Digital TransformationUser Experience & Accessibility
How a fixed-fee design definition package takes one federal service from symptoms at the help desk to named user flows, a clickable prototype, a USWDS theme, a WCAG-mapped accessibility annotation layer and a handoff package the build team can price, before the build contract starts.
Most federal systems that frustrate their users were never designed. They were specified, and the specification was turned into screens by the developers who built the database. The result is familiar: a form that rejects an entry without saying why, a page that works with a mouse but not a keyboard, a step that sends every third person to the help desk. When the agency finally rebuilds that system, the same thing can happen again, because the build contract buys code, not decisions about how people will finish their tasks.
The cheapest moment to fix an interface is before the build starts. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (IDEA) and the U.S. Web Design System (USWDS) all set expectations that cost far less to meet in a design file than in shipped code. By the time a built system reaches Section 508 testing, the expensive decisions about structure, focus order and error handling were made months earlier.
This paper is for the program manager or product owner of a service about to be rebuilt, the CIO's digital experience lead, the Section 508 program manager, the ISSO who approves design tools, and the COR who buys the work. It describes Avalon Technology Services' UI/UX Design service, which starts with one engagement:
Avalon prices the package from the hours the named flows take, not from the market range. The $52K figure sits below the typical $70K to $130K range quoted for larger eight-week design packages, because this package carries three flows, no primary research and one approver. It is well under the $350,000 simplified acquisition threshold.
Avalon designs and documents. It does not write the production code, test the built system for Section 508 conformance, or certify compliance with any law or standard. Conformance is established by testing the implemented system, and that remains the agency's process.
Program teams rarely ask for a designer. They describe symptoms. Any of these phrases in a kickoff meeting usually means the problem sits in the interface.
| What the program says | What it usually means |
|---|---|
| "People can't figure out how to finish the application." | The flow was never designed; error and edge states were left to the developer |
| "The help desk is drowning in the same three questions." | Three screens are generating avoidable contacts |
| "It has to be 508 compliant this time." | Accessibility was tested at the end last time, after the structure was fixed |
| "We adopted USWDS, so design is done." | USWDS is the parts bin, not the product |
| "We bought the platform, now we need it to be usable." | Configuration happened without task design |
One routing question separates this service from its neighbors. If people cannot find things, the work is information architecture. If a built system is failing accessibility testing, the work is Accessibility Modernization. If the agency needs to understand the experience across channels, that is CX strategy. If people cannot finish a task on a system that is about to be rebuilt, this package fits.
| Driver | What it says | What it means for this engagement |
|---|---|---|
| Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (36 CFR Part 1194) | Federal ICT must be accessible to people with disabilities; the 2017 refresh incorporates WCAG 2.0 Level AA | Designs are built to applicable success criteria from the start, and annotations carry that intent into the build |
| WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 | Current W3C accessibility guidance | Used as design acceptance criteria and good practice, not as the federal legal standard |
| 21st Century IDEA Act (2018) | Modern, accessible, mobile-friendly, user-centered public websites and digital services | USWDS-based, mobile-first screens at the design layer; it does not certify IDEA compliance |
| U.S. Web Design System | The federal design system of components, tokens and patterns | The default design vocabulary; custom components only where justified |
| Plain Writing Act of 2010 | Clear government communication the public can use | Plain-language labels, instructions and error messages |
| Paperwork Reduction Act | OMB clearance before collecting information from 10 or more members of the public | Any user contact is scoped to fit the agency's clearance path; formal studies are a separate service |
| Section 508 program (section508.gov) | GSA's program hub and annual governmentwide Section 508 assessment | Shows where agencies report testing late; design-stage annotation addresses the cause |
Two notes on scope. OMB M-24-08, issued in December 2023, addressed Section 508 programs; agencies should confirm its current status with their 508 program manager. And NIST SP 800-53 touches this work only lightly: designs respect session timeout behavior, system use notifications and authentication flows that work with the agency's identity service. The design does not implement or assess any control.
