Here is an example of how an agency has set up Section 508 evaluation factors and acceptance criteria for solicitations from Mark Urban, CDC Section 508 Coordinator.
When a detailed evaluation is needed, CDC sometimes uses a two-factor evaluation technique.
Factor 1: Pass/fail
- Did the proposal provide an HHS Product Accessibility Template (PAT)?
- Failure ONLY if the vendor did not provide a list of standards and specified to what extent the product, service, or solution was conformant to that standard. (Thus, a VPAT would be a PASS, even if it was poorly filled out.)
- Did the proposal provide all other required documentation for Section 508?
- Failure ONLY if any other section required documentation – e.g. a resume of a 508 SME as part of a solution development – was NOT provided, no matter how poor in terms of quality.
Factor 2: Qualitative Evaluation (possible total of 20 points)
- Quality of accessibility (10 points for fully meeting the governments accessibility needs)
- Quality of documentation (5 points for exactly matching the HHS PAT, or providing a Vendor Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) with additional documents to be equivalent in information)
- Quality of value added (5 points for additional accessibility qualities of the vendor, including SMEs, partnerships, past performance related to 508, an in-house accessibility program, validation tools, etc.)
So, an evaluation might look like this:
- Vendor A, PASS: 8+3+2=13 points.
- Vendor B, FAIL: No 508 documentation provided
- Vendor C, PASS: 7+4+3=14 points.
Note in this example, Vendor C is evaluated higher, presumably because they gave high-quality documentation and have good credentials, vs. Vendor A which might be better on paper but not have the details and experience to make good on their promise.