From the Citizen Engagement & Services edition of October 29, 2026
Virginia Treasury tells the General Assembly it inventoried 27 ICT systems but has made no notable application-level accessibility remediation, and seeks $222,227 for a Level Access program
Virginia Department of the Treasury · State agency digital accessibility · Virginia, United States
- Publisher
- Virginia General Assembly Reports to the General Assembly (RD675)
- Original publication
- 2026-10-01
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-30
What happened
Treasury inventoried 27 ICT systems (4 tier-one, 14 tier-two, 9 tier-three); 13 are in-house and in scope for remediation, while COTS and SaaS products are handled through VPAT/ACR review and contracts. It scans 5 systems with Siteimprove (average score 90.2 on reachable public content, which it says is not a full compliance measure). It has not made notable progress on application-level remediation because of staffing constraints and has not inventoried PDFs and Office documents. It requests $222,227.03 in first-year funding for Level Access tools, 13 manual evaluations, training and 1,000 pages of PDF remediation.
Why it matters
A state agency's own candid status report on accessibility compliance, showing the gap between scanning scores and actual remediation, reliance on vendor documentation for SaaS, and realistic first-year costs.
Evidence and measured results
Agency self-report to the legislature with inventory counts, scanning baseline and an itemized vendor quote dated 08/21/2026.
Limitations and uncertainty
Self-reported; funding not yet approved; the scan score covers only public, reachable content.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-30; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- State agencies have inventoried accessibility obligations but lack staff to remediate applications and documents.
- Stakeholders
- Agency CIO
- State IT agency (VITA)
- Accessibility coordinator
- Budget office
- Discovery questions
- Which tier-one systems are in-house versus vendor-controlled?
- Can authenticated apps be scanned today?
- How many PDFs and Office documents are public-facing?
- Value hypothesis
- A structured remediation program may move agencies from scanning to fixes; funding is pending.
- Potential engagement
- Manual evaluation of tier-one systems producing a validated remediation backlog.
- Unsupported claims
- That a 90.2 scan score means compliance
- Completion timelines
- Results of the Level Access engagement
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Fits state agencies with mixed in-house and SaaS portfolios.
- Architecture and integration
- Authenticated scanning, CI/CD testing integration, manual evaluations, document inventory.
- Prerequisites
- Approved scanning connectivity
- System inventory and tiers
- Developer capacity
- Constraints
- Vendor-controlled code
- Internal network access approvals
- Security
- Authenticated scanning must use approved, secure access to internal systems.
- Proof of value
- Compare manual evaluation findings with scanner findings on the same system
- Retest corrected defects
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Run an enterprise accessibility remediation program across prioritized systems.
- Dependencies
- Appropriation approval
- VITA connectivity
- Vendor ACRs
- Ownership
- Agency IT leadership with accessibility coordinator.
- Skills and adoption
- Role-based training for developers, testers and document authors.
- Governance checkpoints
- Funding decision
- Authenticated scanning approved
- Tier-one backlog validated
- Acceptance criteria
- Proposed: validated backlog for all four tier-one systems
- Proposed: complete PDF and Office document inventory before remediation spend
- Risks
- Funding not approved
- Staffing shortfall persists
- Vendor products remain non-conformant
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Authenticated and internal applications cannot yet be scanned; accessibility testing is planned for the SDLC and CI/CD.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Separates agency-controlled applications from vendor-controlled products managed through procurement terms.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Authenticated scanning needs approved, secure connectivity to internal systems through VITA.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Staffing limits blocked manual testing; the plan includes role-based training for 51 users.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Accessibility requirements added to current RFPs and to contracts as they renew; uses a state VAR contract.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Moves from reactive fixes toward an enterprise accessibility operating model.
Publication history
Read preserved resource versions (JSON)Stable resource ID: virginia-treasury-itaa-accessibility-remediation-plan-20261001