Active SLED Opportunity · FLORIDA · CITY OF PETERSBURG
AI Summary
City of Petersburg requests proposals for a cloud-based digital accessibility compliance platform to monitor and ensure ADA, Section 508, and WCAG 2.1 compliance across public digital services. The platform includes automated monitoring, remediation, reporting, and training features.
The City is seeking to procure a cloud-based digital accessibility compliance platform that supports automated monitoring, remediation guidance, governance, reporting, and staff training related to digital accessibility requirements. The platform will be used across multiple departments to monitor public-facing websites, documents, and digital communications for accessibility compliance and to track remediation progress over time.
The solution is intended to build sustainable accessibility capacity across the organization through centralized monitoring tools, role-based dashboards, issue tracking workflows, document accessibility support, and a self-service training component. This initiative will support ongoing compliance with ADA Title II, Section 508, and related accessibility standards while improving the consistency and accessibility of public digital services.
The City of St. Petersburg continues to expand its digital accessibility efforts as public services, communications, and information delivery increasingly rely on web, document, and multimedia platforms. Responsibility for creating accessible digital content is distributed across departments, resulting in varying levels of accessibility expertise and increasing compliance risk. This tool's need is brought to light by the DOJ's requirement for city entities with over 50,000 citizens to have all digital communications and information meet WCAG 2.1, Level AA, by April 24, 2026.
| Event | Date | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Interviews/Selection Meeting | 2026-06-09T17:00:00.000Z | Municipal Services Building, One Fourth Street North, Conference Room 800 |
| Evaluation/Shortlisting Meeting | 2026-05-28T16:00:00.000Z | Municipal Services Building, One Fourth Street North, Conference Room 800 |
Sign-In Sheet Attached (Requested virtual attendees send an email confirming attendance, only one email received)
Please use the See What Changed link to view all the changes made by this addendum.
This section evaluates the Proposer’s qualifications, relevant experience, and capacity to successfully perform the required services. Scoring will be based on the firm’s history of similar projects, technical expertise, organizational structure, key personnel credentials, and demonstrated past performance.
This section evaluates the Proposer’s proposed methodology for delivering the services, including processes used on similar projects and the approach envisioned for this engagement. Scoring will be based on the clarity and feasibility of the project plan, schedule, key activities, deliverables, and the proposed coordination process with the City’s Project Manager.
This section evaluates the Proposer's completed cost analysis and proposed fee for the project. Scoring will be based on the completeness, clarity, and reasonableness of the pricing information provided.
This section evaluates the Proposer's proposed schedule.
This section evaluates the Proposer’s status as an SBE, MBE, WBE, or combination, and the firm’s demonstrated commitment to outreach, inclusion, and utilization of small and minority-owned businesses in performance of the contract. Scoring will be based on documented outreach efforts, planned mentoring and capacity-building initiatives, and processes for inclusive subcontracting.
If you have submitted an application and it is pending, please send an email to osd@stpete.org. In the subject line- provide the solicitation number and due date.
If you have submitted an application and it is pending, please send an email to osd@stpete.org. In the subject line- provide the solicitation number and due date.
Please provide a letter certifying who is authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of Company.
Type N/A if not applicable.
Type N/A if not applicable.
The City has deemed the following contract terms to be non-negotiable. Vendor is advised that if it wishes to take exception to any of the terms contained or referenced in the contract, it must explicitly identify the term and the exception in its response to the solicitation. Vendor's stated exception to a non-negotiable contract term may disqualify it from consideration:
Please download the below document, complete, and upload.
Upload all other documents relating to this solicitation. Including but not limited to proposals/statements of qualifications, applicable bonds, warranty information, etc.
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
Make sure this in compliance with the living wage ordinance.
Q (No subject): Does the City of St. Petersburg maintain a vendor list or pre-qualified pool for future accessibility-related opportunities (phased document remediation, website audits, WCAG 2.1 AA staff training)? If so, what is the process to be added?
A: We do not have a vendor list or pre-qualified pool for the services mentioned in your question.
Q (Microsites): Do you have a list or total number of microsites?
A: Other than StPete.org, we have 10 microsites currently: - Parks & Rec (https://stpeteparksrec.org/) - Police (https://police.stpete.org/) - Fire Rescue (https://fire.stpete.org/) - Golf (https://golfstpete.com/) - Greenhouse (https://stpetegreenhouse.com/) - Libraries (https://splibraries.org/) - Sunken Gardens (https://sunkengardens.org/) - The Pier (https://stpetepier.org/) - Healthy St. Pete (https://www.healthystpetefl.com/) - Manhattan Casino (https://historicmanhattancasino.org/)
Q (No subject): Will the City be posting the pre-proposal meeting attendance list?
A: The sign-in sheet has been uploaded under Notice #1. Please note, during the meeting, it was requested that vendors send an email confirming their attendance and only one email was received.
Q (Structure): How does the City currently define ownership of accessibility across departments (e.g., IT, Communications, ADA/Legal), and who will ultimately be responsible for enforcing compliance standards citywide?
A: Accessibility responsibility is currently shared across departments, with IT, Marketing & Communications, and the ADA Office each playing a role in their respective areas. The City is actively working to formalize its governance structure and accountability as part of this initiative. The selected vendor will be expected to support this process through policy development and governance documentation, as outlined in the scope of work.
Q (Service): Does the City anticipate accessibility remediation being managed centrally or distributed across departments, and how should issue ownership be assigned and tracked at the department level?
A: The City anticipates a centrally monitored model with remediation distributed to departments for their own content. For example, Parks & Recreation manages their own website and will be responsible for their content issues. Marketing manages StPete.org and several microsites but expects the departments whose content lives on those sites to handle remediation of their own documents.
Q (Priority): Given the estimated volume of documents, how does the City plan to prioritize remediation versus archival, and are there high-risk content categories that should be addressed first?
A: The City intends to prioritize remediation of the most frequently accessed and viewed documents first. Content that is outdated or no longer actively used will be evaluated for archival or removal rather than remediation. The selected vendor should be able to support this triage process through reporting that identifies document usage and flags low-value or high-risk content.
Q (Success): Beyond platform deployment, how will the City define success for this initiative (e.g., reduction in accessibility issues, staff adoption, audit readiness)?
A: The City expects success to be measurable across several dimensions: the platform must be capable of identifying at least 95% of accessibility issues across all scanned sites and documents; a measurable reduction in identified issues over time; demonstrated staff adoption of the platform and training resources; and improved audit readiness and documentation for DOJ compliance purposes. The City acknowledges that not all accessibility issues are resolvable through technology alone; some will require human judgment, content decisions, or third-party vendor action. The selected vendor should propose how these outcomes will be tracked and reported throughout the contract term, and should clearly communicate the boundaries of what automated scanning can and cannot detect.
Q (Training): What outcomes does the City expect from training (completion, demonstrated competency, or measurable reduction in accessibility issues), and how should success be tracked across departments?
A: The City's primary goal for training is building genuine staff competency, not just completion rates. We want staff to understand why accessibility matters and to approach content creation with accessibility as a first consideration rather than an afterthought. The ideal outcome is that employees across departments can independently produce accessible documents, images, and web content without relying solely on a tool to catch errors after the fact. Completion tracking and certificates of completion are useful for compliance documentation but demonstrated behavior change and reduction in recurring errors over time are the deeper measures of success.
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.