ChatGPT answers, unedited

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, 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
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Clique Studios - 20 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1075, Chicago, IL 60606
• VERSIONS - 10 S LaSalle St Ste 201, Chicago, IL 60603, United States
• Alpha Efficiency - Web Design Chicago Agency - 875 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Civic ArtWorks - 758 N Larrabee St, Ste 222, Chicago, IL 60654

I’d request proposals from these four:

• Sandstorm Design — Chicago UX, research, accessibility, and complex digital platforms. UX Planet
• DataMade — especially relevant if this is genuinely civic-tech/government work; they specialize in civic data and government-facing tools.
• Dialogue Theory — mission-driven/civic organizations, UX/UI, accessibility, and engineering.
• Greater Good Studio — strong fit if resident/community research and co-design are central.

Also consider UX 4Sight for a research-heavy UX engagement. Highland Solutions

For the RFP, require WCAG 2.2 accessibility expertise, research with people with disabilities, multilingual/community recruitment, usability testing, accessible design-system deliverables, and developer handoff/QA. Civic-user-research guidance specifically recommends embedding user testing and iterative design into the procurement scope. digitalgovernmenthub.org

• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Bold Insight (Chicago) - 125 S Wacker Dr Suite 3020, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, 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
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Solid Digital - 100 N LaSalle St #1400, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Centralis - 2822 Central St Ste 100, Evanston, IL 60201, United States
• IA Collaborative - 218 S Wabash Ave 9th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Design In Chicago - 159 N Sangamon St Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• EVE - User Experience Design Agency - 7135 N Merrimac Ave, Chicago, IL 60646, United States
• Situated Research - 5 S Washington St Ste 503, Naperville, IL 60566, United States
• Clique Studios - 20 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1075, Chicago, IL 60606

For a municipal project, I’d make the RFP broader than “website design.” You want a partner that can do resident research → service/UX design → accessible UI/design system → usability validation, with demonstrated experience involving people with disabilities and public-sector stakeholders.

Chicago firms I’d put on the RFP list

• Fuzzy Math — Chicago UX strategy, research, and design consultancy. Their research offering includes contextual inquiry, interviews, surveys, diary studies, usability testing, task analysis, and tree testing. This looks particularly relevant if your project involves complex municipal workflows rather than just a marketing site. UX Planet
• Sandstorm Design — Chicago digital/UX agency with a research-driven approach, including usability studies, prototype testing, information architecture, and accessibility-oriented work. They also emphasize work with purpose-driven organizations. UX Planet
• Bold Insight (Chicago) — Particularly interesting if research rigor and accessibility testing are major requirements. Its government practice explicitly describes accessible/inclusive research, WCAG/Section 508, research with people with disabilities, usability testing, journey mapping, and co-design. Bold Insight
• UX 4Sight — Chicago-based UX/UI research and design agency offering user research, usability testing, UX audits, wireframes, UI design, and design validation. Worth including if you want a relatively conventional UX/UI agency in the competition. UX4Sight
• Grand Studio — Chicago consultancy focused on human-centered research, UX/UI, product strategy, and service/operational design. This is worth considering if the project crosses digital interfaces and the underlying municipal service process.
• Dialogue Theory — Chicago studio with an explicit focus on mission-driven organizations and civic/advocacy work, alongside UX/UI, design systems, and inclusive design. I'd include them if community engagement and mission alignment are important.
• Mightybytes — A Chicago digital agency whose experience-design practice includes stakeholder research/testing, information architecture, participatory design, and accessibility. It explicitly says its deliverables are designed to comply with accessibility standards. Mightybytes
• Highland — Chicago product/service design firm offering UX research, usability testing, service mapping, prototyping, UI/UX, and accessibility-oriented research. Highland Solutions Highland Solutions
• NORC at the University of Chicago — I'd consider them if the research component is substantial. NORC combines rigorous social-science research with UX, usability testing, journey mapping, and service-design work. NORC

One important benchmark

The City of Chicago's own Digital Services materials emphasize resident-centered research, accessibility, inclusive design, and collaboration with the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities. Chicago Design System That makes those capabilities more important for your procurement than simply finding an agency with attractive UI portfolios.

