ChatGPT answers, unedited

For a municipal project where you need both UX research and accessible UI design, I would not hire a pure visual design shop. I’d look for firms that can demonstrate:

• civic/public-sector experience
• participatory research with residents (including people with disabilities, older adults, limited English proficiency users)
• WCAG 2.2 / ADA-informed design practice
• service design and complex workflow experience
• ability to run usability testing and iterate with government stakeholders

A strong Chicago shortlist to invite for an RFP/RFQ:

My likely first-round RFP list would be:

1. Greater Good Studio — if the project is about residents, equity, trust, and public services.
2. Sandstorm Design — if this is primarily a municipal website/service portal redesign.
3. DataMade — if there is civic data, transparency, maps, dashboards, or government workflows.
4. Bold Insight — if you need defensible UX research findings and accessibility validation.
5. Grand Studio or Highland — if you need a product team that can carry research through design and implementation.

For a municipal procurement, I’d make the proposal require these deliverables:

• stakeholder and resident interviews
• accessibility audit of current experience
• usability testing with disabled users
• multilingual research plan
• journey maps/service blueprints
• information architecture
• wireframes and accessible design system
• WCAG 2.2 AA compliance review
• prototype testing before build
• developer handoff documentation

A civic user research RFP should explicitly ask vendors how they will include accessibility and iterative user testing rather than treating accessibility as a final compliance check. digitalgovernmenthub.org

One additional question would change the shortlist: is this for a municipal website, a resident service portal (permits/payments/benefits), an internal government system, or a public-facing app? The right agency profile differs quite a bit.

• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Highland - 125 S Clark St Ste 670, Chicago, IL 60603, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• IA Collaborative - 218 S Wabash Ave 9th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• Interactive Design - 900 N Franklin St #304, Chicago, IL 60610, United States
• The Office of Experience, LLC - 980 N Michigan Ave Ste 1090, Chicago, IL 60611, United States
• SMARTGOV LLC - 205 N Michigan Ave Suit 810, Chicago, IL 60601, United States
• Highland - 141 W Jackson Blvd, Ste 2200, Chicago, IL 60604
• 606 Digital, Inc. - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Intechnic Corporation - 20 N Wacker Dr Ste 1200, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• CSG Government Solutions Inc. - 180 N Stetson Ave #3200, Chicago, IL 60601, United States

Yes. For a municipal project, I’d weight civic/public-sector experience, participatory research, accessibility expertise, and the ability to turn research into a production-ready design system—not just generic “UX/UI.”

My Chicago shortlist

1. Greater Good Studio — strongest research/community-design candidate

• Chicago-based and explicitly focused on social-sector work.
• Experience with government agencies, public policy, community engagement, equity, participatory research, and co-design.
• I’d definitely put them on the RFP list if the project involves residents with varied abilities, languages, socioeconomic circumstances, or levels of digital literacy.
• Sandstorm Design — strongest all-around UX + accessibility candidate

• Chicago agency with a substantial UX research practice and explicit accessibility credentials.
• They report 5,000+ hours of UX research/usability work and list IAAP CPACC credentials among their qualifications. Sandstorm Design
• Good candidate if you need research → IA → UI → implementation rather than a research-only shop.
• Highland — strong product/UX engineering option

• Chicago-based and offers UX research, usability testing, service/experience mapping, prototyping and product design.
• Their research practice specifically discusses accessibility and usability as inputs to product decisions. Highland Solutions
• I'd favor them if the agency needs to work closely with your technical team and produce something implementable.
• Grand Studio — strong service-design option

• Particularly interesting for a municipal service where the problem isn't merely “redesign this website.”
• Their positioning combines qualitative research, service design, product strategy, and UX/UI.
• Dialogue Theory — worth an RFP

• Chicago studio focused on mission-driven organizations, civic agencies, and complex initiatives.
• Offers discovery/research, UX/UI, content strategy and implementation; accessibility is part of its stated positioning.
• Potentially a good fit for a smaller, hands-on engagement.
• IA Collaborative — premium/high-capability option

• Chicago human-centered design consultancy with substantial research, service/product design and organizational-change capabilities.
• I'd include them if this is a high-profile or unusually complex municipal service and budget isn't the primary constraint.

One specialist I'd consider separately

UX 4Sight is worth talking to if you want particularly rigorous usability research/testing. Their Chicago practice covers UX/UI, user research, usability testing and accessibility audits. I wouldn't automatically make them the lead agency, though; I'd want to see how deep their municipal/civic experience is before selecting them.

There's also CivicSitePro, a Chicago-area agency explicitly specializing in municipalities and accessibility. Its positioning is much more municipal-web-specific, including WCAG, screen-reader testing, keyboard accessibility, accessible PDFs and content-editor training. CivicSitePro CivicSitePro I'd consider them if this is primarily a municipal website rather than a broader digital service/product.

Who I'd actually invite

If I were running the procurement, I'd probably send the RFP to 5 firms:

• Greater Good Studio — community research/equity
• Sandstorm Design — accessibility + UX + implementation
• Highland — research + product design/engineering
• Grand Studio — service design + complex public-service problems
• Dialogue Theory — civic/mission-driven digital delivery

That gives you a useful spread rather than five agencies that all sell essentially the same thing.

Make accessibility a scored requirement

I would not phrase the RFP as “design an accessible UI.” Make accessibility part of the research and design methodology.

For example, require bidders to demonstrate:

• Research with people with disabilities, rather than accessibility being inferred from an audit.
• Moderated usability testing using assistive technology.
• Keyboard-only, screen-reader, zoom/reflow and cognitive-accessibility considerations.
• WCAG 2.2 AA expertise and documented manual testing.
• Accessible design-system components, not merely accessible individual screens.
• Research with multilingual/low-digital-literacy residents where relevant.
• Prototypes tested iteratively with actual residents.
• Accessibility acceptance criteria and test artifacts delivered alongside designs.
• Handoff specs that developers can actually implement and test.

