Awarded to Helpful Technology Ltd T/A Helpful Digital

Start date: Monday 7 October 2019
Value: £3,600
Company size: SME
Dartmoor National Park Authority

Dartmoor National Park Website Accessibility Audit

5 Incomplete applications

4 SME, 1 large

12 Completed applications

10 SME, 2 large

Important dates

Thursday 15 August 2019
Deadline for asking questions
Thursday 22 August 2019 at 11:59pm GMT
Closing date for applications
Thursday 29 August 2019 at 11:59pm GMT


Summary of the work
Dartmoor National Park Authority wishes to appoint a supplier to complete an audit of their online services in accordance with the 2018 EU Web Accessibility Directive.
Latest start date
Monday 7 October 2019
Expected contract length
No specific location, eg they can work remotely
Organisation the work is for
Dartmoor National Park Authority
Budget range

About the work

Why the work is being done
To ensure that Dartmoor National Park Authority's online services meet the 2018 EU Web Accessibility Directive by 23 September 2020.
Problem to be solved
Our online services do not yet meet the WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility requirements.
Who the users are and what they need to do
As a (current/potential) visitor to Dartmoor National Park, I need to find out where I can go and what I can do, so that I can make the most of my visit.

As a local resident of Dartmoor National Park, I need to search for a planning application in my neighbourhood, so that I can support/object to the proposal.

As a student, I need to find learning resources, so that I can learn about geology on Dartmoor.
Early market engagement
Any work that’s already been done
Some automated testing has already been done using Sitebeam and staff are being trained to create more accessible content.
Existing team
Working with the DNPA Communications team; predominantly the Head of Communications and Digital Communications Officer.
Current phase

Work setup

Address where the work will take place
This can be done remotely
Working arrangements
Initial briefing meeting (video conference/conference call) and regular updates on progress to be determined at briefing meeting.
Security clearance

Additional information

Additional terms and conditions

Skills and experience

Buyers will use the essential and nice-to-have skills and experience to help them evaluate suppliers’ technical competence.

Essential skills and experience
  • Experience of carrying out accessibility audits on public sector websites
  • Experience of auditing to the 2018 EU Web Accessibility Directive and WCAG 2.1 AA
Nice-to-have skills and experience

How suppliers will be evaluated

How many suppliers to evaluate
Proposal criteria
  • How the approach or solution meets our needs
  • Approach and methodology
  • Relevant experience
  • Technical solution (i.e. assistive technology, browser combinations and devices)
Cultural fit criteria
  • Share knowledge and experience with other team members
  • Can work with clients with low technical expertise
Payment approach
Fixed price
Assessment methods
Written proposal
Evaluation weighting

Technical competence


Cultural fit




Questions asked by suppliers

1. You refer to the 2018 EU Web Accessibility Directive, which only requires compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA. Do you also need to meet the accessibility requirements in the GDS Service Manual, which mandate expert reviews with assistive technologies and user testing with disabled participants?
For this audit we are focusing on meeting the EU Web Accessibility Directive requirements, which includes WCAG 2.1 AA compliance and publishing an accessibility statement. Testing with assistive technologies and user-testing with disabled participants were carried out during the development phase of the website. However, we would welcome recommendations for further testing.
2. Are you able to specify the number of pages that need to be tested? Can you provide access to the pages so we can assess the complexity? If not, can you provide wireframes, creative designs or any other design documentation?
We have identified 40 pages to be tested on the main Dartmoor National Park Authority website, and a further 3 pages on our Management Plan website. We can provide access to all pages that need to be tested.

For reference we have approximately 540 front-facing pages in total on the main website. 55 pages for the Management Plan website.
3. Does the fixed price need to include the cost of retesting? If so, do you propose to do a single round of fixing and retesting (which is unlikely to achieve full AA compliance) or do you plan to go through as many rounds of fixing and retesting as necessary until full compliance is achieved?
The fixed price does not include the cost of retesting. We are seeking to gain an initial audit report that will help us to prioritise and inform our accessibility statement. From there we will carry out further fixing and retesting in-house.
4. Have any potential bidders had prior involvement in or knowledge of this project or had access to any information that is not included in the published requirements?
No potential bidders have had any prior involvement in this project or additional information that has not been published in this requirement.
5. Can we get access to the screens? What is the complexity of the screens?
Please can you elaborate on what is meant by ‘screens’?
6. Is it easy to gain access to the pages included in the test?
Yes, we will be able to give you access to all pages included in the test.
7. Any multimedia content?
Yes, there are embedded YouTube videos and image slideshows. These will be included in our chosen sample of pages to be tested.
8. Any forms?
Yes, a number of forms and results pages. These will be included in our chosen sample of pages to be tested.
9. Are various UI components used?
Yes, particularly with forms, the resource library, search features, etc.
10. What devices (& device versions) would you want the website tested on?
Apple iPhone, iPad, Samsung Galaxy S8, desktop (Mac and PC). Open to suggestions on this.
11. What browsers and version of browsers?
Chrome, Safari, Edge, Samsung Internet, Firefox, Internet Explorer. Open to recommendations.
12. Any specific assistive technologies and versions to test against? (JAWS, Dragon, ZoomText, etc)
Most common assistive technologies, including: JAWS, NVDA, Dragon Naturally Speaking, VoiceOver, TalkBack, ZoomText. Open to recommendations.
13. Would you want us to test with disabled users? If yes, what assistive technologies and disabilities? Would you want these to be recorded or come to view them?
Our website was tested with disabled users during the beta phase. We are not focusing on this type of testing for this audit. However, we are open to any recommendations.

If we were to test with disabled users, recorded would be our preferred way of viewing the tests unless the test centre isn’t far from where we are based.
14. Frequency of catch up’s?
Regular updates on progress to be determined at initial briefing meeting.
15. Can you please confirm that you will be going through the 2 stage procurement process indicated and that there will not be a requirement for a pitch?
We will be going through the 2 stage procurement process, and suppliers will not be required to pitch.
16. In your answers to questions 10, 11 and 12, you say you require testing with a variety of hardware platforms, browsers and assistive technologies. This contradicts your answer to question 1 in which you say you only want a WCAG audit. A WCAG audit can and should be done almost entirely by code inspection. Hardware and browser compatibility and assistive technology testing are completely different services. Can you please confirm if you just require a WCAG audit or if you also want compatibility and assistive technology testing (in which case your budget will not be sufficient).
Apologies for the contradiction. We were unaware that a WCAG audit and compatibility and assistive technology testing were treated as separate services. As stated in question 1, we are aiming to meet the EU Web Accessibility Directive requirements, which includes WCAG 2.1 AA compliance and producing an accessibility statement. If our budget will not cover both forms of testing, we will focus on a WCAG audit only.