For a municipal RFP, I'd require each proposer to demonstrate:

1. Actual user research with residents, not just stakeholder interviews.
2. Recruitment of people with disabilities and testing with assistive technologies.
3. WCAG expertise and an explicit accessibility QA/remediation process.
4. Experience with government/public-sector or similarly regulated services.
5. Service design and journey mapping—not merely screen design.
6. Figma/design-system deliverables that your internal team can maintain.
7. Usability testing of prototypes before development and of the implemented product afterward.
8. Plain-language/content accessibility expertise.
9. Experience working through municipal procurement, security, legal, privacy, and departmental constraints.
10. Clear ownership of research artifacts, source files, accessibility findings, and design-system components.

I'd probably invite 5–7 firms to respond rather than trying to pick one from websites alone. In particular, I'd make sure the shortlist contains both a conventional UX/design shop and a research-heavy accessibility/public-sector specialist so the proposals are genuinely comparable.

If you tell me what municipality/agency this is for, approximate project budget, and whether you're building a website, resident portal, internal application, or a broader digital service, I can turn this into a shortlist of ~5 firms with a side-by-side procurement matrix and suggested RFP scope/questions.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Solid Digital - 100 N LaSalle St #1400, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Alpha Efficiency - Web Design Chicago Agency - 875 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611, United States
• EVE - User Experience Design Agency - 7135 N Merrimac Ave, Chicago, IL 60646, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Catalyst Consulting Group, Inc. - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 450, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Maven Digital - 23 N Racine Ave, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States

For a municipal UX research + accessible UI project in Chicago, I’d put a fairly tight RFP list together rather than treating this as a generic web-design procurement. Chicago’s own digital-service guidance emphasizes human-centered research, resident engagement, accessibility, and WCAG-based design. Chicago Design System Chicago Design System Chicago Design System

Firms I’d invite to an RFP

• Sandstorm Design — strong fit for research + accessible digital experience. Their Chicago practice explicitly combines UX research, usability testing, UX/design strategy, and accessibility/inclusive design. They also work with purpose-driven organizations, which makes the municipal context relevant.
• Grand Studio — strong fit for complex civic-service problems. They combine qualitative/mixed-method UX research, service/product strategy, UX/UI, prototyping, and design systems. I'd particularly consider them if the project involves complicated resident workflows rather than simply redesigning a website.
• DataMade — especially interesting for civic tech. Their Chicago practice is explicitly oriented toward governments, nonprofits, journalists and civic organizations, with experience turning complicated public information into usable digital tools. I'd include them if the project has a substantial data/open-government component.
• Fuzzy Math — good research-heavy candidate. Their offering includes contextual inquiry, interviews, surveys, diary studies, usability testing, tree testing and other UX-research methods, followed by product/UX strategy and design.
• UX 4Sight — worth soliciting for a more conventional UX/UI engagement. They offer UX research, usability testing, UX/UI design, design systems and validation testing and are Chicago-based.
• Dialogue Theory — interesting if the project has a strong community/mission component. Their Chicago practice focuses on mission-driven organizations and combines UX/UI, design systems and digital experience work.
• Bold Insight — not Chicago-proper, but they have a Chicago office and are unusually explicit about accessible/inclusive research, including participants with disabilities, older adults and non-English speakers. They also describe usability testing, journey mapping and co-design. Bold Insight

If I were structuring the RFP

I'd probably invite 5–6 firms, with the shortlist centered on:

1. Sandstorm Design
2. Grand Studio
3. DataMade
4. Fuzzy Math
5. Bold Insight
6. Dialogue Theory

That's a deliberately mixed field: civic-tech experience, deep UX research, accessibility expertise, and full UI/product-design capability.

