About ACR Evaluation
How long does an accessibility review take?
| Type of Review | Time Needed | Appropriate For: |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline / Default Review | 10-15 business days (2-3 weeks) | A complete, high-quality ACR/VPAT with:
|
| Extended Review | (3-5 weeks) |
|
| Expedited / Priority Review | 5-7 business days | Only available when:
|
If a review of the ACR indicates multiple areas where accessibility needs are unmet, OAS will reach out to the vendor to ask for a timeline for the remediation of these needs. If the vendor is unable to provide one, OAS may need to draft an Equally Effective Alternate Access Plan (EEAAP) specifying how UVM will provide resources to address the accessibility gaps. This will affect the ultimate timeline for delivery.
Expectations for Vendors
What to know about the ACR evaluation process
The University of Vermont depends on accurate, informative Accessibility Conformance Reports from vendors in order to make plans to support all students, staff, faculty, and visitors with disabilities in the campus community. We appreciate the time and effort it takes vendors to produce these documents and keep them updated.
Each ACR is reviewed by a staff member in the Office of Accessibility Services. We're looking for ways to anticipate what the University may need to provide in order to make it possible for people with disabilities to use all the products that make UVM function. We are not looking to disqualify or reject any products. When UVM wants to use a product but there are items labeled Partially Supports or Does Not Support, the Office of Accessibility Services tries to figure out ways we can provide additional resources or workarounds to make sure all people with disabilities can use the product. We do this by writing a UVM-internal document known as an Equally Effective Alternate Access Plan (EEAAP).
When the Office of Accessibility Services reviews an ACR, we use an industry-standard review template and review procedure. Our process allows us to generate a letter grade based on the rigor of the ACR (in other words, how much confidence we have in its accuracy), as well as reviewing all areas where a product may not support full accessibility. When we finish the report, we provide copies of our report to both the requesting UVM department, and to the vendor.
At this time, we need vendors to complete ACRs using the Information Technology Council's official template. We can only accept one of the templates labeled as version 2.5:
- VPAT Rev 2.5 EU
- VPAT Rev 2.5 INT
- VPAT Rev 2.5 508
- VPAT Rev 2.5 WCAG
VPAT Rev 2.5 508 is preferred, as UVM must meet all WCAG and Section 508 requirements.
During the review process, if the Office of Accessibility Services identifies any items labeled Partially Supports or Does Not Support, we may need to contact the vendor with a list of questions for additional information. We do this so that we have all the information we need to determine what UVM can do to bridge any accessibility gaps with additional resources.
Evaluating the Rigor of an ACR
The Office of Accessibility Services assigns each ACR a letter grade, based on how many of 16 different criteria the ACR passes. Every ACR starts at 100%; every criteria where an ACR fails to meet our standards decreases that final score.
ACR Scoring Rubric Details
| CRITERIA | PASS | FAIL |
|---|---|---|
| Version: does the VPAT template being used include the Section 508 criteria? | If so, then pass. | If not, then fail. |
| Date: was the VPAT updated in the last 24 months? | If so, then pass. | If not, then fail. |
| Template: is the VPAT template being used one of the 2.5 versions? | If so, then pass. | If not, then fail. Please note: as of 2026, VPAT Template 2.4 is no longer being accepted. |
| NDA: Are individuals required to sign an NDA before accessing the completed ACR? | If not, then pass. | If so, then fail. If individuals are required to provide additional information or register with the vendor, then fail. ACRs should be readily available from a vendor's website. |
| Product Information: Is the product name and version correct? | If so, then pass. | If either the Product name or version are missing, then fail. |
| Contact information: does the ACR contain accurate contact information for follow-up? | If ACR contains an individual’s name, email, and phone number, and there is an indication that they have some connection to accessibility, then pass. | If the ACR contains no contact information, then fail. If the ACR contains generic contact information or contact information for the sales department only, then fail. |
| Evaluation Party: Was the evaluation conducted by a respected third party? | If testing was done by an independent accessibility auditing company or a dedicated accessibility specialist within the company (name and contact details provided), then pass. | If testing was done in-house by the vendor by non-accessibility personnel, then fail. If there is no information about who did the testing, then fail. |
| Evaluation Method: Is the evaluation method specified? | If testing includes both automated and manual testing, including assistive technology details, then pass. | If testing does not include automated and manual testing with details of assistive technology, then fail. |
