VPAT creation

VPAT creation is preparing a standardized accessibility report using the official template (ITI VPAT, in formats for WCAG, Section 508, EN 301 549): for each criterion a conformance status is given (Supports / Partially Supports / Does Not Support / Not Applicable) with explanations. Such a document is often required in B2B sales and government procurement (especially in the US) as evidence that you take accessibility seriously. Honestly about the nature, this is key: a VPAT is a SELF-ASSESSMENT document filled in by the supplier (us — on your behalf, based on a check). It is NOT a third-party certification and NOT a legal guarantee of conformance. Its value is precisely in HONESTY and accuracy: an inflated VPAT ('all Supports' when it is not so) is worse than none — it undermines trust and creates risk when the non-conformance is revealed. So we fill it in truthfully, with honest 'Partially/Does Not Support' where there are gaps. Honestly about the basis: a reliable VPAT is possible only on the basis of a real audit (803) — without a check it is fiction. If there is no audit, it comes first. Honestly about currency: a VPAT reflects the state on a date; when the site changes, it must be updated. Honestly about the effect: a professional document for tenders/clients demonstrating good faith; but it is not a 'badge' that removes responsibility. Honestly about access: audit results / access to the site are needed. An important boundary: this is a VPAT (a self-assessment document); the audit itself is 803, the accessibility statement is 831, legal assessment is a lawyer's. Picture this: instead of 'a client/tender asks for a VPAT, and we do not have one' — an honest professional document in hand. The base price starts from 20,000 ₽ (assumes an audit exists; depends on volume).

• B2B/procurement asks for a VPAT, and you do not have one.
• No document showing the product's accessibility level.
• There is a temptation to inflate the VPAT — and that hits trust and creates risk.
• An old VPAT is outdated and does not reflect the current state.

• Filling in the VPAT using the official template (WCAG/508/EN 301 549)
• An honest status for each criterion (Supports/Partially/Does Not/NA)
• Explanations for partial and absent conformance
• Reliance on the results of a real audit (803)
• A clear statement of boundaries (self-assessment, not certification/not a guarantee)
• A recommendation on updating when things change
• Handover of the document in the needed format
• Review with you

• A professional VPAT for tenders and B2B clients
• An honest, accurate status by criteria (not inflated)
• The document is based on a real audit
• A demonstration of good faith (not certification/not a guarantee)

• We take the audit results (or the audit 803 first); collect access
• We fill in the VPAT honestly by criteria with explanations
• We hand over the document, explain the status and updating, review with you

• Is a VPAT an accessibility certificate?

  No, and this matters. A VPAT is a SELF-ASSESSMENT document: it is filled in by the supplier (us on your behalf, based on a check), not by an independent certifying body. It is not a certification and not a legal guarantee. Its value is in the honesty and accuracy that show a client/tender that you take accessibility seriously.

• Can the VPAT be filled in more favorably to win a tender?

  It should not be, and we do not do that. An inflated VPAT ('all Supports' when it is not) is worse than none: it undermines trust and creates real risk when the non-conformance is revealed (and in B2B it is checked). We fill it in honestly, with 'Partially/Does Not Support' where there are gaps. An honest VPAT is more reliable than a pretty one.

• Can a VPAT be made without an audit?

  A reliable one — no. A VPAT must reflect the real state by each criterion, and that is visible only from an audit (803). Without a check it would be fiction, i.e. that very inflated risk-document. If there is no audit yet — it comes first, then an honest VPAT based on it.