One important procurement point: don't make “WCAG compliance” the entirety of the accessibility requirement. Chicago's own prior digital-services work specifically recognized the need for community/user testing with people with disabilities rather than relying on automated accessibility tools alone. Chicago Design System The current City Design System identifies WCAG AA as its target. Chicago Design System

I'd therefore make the RFP require, at minimum:

• Research with actual residents and service users
• Paid participation from people with disabilities
• Screen-reader and keyboard testing
• Mobile and low-bandwidth considerations
• Language-access research where relevant
• WCAG 2.1/2.2 AA evaluation
• Accessible Figma/design-system components, not just mockups
• Usability testing of prototypes before implementation
• Manual accessibility testing in addition to automated scans
• Accessibility acceptance criteria and remediation plan
• Transfer of the design system/components to the municipal team
• Demonstrated experience with government, civic, healthcare, education, or similarly high-stakes public services

I'd also ask every bidder for two examples where research materially changed the resulting service, and one example of testing with users with disabilities. That will separate genuine research/design practices from agencies that mainly sell polished UI.

If you tell me the type of municipal project (311, permitting, benefits, transportation, public safety, website, internal system, etc.) and approximate budget, I can narrow this to a 3–4 firm Chicago RFP shortlist and give you a draft evaluation matrix/RFP scope.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Maven Digital - 23 N Racine Ave, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• Solid Digital - 100 N LaSalle St #1400, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research and accessibility are core requirements, I’d avoid choosing a generic branding/web agency. I’d shortlist firms that can demonstrate public-sector research, inclusive design, accessibility testing with disabled users, and production-ready design systems.

Chicago itself is a useful benchmark: the City’s Design System targets WCAG 2.0 AA and explicitly emphasizes designing with Chicagoans through user-centered research. Chicago Design System Chicago Design System

My Chicago shortlist

• Sandstorm Design — probably my first RFP invite. Chicago-based, research-driven UX/design agency with explicit accessibility and inclusive-design services. Their positioning around purpose-driven organizations is a good fit for civic work.
• Grand Studio — strongest pure UX/research candidate. They specialize in human-centered product strategy, qualitative/mixed-method research, UX/UI, and design systems. I'd particularly consider them if the project involves complicated services or workflows rather than simply redesigning a website.
• Fuzzy Math — excellent research-heavy option. Their work includes contextual inquiry, interviews, surveys, usability testing, task analysis, tree testing, and product strategy. Good candidate if you want the research to substantially drive the product definition.
• Dialogue Theory — interesting civic/mission-driven option. They're Chicago-based and work with mission-driven organizations, with UX/UI, research, interaction design, and design-system capabilities.
• Firebelly Design — worth including if community engagement and communications matter. Their capabilities span stakeholder interviews, focus groups, journey mapping, usability testing, UX strategy, accessibility, and web design.

One I would consider outside the strict Chicago-agency requirement

Bold Insight is especially interesting for the research component. Its Chicago office has explicit government experience and describes accessible/inclusive research involving people with disabilities, older adults, veterans and non-English speakers, along with usability testing, journey mapping and co-design. Bold Insight

I'd seriously consider asking them for a proposal if the research is difficult or politically important, and pairing them with a design/build firm if necessary.

There are also two particularly relevant civic resources worth knowing about:

• Illinois Digital Service is a nonprofit network of Illinois civic technologists offering pro-bono services to state and local government, including UX research/design and service design. It may be worth approaching them before spending procurement dollars. Illinois Digital Service
• Chicago Lighthouse has substantial accessibility expertise, including WCAG/508 compliance, accessibility consulting, audits and technology assistance. They could potentially serve as an independent accessibility/testing partner rather than your primary UX agency. The Chicago Lighthouse

If I were issuing the RFP

I'd invite 5 firms rather than 10:

1. Sandstorm Design — balanced UX + accessibility + design
2. Grand Studio — deep UX/research + complex services
3. Fuzzy Math — rigorous research
4. Dialogue Theory — mission/civic-oriented design
5. Bold Insight — accessibility/inclusive research specialist

Then make the RFP deliberately difficult to game. Require each bidder to provide:

