Flagship offer
Conformance Sprint
Fixed scope. Fixed price. Merged code. Evidence you can hand to a buyer.
$12,000Starting price. Premium band $35,000–$45,000 for larger scopes. Price follows scope, not negotiation.
Who this is for
A VP Engineering, Head of Product, or CTO at a 20–200 person B2B software company
Product is a web application, usually React, Vue, or Angular, usually with authenticated states. Engineering team of 3–30. No in-house accessibility specialist. Budget authority up to roughly $50k without board involvement.
The trigger
Something with money attached has stopped moving
- An enterprise or public-sector prospect requested a VPAT / ACR during vendor review and you don't have one, or yours is a stale self-assessment.
- A renewal or contract now carries an accessibility clause or indemnity you can't sign in good conscience.
- You're bidding on federal, state, higher-ed, or healthcare business and an accessibility warranty is a gate.
- A customer that is a covered entity has pushed the obligation down to you as a vendor.
- A real user complained, or a demand letter arrived, and someone senior asked "how bad is it actually?"
The outcome
Named scope conforms to WCAG 2.2 AA, as tested — merged, not promised
At the end of the sprint, the named scope of your product conforms to WCAG 2.2 Level AA as tested, the fixes are merged into your repository, and you hold a dated evidence pack that stands up to a procurement reviewer.
What you actually receive
Itemized artifacts, not “expertise”
- Automated multi-state crawl and scan across authenticated states, modals, error states, and interactive components — not just the logged-out homepage.
- Manual expert review against WCAG 2.2 AA.
- Assistive-technology pass on critical paths: keyboard-only, NVDA + Chrome/Firefox on Windows, VoiceOver + Safari on macOS/iOS. Named versions recorded.
- Component clustering: every finding mapped from page-instances back to the source component that causes it.
- Fixes written in your repository, on a branch, as reviewable pull requests — one component or journey per PR.
- Evidence pack: conformance statement, before/after findings comparison, AT test log, known limitations, draft accessibility statement.
- Regression guard: an axe-core CI check wired into your pipeline.
- A 60-minute handoff session with your engineering team on the patterns fixed and how not to reintroduce them.
What we do not promise
- We do not promise legal compliance, immunity from litigation, or any regulatory outcome.
- We do not certify. We report what we tested, when, how, and what we found.
- We do not claim conformance for anything outside the named scope — unscoped pages, third-party embeds, customer-generated content, or PDFs unless separately contracted.
- We do not guarantee future conformance. Code changes; conformance decays. That is what the Gate is for, and we say so rather than pretending otherwise.
- We do not fix third-party components we cannot modify. We identify them, document the barrier, and give the client the vendor escalation language.
- We are not conducting user research with disabled participants unless separately contracted.
Timeline
4–5 weeks standard. 6–8 weeks for the premium band. Assessment findings land in week 1.
Price
Every tier, shown
| Tier | Price | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline Assessment | $3,500 | Phase 1 only — credited in full against a Sprint booked within 30 days. |
| Conformance Sprint | $12,000 | One product, up to 4 named journeys / ~10 key screens and their components, one platform. |
| Conformance Sprint — Extended | $22,000 | Up to 8 journeys, authenticated + admin surfaces, design-system token work, VPAT included. |
| Conformance Sprint — Premium | $35,000–$45,000 | Multi-app or multi-tenant, complex SPA, mobile web + native web views, full design-system remediation, VPAT + procurement support, executive readout. |
| Accessible Rebuild | from $28,000 | When existing markup is beyond economical repair — same evidence deliverable. |
How we test
Automated, manual, and assistive technology — never presented as one thing
Every report separates findings from automated tooling, from manual expert review, and from assistive-technology testing — named screen reader, browser, OS, version. Automated tools cover roughly 57% of accessibility issues by volume; the rest needs a human with a keyboard and a screen reader.
Proof
How it works, in order
Assess
Automated multi-state crawl, manual expert review, AT pass on critical paths, findings mapped back to source components.
Fix
Fixes written in your repository, on a branch, as reviewable pull requests — one component or journey per PR.
Prove
Full re-test, same method, recorded. Conformance statement, before/after comparison, AT test log, known limitations.
Keep it fixed
Regression guard wired into CI so fixes can't silently regress. Optional ongoing Gate retainer.
FAQ
The objections, answered straight
- Can’t we just use a widget?
- No. Overlays sit on top of broken markup; they don’t fix it, and in Q1 2026, 25.55% of ADA web filings targeted sites that already had one installed. We remove them as part of remediation. We do not resell one, at any margin, ever.
- Does this make us ADA compliant?
- No, and anyone who tells you yes is overclaiming — the FTC fined a major overlay vendor $1,000,000 in January 2025 for exactly that kind of claim. What you get instead: a conformance statement that says what was tested, when, how, and what it found, for a named scope. That is what a procurement reviewer actually asks for.
- What happens after the sprint ends?
- Conformance decays as code changes. The CI regression guard installed during the sprint catches obvious drift; the Accessibility Gate retainer adds a monthly human pass and a refreshed evidence record if you want the record to keep describing the version you actually ship.
Start with one flow.
Not ready for the full Sprint? Request a Pilot on one important flow first.
Request a Pilot