| Conformance Levels: Are conformance levels noted and explained? | If conformance levels are noted, and include either WCAG 2.1 or WCAG 2.2 A and AA, as well as Section 508 then pass. | If conformance levels are not noted, or do not include WCAG 2.1 or WCAG 2.2 A and AA, then fail. If conformance levels are WCAG 2.0, or are missing Section 508 requirements, then fail. |
| Notes: Are detailed, accurate notes provided? | If notes are detailed and accurate, then pass. | If notes are missing or contain concerning statements (e.g., only automated testing was used, an application won’t be used by people with disabilities, or key parts of the product were excluded from the ACR because they weren’t accessible), then fail. |
| WCAG Tables: Are all WCAG tables included? | If WCAG tables for all 13 guidelines are included, then Pass. | If tables are incomplete, then fail. |
| Completed Tables: Are all tables completed in full? | If all tables have been completed in full, then Pass. | If not all tables have been completed in full, then fail. |
| Section 508: Are all requirements of Section 508 Chapters 3, 5, and 6 included and completed in full? | If all requirements as laid out in Section 508 Chapters 3, 5, and 6 are included and completed in full, then pass. | If not all requirements as laid out in Section 508 Chapters 3, 5, and 6 are included, then fail. |
| Not Applicable Remarks: Any items that have been marked “Not Applicable” have detailed notes, and make sense in the context of the product. | If all items that have been marked “Not Applicable” have detailed notes and make sense, then Pass. | If any items that have been marked “Not Applicable” lack notes, then fail. If any items that have been marked “Not Applicable” have confusing notes or seem to be actually applicable, then more details are needed. |
| Level Documentation: Are all items marked as Supports / Partially Supports / Not Supported accompanied by detailed notes? | If all items that have been marked as Supports / Partially Supports / Not Supported have detailed notes, then Pass. These details should contain the following information based on support level:
| If any items are marked as Supports / Partially Supported / Not Supported and lack detailed notes, then fail.
If any items are marked as Supports / Partially Supports / Not Supported and contain notes that indicate the reviewer may not understand the criteria, then More Details Needed. |
| Conformance Matching: do any items marked as “Supports” contain notes that lead an evaluator to believe otherwise? | If no items are marked as “Supports” but have notes that indicate otherwise, then mark as Pass. | If any items are marked as “Supports” but have notes that indicate otherwise, then mark as Fail, and ask for more details. |
Evaluating the Details of an ACR
After evaluating the rigor of an ACR, Office of Accessibility Services reviewers go through each individual criteria included in WCAG A-level, WCAG AA-level, and Section 508 Chapters 3, 5, and 6. We look to see that the ACR includes every criteria, and that every criteria has notes explaining how it Supports, Partially Supports, Does Not Support, or is Not Applicable to the product.
- If notes are included and make sense, then the reviewer marks the item as a Pass.
- If there are no notes included, or the notes do not make sense, the reviewer marks the item as a Fail.
- If an item is missing entirely from the ACR, the reviewer marks the item as a Fail.
At the end of the review, the report sums up how many of the criteria pass, how many fail, and whether any are missing. This information is contained in a narrative section of the review report.
The section looks like:
"This ACR passes:
- [number] of 31 WCAG A-level criteria
- [number] of 24 WCAG AA-level criteria
- [number] of 9 listed Section 508 Chapter 3 criteria
- [number] of 28 listed Section 508 Chapter 5 criteria
- [number] of 5 listed Section 508 Chapter 6 criteria
There is [some / no] information missing for either WCAG or Section 508 criteria, and overall, this is a [letter grade] ACR."
After that, the reviewer writes up any questions that came up during the review, and lists any places where the Office of Accessibility Services will need more information in order to write their EEAAP. They may also assign a potential accessibility risk value to the product.
Important note:
Reviewers are looking to find ways to approve every product for use at the University of Vermont. We are very aware of the amount of time and effort it takes departments to research and evaluate products for use at the University, and we seek to honor that effort -- at the same time, every product in use at UVM must be available for full use by people with disabilities on the campus.
UVM does not use the ACR review process to automatically reject products. The review helps UVM understand accessibility risk, request remediation information, and determine whether an Equally Effective Alternative Access Plan is needed.
How often does UVM review ACRs?
Because of the rapid pace of software development, UVM reviews the ACRs of products in use at the University every 24 months, or whenever a contract renewal process is initiated.
UVM reviews the ACRs of products for potential use at the University during the purchase process.
Additionally, UVM requests that all vendors provide UVM with any updated ACR they produce, especially when new versions of products are released.