• 2–3 municipal/public-sector case studies
• examples of research conducted with people with disabilities, not merely accessibility audits
• their exact approach to WCAG 2.2 AA and keyboard/screen-reader testing
• evidence that accessibility is addressed during research and design, not just checked at the end
• research plan: participant recruitment, sample composition, methods, incentives, synthesis
• 2–3 sample research deliverables
• accessible Figma/design-system deliverables
• usability-testing plan for prototypes
• approach to language access and low-literacy users
• how they will incorporate the Chicago Design System where appropriate
• proposed staffing, including who will actually do the research
• fixed-fee and time-and-materials pricing separately
• references from government clients

That last point is important. Federal accessibility acquisition guidance likewise recommends putting accessibility requirements into procurement from the beginning, rather than treating compliance as a post-development remediation exercise. Section 508

One caution: don't let vendors simply say "WCAG compliant." Make them explain how they test with actual assistive technology and disabled users and what artifacts you'll receive as evidence.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (e.g. permitting, benefits, 311, public meetings, transportation, housing, internal government system, etc.) and roughly the budget, I can narrow this to a 3–5 agency procurement shortlist and draft an RFP scope/evaluation matrix tailored to it.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Bold Insight (Chicago) - 125 S Wacker Dr Suite 3020, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Maven Digital - 23 N Racine Ave, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, 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
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• The Lakota Group - 1 E Wacker Dr Fl 27, Chicago, IL 60601, United States
• Ross Barney Architects - 10 W Hubbard St, Chicago, IL 60654, United States

Yes. For a municipal project where the brief is specifically “research residents → design an accessible UI”, I’d run a competitive shortlist rather than hire a generic web/branding agency.

My first-round RFP list would be:

• Sandstorm Design — strongest overall Chicago shortlist candidate. They combine UX research, information architecture, digital experience design, and accessibility, and their work is oriented toward purpose-driven organizations. I’d ask them to demonstrate actual accessibility testing and research with people with disabilities, rather than just showing an ADA-compliant website. UX Planet
• Grand Studio — strong choice for a complex municipal service. Their offering spans qualitative UX research, usability testing, product strategy, and UI/product design. I'd especially consider them if this is a complicated workflow rather than simply a website redesign.
• Fuzzy Math — excellent UX-focused option. They're a Chicago UX strategy/research/design consultancy with experience in complex service and enterprise experiences. I'd include them if you want a relatively research- and design-specialist shop rather than a large implementation vendor.
• UX 4Sight — good specialist bidder. Their services explicitly include UX research, usability testing, UX/UI design, audits, and design validation. This could make them a useful comparison against the larger firms.
• Bold Insight (Chicago) — put this one on the RFP list if research rigor is especially important. They're much more research/human-factors oriented than a typical design agency. Their government practice explicitly discusses accessible/inclusive research, WCAG/Section 508, usability testing, journey mapping, and research with people with disabilities. Bold Insight
• Maven Digital — interesting civic/social-impact option. I'd talk to them if the project has substantial equity, community-engagement, or organizational-strategy dimensions.
• Dialogue Theory — worth an RFP if mission-driven design matters. They combine UX/UI, design systems, content strategy, engineering, and accessibility, with a focus on mission-driven organizations.
• DataMade — particularly interesting if the UI is data-heavy or involves civic information. They're a Chicago civic-tech/data consultancy, so they bring more public-interest technology experience than a conventional UX studio.

My recommended shortlist

If I were issuing the RFP, I'd probably invite 5 firms:

1. Sandstorm Design — balanced research + UX/UI + implementation.
2. Grand Studio — strong human-centered product/service design.
3. Fuzzy Math — UX specialist.
4. Bold Insight — research/accessibility specialist.
5. DataMade — civic-tech/data perspective.

That gives you five genuinely different approaches rather than five agencies that all sell essentially the same website redesign.

