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: SEPTEMBER 28, 2026
RE: ADDENDUM #2, RFP NO. 20260634, ADA COMPLIANCE AND REMEDIATION CONSULTANT
SERVICES
PROPOSAL DUE DATE: 3:00 p.m. (EST), OCTOBER 6, 2026
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: Should proposers protect assessment, the compliance roadmap and staff training within the
$50,000 budget, and separately price optional hands-on remediation? Does the contemplated
contract include hands-on remediation of existing PDFs/documents, or is it primarily assessment,
roadmap and consulting work?
A1: Vendor would include training for county staff to perform remediation, as needed.
Q2: May a prime consultant use qualified subcontractors for specialized accessibility remediation
where needed?
A2: As long as the cost of the Consultant is within the overall contract cost.
Q3: Proposal approach (RP-21; Addendum #1, A1 and A3): Addendum #1 notes that the County
would welcome hands-on remediation if the consultant offers it. Would the County be open to
receiving a proposal that, in addition to the core scope, includes remediation of the County
website, configuration of accessibility safeguards in Solodev that apply when content is
published, to the extent the platform allows, and ongoing compliance monitoring, with those
services priced separately from the core scope? If so, would price be evaluated on the core scope
alone? In either case, is there a preferred format for presenting Price (for example, fixed fee,
hourly by role, or per deliverable), and should it be included in the proposal or submitted under
separate cover?
A3: The Firm would identify content requiring remediation and train staff on correcting noncompliant
content or access. County staff would perform remediation.
Q4: Access and change control (RP-21, item 7; Addendum #1, A4): If the awarded vendor performs
remediation, would the County grant the vendor access to edit content and templates in Solodev,
or does the County's Solodev agreement reserve template and code changes to Solodev? Is a
staging or test environment available?
A4: We have ability to grant vendor access to edit content/templates. Staging (Test) environment is
available.

Q5: Publishing safeguards (RP-21, items 7 and 12): Does anything in the County's Solodev
agreement disallow specific changes to the platform, such as configuration that enforces
accessibility when content is published (for example, required alternative text, accessible content
templates, or an approval step before posting)?
A5: Templates were created by Solodev to be ADA compliant and most of the core accessibility is
managed (updated) by Solodev to follow latest standards. Staff do not make edits to templates. Staff only
publish content in text form, images and PDF. Solodev CMS does not enforce accessibility content
("Required alt text before published"), but changes can be staged and wait review before publishing live.
Q6: Scope boundaries (RP-20; RP-21, item 3; Addendum #1, A4): Does the County website include
content behind a login (for example, resident or staff portals) that should be included? RP-20
refers to internal digital content, self-contained closed systems, and hardware; are these in scope,
or is the engagement limited to public-facing content? Is a redesign or platform change of the
County website planned during the contract term?
A6: Scope is limited to public-facing content. Everything we put in Solodev CMS is public facing through
charlottecountyfl.gov.
Q7: Third-party content (RP-21, item 6; Roadmap Deliverable 1): RP-21, item 6 and Roadmap
Deliverable 1 place the fixing of vendor-owned technology with the vendors, supported by the
awarded vendor's communication and outreach approach. For content the County does not
directly control, such as embedded iframes, vendor-hosted applications, and third-party plugins
or widgets that display within County pages but whose code the vendor controls (for example,
event calendars), should the awarded vendor (a) audit it and report findings, (b) document it as
outside the audit scope, (c) in place of a full audit, document the known accessibility issues for
that type of component based on the awarded vendor's experience and recommend an accessible
alternative (for example, a downloadable calendar file or an accessible list of the same event
information), or (d) audit it and also manage the reporting and follow-up with each third-party
vendor through resolution?
A7: Assessment would include all aspects of the CMS that would not comply with the ADA rule. The
County would work with its Firm on remediation under its contract.
Q8: Existing documents (RP-21, items 5 and 13; Addendum #1, A5): Addendum #1 notes that
document volume is not known and that content created before the Title II rule takes effect may
not require remediation. The rule's exceptions for archived web content and preexisting
conventional electronic documents (28 CFR 35.201) each carry conditions; for example, a
preexisting document that is currently used to apply for, access, or participate in a County
service, program, or activity does not qualify. Determining which documents qualify requires a
document-by-document review of the corpus, and the effort for that review depends heavily on
volume: evaluating 10 documents is a very different undertaking from evaluating 10,000. Could
the County provide an approximate count of the documents posted on the County website (PDF,
Word, Excel, and PowerPoint)? A rough order of magnitude would be sufficient.
A8: Acquia/Monsido estimates our site inventory to be:
1,040 pages.
59 iframes
5,350 PDF Documents
748 Images linked
14 Spreadsheets
Q9: Training (RP-21, items 9 and 10; Roadmap Deliverable 3): Is the awarded vendor expected to
deliver training sessions to County staff, or to design the training program and materials for the
County to deliver? If delivery is expected, approximately how many staff would attend, how many
sessions and of what length does the County anticipate, should they be held in person or
remotely, and are the subjects defined by the County (for example, web content, documents,
social media) or left to the vendor to propose?
A9: We expect about two dozen staff will require training. Training could be remote.
Q10: Are mobile applications included within the scope of the accessibility assessment?
A10: Yes.
Q11: Is document remediation included within this contract or is the expectation limited to
assessment and recommendations?
A11: Vendor would perform training for county staff to perform any remediation.

Q12: Is the training sessions expected to be conducted live, virtually, onsite, or in a self-paced
format?
A12: Remote Training is acceptable.
Q13: Does the County prefer a fixed-price proposal, time-and-materials model, or milestone-based
pricing?
A13: County has no preference, but the amount should be set to perform the work. It cannot be open-
ended.
Q14: Should pricing include only consulting and assessment activities, or should optional
remediation services also be priced?
A14: Vendor would perform training for county staff to perform any remediation.
Q15: Since the RFP mentions developing a future Scope of Work for remediation, should
remediation implementation services be excluded from the current pricing?
A15: Vendor would perform training for county staff to perform any remediation.
Q16: Are vendors permitted to utilize offshore resources for accessibility assessments, document
reviews, PDF remediation, and reporting activities?
A16: Yes.
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