Governmentwide Findings: Acquisition and Procurement

Incorporating digital accessibility requirements into procurement processes and holding vendors accountable for meeting these requirements helps the government comply with Section 508 for all ICT it buys, builds, maintains or uses. In general, while entities have made YOY improvements, they have not fully integrated Section 508 considerations in the acquisition phase, which may limit the positive downstream impacts on the accessibility of the ICT they procure and use.

Of the 239 entities who release solicitations, 171 entities or 71.5% reported ICT accessibility requirements are regularly, frequently, or almost always included in solicitations, compared to 73% in FY23. While we see a small decline in percentage including sufficient accessibility requirements, there were more entities in FY24 who released solicitations and more solicitations that included ICT accessibility requirements. The YOY difference indicates a small, meaningful increase (WRST: extremely statistically significant) with now half of the reporting entities indicating they almost always – 90% or more of the time – include sufficient ICT accessibility requirements in solicitations. 

Similar to last year, we still see a varied approach to verifying contract deliverables that are required to be Section 508 conformant. There was a reported increase this year in the number of entities who almost always verify digital accessibility requirements prior to acceptance, with 58 entities or 23.7% compared to 39 entities or 16% in FY23 selecting this response. However, 109 entities, or 46.6%, sometimes or never verify the accessibility of contract deliverables. While this is a slight decrease compared to FY23 when 53% of entities reported an inconsistent verification approach, this is still a very high percentage of entities who are accepting contract deliverables without knowing if they meet the contractual requirements for digital accessibility. Figure 19 depicts the full breakdown of responses and comparison with FY23.

Of the 205 reporting entities that release solicitations, 127 entities (62%) knew how many of their last 10 solicitations to procure ICT and services to produce ICT included all applicable Section 508 requirements, compared to only 39%.³¹ Seventy-eight (78) entities (38%) did not know this data compared to 44% of entities last year. This could have been due to lack of insight into the acquisition side of the reporting entity, lack of awareness as to where to find the necessary documentation, or lack of resources. However, we do see a positive shift in respondents knowing this data which may suggest entities are improving their processes and tracking of ICT acquisitions. Of the solicitations released:

• 12 entities (8%) reported none of their ICT solicitations included all applicable Section 508 requirements. There is increased risk that entities are procuring products and services that may be inaccessible and may remain inaccessible due to contractual omissions. This also risks noncompliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 11.002(f) and subpart 39.2, which ensures Section 508 standards are considered in acquisition planning documents and procurement requirements for ICT and that deliverables meet accessibility standards.

• 90 reporting entities reported between 81%-100% of their solicitations included all applicable Section 508 requirements (compared to 72 entities in FY23), with an overwhelming majority (80 entities or 63%) reporting 100% conformance (compared to 66 entities in FY23).

Despite the improvement, over a quarter of reporting entities continue to report they do not know if their ICT solicitations include all applicable requirements. With readily available tools, such as the Accessibility Requirements Tool (ART), to ensure adequate digital accessibility language is included in all relevant solicitations, there is no justification for the ongoing release of solicitations without accountability for digital accessibility.

The Assessment asked a new question this year to better understand how reporting entities research and evaluate contractors in order to select the most capable of delivering ICT development services that meet applicable Section 508 requirements. Entities selected all that apply and the results found:

• 47 entities do not research or evaluate contractors. 

• 83 entities interview potential vendors.

• 115 entities review past performances.

• 137 entities review contractor capability statements.

• 72 entities request and review vendor ICT samples for Section 508 conformance.

• 92 entities have a Section 508 Subject Matter Expert review contractor submitted solicitations or equivalent.

• 41 entities selected “other” for actions such as reviewing Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs), testing ICT, and ensuring inclusion of Section 508 in the technical evaluation.

Following a FY23 Assessment recommendation for entities to increase inclusion of users with disabilities throughout the technology lifecycle, criteria continued to survey how the needs of individuals with disabilities are included during assessment of ICT-related business needs or equivalent acquisition planning process. The responses indicate a moderate, meaningful YOY increase (WRST: extremely statistically significant) and showed improvement with 75% fewer entities reporting that needs are not considered and almost 22% fewer entities noted that needs are sometimes considered but generally on an ad hoc basis. In addition, 56% more entities noted that needs are frequently considered and 72% more entities reported that needs are integrated into the business process and are almost always included.

Additional Acquisitions and Procurement highlights include:

• 50% of respondents regularly, frequently, or almost always obtain ACRs for all products and consideration for Section 508 conformance is a formal part of review during the market research phase for ICT products.

• 46% of respondents regularly, frequently, or almost always include Section 508 in the technical evaluation of proposals related to ICT services and products. Comparatively, 43% never or only sometimes include Section 508 in the technical evaluation. The YOY difference indicates a small, meaningful increase (WRST: extremely statistically significant), with half of the reporting entities in FY24 now indicating they regularly include Section 508 in the technical evaluation of proposals, which is approximately 25%-59% of the time.

While entities made notable progress in integrating Section 508 considerations into ICT acquisitions, they still face challenges. In FY24, respondents increased verification of Section 508 conformance in contract deliverables prior to acceptance, and showed greater awareness of Section 508 requirements in their ICT solicitations. However, over a quarter of reporting entities still do not know whether their solicitations meet applicable Section 508 requirements. They also struggle with knowledge gaps among acquisition officials, inconsistent validation practices, and challenges in monitoring conformance throughout the procurement lifecycle. Entities should tackle these issues more effectively, as Section 508 compliance begins in the acquisition phase.

Exceptions

This year’s Assessment expanded the questions regarding Section 508 exceptions to include the total number of exceptions issued within the reporting period, if the reporting entity has a defined process for reviewing and approving three specific exceptions, and who has authority to sign off on exceptions.³²

This year’s data shows a substantial reduction in the number of exceptions issued overall. While data does not reveal specifically why, it may be that entities misreported last year or had more accurate reporting this year. Additional explanations from reporting entities note:

• Some Section 508 programs developed or improved their framework for Section 508 exception requests. This includes clarifying the role of the Section 508 PM as the sole decision-maker on all exception requests, establishing a standard operating procedure (SOP) for exceptions and establishing a formalized process to review and adjudicate all Section 508 exception requests through the IT Governance process.

• One entity implemented a robust Section 508 compliance process for software designed to discourage exceptions to Section 508 compliance by disallowing blanket exceptions and requiring any exception to be justified and signed off on by both the Section 508 PM and the Associate Chief Information Officer. The impact has been a marked reduction in the use of exceptions for Section 508 compliance, such that there have been no exceptions granted for Section 508 since the process has been put into place.

• Another entity noted implementing a new process in the acquisition and procurement process for identifying ICT purchases that allows the Section 508 PM to oversee all exceptions requests, including reviewing and approving exceptions. Prior to the implementation of this updated form, there was no oversight for claiming exceptions.  

When asked if each reporting entity had a process for approving Fundamental Alteration and Undue Burden exceptions, 117 entities (48%) said yes, 78 entities (32%) said no, 43 entities (18%) did not know, and 7 entities said exceptions are not applicable to their business functions. Additionally, 19 entities noted they did not require any sign off on these exceptions. When asked if each reporting entity had a process for approving Best Meets exceptions, 112 entities (46%) said yes, 82 entities (33%) said no, 39 entities (16%) did not know, and 12 entities selected that exceptions are Not Applicable to their business functions. Additionally, 22 entities noted they did not require any sign off on these exceptions. Please see Table 12 for a response count of who has authority to sign off on exceptions within reporting entities.

Table 12: Response count for who has authority to sign off on specific exceptions. Entities selected all that apply.

Authority	Best Meets Exceptions	Undue Burdens/ Fundamental Alteration
Section 508 Project Manager	101	85
Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR)	25	22
Contracting Officers	30	27
CIO or designee	99	106
Chief Acquisition or designee	15	13
Sign off is not required	22	19
Other	56	73

Further analysis on the three types of exceptions covered in the Assessment shows roughly 30% of entities did not know how many exceptions were approved within any category and significantly more Best Meets exceptions were issued than any other exception. Further breakdown of these exceptions is below.

Fundamental Alterations:

• 79 entities (32%) did not know how many exceptions they had that fell into this category compared to 41% last year. 

• A total of 122 fundamental alteration exceptions were issued this year compared to 2,734 reported in FY23, leading to a 96% decrease YOY.³³

• The highest number of exceptions issued for a single entity was 27, compared to 2,674 in FY23.³⁴

• Of entities who used this exception, the average was 8 fundamental alteration exceptions approved in FY24.

Undue Burden:

• 76 entities (31%) did not know how many exceptions they had that fell into this category compared to 39% last year.

• A total of 8 exceptions were issued this year compared to 20 in FY23, leading to a 60% decrease YOY, which indicates a small, meaningful decrease (WRST: extremely statistically significant).

• The highest number of exceptions issued for a single entity was 3 compared to 8 in FY23.

• Of entities who used this exception, the average was 1.6 Undue Burden exceptions approved in FY24.

Best Meets:

• 79 entities (32%) did not know how many exceptions they had that fell into this category compared to 41% last year.

• A total of 1944 exceptions were issued in FY24 compared to 2774 in FY23, leading to a 30% decrease YOY.

• The highest number of exceptions issued for a single entity was 679 compared to 1000 in FY23.

• Of the entities who used this exception, the average was 57 Best Meets exceptions approved in FY24.

As findings show in Compliance Key Findings, a large percentage of commercially-available ICT still does not fully conform to Section 508 but nonetheless is frequently procured. Because of this, we anticipate Best Meets authorizations are – and will continue to be – used frequently in procurement. While this year’s Assessment asked for more data on exceptions, we still do not have enough information to know if exceptions are accurately authorized or if the current data suggests an underreporting or underutilization of exceptions. Despite that, the number of exceptions approved by entities dropped significantly this year. Numerous entities noted investments in their exceptions process within acquisitions to include stricter guidelines and a more formal approval process over the past year.

---

Reviewed/Updated: December 2024