I'd also consider CivicSitePro as a sixth/alternate bidder if the deliverable is primarily a municipal website. They're unusually focused on municipalities and explicitly build to WCAG 2.1 AA, but I'd rank them below the five above for a project where deep resident research is a major deliverable. CivicSitePro CivicSitePro

One important thing I'd put in the RFP

Don't make the requirement simply “ADA/WCAG compliant UI.” Make the agency prove that accessibility is part of the research and design process.

For example, require:

• Research with residents across disability types, ages, digital-literacy levels, and language needs.
• Usability testing with actual assistive-technology users, including screen readers and keyboard-only users.
• WCAG 2.2 AA evaluation throughout design, not just a compliance audit at the end.
• Accessible prototypes and design-system components.
• Keyboard, focus, zoom/reflow, contrast, forms, error states, motion, and semantic-structure testing.
• Plain-language/content-design recommendations.
• Spanish and other relevant language considerations where appropriate.
• Research recruitment and incentives handled by the vendor.
• An accessibility findings log showing issue → evidence → design change → validation.
• Developer-ready Figma/design-system specifications plus accessibility acceptance criteria.
• Post-build accessibility/usability validation.

That approach is consistent with civic UX procurement guidance: the U.S. Digital Response civic research playbook specifically recommends putting accessibility/equity into the RFP's goals and requiring user testing, test design, iterative design, and integration of public feedback. digitalgovernmenthub.org

And there's a particularly relevant Chicago precedent: Chicago's own digital-services planning has identified user/field research, accessibility, language standards, human-centered design, prototyping and usability as core components of its digital-services approach. progov21.org

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (e.g. permitting, benefits enrollment, 311, public meetings, payments, transportation, inspections, etc.) and roughly budget + timeline, I can narrow this to 3–4 agencies I'd actually invite, compare their likely strengths/weaknesses, and draft a Chicago-specific RFP/SOW with evaluation criteria and scoring matrix.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• The Lakota Group - 1 E Wacker Dr Fl 27, Chicago, IL 60601, United States

I’d request proposals from Friends From The City, Sandstorm Design, NORC, and Highland.

• Sandstorm Design — strong Chicago UX/research + accessibility fit.
• Friends From The City — particularly compelling for government/civic services; they explicitly work with government agencies. Friends From The City
• NORC — best if you want rigorous, defensible research alongside UX/service design. NORC
• UX 4Sight — worth including for a more UX-specialist bid.

For the RFP, require research with disabled residents, WCAG 2.2 AA, usability testing, iterative prototyping, accessibility testing with assistive technology, and an accessible design system. Chicago itself emphasizes testing with community members rather than relying solely on automated accessibility tools. design.chicago.gov design.chicago.gov

If you want, I can also produce a Chicago-specific 1–2 page RFP scope and scoring rubric.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• Clique Studios - 20 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1075, Chicago, IL 60606
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• The Lakota Group - 1 E Wacker Dr Fl 27, Chicago, IL 60601, United States
• Solid Digital - 100 N LaSalle St #1400, Chicago, IL 60602, United States

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research and accessibility are both core requirements, I’d avoid treating this as a generic “web design agency” search. You want a firm that can demonstrate:

• real user research with residents, including people with disabilities;
• civic/government or other public-sector experience;
• accessible interaction/UI design, not just an accessibility audit at the end;
• moderated usability testing and iterative prototyping;
• WCAG/ADA expertise and manual testing with assistive technology;
• experience turning research into a maintainable design system;
• ability to work within public-sector procurement, documentation, and stakeholder constraints.

Chicago has several firms worth putting into an RFP/RFQ pool.

My shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — strongest overall fit

DirectionsWebsite[Call](tel:+1 773-348-4200)

I'd put Sandstorm near the top of the RFP list. It's a Chicago UX/digital-experience agency with a research-driven approach, and its positioning specifically includes accessibility. The combination of UX research + UX/UI + accessibility + implementation is what makes it interesting for your project.

Ask them about: comparable government/civic work, accessibility testing methodology, participant recruitment, and examples where research materially changed the product.

2. Grand Studio — strong for complex civic/service problems

DirectionsWebsite[Call](tel:+1 312-819-2030)

Grand Studio is particularly interesting if this isn't simply a website redesign but involves a complex municipal service, workflow, portal, or digital product. Its practice combines research, product strategy, UX/UI, prototyping and usability testing.

I'd definitely invite them if you're expecting substantial discovery and service-design work before the UI is finalized.

3. Fuzzy Math — strong UX-research specialist

DirectionsWebsite[Call](tel:+18665634650)

Fuzzy Math is a Chicago UX research/design consultancy. Its research capabilities include contextual inquiry, interviews, surveys, diary studies, moderated/unmoderated usability testing and task analysis.

This is a good candidate if you want the RFP to be research-heavy rather than agency/creative-heavy.

4. UX 4Sight — good dedicated UX option

DirectionsWebsite[Call](tel:+1 312-224-0095)

UX 4Sight focuses specifically on UX/UI, research, usability testing, wireframing and design validation. It's worth soliciting if you want a relatively focused UX partner rather than a large full-service agency.

5. Dialogue Theory — interesting accessibility/inclusive-design candidate

DirectionsWebsite[Call](tel:+1 617-922-3790)

Dialogue Theory combines UX/UI, design systems, strategy and engineering, with an explicit emphasis on accessibility and inclusive design. I'd consider them particularly if you need the agency to go from research through production-ready interfaces and implementation.

6. Greater Good Studio — excellent for community research

DirectionsWebsite[Call](tel:+1 773-599-9717)

This one is worth considering if the municipal project has a significant equity, community-engagement, or service-design component. Their work centers on the social sector and includes civic participation, community development, qualitative research, facilitation and co-design.

They may be less of a conventional UI-production shop than some of the others, so I'd clarify the division of labor in the RFP.

7. DataMade — especially interesting for civic technology

DirectionsWebsite[Call](tel:+1 312-725-0195)

DataMade is a Chicago civic-tech firm with experience around open government, public-sector data and civic digital products. I'd include them if the project involves government data, public records, maps, workflows, or an application rather than simply a public-facing website.

8. IDEO Chicago — premium/strategic option

DirectionsWebsite[Call](tel:+1 312-869-6000)

IDEO Chicago is worth an RFP if the project is strategically important and you have the budget. Their strength is human-centered research, service/product design and prototyping. I'd use them as a benchmark proposal against the more Chicago-specific/smaller firms.

One more I would consider

Firebelly Design has an unusually broad mix of research, UX strategy, usability testing, UX/UI, accessibility compliance and web development, and is Chicago-based. It could be a good fit if the project has a substantial communications/content/public-facing website component.

And don't overlook a municipal specialist

DataMade is much more narrowly focused on municipalities and other civic organizations. Its stated specialization includes municipal websites and ADA accessibility. CivicSitePro CivicSitePro

I wouldn't necessarily make them the lead candidate for a sophisticated product-research engagement, but I'd absolutely ask them for a proposal if this is fundamentally a municipal web service.

How I'd structure the RFP

The biggest mistake would be writing an RFP that says essentially “conduct UX research and design an accessible website.” You'll get wildly different interpretations and have difficulty comparing bids.

I'd specify a staged engagement:

1. Discovery & research

• stakeholder interviews
• resident interviews
• accessibility-focused research
• contextual inquiry
• journey/service mapping
• analysis of existing analytics/support data
• Inclusive research

• recruit people with visual, auditory, motor and cognitive disabilities
• include older adults and users with varying digital literacy
• include relevant language communities
• compensate research participants appropriately
• conduct research using assistive technologies where appropriate
• Concept + information architecture

• user journeys
• task models
• information architecture
• content/navigation recommendations
• prototypes
• Iterative usability testing

• test low/mid-fidelity concepts before visual design
• test high-fidelity prototypes
• demonstrate how findings changed the design
• repeat testing where material issues remain
• Accessible UI/design system

• WCAG 2.2 AA target, unless your legal/procurement requirements specify something different
• accessible components
• keyboard interaction
• focus management
• color/contrast
• typography
• forms and validation
• error states
• responsive/mobile behavior
• screen-reader behavior
• accessible content patterns
• Validation

• automated accessibility testing plus manual testing
• keyboard-only testing
• screen-reader testing
• testing across relevant browsers/devices
• accessibility findings log
• remediation recommendations
• final accessibility documentation
• Handoff

• Figma/design files
• component specifications
• design tokens where appropriate
• accessibility annotations
• developer handoff
• CMS/content-editor guidance
• training for municipal staff

That approach is consistent with civic UX guidance recommending that municipal procurements explicitly include user testing, test design, iterative design and accessibility/equity goals rather than leaving them implicit. Digital Government Hub

One important procurement requirement

I'd make demonstrated accessibility research a scored criterion, not merely require the winning vendor to say it is “ADA compliant.”

For example:

And require each bidder to provide one case study showing how research with people with disabilities changed a product's design.

That's a much stronger filter than asking for an accessibility certification.

Chicago's own technology organization treats digital accessibility as involving design, evaluation, validation, manual assistive-technology testing, community engagement and WCAG-based review—not merely automated scanning. LinkedIn

If I were issuing the RFP

I'd probably invite 5 firms rather than 10:

• Sandstorm Design
• Grand Studio
• Fuzzy Math
• Dialogue Theory
• Greater Good Studio or DataMade, depending on whether the project is more community/service-design-oriented or technology/data-oriented.

Then I'd include CivicSitePro as a sixth proposal if the deliverable is primarily a municipal website.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (e.g. permitting portal, benefits application, public website, 311 service, transportation app, planning tool, internal staff system), I can narrow this to 3–5 firms and give you a procurement-ready scope of work and RFP evaluation criteria.

Firebelly Design has an unusually broad mix of research, UX strategy, usability testing, UX/UI, accessibility compliance and web development, and is Chicago-based. It could be a good fit if the project has a substantial communications/content/public-facing website component.

And don't overlook a municipal specialist

CivicSitePro is much more narrowly focused on municipalities and other civic organizations. Its stated specialization includes municipal websites and ADA accessibility. civicsitepro.com civicsitepro.com

I wouldn't necessarily make them the lead candidate for a sophisticated product-research engagement, but I'd absolutely ask them for a proposal if this is fundamentally a municipal web service.

How I'd structure the RFP

The biggest mistake would be writing an RFP that says essentially “conduct UX research and design an accessible website.” You'll get wildly different interpretations and have difficulty comparing bids.

I'd specify a staged engagement:

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Alpha Efficiency - Web Design Chicago Agency - 875 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611, United States

Yes. For a municipal project, I would not limit the RFP to generic Chicago UX agencies. You want a team that can combine civic user research + inclusive/community engagement + accessible interaction/UI design + implementation-ready design systems.

Based on a current Chicago-area scan, I’d invite 5–7 firms to an RFI/RFP and make these the strongest candidates:

My shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — strongest overall fit

• Chicago-based UX/digital-experience agency.
• Research-driven UX, usability testing, information architecture, UI, and accessibility.
• Particularly interesting if this is a substantial public-facing website or digital service rather than simply a visual redesign.
• I'd put them on the first-tier invite list.
• Greater Good Studio — strongest civic/equity research candidate

• Chicago firm focused on social-sector work and explicitly works with government agencies.
• Their orientation toward human-centered design, equity, co-design, and qualitative research is attractive for municipal work.
• I'd seriously consider them if resident/community participation is a major part of the project.
• Grand Studio — strong complex-service/product candidate

• Chicago strategic digital-product consultancy combining research, product strategy, UX/UI and usability testing.
• A good choice if you're building a complex municipal service or transaction, not merely a website.
• Fuzzy Math — strong pure UX research/design candidate

• Chicago UX research and design consultancy with contextual inquiry, interviews, usability testing, surveys, task analysis, tree testing, etc.
• Worth inviting if you want a research-heavy engagement before committing to the interface.
• MUSE Community + Design — worth an RFP if the project involves substantial community engagement

