The Importance of Procurement in digital Accessibility
This article is about procurement, specifically accessible procurement. It highlights why this topic is of central importance for organizations and companies.
Procurement is one of the most important tools when it comes to embedding accessibility sustainably within an organization. It is often initially equated with the purchase of traditional products such as office chairs, computers, or standard software. In reality, however, it encompasses much more—especially the awarding of contracts for digital services, such as the development of a website or an app. This type of procurement is particularly relevant today. Accessibility plays a crucial role both when acquiring ready-made products and when commissioning custom software solutions.
Accessibility is mandatory in procurement
In the public sector, the consideration of accessibility has long been mandatory. Whether through disability equality legislation or the Accessibility Act, the state is required to procure only accessible software or to ensure that commissioned solutions are implemented with accessibility in mind. The fact that is often not happening in practice is frequently due to challenges in the purchasing process as well as preconceived notions. For example, it is often predetermined that a specific software solution such as Microsoft Office or an SAP system must be procured—regardless of how well accessibility requirements are met. While Microsoft has made great progress in this area, the example of SAP shows that accessibility is not implemented appropriately everywhere.
This makes it all the more important that every procuring entity carefully reviews whether the selected software meets accessibility requirements.
A central component of this process is the procurement documentation, especially calls for tender. In the public sector, these are typically published on designated platforms and contain the key requirements for the product or service to be procured. Digital accessibility is now firmly established in most tenders—not least due to the European Accessibility Act (EAA). Entities subject to the BFSG must generally specify in their tenders that the products to be procured must be accessible.
Notably, however, accessibility requirements in many calls for tender are still placed far toward the end and therefore do not receive the necessary prioritization. Procurement documents often contain a multitude of requirements. This is generally normal, as procurement is heavily shaped by compliance specifications. However, this also means that the documents are often difficult to understand—especially for those unfamiliar with legal or procurement-related terminology. It is also noticeable that, despite its relevance, the topic of accessibility frequently appears low on the priority list.
This is particularly remarkable in the context of the Online Access Act (OZG). The OZG explicitly mandates both user experience (UX) and digital accessibility. This means, among other things, that UX tests must be conducted and that accessible solutions must be ensured without any doubt. In practice, these requirements do appear in the documents, but often only far down the list—while the technical requirements typically dominate the upper sections. As a result, UX and accessibility fade into the background and are not always perceived with the necessary importance.
This issue is comparable to a job posting: the most important requirements appear at the top, followed by less significant aspects further down. Service providers read tenders in a similar way. If accessibility is only listed as the ninth of ten points, it creates the impression that it is of only secondary importance to the contracting authority.
One possible solution is to place accessibility and UX requirements much more prominently. At the same time, it should be clearly stated that all requirements are equally binding. If a provider cannot meet a central requirement, this must either lead to exclusion (a knock-out criterion) or to an obligation to make appropriate improvements. Without meeting these requirements, a product should not be used in the public sector.
Missing Specification
Procurement documents often also lack precise technical specifications. The challenge lies in the fact that multiple standards exist, each sometimes following different version levels. Currently, EN 301 549 applies in the version that references WCAG 2.1. At the same time, WCAG 2.2 has already been published for over a year. For just as long, an update of EN 301 549 by the EU has been expected. Although repeatedly announced, it has not yet been implemented.
In principle, tender requirements should already reference WCAG 2.2 today. However, this rarely happens, partly because the specifications are not further detailed. Depending on the application, WCAG 2.2 may introduce additional or stricter requirements. From a professional perspective, it is sensible for service providers to develop based on WCAG 2.2 already now. The additional effort is manageable but helps avoid later adjustments—yet many providers still rely exclusively on the outdated 2.1 standard.
For contracting authorities, it is essential to define suitable evaluation criteria and determine their weighting carefully. Weighting plays a major role because the organization must assess which provider best meets the overall requirements. Especially in complex tenders, it is rare for a provider to fulfill all criteria —except for very large IT service providers such as Adesso or other market leaders that have the resources to cover all regulatory and technical requirements. If smaller companies apply, it is not unusual for certain requirements to be only partially met or not met at all. Against this background, the weighting of the criteria becomes critically important.
