Legally responsible, even when it's outsourced. Here's how you show it.
For suppliers answering a public buyer, and for the bodies answering the regulations: a current WCAG 2.2 AA audit, a statement that stays true, and a record of who accepted each result.
The answer was true when you wrote it.
- GOV.UK: you are legally responsible for your website meeting accessibility requirements, even if you have outsourced it.
- G-Cloud asks every service with an interface which standard it meets, and publishes your answer.
- The statement on the site was last reviewed years ago, and the app has none at all.
- Evaluators score the evidence, and an empty remarks column costs you marks.
- The supplier says it is fixed. Nobody in the body can check that without asking them.
- Accessibility is in the procurement questions, then nowhere in the release process.
The answer in the tender is a claim. What a buyer scores is whether you can still show it is true.
In. Build. Leave. Prove.
One job, four weeks, in production. Then it keeps proving itself.
In
The services in scope, the standard you are held to, and who signs each result.
Build
Fixes made alongside your team or your supplier, each checked against the standard before it goes in.
Leave
Your team re-runs the audit on every release and the statement follows the results.
Prove
Every check, every fix and every sign-off, with a date and a name on it.
Three jobs a four-week deployment could take.
- The accessibility answer in your tender or G-Cloud listing kept true on every release, with the pack evaluators score: a current audit, a published statement, assistive-technology testing and a dated roadmap.
- Fixes on the body’s own site and apps, with the statement brought current and every change accepted by a named person.
- Resident correspondence, service requests and complaint acknowledgements triaged and drafted by AI, released only under a named officer’s sign-off.
- Whichever we start with, the record is the same: what was allowed, what happened, who signed.
What accessibility standards does your service interface meet, and can you show it today?
What the AI is allowed to do is written down first.
Every decision is checked against those rules before it happens.
A named person signs it off. The check produces the evidence; a person judges.
You can replay the whole history any day and get the same answer.
If anyone changes it later, it shows. Patent pending, UK application GB2620101.2.
That is what a deployment leaves running for your job. In the accessibility product today, a person on your team accepts every finding before it reaches your record.
Who this is for.
- Suppliers selling into central government, councils, the NHS or through G-Cloud.
- Digital teams inside public bodies who answer for services a supplier builds.
- Teams who have a tender deadline and an accessibility answer they cannot evidence.
Not for
A procurement-grade governance platform. We are two founders and an engineer, and we will tell you when that is the wrong fit.
Two people, on every call and in your standup.
Simon Milner, Founding Architect
He designed the record: what the AI is allowed to do, checked before it acts, and replayable afterwards. Twenty-five years in Silicon Valley before that.
Jason Crispin, Founder
He owns the customer side of every deployment: what the job is, what it is worth, and that it lands. He is on the first call and every one after.
Patent pending, UK application GB2620101.2. Meet the team
Four weeks, then it keeps proving itself.
Week 1
The baseline
What the job is, what allowed means for it, and who signs. Written down before anything runs.
Weeks 2 to 4
The build
Our engineer works in your codebase next to your developers. The old way and the new way run side by side.
Week 4 on
The proof
Every decision checked and recorded. Replay it any day. We maintain it, or you run it without us.
What you keep
- The audit, running in-house on every release.
- The published statement, built from your results.
- The code, assigned to you in writing.
- The record of every check and sign-off, replayable any day.
What people ask.
We outsourced our website. Is it still our problem?
We outsourced our website. Is it still our problem?
Yes. GOV.UK puts it plainly: you are legally responsible for your website meeting accessibility requirements even if you have outsourced it to a supplier. What changes with a record is that you can see the current position yourself rather than asking the supplier.
What do tender evaluators actually want?
What do tender evaluators actually want?
A current WCAG 2.2 AA audit, a published accessibility statement, evidence of testing with assistive technology and disabled users, and a funded roadmap with dates. An empty remarks column reads as a red flag.
G-Cloud asks which standard our interface meets. Can we answer honestly?
G-Cloud asks which standard our interface meets. Can we answer honestly?
That is the point of running the audit in-house on every release. Your answer is backed by an audit with a date on it and a statement that updates when the results change, rather than by a claim nobody re-checks.
Is the audit automated?
Is the audit automated?
No. It is a guided audit your team answers, screen by screen or page by page, with every verdict recorded against the person who made it. No overlay, nothing injected, and no AI deciding whether you comply.
Are you selling us a governance platform?
Are you selling us a governance platform?
No. We ship one job into the product you already run, in four weeks, and leave the record behind. If what you need is a procurement-grade platform from an established supplier, we will say so.
What does it cost?
What does it cost?
The accessibility product has published pricing, and the managed audit starts at £1,500. A deployment is scoped on the call.
Which answer would you have to evidence tomorrow?
Thirty minutes with Simon and Jason. Bring the tender question or the statement you are not sure about, and you leave knowing what it would take.