The package covers one named service and the flows listed by name in the statement of work, for example "submit an application", "upload supporting documents" and "check status". Avalon works in the agency's own design-tool tenant and repositories.
| Workstream | Activities |
|---|---|
| Design discovery | Heuristic review of the current interface; Digital Analytics Program or application telemetry; help-desk call drivers; stakeholder interviews; hard constraints such as backend behavior and authentication |
| Task and flow definition | Top tasks and a flow for each named task, including error, empty and edge states |
| Wireframes and prototype | Annotated wireframes reviewed with the product owner, then a clickable prototype for stakeholder walkthroughs |
| Visual design and USWDS theme | Design tokens, type and color inside USWDS patterns and contrast requirements |
| Component and pattern inventory | Every element mapped to a USWDS component, with all states: default, hover, focus, error, disabled, loading |
| Accessibility annotation | Focus order, heading structure, ARIA intent for custom components, target sizes, error recovery and color independence, mapped to WCAG success criteria |
| Interface content and handoff | Plain-language microcopy, a developer specification package and a design decision log |
| Deliverable | Format |
|---|---|
| Design discovery brief: findings, constraints, top tasks | PDF or Markdown, 8 to 15 pages |
| Annotated wireframes for each named flow | Design file in the agency's tool, plus PDF export |
| Interactive prototype | Prototype link in the agency's tool |
| USWDS theme | Design library plus token export (JSON or CSS variables) |
| Component and pattern inventory | Design library plus a spreadsheet mapped to USWDS components |
| Accessibility annotation layer | Annotations in the design file plus a summary matrix mapped to WCAG success criteria |
| Developer handoff package | Specifications plus a design decision log |
The package stops at the handoff. Front-end code belongs to the build team, whether that is the agency's developer, a prime, or Avalon's separate Cloud Native Development or Web Services & Microservices services. A formal usability study is Avalon's User Testing & Feedback Analysis service. Testing or remediating a built system for Section 508 is Accessibility Modernization. Sitewide navigation and taxonomy (Information Architecture) and cross-channel journey work (CX Strategy Development) are separate Avalon services. Brand identity, print design, training and change management are out of scope.
The accurate statement is narrow: designs are developed against applicable WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria and delivered with design-stage accessibility annotations, which reduce conformance findings and remediation cost during Section 508 testing of the implemented system. Conformance of the deployed system is determined by testing the built product, through the agency's own testing process or a separately scoped effort.
| Accurate | Not accurate |
|---|---|
| Designs built to applicable WCAG success criteria | "The delivered system will be 508 compliant" |
| Annotations that tell developers and testers the intended focus order, semantics and error behavior | An Accessibility Conformance Report for a system not yet built |
| USWDS-based screens that support the agency's IDEA work | Certification of IDEA compliance |
| Design artifacts the ISSO can review for tool and data handling | Any bearing on an ATO |
The annotation layer is written so that a DHS Trusted Tester or the agency's own tester can compare the built screens against stated intent, instead of reverse-engineering it. That is the point of doing accessibility work in design: the tester finds fewer surprises, and the developer has fewer guesses to make.
| Phase | Timing | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| 0: Kickoff and access | Award, in parallel | Design-tool tenant confirmed with the ISSO, product owner named, analytics and help-desk data requested, flows confirmed by name |
| 1: Discovery and task definition | Weeks 1 and 2 | Heuristic review, data review, interviews, constraints, top tasks and flows with error and empty states |
| 2: Wireframes and prototype | Weeks 3 to 5 | Annotated wireframes, one structured review cycle, clickable prototype and moderated walkthroughs with staff |
| 3: Visual, theme, annotation and handoff | Weeks 6 to 8 | USWDS theme, component inventory, accessibility annotation, plain-language copy, handoff package and readout |
Each artifact gets two structured review cycles with one approver who has decision authority. When a build follows, design can continue one to two sprints ahead of development, with design review of implemented screens, as a separate task.
