A VPAT is a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT). It's a standardized form provided by the Information Technology Industry Council so that vendors can evaluate and share how well their products adhere to the accessibility guidelines of the WCAG and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

VPATs come in four different types:

• WCAG edition - For reporting compliance to the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 or 2.1.
• 508 edition - For reporting compliance to the U.S. Revised Section 508 standards
• EU edition - The European edition used for reporting compliance to the EN 301 549 standard
• INT edition - The international edition used for reporting compliance to all three standards

When a vendor fills out a VPAT, the resulting document is called an Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR). 

VPATs and the resulting ACRs are important so that organizations like UVM can ensure that the products they buy are accessible to people with disabilities.

Anyone who is considering purchasing a product for use at UVM must go through an IT Contract Review process before making the purchase. An ACR review is part of the IT Contract Review process.

And while some accessibility issues can be worked around, the majority of major accessibility issues cannot. Therefore, it's best to get an ACR review done early in the process, to ensure that the project you want to purchase for use at UVM can actually be purchased and used with equity across UVM. 

Reach out to OAS as early in the purchasing process as possible.

If, at the end of the review, the product turns out to have major or multiple accessibility issues, or there are major issues with the ACR itself, then one of two things can happen:

1. If there are multiple areas in the ACR where the vendor admits that the product does not meet WCAG 2.1 AA-level guidelines, then OAS will return to the vendor and ask them to share a timeline for when they are planning on remediating the outstanding issues. Depending on the timeline, and how the timeline lines up with the planned use of the product at UVM, that can be sufficient.
2. Otherwise, if the vendor is not currently planning on remediation but the overwhelming majority of the campus would benefit from access to one particular product that is not 100% accessible, OAS can work with the vendor to create an Equally Effective Alternative Access Plan (EEAAP). An EEAAP details how UVM will provide equal access to the product or for completion of the task despite the product's accessibility issues.

Otherwise, UVM cannot purchase the product.

The OAS Web & Digital Accessibility Specialist will read through the vendor's Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) and grade it based on an industry-standard rubric. 

The OAS rubric looks at:

• Who did the vendor's accessibility testing
• What kind of accessibility testing the vendor did for the ACR
• When the last round of testing was done
• Which template was used
• Which aspects of the product were tested
• How well the accessibility successes and failures have been documented
• Whether there are any major accessibility failures documented in the ACR.

Each item on the rubric will be assigned one of two states: Pass or Fail. Then at the end of the grading process, the ACR will be assigned a letter grade from A through to F. Letter grades are determined by the percentage of items with a Pass.

A copy of the evaluation can be provided to both the department and the vendor.

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.