Selling to the public sector means more than shipping a product: it means meeting the rules of procurement law. Digital accessibility has long been part of them. For the websites, specialist applications, apps and electronic documents of public bodies it has been legally required for years, and in IT tenders it is increasingly written down as a binding mandatory criterion. A bid that fails to provide the required evidence risks exclusion from the evaluation, regardless of price. This article sets out the procurement and tender perspective: which legal foundations apply, which forms of evidence such as a conformance report or VPAT are demanded, and how suppliers keep their bids eligible. Around 87 million people (European Commission) in the EU live with a disability, and with a contract volume of 135.2 billion euros (Federal Statistical Office, procurement statistics 2024) in the recorded German procurement statistics alone, the public sector is a market no supplier should give away lightly.
Why Accessibility Is Anchored in Procurement Law
The obligation to provide digital accessibility in the public sector is older than the much-discussed Accessibility Strengthening Act for the private sector. Its basis is Directive (EU) 2016/2102 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (European Commission). In Germany it is implemented, among other means, through the Accessible Information Technology Regulation (BITV 2.0), which applies to the federal public administration; the states have their own, comparable regulations. Since the 2019 revision, the BITV 2.0 no longer describes the technical requirements itself but references the harmonized European standard EN 301 549 (Federal Agency for Accessibility, Bundesfachstelle Barrierefreiheit).
That reference has a direct consequence for tenders. Under Section 3(2) of the BITV 2.0, websites and mobile applications are presumed accessible if they meet the requirements of EN 301 549 in its respectively binding version (BITV 2.0). The version currently in force, V3.2.1, references WCAG 2.1 Level AA for web content; the version V4.1.1 planned for 2026 raises that requirement to WCAG 2.2 AA (ETSI EN 301 549). For public buyers this means that anyone required to procure accessible information technology can point to a clearly named, testable standard instead of describing accessibility vaguely.
- Directive (EU) 2016/2102: obliges public sector bodies across the EU to make websites and mobile applications accessible.
- BITV 2.0: transposes the directive for the federal level and references EN 301 549 for the technical requirements.
- EN 301 549: provides the concrete, testable technical requirements in a form suitable for procurement.
- WCAG 2.x AA: the success criteria referenced for web content, whose level is set by the respective version of the standard.
Public sector and private sector: two separate frameworks
Our page on the accessible offering for the public sector brings the right framework together for both sides: it addresses public buyers who want to set up their procurement on a sound legal footing as well as suppliers who need to keep their digital products eligible for evaluation.
The Procurement Market: Billions in Volume With an Access Duty
Public procurement is one of the country's largest sources of demand. For 2024, the official procurement statistics record 199,334 awarded contracts (Federal Statistical Office, procurement statistics 2024) with a volume of 135.2 billion euros (Federal Statistical Office, procurement statistics 2024), a new high. Estimates that also include smaller contracts not subject to reporting put the annual total volume on the order of around 500 billion euros (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs). Across the EU, public procurement corresponds to roughly 14 percent (European Commission) of gross domestic product. Information technology and IT services are among the strongest segments of demand.
That large volume stands against a sobering state of implementation. The second report of the Federal Monitoring Body for Accessible Information Technology for the period 2022 to 2024 states that not a single audited website and no mobile application achieved full accessibility across all requirements to be tested (Federal Monitoring Body for Accessible Information Technology). At least the share of websites with an accessibility statement rose from 36.1 percent in the 2020/2021 period to 47.8 percent (Federal Monitoring Body for Accessible Information Technology) in 2024. This gap between obligation and practice explains why buyers now formulate their requirements in tenders far more concretely and demand robust evidence.
Why this matters for suppliers
EN 301 549 Was a Procurement Standard From the Start
An often overlooked point: EN 301 549 did not originate as a pure web standard but explicitly as a procurement instrument. Its origin lies in Mandate M/376 of the European Commission, which tasked the standardization organizations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI with developing European accessibility requirements for the public procurement of ICT products and services (European Commission, Mandate M/376). The first version appeared in 2014; since then the standard has been revised several times and aligned with the WCAG (ETSI EN 301 549).
The purpose is decisive: the standard formulates functional requirements together with a description of the test procedures and the evaluation methodology in a form suitable for procurement (ETSI EN 301 549). That is exactly why it works as a reference in tenders. A buyer can point to individual clauses, and a supplier can document clause by clause how its bid meets them. Accessibility thus turns from a soft wish into a testable performance requirement. How the chain from the EU directive through the standard to the WCAG connects in detail is explored in the article on the EU standard EN 301 549 behind the BFSG.
EN 301 549 was created so that public buyers can put accessibility out to tender and suppliers can prove it. It is the shared language in which requirement and evidence use the same words.