A civic UX research playbook specifically recommends incorporating accessibility/equity into the RFP's goals and requiring user testing, test design, moderation, and iterative integration of public feedback. Digital Government Hub

One important procurement point: don't let firms satisfy the accessibility requirement by saying “we follow WCAG.” Ask for 2–3 concrete examples where they found accessibility/usability problems through testing with disabled users and subsequently changed the design.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (resident portal, permitting, 311, benefits, transportation, elections, public website, internal government system, etc.) and roughly your budget/contract size, I can narrow this to the 3 agencies I'd invite, with a suggested RFP evaluation scorecard.

I would not phrase the RFP as “design an accessible UI.” Make accessibility part of the research and design methodology.

For example, require bidders to demonstrate:

• Research with people with disabilities, rather than accessibility being inferred from an audit.
• Moderated usability testing using assistive technology.
• Keyboard-only, screen-reader, zoom/reflow and cognitive-accessibility considerations.
• WCAG 2.2 AA expertise and documented manual testing.
• Accessible design-system components, not merely accessible individual screens.
• Research with multilingual/low-digital-literacy residents where relevant.
• Prototypes tested iteratively with actual residents.
• Accessibility acceptance criteria and test artifacts delivered alongside designs.
• Handoff specs that developers can actually implement and test.

A civic UX research playbook specifically recommends incorporating accessibility/equity into the RFP's goals and requiring user testing, test design, moderation, and iterative integration of public feedback.

Yes. For a municipal project where the agency needs to do genuine UX research and produce an accessible UI, I’d issue an RFP to a fairly tight shortlist rather than hiring a generic web-design shop.

My Chicago shortlist

1. Grand Studio — strongest overall fit
   • Chicago-based product/service-design consultancy.
   • Particularly good match if the project involves complicated government workflows rather than simply redesigning a website.
   • Their model combines research, service design, product strategy and UX/UI.
   • I would definitely invite them to bid.

2. Fuzzy Math — strong UX specialist
   • Chicago UX strategy/design consultancy with explicit UX research, product design and DesignOps/ResearchOps capabilities.
   • I'd consider them especially if you already have engineering/content teams and primarily need research + interaction/UI design.
   • Definitely worth an RFP.

3. Dialogue Theory — interesting civic/mission-driven option
   • Chicago studio working with mission-driven organizations, including civic agencies.
   • Its positioning specifically includes UX/UI, digital strategy and accessibility/inclusive design.
   • Could be particularly attractive if community engagement and accessibility need to be integral to the process rather than a compliance exercise.

4. Highland — good larger-firm alternative
   • Chicago product-design/development firm with 25+ years of experience and 300+ products/services/businesses.
   • Its UX research practice includes interviews, observation, usability testing, journey/current-state mapping and validation, and explicitly discusses accessibility. www.highlandsolutions.comdigitalgovernmenthub.orgdesign.chicago.gov
   • I'd invite them if you want one firm capable of taking research through design and potentially implementation.

5. ArtVersion — worth a comparison bid
   • Chicago agency offering UX strategy, user research, usability testing and UI/experience design.
   • I'd put them behind the first four for a deeply civic project, but they could provide a useful price/approach comparison.

One important twist: don't make "accessibility" just a WCAG audit

For a municipal procurement, I'd make the RFP explicitly require accessible research, accessible design, and accessibility validation. A civic UX research playbook recommends incorporating accessibility/equity as a project goal and explicitly specifying user testing, test design and iterative design in the vendor scope. digitalgovernmenthub.org

I'd require the selected firm to demonstrate:

• Research with people with disabilities, not just accessibility experts.
• Screen-reader, keyboard, low-vision and cognitive-accessibility considerations.
• WCAG 2.2 AA expertise and testing.
• Accessible Figma/design-system components, not merely mockups.
• Usability testing with actual residents and municipal staff.
• Research recruitment across age, disability, language, digital-literacy and socioeconomic differences.
• Plain-language/content-design expertise.
• Usability testing after implementation, ideally with assistive technology.
• A documented accessibility/design system that your municipal team can maintain after the contract ends.
• Experience navigating government procurement, privacy, public records and security constraints.

I'd also ask every bidder for two comparable government/civic references and specifically ask: "Show us an accessibility problem your research uncovered that changed the design." That's much more revealing than asking whether they're "ADA compliant."

One particularly useful local benchmark

The City of Chicago's own digital work has included community usability testing, wireframes/prototypes and accessibility reviews, and there is published documentation of UX research and WCAG review around the City's design system. design.chicago.gov That makes Chicago civic-digital experience particularly relevant when evaluating portfolios.

I'd therefore structure the procurement roughly as:

Grand Studio → Fuzzy Math → Dialogue Theory → Highland → ArtVersion

and potentially add a specialist accessibility firm as a required subcontractor or independent QA reviewer, rather than letting the design agency mark its own accessibility homework.

If you tell me what the municipal product is (resident portal, permitting, benefits, 311, payments, internal staff system, website, etc.) and roughly the budget range, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and give you a procurement-ready scope/evaluation matrix.

Yes. For a municipal project where the same partner needs to do credible user research and then turn that research into accessible UI, I’d put together a shortlist rather than issuing an RFP to generic web agencies.

My Chicago shortlist

1. Mightybytes — strongest overall fit
   • Chicago-based, mission-driven digital agency.
   • Explicitly says its deliverables meet WCAG 2.2 AA by default. www.mightybytes.com
   • Good candidate if you want research → UX/UI → implementation rather than an accessibility audit bolted onto the end.
   • I would definitely invite them to bid.

2. Clique Studios — strong full-service option
   • Chicago-based and combines UX research, information architecture, UI, usability testing and accessibility design.
   • Their local-business profile also shows experience across civic/utility and nonprofit work.
   • Better fit if the project has substantial design/development complexity.

3. UX 4Sight — research/UX specialist
   • Chicago UX/UI consultancy with explicit UX audits covering usability, accessibility, visual design and end-to-end experience.
   • I'd consider them particularly if your project needs a rigorous research/discovery phase before committing to a larger implementation team. agency.uxplanet.org

4. DataMade — interesting civic-tech contender
   • Chicago civic-tech company with roots in open government.
   • Works with governments/public agencies and focuses on information design and UX for complicated public information.
   • I'd invite them if the project involves open data, civic information, public records, mapping, 311, or other government-specific workflows.

