ADA Compliance and Remediation Consultant Services

PURCHASING DIVISION
Charlotte County Administration Center
18500 Murdock Circle, Suite 344
Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094
Phone 941.743.1378
Fax 941.743.1384
TO: PROSPECTIVE PROPOSERS
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2026
PROPOSAL DUE DATE: 3:00 p.m. (EST), OCTOBER 6, 2026
RE: ADDENDUM #5, RFP NO. 20260634, ADA COMPLIANCE AND REMEDIATION CONSULTANT
SERVICES
Firms are hereby notified that this addendum shall be made as part of the above-named proposal and contract
documents. The following are issued to revise/clarify the proposal and contract documents, and these items shall
have the same force and effect as the original proposal and contract documents. Proposals to be submitted on
the above-specified date at Purchasing shall conform to the revisions and clarifications as listed herein.
ITEM # 1 QUESTIONS/ANSWERS
Q1: Mobile applications: Could the County list the native mobile applications included in the
assessment? For each, please indicate whether it is on iOS, Android or both, and whether the
County built it or a third-party vendor provides it. A list of app names would be sufficient. Those
three details decide the effort:
a: App names give us a count, so we can set a fixed price.
b. The platform: each one is tested separately.
c. Who owns the app: County apps get full testing. Vendor apps go through the vendor
outreach plan, which is much lighter work.
A1: Answers to the above:
a. One View/Charlotte County App
b. OneView by Granicus
c. The County contract with Granicus
Q2: Please confirm the applicable accessibility standard and conformance level. Should we follow
WCAG 2.1 Level AA or WCAG 2.2 Level AA requirements?
A2: WCAG 2.1 Level AA.
Q3: Please confirm whether the accessibility audit should cover 100% of the listed website pages,
PDFs, images, spreadsheets, iframes, and other content, or whether a unique-content-based
assessment is acceptable.
A3: The County needs guidance on what it has to do to reach compliance. If legacy content is exempted,
a sampling of content would suffice to gain an understanding of how we produce content going forward.
Q4: Please confirm whether the input PDF files are tagged or untagged.
If the PDFs are untagged, we can provide training to your staff directly on the PDF remediation
process, without performing an audit first. If the PDFs are already tagged, we will perform the
accessibility audit, identify the issues that need to be fixed, and provide training focused on the
specific remediation techniques required to address those issues.
A4: PDF files are not currently checked for tagging when being uploaded, so they are most likely
untagged.

Q5: How many mobile applications are in scope, what platforms are involved, and what
access/test accounts will be provided?
A5: OneView/Granicus.
Q6: Is a sample test account available for us to review the platforms involved, their content, and
associated assets?
A6: The County could create an account for the Firm, once they are under contract.
Q7: Please confirm the types of assets in scope across the seven listed social media platforms
and the expected assessment depth and coverage for each platform.
A7: The vendor could sample content on social media to determine if created content would need to be
adjusted to meet accessibility requirements.
Q8: Please confirm whether third-party iframes, widgets, and vendor-hosted applications are
included in the accessibility audit scope.
A8: No.
Q9: Please confirm the required format and acceptance criteria for the assessment reports,
compliance roadmap, remediation recommendations, training materials, and final report. Also,
please confirm whether these deliverables should be provided in Excel, Jira, or any other
specified platform or format.
A9: We do not have a require format.
Q10: Should the vendor only identify and recommend accessibility issues, such as missing or
insufficient alt text, or should the vendor also provide the appropriate alt text wherever required?
A10: The County would modify content as needed.
Q11: Please confirm whether VPAT creation is included in the scope of work.
A11: Not necessarily, but if that's how your firm conducts accessibility compliance, then yes.
Q12: Please confirm the required testing environments, assistive technologies, browsers, and
testing coverage for the accessibility assessment. Should we follow the testing matrix below, or
are there any additional environments or coverage requirements?
A12: The Firm would determine the methods needed to conduct the assessment.
Q13: Could you please clarify A1 for scope and pricing purposes: after exempt content has been
identified, must every non-exempt PDF in the estimated 5,350-document inventory be individually
assessed for compliance, or is representative, risk-based sampling acceptable for assessing the
non-exempt documents?
A13: If document types are determined to be non-exempt, we will need to know what those documents
are, so if the type of document can be identified, we can remediate them individually.
This addendum is binding and is to be considered as if contained within the original proposal documents of RFP
No. 20260634. Firms are required to acknowledge receipt of this addendum on their proposal forms.
Kimberly A. Corbett, C.P.M., CPPB
Senior Division Manager - Purchasing
KAC/rm
cc: Professional Services Committee
Clerk
File