Which Evidence Tenders Demand
In IT tenders, accessibility appears in several places: in the statement of work, in the suitability or award criteria and in the required documents. On the evidence side, a few formats have become established that buyers demand individually or in combination. They differ in how binding they are, in test depth and in their addressee.
Conformance report (ACR)
An Accessibility Conformance Report documents clause by clause how a product meets EN 301 549. It is the most detailed product-related proof and is often required as part of the bid.
VPAT
The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template of the Information Technology Industry Council is the widely used template for such a report. Its international edition covers EN 301 549, the US standard Section 508 and the WCAG together (Information Technology Industry Council).
BITV test / audit report
An independent audit report following a recognized procedure documents the accessibility of a website or application against the standard. It strengthens the evidence compared with a mere self-declaration.
Accessibility statement
Mandatory for public bodies: a publicly accessible statement with conformance status, known barriers and a feedback mechanism. Suppliers deliver the basis for it.
Requirements matrix
Many contracting authorities attach a criteria list in which the supplier indicates, per requirement, full, partial or non-fulfillment. It becomes the basis for evaluation.
Acceptance testing
Buyers increasingly reserve the right to their own check on acceptance. Assured accessibility must then be demonstrable in the finished system, not only in the bid text.
Which combination applies depends on the contract. For a specialist application or portal the conformance report takes center stage, for delivered documents their preparation as accessible PDF documents, and for operation the continuously maintained accessibility statement with a feedback mechanism. Robust evidence rarely comes from a self-assessment alone; a methodically conducted WCAG 2.2 audit provides the testable basis that buyers rely on.
The Exclusion Risk: When a Bid Cannot Be Evaluated
The economically hardest point of the procurement perspective is exclusion. If a contracting authority formulates accessibility as a mandatory criterion, that is, as a compulsory minimum requirement, then a bid that fails to provide the required evidence is not eligible for evaluation. It drops out of the process before the price comparison, regardless of how cheap or technically convincing it might otherwise be. That fundamentally distinguishes mandatory criteria from optional or desired criteria, which only feed into the scoring.
| Type of criterion | Meaning in the process | Consequence of missing accessibility |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory criterion (exclusion) | Compulsory minimum requirement for the bid | Bid is excluded from the evaluation |
| Award criterion (weighted) | Feeds into the scoring with points | Point deduction and a lower place in the ranking |
| Contractual assurance | Assured property of the deliverable | Rectification, price reduction or liability for defects |
| Acceptance criterion | Check in the finished system | Refused acceptance until fulfillment is demonstrated |
Rarely submitted after the fact
For the buyer, exclusion is not an end in itself but an expression of its own duty: it may not let its legal conformity be undermined by an inaccessible supplied product. For the supplier this means planning accessibility early rather than retrofitting it at the end. Why early anchoring is cheaper is shown in the article on accessibility by design; which legal consequences an inaccessible offering can have beyond the tender is covered in the article on the enforcement and legal risks of the BFSG.
Supplier Obligations: What Vendors Must Present
From the bidder's point of view, the requirement translates into a manageable preparation list. It begins long before the specific tender, because robust evidence is not produced overnight. The following points appear regularly in IT procurement and should be addressed in the bid.
- A current conformance report (ACR/VPAT) for each offered product that covers the relevant clauses of EN 301 549.
- An independent proof, such as a WCAG 2.2 audit or BITV test, that goes beyond a mere self-declaration.
- The assurance of conformity for the specific version of EN 301 549 the buyer demands, including WCAG Level AA.
- Accessible bid documents themselves: submitted concepts and documents prepared for accessibility so the evidence is consistent.
- A plan for maintaining accessibility through ongoing monitoring, if the contract covers operation or maintenance.
- Clear responsibilities in the project team so that the assured accessibility is also demonstrable in the finished system at acceptance.
These proofs do not arise in isolation but as the result of a consistently accessible implementation. Accessible web development from the ground up provides the technical basis on which a conformance report becomes true in the first place. And the requirement does not end at the website: accompanying channels such as accessible newsletters and email communication also come into view when a public buyer is responsible for the accessibility of its entire digital offering.
From the Tender to an Eligible Bid
The path to an eligible bid is plannable. It begins with analyzing the tender documents: which version of EN 301 549 is demanded, which clauses are relevant to the offered product, is accessibility formulated as a mandatory or an award criterion. From this emerges a concrete evidence list that can be worked through point by point.
In our projects, we test the offered digital product against the relevant clauses, document fulfillment in a traceable conformance report and close the gaps that would otherwise lead to exclusion. We support public buyers in formulating their requirements so that they are testable and non-discriminatory; we support suppliers from the assessment of the offered system to a proven claim. Our page on the accessible offering for the public sector brings the right framework together, embedded in our digital accessibility services.
Practical tip for bidders
Sources and studies