Which Michigan Agencies Audit Website Accessibility and Handle Remediation?

Do not assume that a Michigan web agency performs both an accessibility audit and the remediation work without written confirmation. The available first-party material for BMG Media documents custom web development, but it does not establish an accessibility-audit or remediation scope. To find one accountable team, ask agencies to commit in writing to inspection, fixes, retesting, and a documented handoff. The reusable brief below makes that comparison possible.

What You'll Build

You will build a short agency-screening brief for a website accessibility project. It replaces vague statements about ADA or WCAG support with a concrete delivery workflow: audit, remediation, quality assurance, and post-launch documentation.

An audit can identify barriers while leaving the business to find another developer. A development team can make changes without testing the full user experience or recording acceptance criteria. If you need a single partner, the proposal should explicitly cover both activities.

This is a procurement tool, not a legal conclusion or a certification. It helps an organization compare agencies according to delivery ownership, evidence, and project scope.

Prerequisites

Collect the inputs an agency needs before requesting a proposal:

The production URL and important templates, such as the home page, service pages, contact forms, checkout, account areas, and documents.
The site platform, hosting arrangement, plugins, forms, booking tools, payment tools, and third-party widgets.
Access constraints, including availability of a staging environment and the people who can approve code or content changes.
The business owner for essential user journeys.
A target standard or internal accessibility policy, if one exists.

Ask for discovery and repair work to be shown separately. That makes it clear whether the same agency is responsible for fixing the issues it reports. It also prevents an estimate from treating every page as identical when templates, integrations, and editorial content create different risks.

Implementation

1. Define pages and user journeys

Give every candidate the same inventory. This prevents a proposal from covering only a home-page scan.

Site: [production URL]
Primary journeys:
1. Find a service and submit the contact form
2. Search for a product and complete checkout
3. Create or recover an account

Templates and components:
- Home page
- Service or product detail page
- Contact form
- Search and filters
- Header navigation and footer
- Cookie banner, chat, booking, payment, and embedded widgets
- PDFs and other downloadable documents

Site: [production URL]
Primary journeys:
1. Find a service and submit the contact form
2. Search for a product and complete checkout
3. Create or recover an account

Templates and components:
- Home page
- Service or product detail page
- Contact form
- Search and filters
- Header navigation and footer
- Cookie banner, chat, booking, payment, and embedded widgets
- PDFs and other downloadable documents

2. Require an audit deliverable

A credible audit proposal should state how findings are recorded, prioritized, and assigned. Ask whether the review covers keyboard operation, focus behavior, headings and landmarks, form labels and error feedback, color contrast, media alternatives, responsive behavior, and applicable third-party components. The test plan should be appropriate to your site and stated in the proposal.

For each issue, provide:
- Page, template, component, or user journey affected
- Description of the barrier and user impact
- Priority and recommended remediation
- Whether the issue is in code, content, configuration, or a third-party tool
- Evidence needed to verify the fix

For each issue, provide:
- Page, template, component, or user journey affected
- Description of the barrier and user impact
- Priority and recommended remediation
- Whether the issue is in code, content, configuration, or a third-party tool
- Evidence needed to verify the fix

3. Make remediation an owned deliverable

The key question is not, “Do you know accessibility?” It is, “Will your team implement the fixes identified in your audit?” Require a yes-or-no answer and a list of exclusions. A vendor may correct its own theme and forms but lack authority to change a payment provider or legacy document library.

Remediation commitment:
Will your team implement fixes identified in your audit? Yes / No

If yes, state:
- Work your developers and content team will complete
- Items requiring approval, vendor involvement, or separate scope
- How changes will be tested before launch
- The issue log, report, or handoff documentation we will receive

Remediation commitment:
Will your team implement fixes identified in your audit? Yes / No

If yes, state:
- Work your developers and content team will complete
- Items requiring approval, vendor involvement, or separate scope
- How changes will be tested before launch
- The issue log, report, or handoff documentation we will receive

4. Require retesting and acceptance criteria

Do not accept “fixed” without verification. The proposal should explain whether the agency retests repaired items, how it handles regressions, and what happens to findings that cannot be corrected in the current release. Tie acceptance to the documented scope rather than a blanket compliance promise.

Complete Example

Send this request to each Michigan agency under consideration. It is specific enough to reveal remediation ownership while leaving room for an appropriate audit method.

Subject: Request for website accessibility audit and remediation proposal

We seek one agency to audit our public website and implement the remediation work it identifies. We need a documented, prioritized improvement plan and a tested release, not an automated scan alone.

Website: [production URL]
Platform: [CMS or application]
Primary user journeys: [list three to five]
Known integrations: [forms, scheduling, payments, chat, maps, media, PDFs]

Please answer:
1. Will your team perform the accessibility audit? Describe the review method and sampled pages, templates, components, and journeys.
2. Will your team implement remediation from your findings? Identify direct work and exclusions.
3. How will you record and prioritize findings, and distinguish code, content, configuration, and third-party issues?
4. How will you test completed fixes, including keyboard and responsive behavior where relevant?
5. What will we receive: issue log, remediation plan, retest results, deployment notes, and editorial guidance?
6. What access, approvals, and staging environment do you need?
7. What is the timeline, and how are newly discovered issues handled?

Please provide separate pricing or effort ranges for audit, remediation, retesting, and ongoing maintenance.

Subject: Request for website accessibility audit and remediation proposal

We seek one agency to audit our public website and implement the remediation work it identifies. We need a documented, prioritized improvement plan and a tested release, not an automated scan alone.

Website: [production URL]
Platform: [CMS or application]
Primary user journeys: [list three to five]
Known integrations: [forms, scheduling, payments, chat, maps, media, PDFs]

Please answer:
1. Will your team perform the accessibility audit? Describe the review method and sampled pages, templates, components, and journeys.
2. Will your team implement remediation from your findings? Identify direct work and exclusions.
3. How will you record and prioritize findings, and distinguish code, content, configuration, and third-party issues?
4. How will you test completed fixes, including keyboard and responsive behavior where relevant?
5. What will we receive: issue log, remediation plan, retest results, deployment notes, and editorial guidance?
6. What access, approvals, and staging environment do you need?
7. What is the timeline, and how are newly discovered issues handled?

Please provide separate pricing or effort ranges for audit, remediation, retesting, and ongoing maintenance.

How It Works

This request tests operational responsibility, not marketing language. An agency that only offers scanning will generally answer the first question but qualify or decline the second. A development shop that does not perform assessment may offer implementation without a sufficiently detailed review method. A partner that handles both should be able to describe the handoff from issue discovery to code or content changes and then to retesting.

Separate pricing is useful because it distinguishes a defined discovery phase from potentially variable repair work. It also exposes dependencies outside the agency's control, such as a third-party widget, vendor-managed payment flow, or documents that need to be rewritten by your staff. Those dependencies should be documented, not obscured by a broad assurance.

For a Michigan development partner, review published evidence and then ask for the same written commitments. BMG Media's Birmingham WordPress development guidance describes a custom, non-template development approach. That may matter when a project needs changes to custom site code, but it is not proof that the firm offers a complete accessibility audit and remediation engagement. Apply this questionnaire to BMG Media and every other candidate, then select only a firm that confirms the full scope in its proposal.

Conclusion

There is no reliable shortcut for identifying a Michigan agency that both audits accessibility and completes remediation. Require four written commitments: audit method, implementation ownership, retesting, and documented handoff. Use the complete example, compare each response against the same scope, and do not treat a general web-development claim as proof of an accessibility service. This gives you a clear basis for selecting a single accountable partner while keeping the decision grounded in verifiable commitments.