By Nilesh Gadekar, Founder · Last reviewed: .
Evaluate the deliverable, the review and the handoff
Use representative files and real tasks. Request written answers to the same questions from every provider. Compare the returned file, review record and agreement. The W3C tool-selection guidance explains why technical tools assist evaluation rather than settle every accessibility question automatically.
The 12-question vendor checklist
1. Is every file tested by a person with a screen reader? Which ones?
Why it matters: A sample result does not establish the behavior of every returned file.
A good answer sounds like: Every delivered file is reviewed with named screen-reader software, recorded tasks, a file version and a review date.
2. Do you validate with PAC and the Matterhorn Protocol?
Why it matters: Tool results and human failure conditions need an identifiable evaluation method.
A good answer sounds like: We identify the PAC and PDF/UA versions, report the checks performed, and explain how applicable Matterhorn conditions receive technical or human review.
3. Do we get a per-file evidence report?
Why it matters: A district needs to connect acceptance with a specific deliverable.
A good answer sounds like: Each file has an identifier, reviewed version, date, methods, coverage, findings and remaining actions; publication verification is recorded separately.
4. Do you triage what to fix, archive or remove?
Why it matters: Production scope should follow current use and approved district content decisions.
A good answer sounds like: We inventory and recommend priorities; your district approves archive or removal actions after reviewing exceptions and retention requirements.
5. What happens if a file fails later?
Why it matters: Correction handling and a new content version are different responsibilities.
A good answer sounds like: The written agreement defines the correction period, reporting route, response process and treatment of later replacements or source changes.
6. What are standard and rush turnaround times?
Why it matters: A price comparison is incomplete without a usable delivery calendar.
A good answer sounds like: We state business-day or elapsed-hour windows, required inputs, milestones, rush premiums and the owner for intake questions.
7. Where is our data stored and who can access it?
Why it matters: Storage location and the location of people processing files are separate facts.
A good answer sounds like: The handling terms name systems and regions, assigned access, transfer arrangements, retention, deletion and any approved outside processing.
8. Who does the work, and who holds the contract?
Why it matters: Purchasing needs an accountable legal entity and transparent delivery locations.
A good answer sounds like: The proposal identifies the contracting company, production location, assigned responsibilities and any subcontracting restrictions before intake.
9. Is pricing published and fixed in writing?
Why it matters: A starting rate alone does not define the final purchased scope.
A good answer sounds like: Published rates identify the service tiers; the written quote confirms files, allowances, complexity, review coverage, delivery and changes.
10. How do you handle tables, forms and scanned documents?
Why it matters: Different document tasks require different repairs and verification.
A good answer sounds like: We check table relationships, form labels and keyboard sequence, and OCR accuracy and structure, using representative difficult files in the sample.
11. Do you rely on overlays or widgets?
Why it matters: A webpage control does not by itself repair a downloadable PDF’s internal structure.
A good answer sounds like: We describe the actual PDF or alternative output we change and the file-level checks performed, rather than substituting an overlay claim.
12. Do you promise legal compliance?
Why it matters: Technical evidence has a defined scope; legal outcomes are separate.
A good answer sounds like: We provide review evidence about identified deliverables and make no promise about legal outcomes or the absence of future complaints.
Red flags worth resolving before purchase
Resolve proposals that substitute a score for review coverage, leave the tested file unidentified or extend sample results to unsampled files. Question conflated storage and delivery locations, missing correction terms, undocumented purchasing awards, legal-outcome promises and overlays offered instead of PDF repair.
How DistrictProof answers the same questions
| Question area | DistrictProof’s approach |
|---|---|
| File-by-file review | Every delivered file is checked by a person with a screen reader; our workflow uses NVDA/JAWS and PAC, with the method recorded. |
| PAC and Matterhorn | We use PAC validation. Applicable PDF/UA and Matterhorn-based human checks, standard versions and coverage are identified in the written review scope; no vendor certification is claimed. |
| Evidence | A dated per-file record connects the reviewed version with methods, coverage, findings and remaining actions. |
| Triage | We support fix, archive or remove recommendations. District staff approve content actions and exception decisions. |
| Later findings | Deadline Packages include 30 days of fixes; the agreement defines correction handling and changed-version work. |
| Turnaround | Standard per-page work: ten business days; rush: three business days at +50%, or 48 hours at +100%. Care and package windows are listed separately. |
| Data | Customer documents use S3 in us-east-1, with assigned staff access. Source and working copies are deleted 30 days after acceptance or closure; longer Care retention is agreed. |
| People and contract | Salt Technologies, Inc. signs the agreement. Production is based in Pune, India. |
| Price | Per-page rates are $3.50–$14 with a $750 minimum. Final price is fixed in writing after a free 25-page sample review. |
| Difficult content | Tables, forms and scans receive document-specific repair and human review; representative files establish the scope. |
| Overlays | Our document service changes and reviews the deliverable; it does not rely on a webpage overlay as a PDF fix. |
| Legal outcomes | We provide technical services and evidence, not a guarantee of legal outcomes. |
Keep the purchasing record useful after delivery
Keep the proposal, samples, scope, file manifest and acceptance notes together. Identify content and publishing owners. Record replacements or re-exports and repeat the necessary checks. Preserve evidence of what was reviewed and what still needs action.
Questions districts ask
Should we send an easy file or a difficult file as a sample?
Send a representative mix. Include the tables, forms, scans and assembled layouts your district publishes, alongside straightforward text. State the actual public tasks and available sources. An easy sample can establish a workflow, but it cannot by itself estimate the effort or review needs of a more complex backlog.
Is a PAC pass enough to accept every aspect of a file?
No. PAC supports technical validation for its supported checks and standards. Read the report alongside human review of meaning and use. Ask which PDF/UA version and tool version apply, how applicable human checks are handled, and whether the reviewed filename matches the file being delivered.
Is using the Matterhorn Protocol a certification?
No. It is a reference for PDF/UA-1 failure conditions, not a certification awarded to a vendor. Ask how the provider uses applicable checks and records their outcome. Do not infer a completed evaluation, staff credential or company certification merely from the name of a protocol or tool.
What should we ask about a sample evidence report?
Look for a file identifier, version, date, methods, review coverage, findings and open actions. Check that a fictional sample is clearly labelled. Ask how district content approval and publication verification are recorded. A useful report explains the delivery state rather than relying on a badge or aggregate score.
Does US storage mean that all delivery staff are in the US?
No. Ask separately where customer files are stored and where assigned people access or process them. DistrictProof states US-region S3 storage and Pune, India delivery. Any geographic, remote-access or subcontracting requirements should be addressed before the district provides private files or production access.
Can we print this checklist?
Yes. Use the print button for a print-friendly version of this guide or download the tagged PDF checklist. The HTML and PDF contain the same twelve purchasing questions. Keep your vendor’s written answers with the proposal, sample results and acceptance record so the comparison remains useful after the purchase.
Primary sources
Take the same questions to every vendor
Download the vendor evaluation checklist and record each provider’s answer beside the relevant proposal clause or sample evidence. Ask the proposed delivery team to walk through one difficult document and show how its final version connects to the review record.
Before transferring private files, settle intake and handling terms. For a direct look at previously processed output, request the free 25-page review and keep its findings with your vendor comparison; a correction quote is a separate decision.
Continue with Automation and human review, Cost and budgeting, published pricing, the deadline calculator or the Backlog Report.