A VPAT can make or break a deal. When it is rushed or vague, procurement teams inherit legal, financial, and reputational risk. When it is thorough and honest, buyers and sellers move faster with fewer surprises.
Why VPAT accuracy matters in procurement
Accessibility is not a checkbox. It is a set of testable requirements that impact whether people can use your product. A sloppy VPAT hides gaps, which surface later as lost productivity, remediation costs, and strained contracts.
Procurement teams rely on VPATs to compare vendors side by side. If the document overclaims, the selection criteria get skewed. If it underclaims, qualified suppliers lose out.
What a proper VPAT actually includes
A solid VPAT maps specific features to relevant criteria and discloses how each one was tested. It uses plain language that a non-expert can follow. It points to evidence like issue trackers, defect counts, and remediation timelines.
A good report does not promise perfection. It states conformance levels clearly and flags known limitations. It separates the current status from planned fixes so buyers can judge risk.
Who should complete the VPAT
The people filling out the VPAT should know how the product is built and how users with disabilities interact with it. They also need a working knowledge of WCAG and testing methods. Without both, the document becomes guesswork.
Choosing the right author for your VPAT is not a box-checking task. Many teams ask a simple question – who can legally fill out a VPAT? – and then assume any employee can do it. In practice, credibility comes from the process, the testing, and the evidence behind each statement. The signer should stand behind the findings and be accountable for accuracy.
In-house vs third-party testing
In-house testing can be efficient when teams are trained and processes are mature. It fits well for frequent updates and early-stage features. It builds internal knowledge that reduces risk.
Third-party testing adds independence and deeper specialization. It is useful for complex interfaces, legacy areas, and high-stakes deals. Many organizations use both approaches to balance speed and objectivity.
How procurement teams should review ACRs
Remember that a VPAT is input, not the final verdict. Treat the resulting Accessibility Conformance Report as evidence to be weighed with demos and references. Ask how tests were run, which assistive tech was used, and how defects are prioritized.
The federal Section 508 program explains that industry is expected to test against applicable standards and report results in an Accessibility Conformance Report, which procurement uses during market research and evaluation. That guidance reinforces the role of real testing behind the paperwork, not just checklists.
Timelines and maintenance
Products change often, so a VPAT should not be a one-time artifact. Set a review cadence that matches release cycles. Tie the document to your backlog so fixes flow into updates.
If a major design or framework change is made, retest high-risk areas. When buyers see that your VPAT and ACR are living documents, they trust your roadmap more. This lowers the chance of post-award disputes.
Practical steps to reduce risk
Start with the scope. List the platforms, versions, and modules that the VPAT covers. Note anything out of scope and explain why.
Define your testing protocol. Include keyboard, screen reader, magnification, captioning, and form validation checks. Record environment details so results are reproducible.
Train authors and reviewers. Teach them to avoid vague language like partially supports without specifics. Require evidence for each claim.
Document remediation. For every nonconformant item, include a fix owner and target release. Share how you validated the fix.
Using the official template the right way
The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template created by the Information Technology Industry Council translates accessibility requirements into actionable testing criteria. Teams should adopt the latest template version, fill it completely, and avoid copy-paste answers.
Map your features to the correct success criteria. Where a criterion does not apply, say why. Where it applies, say how you tested and what you found.
Red flags procurement should watch for
Beware of absolute claims with no test details. Be cautious when a complex product claims full conformance across all platforms. Look for consistency between the narrative text and the conformance table.
Ask for examples of defect fixes that moved a criterion from does not support to supports with exceptions. Ask how assistive technology updates are tracked. Push for clarity on timelines when fixes are promised.
How to align legal, product, and sales
Legal needs accurate risk statements. Product needs actionable defects and timelines. Sales need a credible story that does not overpromise.
Put one owner in charge of the VPAT process. Give them authority to coordinate across teams and to freeze language before proposals. Treat the VPAT like a quality record, not a marketing asset.
A strong VPAT process protects buyers and vendors alike by making risks visible early and keeping surprises out of contracts. When your claims are grounded in real testing and regularly updated, procurement teams can compare options fairly and move forward with confidence. Treat the VPAT and ACR as living records that connect testing, remediation, and release planning – and you will reduce friction, speed evaluations, and build durable trust with every deal.