Each item is written into the statement of work as a government-furnished item with schedule relief, so a delay is attributed where it occurs.
| Included | Separate work |
|---|---|
| Flows named in the statement of work | The rest of the portal; added flows by priced modification |
| Moderated prototype walkthroughs with staff | Formal usability studies and surveys |
| Interface-level microcopy | Rewriting the agency's content |
| Handoff package and decision log | Front-end code |
| Unclassified services | Classified or cleared environments |
Avalon takes one engagement at a time, works business hours and works on unclassified systems only. Avalon's founder leads the engagement and reviews buildability against the target environment. The senior product designer and accessibility reviewer are named personnel, hired or subcontracted for the engagement and listed in the proposal with their portfolios. Avalon does not propose this package until a designer with a federal-style USWDS and Section 508 portfolio is under agreement. Avalon has no past federal engagements under this service. FAR 15.305 says an offeror without a record of past performance may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on that factor; what protects the program is a named team, a fixed price, flows named in writing and a short schedule.
| Requirement | How it is handled |
|---|---|
| Senior product designer | Named personnel with a federal-style USWDS and Section 508 portfolio, listed in the proposal, at 0.75 to 1.0 of full time |
| Accessibility reviewer | Named personnel whose certifications match the agency's requirements, listed in the proposal |
| Civilian access | Public Trust investigation at the tier the agency requires |
| Design tools | The agency's own tenant, with access the agency provisions; Avalon holds no tool licenses for this work and hosts nothing |
| Insurance and contract vehicles | Any coverage the solicitation requires is a condition of award; Avalon does not hold a GSA Schedule or a governmentwide contract today |
Key personnel substitution requires CO approval. Design files, tokens and documents are delivered to the agency, with data rights under FAR 52.227-14 as the contract specifies. If Avalon might later bid the build, the contracting officer decides whether organizational conflict of interest rules apply, and Avalon raises the question at award.
| Engagement | Typical market range | Avalon |
|---|---|---|
| Focused package: one to three flows, about 4 weeks, no primary research | $35K–$60K | Priced to the work; one flow illustrative $27K |
| Full package: several flows, prototype, USWDS theme, annotation, handoff, about 8 weeks | $70K–$130K | Priced to the work; three named flows illustrative $52K, below this range |
| Added flow | Not separately quoted | Fixed unit price in the statement of work, about $8.4K–$13.3K |
| Design inside a build task order | About 8–15% of build labor | Through the prime, at the same rate card |
Avalon fixes the price against the named flows, two review cycles per artifact and a dated dependency schedule. It does not raise a small scope to meet a market range, and it does not discount design to win a later build. The difference from the $70K to $130K range is scope, not quality: larger packages usually carry more flows, primary research or layered review, which this package excludes or prices per flow.
The package sits under the $350,000 simplified acquisition threshold and can be bought as an open-market purchase. When design is part of a build, a prime can subcontract the design line to Avalon. Avalon does not hold a GSA Schedule or a governmentwide contract today, and it does not resell design tools, software or licenses.
Design packages are often funded from single-year operations and maintenance money, and an eight-week fixed-price task fits a late-fiscal-year award. The best time to buy is when the build is funded but not yet awarded, so the handoff package can go into the build solicitation.
The figures below are a planning illustration for one representative unclassified public-facing service with three named flows. They are not a quote and not a result from any engagement.
The designer spends a fixed 80 hours on discovery, the USWDS theme and the handoff package, plus 62 hours per flow for states, wireframes, prototype, visual design, annotation and specification. The accessibility reviewer spends 12 fixed hours and 8 per flow. Project management runs 4 hours a week.
| Role | Rate band | Base hours |
|---|---|---|
| Senior product designer | $120–$190/hr | 266 |
| Accessibility reviewer | $120–$190/hr | 36 |
| Project manager | $95–$200/hr | 32 |
| Total | 334 |
The designer's 266 hours over eight weeks are about 0.83 of full time, inside the 0.75 to 1.0 loading one designer can carry.
| Scope | Hours | Rate-band range | Fixed fee | Designer load |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focused (1 flow, 4 weeks) | 178 | $21.0K–$34.0K | $27K | 0.89 FTE |
| Base (3 flows, 8 weeks) | 334 | $39.3K–$63.8K | $52K | 0.83 FTE |
| Large (5 flows, 10 weeks) | 482 | $56.8K–$92.0K | $74K | 0.97 FTE |
The base case is 334 hours, or $39.3K to $63.8K, with a $52K fixed fee at the midpoint. That is below the typical $70K to $130K range for larger design packages, and it is the price because it is what three flows take. A single flow over four weeks runs $21.0K to $34.0K, below the typical $35K to $60K focused range for the same reason. Five flows need about 1.22 of a designer's time over eight weeks, more than one person carries, so that scope runs ten weeks at $56.8K to $92.0K or is split.
The model prices the package; it claims no saving. The cost of the status quo comes from the agency's own numbers: monthly transactions, times the share that fail or are abandoned, times the help-desk contacts each failure creates, times the cost of a contact, times twelve. At an illustrative 20,000 transactions a month, a 10% failure rate, one contact each and $12 a contact, that is $288K a year, and the $52K fee equals about 4,333 contacts, or 2.2 months of that failure demand.
| Inputs (agency-supplied; illustrative) | Annual failure cost | Months equal to the fee |
|---|---|---|
| 20,000 a month, 10% fail, $12 a contact | $288K | 2.2 |
| 20,000 a month, 5% fail, $8 a contact | $96K | 6.5 |
| 5,000 a month, 10% fail, $8 a contact | $48K | 13.0 |
These figures describe the size of the problem. They are not a forecast of what redesign will remove, and the agency's own data, not a vendor estimate, goes to the budget office.
| Pitfall | How to avoid it |
|---|---|
| The expanding portal: two flows become "the rest of the site" | Flows named in the statement of work; a fixed unit price for each added flow |
| Microcopy becomes a content rewrite; handoff becomes front-end code | The boundary table copied into the statement of work |
| Endless review by committee | Two review cycles per artifact and one named approver |
| Compliance oversell | No claim that design makes a system 508 compliant or satisfies IDEA |
| Tool tenant, product owner or data not ready | Government-furnished items with schedule relief, dated at award |
| Research that outruns the PRA path | Staff walkthroughs only, unless a clearance path is agreed in writing |
Most federal interfaces that fail their users were not badly built. They were never designed, and every later fix pays for that in code, in testing findings and in help-desk contacts.
The natural first step is a fixed-fee design definition package: one named service, three named flows, about eight weeks and $52K in the illustration, ending in a prototype, a USWDS theme, an accessibility annotation layer and a handoff package the build team can price and build from. To discuss a service, contact Avalon Technology Services at contact@AvalonTechServices.com.
Accessibility annotation
Design-stage notes on focus order, headings, semantics, ARIA intent and error behavior that tell developers and testers what was intended.
Design definition package
A fixed-scope set of design artifacts for named flows, delivered before a build starts.
Design tokens
Named values for color, type and spacing that carry a visual theme into code.
Flow
The sequence of screens and states a user moves through to finish one task, including errors and empty results.
USWDS
U.S. Web Design System: the federal design system of components, tokens and patterns.
WCAG
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, published by the W3C; Section 508 incorporates version 2.0 Level AA.
All values are planning assumptions for one representative unclassified service. None is drawn from a specific agency, a real system or a completed engagement.
| Assumption | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | 3 named flows, 8 weeks | Planning assumption |
| Designer fixed effort | 80 hours | Planning assumption |
| Designer per flow | 62 hours | Planning assumption |
| Accessibility reviewer | 12 hours plus 8 per flow | Planning assumption |
| Project management | 4 hours a week | About 0.1 FTE |
| Rates | Designer and accessibility reviewer $120–$190, project manager $95–$200 an hour | Market-norm rate bands |
| Fixed fee | Midpoint of the rate-band range, $52K | Priced to the work; no floor at the market range |
| Failure demand | 20,000 a month, 10%, $12 a contact | Illustrative; agency supplies real values |
