An Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) is a document that explains how an information and communication technology product or service conforms to applicable accessibility standards. In U.S. federal procurement, ACRs help government agencies evaluate whether ICT products meet relevant accessibility requirements, particularly those associated with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
An ACR can be prepared for software, websites, web applications, hardware, electronic documents, telecommunications products, digital platforms, and other ICT. Instead of making a general claim that a product is accessible, the report evaluates individual accessibility criteria and provides information about the product’s level of conformance.
For federal contractors, an ACR can be important when selling technology to government agencies. Federal buyers may review accessibility documentation during market research, solicitation development, proposal evaluation, and product selection. Section508.gov recommends that vendors selling ICT to the federal government create an ACR and make it readily available to potential buyers.
A typical ACR helps a buyer understand:
- which product and version were evaluated;
- which accessibility standards were used;
- how the product performs against individual criteria;
- where accessibility limitations exist;
- what explanations support each reported conformance level.
An ACR should describe the actual accessibility characteristics of the evaluated product. It should not be treated simply as a marketing document or a general statement that a product is “Section 508 compliant.”
ACR vs. VPAT: What Is the Difference?
ACR and VPAT are closely related terms, but they do not technically mean the same thing. VPAT stands for Voluntary Product Accessibility Template. It is a standardized template developed by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to help organizations document how ICT products and services conform to accessibility standards.
When a vendor completes the appropriate VPAT with information about a particular product’s accessibility, the resulting document is an Accessibility Conformance Report. In simple terms, the VPAT is the framework, while the ACR is the completed report.
| Term | Meaning | Primary Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| VPAT | Voluntary Product Accessibility Template | Provides a standardized structure for documenting accessibility conformance |
| ACR | Accessibility Conformance Report | Reports how a specific ICT product or service conforms to applicable accessibility criteria |
| Section 508 | Federal accessibility requirements for ICT | Establishes accessibility requirements applicable to federal agencies |
| WCAG | Web Content Accessibility Guidelines | Provides internationally recognized accessibility criteria for web and digital content |
ITI provides different VPAT editions for different accessibility frameworks. For vendors focused on the U.S. federal market, the Section 508 edition is particularly relevant. Other editions address WCAG, European requirements, or combinations of multiple standards.
The distinction between VPAT and ACR matters because federal buyers generally need a completed accessibility assessment, not an empty template. In everyday procurement discussions, someone may ask a contractor to “provide a VPAT,” but what they typically expect is a completed report containing actual product-specific conformance information.
What Information Does an ACR Include?
An effective ACR identifies exactly what was evaluated and provides enough detail for a buyer to understand the results. The product name and version are especially important because accessibility can change significantly between releases. A report prepared for an older version of a software platform may not accurately represent its current interface or functionality.
The report generally includes basic product and evaluation information followed by tables addressing individual accessibility criteria. Common elements include:
- product or service name and version;
- date of the report;
- product description;
- applicable accessibility standards;
- evaluation methods;
- individual accessibility criteria;
- conformance levels;
- remarks and explanations;
- contact or vendor information.
ACRs commonly use conformance terms such as “Supports,” “Partially Supports,” “Does Not Support,” and “Not Applicable.” These terms allow evaluators to identify areas where a product meets a requirement completely, meets only part of it, fails to meet it, or is not subject to that particular criterion.
The explanation accompanying the conformance level is important. For example, reporting that a criterion is “Partially Supports” without identifying the affected functionality gives a government buyer limited information. A stronger report explains which functions meet the requirement, where the accessibility problem occurs, and how the limitation may affect users.
Not every accessibility criterion applies to every technology. The relevant requirements for a web application can differ from those for hardware, telecommunications equipment, or electronic documentation. The ACR should therefore reflect the actual product being offered rather than using identical responses across unrelated technologies.
The underlying evaluation also matters. Vendors should evaluate their products against applicable accessibility requirements before completing the report. Depending on the technology, this can involve manual review, automated testing, keyboard testing, assistive technology testing, and examination of individual user interface components.
How ACRs Are Used in Federal Procurement
Section 508 requires federal agencies to address accessibility when they develop, procure, maintain, or use ICT, subject to applicable provisions and exceptions. As a result, accessibility can become part of the acquisition process when an agency purchases technology.
During market research, an agency may examine ACRs from multiple vendors to understand what accessible commercial solutions are available. Accessibility information can also help contracting and program personnel develop requirements for an upcoming solicitation.
When proposals are evaluated, an ACR can help the agency compare the accessibility characteristics of competing products. A contractor’s report can show whether its proposed solution supports the specific criteria relevant to the procurement and identify limitations that the government should consider before award.
The process can be summarized as follows:
- The agency identifies the ICT being acquired and determines applicable accessibility requirements.
- Vendors provide accessibility information for their proposed products or services.
- The agency reviews ACRs and other requested documentation.
- Evaluators compare product conformance with the requirements of the acquisition.
- Accessibility is considered together with other applicable evaluation factors and procurement requirements.
An ACR does not automatically prove that a product is acceptable for every federal acquisition. The agency still needs to determine whether the technology satisfies the accessibility requirements applicable to the specific procurement.
This distinction is particularly important when vendors describe products as “Section 508 compliant.” Accessibility is not adequately demonstrated by a broad marketing statement. Federal buyers need enough product-specific information to evaluate the technology against their actual requirements.
Agencies may also request additional accessibility information. Depending on the acquisition, this can include testing methods, descriptions of accessibility features, configuration instructions, known limitations, demonstrations, or more detailed information about accessibility issues. The ACR is therefore an important part of accessibility documentation, but it is not necessarily the only information a contractor may need to provide.
Why ACRs Matter for GSA Contractors
ACRs are particularly relevant to GSA contractors offering ICT products and services, including software, SaaS platforms, hardware, digital services, telecommunications solutions, and electronic content. Holding a GSA Schedule contract does not remove the need for federal agencies to consider applicable Section 508 requirements when purchasing ICT.
For contractors, a current and detailed ACR can make it easier for government buyers to evaluate a product. An incomplete report can create questions about whether accessibility was properly assessed, while an outdated report may describe functionality that has since changed.
Software vendors need to pay particular attention to updates. A SaaS product may receive numerous interface and functionality changes during a year. Changes to navigation, forms, controls, authentication, dashboards, document handling, or other user-facing components can affect accessibility. Contractors should therefore review whether major product changes require the ACR to be updated.
The report should also clearly identify the product version or scope that was tested. Contractors offering multiple editions of a platform should not automatically assume that one accessibility evaluation accurately describes every configuration or product tier.
Federal contractors can improve the usefulness of their accessibility documentation by keeping reports current, making them easy for buyers to locate, providing meaningful explanations for partial or non-conformance, and ensuring that claims can be supported by actual evaluation results.
An ACR should ultimately answer a practical question for the federal buyer: how does this specific technology perform against the accessibility requirements that matter for the acquisition? When the report provides a clear and current answer, it can support market research and proposal evaluation. When it relies on vague claims or outdated information, its value to the government is significantly reduced.