5. MUSE Community + Design — add if community engagement is a major part
   • Chicago-based public engagement/planning practice.
   • Their Chicago work includes extensive community engagement, bilingual outreach and equity-oriented processes.
   • I wouldn't make them the sole UI vendor, but they could be a valuable research/engagement partner.

One non-Chicago specialist I'd seriously consider

AUX Consulting is worth looking at even though it isn't a Chicago agency. They specifically combine accessibility/usability testing with UX research involving blind and low-vision users, including a database of accessibility-focused testers. auxconsulting.org

For a municipal project, that kind of actual disability-inclusive research is considerably more compelling to me than an agency merely saying "ADA compliant."

How I'd structure the RFP

I'd avoid asking simply for "website redesign + WCAG compliance." Instead, make the procurement explicitly research-led:

Phase 1 — Civic user research

• Stakeholder interviews
• Resident interviews
• Contextual inquiry / field research where appropriate
• Accessibility-focused research with people using assistive technology
• Research across relevant demographic, language and ability groups
• Current-state journey mapping
• Usability testing of existing workflows
• Synthesis into prioritized findings

Phase 2 — Service/UX design

• Information architecture
• User journeys
• Service blueprints where useful
• Wireframes
• Interactive prototypes
• Content/design recommendations
• Design-system/component recommendations

Phase 3 — Accessible UI

• High-fidelity UI
• Responsive/mobile designs
• Keyboard and focus behavior
• Screen-reader considerations
• Color/contrast and typography
• Error states, forms, validation and other states
• Accessible design-system components

Phase 4 — Validation

• Moderated usability testing
• Accessibility testing with disabled users
• Manual WCAG testing
• Iteration based on findings
• Accessibility acceptance criteria before handoff

That's consistent with civic UX procurement guidance: the U.S. Digital Response/Digital Government Hub guidance specifically recommends putting user testing, test design, moderation and iterative design into the RFP rather than treating research as a separate afterthought. digitalgovernmenthub.org

One important requirement I'd put in bold

Accessibility must be demonstrated through research and testing with people with disabilities, not solely through automated accessibility scanning or a consultant's WCAG checklist.

I'd also specify the target standard—I'd lean toward WCAG 2.2 AA for a new project—and require the vendor to identify exactly which criteria they're responsible for validating.

My proposed bid list

If I were running the procurement, I'd probably invite 5–6 firms:

The key is that I wouldn't choose solely on the prettiest portfolio. For this project, I'd score the proposals heavily on research methodology, disability-inclusive recruitment, accessibility expertise, public-sector experience, and who will actually be assigned to the project. A recent Chicago UX market review makes essentially the same point: evidence of research quality and accessibility process matters more than visual portfolio work alone. agency.uxplanet.org

If you tell me what the municipal product is (website, permitting, 311, benefits, inspections, payments, internal staff system, etc.) and roughly the project budget, I can narrow this to 3 firms I'd actually invite and give you a procurement-ready evaluation matrix.

Yes. For a municipal UX research + accessible UI engagement, I’d avoid treating this as a generic “web design” RFP. You want a firm that can do resident research, service/interaction design, accessibility, prototyping, usability testing, and design-system-ready UI—ideally with public-sector experience.

My Chicago shortlist

The firms above aren't interchangeable. For a municipal project, I'd particularly prioritize Greater Good Studio, Sandstorm, DataMade, Dialogue Theory, and Highland rather than simply picking the firm with the prettiest UI portfolio.

There is also a useful signal from Chicago itself: the City's Digital Services team explicitly uses user-centered research and accessibility in its work, and the Chicago Design System is built around accessible, reusable UI patterns. design.chicago.gov That makes it worth requiring bidders to explain how their work will integrate with—or deliberately depart from—your existing municipal design system and accessibility standards.

One non-Chicago firm I'd consider

Bold Insight in the Chicago area is particularly interesting if the research component is substantial. They explicitly work with government agencies, conduct usability/human-factors research, and describe accessibility/inclusive research practices including participants with disabilities, older adults and non-English speakers. boldinsight.com

That could make them a good research-heavy bidder or research subcontractor, paired with a UI/design firm if necessary.

What I'd put in the RFP

I would structure the procurement around five phases:

1. Discovery & research
   • stakeholder interviews
   • resident/community research
   • accessibility-focused research with people with disabilities
   • multilingual/cross-cultural considerations
   • current-state UX/service audit

2. Synthesis & service design
   • journeys and service blueprints
   • personas or audience models where justified
   • information architecture
   • prioritized pain points and opportunities

3. UI/interaction design
   • accessible interaction patterns
   • responsive designs
   • prototypes
   • reusable components/design system
   • developer-ready Figma/specification artifacts

4. Validation
   • moderated usability testing
   • testing with disabled users
   • iterative design
   • accessibility testing—not merely an automated scanner

5. Handoff
   • design-system documentation
   • accessibility acceptance criteria
   • developer collaboration
   • implementation QA
   • training municipal staff

A civic-user-research procurement playbook specifically recommends putting user testing, test design, iterative design, accessibility/equity goals, and measurable performance metrics directly into the RFP rather than leaving them implicit. digitalgovernmenthub.org

The questions I'd use to separate the good proposals from the generic agencies

Ask each bidder:

• Show us one municipal/public-service project where research materially changed the design.
• Show us actual accessibility work—not just a claim that you “follow WCAG.”
• How do you recruit and compensate residents with disabilities for research?
• How do you test with screen readers, keyboard-only users, low-vision users, cognitive disabilities, and mobile users?
• Who performs the accessibility testing, and what credentials/experience do they have?
• What does your research deliver before UI design begins?
• How many research participants would you recommend, and why?
• How do you handle residents who speak languages other than English?
• How do you reconcile resident needs with statutory, policy, procurement, and legacy-system constraints?
• Show us a component/design system you've handed to developers.
• Who specifically will be on our project team? Don't accept the agency's sales team as the answer.
• What happens after the first round of usability testing?
• How do you measure whether the redesigned service actually works better?

I'd also require a named senior researcher, senior product/UI designer, and accessibility specialist in the proposal, with the right to approve substitutions.

My suggested procurement strategy

I would probably send an RFQ/RFP to 5–7 firms, with these five as the initial invite list:

1. Sandstorm Design — best overall fit
2. Greater Good Studio — strongest research/community angle
3. DataMade — strongest civic-tech angle
4. Dialogue Theory — strong integrated design/development option
5. Highland — strong if this is a technically complex product

Then add UX 4Sight and Bold Insight if you want to deliberately increase competition on the research/accessibility side.

One other option is to split research from design. For a politically or operationally sensitive municipal service, I actually like this model: an independent research specialist conducts the discovery and usability work, while a design agency turns validated findings into the UI. It reduces the risk of an agency's research being unconsciously shaped toward the solution it already wants to sell.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (e.g. permitting, benefits, 311, public meetings, payments, licensing, inspections, transportation) and roughly the budget range, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and compare their relevant casework, accessibility capabilities, public-sector experience, and likely procurement fit.

Yes. For a municipal project where the agency must do real user research and produce accessible UI, I would not hire a generic Chicago web/branding shop. I’d put a short list of civic/public-sector UX specialists through an RFP.

My Chicago shortlist

1. Greater Good Studio — my first call for research + community-centered design
   • Chicago-based, with a strong social-sector focus.
   • Their work centers on human-centered design, community engagement, equity, and co-design with residents.
   • Particularly attractive if the project involves underserved populations, public benefits, civic participation, or complicated community needs.
   • They are also a City of Chicago-certified WBE.

Best fit: deep qualitative research, participatory design, service design.

2. IA Collaborative — best high-end UX/research/design option
   • Chicago-based human-centered design consultancy.
   • Strong capabilities in behavioral research, journey mapping, experience/product design, prototyping and validation.
   • I'd consider them if the project is strategically important or involves a complicated service rather than simply redesigning a website.

Best fit: sophisticated research → strategy → product/UI design.

3. Promet Source — best accessibility + municipal implementation option
   • Chicago-headquartered and explicitly focused on public-sector and higher-ed work.
   • Their services include UX/UI, digital strategy, accessibility/ADA compliance, and WCAG/Section 508 work; they cite government projects including the City of Rochester and GAO. www.prometsource.com
   • This is probably the strongest candidate if you need the same partner to take research/design into actual implementation.

Best fit: municipal website/service + accessibility + development.

4. Fuzzy Math — good specialist UX contender
   • Chicago UX strategy/design consultancy rather than a general marketing agency.
   • Worth an RFP invitation if you want a strong product/interaction-design team and already have development handled elsewhere.

Best fit: UX research, information architecture, interaction/UI design.

5. DataMade — very interesting civic-tech option
   • Chicago firm with deep roots in civic technology and open government.
   • Particularly interesting for data-heavy municipal products, public information tools, maps, transparency platforms, etc.

Best fit: civic tech + data/information UX.

6. MUSE Community + Design — worth considering for resident/community engagement
   • Their Chicago work includes city planning and bilingual community engagement.
   • Less of a conventional UI-production agency, so I'd consider them as either the prime research/design partner or a research/community-engagement subcontractor.

One important distinction

I'd separate "accessible UI" from "accessibility compliance." Your RFP should require both.

The City of Chicago itself targets WCAG 2.0 AA in its Design System, and its design system provides patterns and methods specifically intended to create accessible resident-facing services. design.chicago.gov

But the current federal Title II rule uses WCAG 2.1 Level AA. The April 2026 extension gives municipalities with 50,000+ population until April 26, 2027, and smaller municipalities/special districts until April 26, 2028. www.ada.gov

So I'd make WCAG 2.1 AA the contractual target, not merely "ADA compliant."

What I'd put in the RFP

Don't ask vendors simply to "conduct UX research and design an accessible website." That's too easy to answer with a few interviews and pretty Figma screens.

Require:

• Discovery/research
  • stakeholder interviews
  • resident interviews
  • contextual inquiry where appropriate
  • accessibility-focused research with people with disabilities
  • multilingual/cultural considerations
  • current-state journey mapping
  • analysis of existing analytics/service data

• Usability testing
  • moderated testing with actual residents
  • testing across relevant demographic groups
  • keyboard-only testing
  • screen-reader testing
  • mobile testing
  • iterative testing after design changes

• UX/UI
  • information architecture
  • service/user journeys
  • wireframes
  • interactive prototypes
  • high-fidelity UI
  • responsive/mobile design
  • design-system components
  • content/interaction guidance

• Accessibility
  • WCAG 2.1 AA acceptance criteria
  • manual accessibility testing, not just automated scanning
  • assistive-technology testing
  • documented accessibility findings/remediation
  • final accessibility/conformance report
  • accessible design files and developer specifications

• Handoff
  • Figma/design-system assets
  • component specifications
  • accessibility annotations
  • usability findings and research repository
  • training for municipal staff
  • support during implementation and post-launch validation

There's actually good civic-specific RFP guidance recommending that municipalities explicitly require user testing, test design, moderation, iterative design, and integration of public feedback, rather than leaving "UX research" vague. digitalgovernmenthub.org

If I were running the procurement

I'd invite 5 firms, roughly:

My top three to actually solicit: Greater Good Studio, Promet Source, and IA Collaborative. I'd add Fuzzy Math and DataMade to make the competition more interesting.

If the project is primarily a resident-facing digital service rather than a website, I'd weight Greater Good/IA much more heavily. If it's a municipal website or portal that has to be built and maintained, I'd move Promet to #1.

And I would make vendors show you two things in their proposal: (1) a comparable municipal/public-sector case study and (2) an example of an accessibility-tested interface they actually designed, rather than accepting generic claims of "ADA compliance."

For a municipal project, I would prioritize firms that can do more than visual UI: you want public-sector UX research, community engagement, accessibility testing (WCAG/Section 508/ADA), inclusive design, and a design system mindset. Chicago has a strong civic-design ecosystem—the City of Chicago itself uses human-centered design methods and has emphasized accessibility in digital services. design.chicago.gov

I would put these firms on an RFP/proposal shortlist:

A couple of research-heavy options worth considering:

• NORC at the University of Chicago — especially if you need rigorous resident research, surveys, demographic analysis, or community-based research alongside design. www.norc.org
• Bold Insight — strong if you need formal usability studies, accessibility-focused research, and human factors expertise; they have a Chicago presence and government experience. boldinsight.com

My recommended RFP invite list

If this were my municipal procurement, I would probably invite 6–8 firms:

1. Dialogue Theory
2. Fuzzy Math
3. Highland
4. Sandstorm Design
5. Bold Insight
6. NORC
7. Grand Studio
8. IDEO Chicago (if budget allows)

What I would require in the proposal

Ask vendors to include:

• Research plan
  • resident interviews
  • stakeholder interviews
  • contextual inquiry
  • usability testing with residents with disabilities
  • multilingual/community outreach approach

• Accessibility credentials
  • WCAG 2.2 AA approach
  • screen reader testing
  • keyboard-only testing
  • cognitive accessibility considerations
  • testing with disabled users (not only automated scans)

• Municipal experience
  • examples of government, transit, utilities, libraries, public health, housing, permitting, or 311-type projects

• Deliverables
  • personas (if appropriate)
  • journey maps
  • service blueprints
  • information architecture
  • wireframes
  • accessible UI designs
  • design system components
  • accessibility acceptance criteria

One additional thought: if this is a Chicago-area municipality rather than the City of Chicago itself, I would also look at the accessibility practices coming out of Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning because their accessibility work is specifically oriented toward municipalities and ADA implementation. cmap.illinois.gov

If you share the type of municipal product (website redesign, permitting portal, 311/service portal, mobile app, internal staff system, etc.) and approximate budget range, I can narrow this to a tighter 3–5 vendor shortlist.

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research + accessible UI are both core requirements, I’d run a fairly targeted Chicago RFP rather than send it to generic web agencies.

My shortlist

A current Chicago UX-agency review also identifies Fuzzy Math, Sandstorm, UX 4Sight and others as significant local UX firms, with accessibility and research specifically called out as selection criteria. agency.uxplanet.org

Two I'd put at the top

1. Sandstorm Design — probably my first call. Their Chicago operation specifically emphasizes UX research/strategy, usability testing, inclusive design and accessibility, including accessibility audits, remediation support and training.

2. DataMade — particularly compelling if this is genuinely a civic/public-interest digital service, rather than simply a municipal website. Their work is oriented toward governments/public agencies and making complex information understandable.

I'd add Greater Good Studio if the research needs to involve residents, underserved communities, participatory design, or equity considerations.

One important procurement point

I'd make accessibility a deliverable throughout the project, not an accessibility audit at the end.

Chicago's own Design System uses WCAG Level AA as its target and explicitly frames accessibility as part of designing digital services for residents. design.chicago.gov

For the RFP, I'd require vendors to demonstrate:

• Resident research: interviews, contextual inquiry, usability testing, and recruitment of people with disabilities.
• Inclusive research: multilingual/multicultural recruitment where relevant, plus accommodations for participants.
• Accessible design: WCAG 2.2 AA as the design target, with accessibility considered in research, IA, interaction design and prototyping—not merely QA.
• Assistive-technology testing: keyboard-only, screen readers, zoom/reflow, contrast, focus states, forms, error handling, etc.
• Design system: accessible components and documented interaction patterns that your municipal development team can actually implement.
• Validation: usability testing of accessible prototypes before development.
• Handoff: Figma/design specs, component documentation, accessibility annotations, and developer guidance.
• Post-launch QA: preferably testing against the actual implemented service.

I'd also ask every bidder for 2–3 relevant case studies, specifically showing what they learned from users, what changed because of the research, how accessibility was tested, and what happened after launch. Don't accept a portfolio that only demonstrates attractive screens.

One more vendor worth considering

If the project is heavily weighted toward public-sector technology implementation, I'd invite Promet Source. They specifically describe public-sector work, government/higher-ed accessibility, WCAG/Section 508, UX/UI and ongoing support, and they accept RFP submissions. www.prometsource.com

And if you want a research-only firm to independently establish the evidence before a design agency takes over, Centralis in nearby Evanston is an interesting option: its specialization is UX research, usability testing and UX evaluation rather than primarily visual design.

If I were issuing the RFP, I'd invite 5: Sandstorm, DataMade, Greater Good Studio, Dialogue Theory, and Promet Source. That gives you a useful spread of UX/inclusive design, civic expertise, participatory research, and government implementation rather than five agencies that all sell essentially the same thing.

Yes. For a municipal project, I would not treat this as a generic “web design agency” search. You want a firm that can do resident research → accessibility/inclusive research → service/UX design → accessible UI/design system → validation, ideally with public-sector experience.

My Chicago shortlist

I'd probably send the first round to Greater Good, Sandstorm, Highland and DataMade, then add UX 4Sight or Clique if you want 5–6 proposals.

One important benchmark

If this is actually for the City of Chicago or a Chicago municipal entity, I'd explicitly tell bidders that you expect them to work against the Chicago Design System, rather than inventing an unrelated design language. The city's system is specifically intended to produce consistent, useful and accessible services, and the City's Design Office already uses human-centered research and accessibility practices. design.chicago.gov

The City's own prior RULA work is also unusually useful as an RFP benchmark: it calls for designing with users, accessibility testing with community members with disabilities, and incorporating usability/accessibility into the development lifecycle rather than treating accessibility as a final audit. design.chicago.gov

What I'd put in the RFP

I'd make bidders respond to these specific deliverables:

1. Discovery & research
   • Stakeholder interviews
   • Resident interviews
   • Field/contextual research
   • Journey/service mapping
   • Research with people with disabilities
   • Research across relevant language communities
   • Recruitment and participant compensation plan

2. Accessibility
   • WCAG 2.2 AA target
   • Keyboard, screen-reader and mobile accessibility
   • Testing with actual disabled users—not just automated scanners
   • Accessible content and interaction patterns
   • Accessibility acceptance criteria for the eventual build

3. UX/UI
   • Information architecture
   • User flows
   • Wireframes
   • Interactive prototypes
   • High-fidelity accessible UI
   • Design-system components/tokens
   • Responsive/mobile designs

4. Validation
   • Usability testing against prototypes
   • Accessibility testing
   • Iteration based on findings
   • Final design QA/specifications for engineering

5. Municipal capability
   • Three comparable government/civic projects
   • Actual researchers/designers proposed for the engagement
   • Experience navigating public-sector procurement
   • Approach to FOIA/public-record considerations where applicable
   • Approach to resident privacy and research ethics

I'd also require the proposal to separate “accessibility compliance” from “accessible UX.” A firm that promises an automated WCAG scan and a compliance report is not necessarily capable of designing a service that a blind resident, screen-reader user, person with cognitive disabilities, older resident, or limited-English-proficiency resident can actually use.

One other firm worth considering for a specialized accessibility subcontract is Aspiritech; it specifically works with municipal governments on accessibility audits, assistive-technology testing, remediation roadmaps and procurement/vendor evaluation. aspiritech.org

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (311/service portal, permitting, payments, public benefits, transportation, parks, internal government system, etc.) and roughly your budget, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms I'd actually invite and give you a scoring matrix for the RFP.

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research and accessible UI are equally important, I’d put out an RFP to a fairly tight Chicago shortlist rather than hiring a generic web agency.

My first calls

1. Clique Studios — Strong all-around candidate. They explicitly offer UX research/user interviews, information architecture, usability testing, accessibility design, and UX/UI, with a Chicago office. Good choice if you need research → design → implementation under one roof.

2. Sandstorm Design — Particularly interesting for a public-sector project because their positioning combines UX research, inclusive design, accessibility, and complex/mission-driven organizations. I'd definitely request an RFP response from them.

3. DataMade — I'd strongly consider this one if the project involves civic technology, public data, complicated information, or government workflows. They're Chicago-based and have a long civic-tech orientation, working with governments and public agencies. Their strength is the intersection of information design, UX and technology.

4. Dialogue Theory — Worth an RFP if you want a smaller, hands-on Chicago studio. They work with civic/mission-driven organizations and cover research, UX/UI, content and implementation, with accessibility called out in their work.

5. Greater Good Studio — I'd include them if community engagement and participatory research are major parts of the assignment. They're particularly oriented toward government/social-sector work and co-design rather than simply designing an interface after requirements are handed over.

6. Grand Studio — A good candidate for a more strategic UX engagement: qualitative research, service design, product strategy and UX/UI. I'd shortlist them if the problem is still somewhat ambiguous and you need the agency to help determine what should actually be built.

One specialist I'd add to the team

Access Living is not the agency I'd hire to own the entire UX/UI project, but I'd seriously consider bringing them in as an accessibility research/testing partner or requiring the prime contractor to team with an organization of this caliber. Access Living conducts accessibility testing using automated tools plus manual evaluation, including testing against WCAG 2.2 AA, and has DHS Trusted Tester expertise. www.accessliving.org

That's important because I'd avoid an RFP where "accessible" merely means the designer promises WCAG compliance. You want people with disabilities participating in research and usability testing, followed by expert/manual accessibility evaluation.

Also worth requesting a proposal

• UX 4Sight — research-heavy UX/UI and usability testing; potentially a good fit if the work is primarily digital product UX rather than a huge service-transformation engagement.
• Firebelly Design — interesting if the project also needs strong content/brand/information architecture. They list accessibility, UX strategy and work with the City of Chicago among their capabilities/clients.
• Rightpoint — consider if this is a large enterprise-scale municipal transformation requiring substantial technology implementation in addition to design.

A particularly relevant benchmark

I'd also have the bidders look closely at the City of Chicago Design System. Chicago's own Design Office uses human-centered design, resident research and accessibility as core practices, and the city's design system targets WCAG Level AA. www.accessliving.orgdesign.chicago.gov

There's also a useful precedent in Astriata's work for CMAP: that project combined user research/usability testing, information architecture, accessible responsive design and government audiences, and specifically reports WCAG-compliant implementation. astriata.com

If I were issuing the RFP

I'd invite 5–6 firms, probably:

I would make actual accessibility/user research methodology a scored procurement criterion, not a checkbox. Require bidders to explain how they'll recruit disabled residents, conduct assistive-technology testing, handle multilingual/low-literacy users, document WCAG 2.2 AA findings, and translate research findings into Figma/components/design-system decisions.

If you tell me what kind of municipal project this is (resident portal, permitting, benefits, 311, public meetings, transportation, etc.), approximate budget, and whether you need design-only or design + development, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms I'd actually invite and give you a procurement-ready evaluation matrix.

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research + accessible UI are both core deliverables, I’d run a competitive shortlist rather than hire a generic web agency. Chicago has a particularly useful benchmark: the City’s own Design Office emphasizes human-centered research, resident engagement, and accessibility, and its Chicago Design System is explicitly intended to produce accessible digital services. design.chicago.govdesign.chicago.gov

My shortlist

1. DataMade — strongest civic/public-interest fit
   • Chicago-based.
   • Particularly interesting for resident-facing government services, information architecture, complex data, and digital “front doors.”
   • Their work appears well aligned with municipal constraints: accessibility, clarity, stakeholder alignment, and long-term maintainability.
   • I'd definitely invite them to bid.

2. Firebelly Design — strong research + design candidate
   • Chicago studio with experience spanning research, stakeholder interviews, co-creation, usability testing, UX strategy, accessibility, and web implementation.
   • Their publicly listed work includes the City of Chicago and other civic/nonprofit institutions.
   • Particularly worth considering if you need a team that can turn research into a polished UI rather than stopping at a research report.

3. Greater Good Studio — strongest participatory/community-design option
   • Chicago-based strategic design firm focused on the social sector.
   • Their approach emphasizes participatory, equity-centered research and co-design with communities.
   • I'd put them high on the list if the project involves underserved residents, complicated service journeys, or substantial community engagement.

4. Dialogue Theory — interesting civic digital specialist
   • Chicago digital design/development studio that works with mission-driven organizations and civic agencies.
   • Covers discovery/research, UX/UI, content strategy, implementation, and accessibility.
   • Good candidate if you want one relatively integrated team from research through build.

5. MUSE Community + Design — add if community engagement is substantial
   • Their Chicago work includes the City's We Will Chicago planning process, bilingual engagement, community partners, and accessibility-oriented public engagement.
   • They're less of a conventional UI/product agency, so I'd consider them either as a bidder for the research/community-design portion or as a potential partner to a UI agency.

6. UX 4Sight / **EVE — specialist UX alternatives
   • Both are Chicago UX-focused firms.
   • I'd consider them if your internal team/developer already handles implementation and you primarily need research, UX architecture, usability testing, and UI design.

One non-Chicago option I'd seriously consider

Bold Insight has a Chicago office and unusually explicit government/human-factors credentials. Its government practice combines user research, human factors, accessibility, usability testing, and work with federal agencies. It also says its research accommodates people with disabilities, older adults, veterans, and non-English speakers. boldinsight.com

That makes it an especially good research/accessibility benchmark for your RFP, even if you ultimately prefer a smaller Chicago design studio.

If I were issuing the RFP

I'd probably invite 5 firms:

I'd not make “WCAG compliance” the whole accessibility requirement. The City of Chicago itself has noted that accessibility testing should involve actual community members with disabilities and that automated testing isn't a substitute for contextual testing. design.chicago.gov

For the RFP, I'd require vendors to demonstrate:

• moderated research with actual Chicago residents, including disabled users
• recruitment and compensation methodology for research participants
• testing with screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, zoom/reflow, low vision, etc.
• WCAG 2.2 AA as the target, while documenting any applicable municipal/state/federal requirements
• accessible Figma/design-system components, not just an accessibility audit at the end
• usability testing of prototypes before development
• plain-language and multilingual considerations where relevant
• a design system that can be maintained by your municipal team
• accessibility acceptance criteria for developers
• a post-launch accessibility/usability validation
• transfer of research artifacts, Figma files, design tokens/components, and documentation to the municipality

I'd also explicitly tell bidders that accessibility is a design/research requirement, not a compliance workstream bolted onto the end. That's consistent with Chicago's own design philosophy. design.chicago.gov

If this is for the City of Chicago itself, rather than another municipality in the Chicago area, I'd also use the City's existing Design Office/Chicago Design System as a constraint and reference point rather than asking an outside agency to invent a parallel design language. The City says its Design Office already supports UX projects across city government and has worked on 311 and other major digital services. design.chicago.gov

If you give me the type of municipal service (e.g. permitting, benefits, 311, public safety, transportation, elections, housing) and rough budget ($100k / $250k / $500k+), I can narrow this to 3–5 agencies and compare their relevant municipal case studies, accessibility credentials, likely fit, and procurement considerations.

Yes. For a municipal project, I’d prioritize firms that can demonstrate three things together: public-sector/community research, accessibility expertise, and actual UI/design-system delivery. I would not hire a generic “web agency” just because it says it does UX.

My Chicago shortlist

I'd also request a proposal from Intechnic Corporation if the interface is technically complex, although its publicly visible portfolio leans more toward commercial/healthcare work than municipal service delivery.

One specialist I'd seriously consider

Bold Insight is particularly interesting if the research component is substantial. It has a Chicago Loop research facility, specializes in UX/human-factors research, explicitly works with government, and says its government research incorporates accessibility and WCAG/Section 508 considerations. boldinsight.com

The catch: I'd use Bold Insight primarily for the research, potentially paired with a UI/design firm, rather than assuming they're your best end-to-end municipal design agency.

Bold Insight

An important benchmark: Chicago itself

If this is actually for the City of Chicago, I'd make the City's own Design Office/Design System the baseline your vendors must work against.

Chicago's Design Office explicitly uses human-centered design and resident research, and its Design System is intended to produce accessible digital services. The City currently describes WCAG 2.0 AA as its accessibility target. design.chicago.gov

That means your RFP shouldn't simply say “make it accessible.” I'd require vendors to demonstrate how they will:

• conduct research with people with disabilities, not merely accessibility-test afterward;
• recruit representative Chicago residents, including older adults and people with different disabilities;
• conduct moderated usability testing on prototypes;
• include screen-reader/keyboard/mobile accessibility testing;
• design to WCAG 2.2 AA where feasible, while meeting whatever legal/municipal standard governs the project;
• produce an accessible component/design system in Figma and code;
• test content, forms, error states, authentication, PDFs/documents, and complex workflows—not just pages;
• document accessibility acceptance criteria and remediation;
• compensate community participants appropriately;
• provide research recordings/data and an actionable findings repository;
• transfer the research/design system to your internal team.

Chicago's own prior UX work makes an especially good argument for this approach: the City's design guidance says accessibility testing should involve community members and that accessibility should be part of the software development lifecycle rather than an end-of-project correction. design.chicago.gov

If I were issuing the RFP

I'd probably invite 5–6 firms, with this mix:

1. Greater Good Studio — community research/co-design
2. Mightybytes — accessibility + digital product delivery
3. UX 4Sight — independent UX/research/UI contender
4. Clique Studios — end-to-end alternative
5. Bold Insight — research-heavy specialist
6. MUSE Community + Design — community-engagement alternative

That gives you a useful spread rather than six firms that all sell essentially the same service.

My first three calls would be Greater Good Studio, Mightybytes, and Bold Insight—but for different reasons. If the project is primarily a resident-facing digital service, I'd lean toward Mightybytes or Greater Good; if the research is unusually difficult or politically/operationally sensitive, I'd seriously consider separating research from implementation and bringing in Bold Insight.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (website, permitting, benefits, 311/service requests, inspections, public meetings, internal government system, etc.) and approximate budget, I can narrow this to 3 firms and give you a vendor-by-vendor RFP scorecard.

Yes. For a Chicago municipal project that combines resident UX research + accessible UI, I’d avoid hiring a generic web/branding agency. You want a team that can demonstrate public-sector research, participatory/community engagement, accessibility testing with disabled users, and production-ready design systems.

My shortlist

A couple deserve particular attention:

Greater Good Studio is probably the first firm I'd interview if the project has a substantial resident-engagement/equity/community-research component. Its positioning is explicitly around human-centered design, community engagement and government/social-sector work, and the Chicago business listing identifies it as a City of Chicago WBE.

Sandstorm is probably the best fit if you want one firm to carry the work from research → UX strategy → UI → accessibility → implementation support. Its stated accessibility work includes audits, remediation and training, alongside UX research and inclusive design.

Firebelly is unusually relevant for a Chicago municipal procurement because its publicly listed work includes the City of Chicago, as well as other civic/mission-oriented organizations, and its capabilities span research, usability testing, UX strategy, accessibility and development.

One important procurement point

I'd make accessibility a scored qualification, not just a compliance checkbox.

Chicago's own Design System targets WCAG Level AA and explicitly frames accessibility as something to build into the design process, not simply inspect at the end. design.chicago.govdesign.chicago.gov The City's own guidance also specifically recommends testing with community members—including people with disabilities—because automated accessibility tools aren't sufficient. design.chicago.gov

So in the RFP, I'd require bidders to show:

1. 3 comparable public-sector/civic projects
2. Actual UX research with residents, not just stakeholder interviews
3. Recruitment/testing of people with disabilities
4. WCAG 2.2 AA capability (and awareness of applicable ADA Title II requirements)
5. Screen-reader + keyboard + zoom/reflow + contrast testing
6. Research across language, age, digital literacy and disability
7. Accessible Figma/design-system components and implementation specifications
8. A process for continuous accessibility testing after launch
9. Evidence that the named people on the proposal actually did the cited work
10. Experience working within government procurement, security, legal and content constraints

I'd also ask them to produce a small prototype during finalist presentations rather than selecting based on a slide deck.

If I were issuing the RFP

I'd invite 5–6 firms, probably:

Greater Good Studio · Sandstorm Design · Firebelly · DataMade · Grand Studio · Clique Studios

Then I'd keep UX 4Sight or Highland as alternates depending on whether you want a smaller specialist or a larger implementation partner.

There is also a potentially useful seventh option: Bold Insight. It's headquartered in the Chicago area and explicitly markets government research, including accessibility/inclusive research with people with disabilities, older adults, veterans and non-English speakers. It may be particularly useful as a research/accessibility specialist paired with a UI agency, rather than as your sole design vendor. boldinsight.com

One other thing I'd do before procurement: use the Chicago Design System as a requirement/reference point, rather than letting every bidder invent their own accessibility/design-system approach. Chicago already has a municipal design system with UI patterns and design methods intended to produce accessible resident services. design.chicago.gov

If you tell me what municipal service you're redesigning, approximate budget, and whether the agency needs to actually build the UI or just deliver designs, I can narrow this to 3 firms and give you a procurement-ready scope of work + evaluation matrix.

Yes. For a municipal project where the hard requirements are genuine UX research + accessible UI, I’d avoid treating this as a generic “web design agency” search. You want a firm that can demonstrate public-sector/community research, inclusive design, accessibility testing, and production-ready UI.

My Chicago shortlist

Who I'd actually invite

If you only want 4–5 proposals, I'd make the pool:

1. Sandstorm Design — probably my first call. They specifically report 5,000+ hours of UX research/usability studies and accessibility credentials, including IAAP CPACC certification. www.sandstormdesign.com
2. Greater Good Studio — particularly compelling if the project involves residents, underserved populations, community engagement, or policy/service design. Greater Good Studio
3. Dialogue Theory — unusually good fit if you want one Chicago partner to carry research through design and implementation for a civic/mission-driven organization. Dialogue Theory
4. Highland — I'd invite them if this is more than a website redesign—for example, a resident-facing application, permitting system, benefits/service workflow, or other complicated digital service. Highland
5. Firebelly Design — especially worth considering because its publicly listed experience includes the City of Chicago and other civic/community organizations, alongside UX and accessibility work. Firebelly Design

I'd also consider IA Collaborative if the budget is substantial and you need organizational/service transformation rather than simply a new interface. IA Collaborative

One important wrinkle: Chicago already has a design language

I'd make the Chicago Design System a requirement/reference point in the RFP rather than letting each agency invent its own UI language. Chicago's system explicitly incorporates human-centered design methods and accessible UI patterns, with WCAG AA as its stated accessibility target. design.chicago.gov

So I'd ask proposers to show how they would extend or work within the Chicago Design System, rather than simply saying “our designs will be WCAG compliant.”

What I'd put in the RFP evaluation

I'd weight the proposals roughly:

• 25% — UX research methodology: resident interviews, contextual inquiry, usability testing, journey mapping, synthesis
• 20% — Accessibility/inclusive design: WCAG 2.2 AA, keyboard/screen-reader testing, accessible interaction patterns, testing with disabled users
• 20% — Relevant public-sector experience: municipal/state/federal services, not just corporate websites
• 15% — UI/design-system capability: Figma, component systems, responsive design, design-system integration
• 10% — Community engagement: multilingual research, representative recruitment, equitable participation
• 10% — Team/cost/delivery: named senior staff, timeline, fixed/estimated fees, knowledge transfer

I would require actual accessibility evidence, not a checkbox saying “ADA compliant.” Ask for an accessibility audit or testing report from a previous project, examples of accessible components, and the credentials of whoever will actually perform the accessibility work.

One other option is to separate the research from the UI work. NORC at the University of Chicago has a substantial design-research practice covering usability testing, UX interviews, journey mapping and applied social-science research. www.norc.org That could make sense if you want unusually rigorous resident research and then competitively procure the design/build separately.

And if this is genuinely an Illinois public-sector project, I'd at least have a conversation with Illinois Digital Service. They're an Illinois-based civic-tech nonprofit network offering UX research/design, service design and related expertise to state/local government, including pro bono work. illinoisdigitalservice.org

My ranking for your particular description: Sandstorm → Greater Good Studio → Dialogue Theory → Highland → Firebelly, with NORC as the research-specialist alternative.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (website, resident portal, permitting, benefits, 311, internal system, etc.), approximate budget, and whether you're subject to Chicago/Illinois procurement rules, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and give you a much more procurement-ready shortlist.