Total Number of Components Tested
Total Number of Pages Tested
Third Party Vendor Name
Company URL
Were compliance issues identified? If yes, please explain in the table below.
Corrections
| Issue Identified |
| Priority (critical, medium, low) |
| Expected Correction Date |
Digital Accessibility Narrative Date: MM/DD/YYYY [RFP Number, Title] Proposer Name: [Enter Proposer business name here] Name & Title: [Enter name and title of person completing this form] Product or Module Being Evaluated: [Enter product being evaluated] Please fully answer all questions below:
Describe how Proposer will ensure its solution and content will meet and maintain compliance with standards for digital accessibility, including as established in Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (Levels AA). (e.g., strategy, tools, design, testing, ongoing validation). Specifically:
Describe how Proposer incorporates accessibility into its development process (e.g., requirements, design, development, testing, maintenance, bug prioritization).
Describe Proposer’s corrective actions process(es) or system(s) for documenting, tracking, and resolving accessibility issues / defects.
Include how Proposer will ensure accessibility following initial implementation (e.g., future enhancements).
Does Proposer have an employee or employees in a role dedicated to oversight and management of digital accessibility activities? If so, state the titles and FTE count for each.
Describe how Proposer ensures its staff and contractors have the knowledge and skills to create accessible digital technology within the scope of the project or services requested in this RFP.
Describe how Proposer certifies its product is compliant with accessibility standards? Describe the full testing approach by answering a – e.
Does the process use automated accessibility testing tools, and if so, which ones?
Do you conduct manual accessibility testing?
If manual testing is part of the process, do people with disabilities and who use assistive technologies complete this testing? Does Proposer rely on third-party testers to complete manual testing? In whole or in part?
Which client platforms, operating systems (including mobile), browsers, assistive technologies, and specific versions are used to complete accessibility testing?
If you rely on an external accessibility vendor, please share the name of the vendor and give a brief description of their testing process.
Provide links to websites, copies of documents, or access to other samples of digital information technology Proposer has developed that meet accessibility standards. The materials should be relevant to the services and/or technical skills called for in this solicitation.
Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT®) & Narrative Reviewer Score Sheet Request for Proposal: [RFP name] Date: MM/DD/YYYY Reviewer: [Enter name here] Scoring Table The following table provides scoring information for each prospective vendors’ VPAT and Narrative answers. The maximum score for a vendors’ VPAT and Narrative answers is 5.
Vendor VPAT WCAG Score (0-5) Narrative Score (0-5) Combined Score (0-10) Comments Vendor/Product name Vendor/Product name Vendor/Product name Vendor/Product name
Scoring Guidelines
| 0 | Not enough information: (No data provided, same answers for multiple criteria, or copied criteria) The responder has not met any of the requirements for WCAG 2.1 level AA or provided no information. |
| 1 | Inaccessible: The responder’s information indicates little to no awareness of the accessibility requirements or provides little or no data or clearly lacks significant accessible functionality. |
| 2 | Low accessibility: The responder’s information provides limited data on their ability to support the requirements. |
| 3 | Average: The responder’s information provides some data on how the solution supports the accessibility requirements defined in WCAG 2.1 level AA. However, there is not enough data to be assured of accessibility or to be confident in the vendor’s ability to improve the solution’s accessibility. |
| 4 | Good: The responder’s information indicates knowledge of how the solution supports each criterion and there is sufficient data to negotiate future improvements. |
| 5 | Exceptional: The responder demonstrates extensive knowledge of accessibility and is able to illustrate how the solution supports most or all criteria. Where the solution does not support criteria, the responder provides a documented roadmap toward future compliance. |
Additional Reviewer comments:
Enter any supplementary comments.
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .