GSA Government-wide Section 508 Accessibility Program

Section 508 Evaluation Factors Example

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.