A note about WCAG conformance levels
UVM aligns with current federal requirements for WCAG 2.1 AA and is actively working toward WCAG 2.2 AA as the institutional standard. Vendors are expected to provide WCAG 2.1 AA conformance and should include WCAG 2.2 AA information where available.
How UVM Departments Can Streamline the ACR Evaluation Process
Reach out to vendors early on renewals
In order to help streamline the accessibility review process in software renewals, OAS recommends reaching out to vendors early in order to give them time to prepare or update their ACR. For a lot of vendors, this is a new requirement coming from UVM, so it's helpful to let them know in advance that this paperwork will be required. OAS recommends reaching out to vendors between six and three months before the renewal date of any software contract.
Use our boilerplate letter for vendor outreach
To make the outreach process easier, OAS has prepared a boilerplate letter that departments can send out to vendors, explaining more about the new accessibility review process. Departments can download a Word copy of the letter from this page (UVM VPAT Request Boilerplate Letter to Vendors (.docx)) or copy and paste the full text of the letter into an email. The full text appears below.
Hello from [unit name] at the University of Vermont,
As we come up on the renewal of UVM’s contract with your company, I wanted to make you aware of a new change in UVM’s accessibility policy. UVM has begun requesting that software and ICT vendors provide a current, valid Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) using one of the version 2.5 Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) versions published by the Information Technology Industry (ITI) Council.
In order for renewals to be processed in a timely manner, UVM is asking for an ACR that:
- Was conducted within the 24 months preceding the contract renewal date
- Clearly indicates who conducted the evaluation, and what their connection to accessibility is (digital accessibility specialist, accessibility manager, independent accessibility consultant, etc)
- Explains what kinds of testing was performed, including automated, manual, and assistive technology testing
- Specifies the product version or release version that was evaluated
- Includes explanations of when or if any item labeled Partially Supports or Does Not Support will be fixed
- Provides full explanatory notes for all items, including those that the product Supports, Partially Supports, or Does Not Support, as well as explaining why a specific standard was Not Evaluated, or is Not Applicable. These notes should include to what extent any item classified as Partially Supports or Does Not Support appears in the product’s functionality.
If your company does not yet have an ACR available for this product, we will need to submit your answers to the following questions with the renewal paperwork:
- Can you share your latest WCAG audit report?
- How do you test accessibility? Are those test results available to us?
- What are your known gaps and how are you addressing them? What's on your roadmap?
UVM is making this change to our purchasing policy in order to better comply with applicable federal regulations, including Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, and to provide the most accessible tools possible to our community.
You can find more information about this process – including how the ACRs are evaluated – at our VPAT & ACR Evaluations webpage. We appreciate you helping us ensure that we support our students, faculty, and employees with disabilities to the utmost possible extent.
If you have questions about this new process, please feel free to reach out to our Office of Accessibility Services directly by email, at access@uvm.edu. It remains a pleasure doing business with you.
Regards, [sender name]
Use OAS' software renewal tracking spreadsheet to manage this process
Many UVM departments purchase, use, and need, a number of different software products. This results in a large number of software purchases and / or renewals. To help manage ensuring that each software purchase or contract is accompanied by the appropriate accessibility documentation, OAS has created a downloadable Excel workbook for departments. The workbook contains a worksheet for tracking software purchases and renewals using:
- Product Name
- Vendor Name
- Vendor Contact Email
- Renewal Date
- ACR Received?
- Last Email Contact Date
- Status
- Notes
Download a copy of the Excel workbook here: UVM VPAT Request Tracker (.xlsx).
Use of this spreadsheet is not mandatory. OAS is providing this tool as a way to help departments manage large amounts of purchases and renewals, but we also recognize that each department is different, and may approach managing this process in the way that works best for their staff.
Download Documentation Management Tools for Departments
OAS has made available a boilerplate letter for departments to send to vendors, advising them of the new requirement, as well as an Excel workbook departments can use to track vendor outreach and documentation status.
UVM VPAT Request Boilerplate Letter for Vendors (.docx) UVM Department VPAT Request Tracker (.xlsx)
OAS can evaluate products before purchase
OAS is happy to provide free ACR evaluations for UVM departments who are looking to simply learn more about the potential use of a product at UVM. We are also happy to evaluate products and services outside the contract process.
Contact OAS with any questionsOAS can evaluate products before purchase
OAS is happy to provide free ACR evaluations for UVM departments who are looking to simply learn more about the potential use of a product at UVM. We are also happy to evaluate products and services outside the contract process.
Contact OAS with any questions