Short answer. Ask for dated, scoped evidence from a manual audit against WCAG 2.2 Level AA, mapped to AS EN 301 549, with a clear plan for anything that does not yet conform. Treat absolute claims and automated scan reports on their own as warning signs. Good evidence lets your agency show, on the record, that accessibility was considered.

Why your agency needs supplier evidence#

Australian Government agencies must meet the Digital Inclusion Standard. Criterion 4 asks whether new procurements and contract renewals considered accessibility, and tells agencies to include accessibility requirements so vendors meet established standards.

Agencies report against the criterion, and supplier evidence becomes part of that record.

The Commonwealth Procurement Rules back this up. Since November 2025, tenderers must show they can meet the standards named in a procurement, and agencies can ask for evidence such as certifications. A self-declaration is not the same as evidence.

For which standard applies and why WCAG 2.2 matters now, see our article on AS EN 301 549 and WCAG 2.2 for government websites.

What to ask suppliers for#

  1. A scope statement. The standard and version (WCAG 2.2 Level AA, AS EN 301 549:2024), what was tested (templates, components, key journeys, documents) and what was excluded, with the reason.
  2. The method. Manual expert testing following a recognised approach, such as the W3C's WCAG-EM. The assistive technologies used, with versions. Automated tools listed as a supporting check, not the main one.
  3. Results by criterion. For each success criterion: supports, partially supports, does not support, or not applicable, with a note on where and why.
  4. Known issues and a remediation plan. What does not yet conform, who it affects, who owns the fix and the target date.
  5. Dates and testers. When testing happened and who did it, including whether they were independent of the build team.
  6. A retest record. Proof that fixes were verified, not just made.
  7. A current accessibility statement. Dated, and consistent with the evidence.

This criterion-by-criterion format comes from the VPAT, an international reporting template. Australian buyers rarely ask for a VPAT itself, but its structure is a sound way to report audit results.

If you are the supplier, our guide to accessibility evidence for agencies covers how to build this up during delivery.

Warning signs in a supplier's evidence#

  • "Fully compliant" or "100% accessible". No honest audit supports it, and an experienced evaluator will read it as a warning sign.
  • An automated scan report on its own. Automated tools check only part of WCAG. Most criteria need a person to judge them.
  • Undated evidence, or evidence against WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 only. It tells the evaluator the work is out of date.
  • An overlay or widget presented as conformance. It is not evidence that the underlying website or app conforms.
  • Evidence that skips the tasks the tender is about. A home page audit says little about a booking, payment or application process.

Evidence ages#

Evidence describes a website or app on the day it was tested. Code changes, content changes, and standards change.

Ask for re-testing after major releases and before contract renewals, which the Digital Inclusion Standard names as a checkpoint. Check that every report shows the test date, WCAG version and standard edition.

Ask your builder about components#

If your website is built from a shared theme or component library, as most GovCMS and Drupal sites are, ask your builder whether those components have been tested. A fault in a shared component repeats on every page that uses it, and so does a fix.

Component evidence does not replace testing of your site, but it means site testing finds fewer repeated issues. Our article on component accessibility on government websites covers what to ask.

Frequently asked questions#

Can our builder test its own work?#

Testing during the build is valuable. For your records, testing by accessibility specialists separate from the build team carries more weight, especially when they report findings directly to you. That doesn't mean working at arm's length: the best results come when the specialists also work alongside your developers to help them fix what they find.

Do we need testing by people with disability?#

WCAG does not require it. It shows whether real people using assistive technology can complete the tasks, and it finds barriers a checklist misses. The Digital Inclusion Standard asks agencies to use real-user feedback when testing and refining their services.

How long is accessibility evidence valid?#

There is no fixed expiry. Evidence stays current until the website or app changes significantly or the standard changes.

What should the accessibility statement say?#

What is covered, the standard and version, the date of the last test, any known issues with workarounds, and how people can report a problem.

Talk to us#

Planning a procurement, or reviewing accessibility evidence from a supplier? Book a free 15-minute call and we will tell you what to ask for and whether what you have will stand up.