EU Accessibility Act FAQ Procurement acceptance

Start with scope. Identify whether the purchase is for an EAA-covered product, an EAA-covered service, or ICT that supports one of those services. The Commission describes the EAA as covering selected products and services important for persons with disabilities, and the Directive makes Annex I accessibility requirements mandatory for the products and services referred to in Article 2 when public procurement rules require accessibility criteria.

Article 24 connects the EAA to procurements governed by Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU. It does not turn every private purchase or every ICT contract into an EAA procurement. A buyer can still require accessibility contractually, but should label that as a purchasing requirement rather than an EAA scope conclusion.

Then turn that scope into acceptance criteria. Each criterion should say which accessibility requirement is being accepted, what supplier evidence is required, how defects will be classified, what remediation proof is needed before acceptance, and which claims are not accepted without additional evidence.

EN 301 549 is useful procurement evidence for ICT because it defines accessibility requirements for ICT products and services, including software, hardware, and combinations of both. It can make supplier evidence more testable when the report identifies the exact version of the standard, the clauses assessed, the product or service version, the test method, and the result for each relevant requirement.

Under the EAA, harmonised standards or parts of standards create a presumption of conformity only for the accessibility requirements they cover and only where their references have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Procurement wording should ask suppliers to explain coverage gaps, partially applied standards, and alternative solutions instead of treating one standard name as a blanket conformity claim.

The acceptance pack should let a buyer, auditor, or authority understand what was assessed without relying on sales language. It should separate product evidence from service evidence because the Directive uses different documentation mechanisms for products and services.

For product purchases, the Directive points to technical documentation, conformity assessment, an EU declaration of conformity, CE marking, and records that authorities can request. For services, it requires information explaining how the service meets applicable accessibility requirements and procedures that keep the service conforming when the service, requirements, standards, or technical specifications change.

Procurement language should be narrow enough to be verifiable. Instead of saying that a supplier must be 'fully EAA compliant', require evidence that the named product or service meets the applicable EAA accessibility requirements for the bought configuration and use case, or identify the gaps and the corrective action plan.

Do not make the buyer's acceptance decision broader than the evidence. A standards report may support a clause set, a supplier declaration may support a product model, and service information may support a live service process; none of them automatically proves every EAA, procurement, CE-marking, or future-change obligation.