Accessibility should be given an appropriately high weighting. If accessibility requirements are not met, this constitutes a knock-out criterion. In such cases, the provider must be excluded from the awarding process.
The question of how accessibility is evaluated is particularly relevant—especially when a finished product already exists on the market and is offered as part of the tender. Ready-made solutions are often more cost-effective, which is why they are frequently preferred in procurement processes. There are essentially three options for evaluating such solutions:
1. The contracting authority conducts the evaluation itself.
The organization can perform its own tests or commission internal staff to do so. A full BITV test is not strictly required; it is possible to review a representative sample of key criteria. If these are met, it is likely that other requirements are also fulfilled. This approach is pragmatic and, in practice, often very useful—although the legal assessment may vary depending on procurement regulations.
2. The provider conducts the test independently.
In this case, the provider produces a self-assessment or test report. The prerequisite is that the evaluation is objective and not embellished. The disadvantage is that full neutrality cannot always be guaranteed.
3. An independent institution is commissioned.
An external company specializing in accessibility—or a qualified IT service provider—is tasked with conducting the evaluation. The provider then submits the results to the contracting authority, which can take them into account during the decision-making process.
Of these three options, the first appears particularly sensible, provided the authority has sufficient resources. Larger administrations in particular should develop and continuously strengthen their own expertise in accessibility. In addition, employees with disabilities can provide valuable feedback. If these individuals will later use the software themselves, it is logical to involve them in the evaluation process early on. Feedback from real-world use also helps the service provider make improvements at an early stage.
Problems in the Awarding Process
The next step is to take a look at the typical challenges and problems in the awarding process. A central issue is that many procurement offices have little or no expertise in digital accessibility. Often, procurement offices operate independently of the actual subject matter: they assemble legal text modules without fully understanding the practical requirements behind them. Consequently, the competence to professionally evaluate submitted documents is often lacking.
It is therefore sensible to better network procurement offices with expert departments or to make use of existing resources. There are, for example, established text modules and guidelines—such as those from BfIT or other authorities—that can be incorporated with little effort.
Another common problem is unclear or poorly formulated requirements. The lack of prioritization of accessibility has already been mentioned: if requirements are placed far down in the tender or are not defined as a knock-out criterion, a provider with no accessibility experience can still be awarded the contract. Such awards—sometimes also favored by preselected providers—are unfortunately not uncommon and contradict the goal of a transparent and quality-oriented procurement process.
Compounding the problem is that the requirements themselves are often imprecisely formulated. In some tenders, it is simply required that the solution be "digitally accessible," without specifying which WCAG conformance level must be achieved. Even in 2025, there are still providers with no substantial knowledge of accessibility, attempting to compensate with superficial measures such as a contrast mode, font enlargement, or so-called overlays. These approaches rarely remove real barriers—and should long be a thing of the past.
Sanctions for Violations
A fundamental problem remains the lack of expertise in evaluating accessibility on the part of the contracting authority. Even if an expert report is available—ideally through an independent assessment, or alternatively conducted by the provider—the necessary know-how or time to correctly Interpret it is often lacking in practice. It is therefore all the more important to provide a binding evaluation framework and communicate clear expectations.
Financial consequences should also be stipulated if a service provider fails to meet key accessibility requirements. Moreover, it is important that violations of accessibility requirements have tangible repercussions. This can take the form of contractual penalties or other sanctions—similar to violations of data protection regulations (GDPR) or security requirements. If a provider submits a report intended to confirm compliance with essential accessibility requirements, but these are in fact not met, there must be noticeable consequences. Otherwise, there is a risk that providers will treat the issue lightly.
When evaluating reports, particular attention should be paid to the quality and reliability of the assessment procedure. Important aspects include, among others:
- Presentation of the testing methodology: Was it tested manually, automatically, or in a hybrid approach?
- Scope of the evaluation: Which scenarios, subpages, or functions were included?
- Reference to the current software version: The report must concern the version that will actually be deployed.
A typical problem arises with updates or legacy systems: for example, a CMS may be accessible in version 5 but no longer in version 6. A report that only refers to the old version is therefore useless. As a rule, each new version must meet at least the same accessibility standard as the previous one, ideally even exceeding it.
Correct evaluation and sanctioning of accessibility is thus a crucial step to ensure sustainable quality and to enforce accessibility not only formally, but also practically.