• Particularly interesting for municipal/planning work, with experience spanning government, planning, engagement and design.
• I'd consider them alongside a more specialized digital-accessibility firm if the deliverable is a digital service.
• Dialogue Theory — interesting mission-driven option

• Chicago design studio oriented toward social-impact/civic organizations, with UX/UI and design-system capabilities.
• I'd include them if mission alignment and inclusive design are important evaluation criteria.
• UX 4Sight — additional UX-focused bidder

• Chicago-based UX/UI and research firm offering user research, usability testing, UX audits, responsive design and design validation.
• A useful comparison bidder against the larger/more strategy-oriented firms.

One specialist I'd add

Bold Insight deserves consideration if research rigor and accessibility testing are especially important. Its Chicago office specializes in UX/human-factors research, and its government practice explicitly describes accessible/inclusive research using WCAG and Section 508 principles, including participants with disabilities, older adults and non-English speakers. Bold Insight Bold Insight

That makes it potentially an excellent research/accessibility specialist, although I'd want to confirm how much hands-on UI/design-system work they'd personally take responsibility for.

A particularly interesting alternative

If the project is primarily a municipal website/CMS, I'd also request a proposal from CivicSitePro. It is unusually specialized in municipalities and explicitly focuses on accessibility, municipal information architecture, staff usability and Illinois civic organizations. CivicSitePro CivicSitePro

That's a different proposition from firms like Grand Studio or Sandstorm: less "product-design consultancy," more municipal digital specialist.

How I'd structure the RFP

I'd make the vendors bid on essentially this sequence:

1. Discovery & civic user research

• Resident interviews
• Accessibility-focused research
• Representative recruitment across age, disability, language and digital-literacy differences
• Stakeholder interviews with municipal staff
• Current-state journey/service mapping
• Co-design & requirements

• Community workshops
• Prioritized user needs
• Service blueprints
• Information architecture
• Content/interaction requirements
• Prototype & usability testing

• Low-/mid-fidelity prototypes
• Iterative moderated testing
• Testing with people using assistive technologies
• At least two rounds of iteration
• Accessible UI

• WCAG 2.2 AA as a minimum design target
• Keyboard navigation
• Screen-reader behavior
• Focus states
• Color/contrast
• Forms and error handling
• Responsive/mobile accessibility
• Plain-language/content guidance
• Implementation handoff

• Figma/design system
• Accessible component specifications
• Design tokens
• Developer documentation
• Accessibility acceptance criteria
• Design QA during implementation

I'd explicitly require vendors to show examples of research findings changing the resulting design, rather than simply showing polished screenshots.

That's consistent with civic-user-research guidance, which recommends putting user testing, test design, iterative design and accessibility/equity goals directly into the procurement requirements. Digital Government Hub

My first calls

If I were running the procurement, my initial five would be:

Sandstorm + Greater Good Studio + Grand Studio + Fuzzy Math + Bold Insight

Then I'd add CivicSitePro if this is primarily a municipal website/CMS, or MUSE if community engagement/planning is a major component.

One other consideration: don't let the winning vendor treat "ADA compliance" as a checkbox at the end. Chicago-area public entities are dealing with broader Title II accessibility responsibilities, and CMAP specifically emphasizes meaningful accessibility, public engagement, self-evaluation and transition planning for municipalities. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (website, permitting service, benefits portal, transportation app, 311 service, internal system, etc.), I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and give you an RFP-ready evaluation matrix with suggested scoring weights and interview questions.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Clique Studios - 20 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1075, Chicago, IL 60606
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Maven Digital - 23 N Racine Ave, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Promet Source - 3322 N Ashland Ave, Chicago, IL 60657
• Centralis - 2822 Central St Ste 100, Evanston, IL 60201, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Khoj Lab LLC - Research, Design and Strategy for Innovation - Khoj Lab LLC c/o Guild Row, 3130 N Rockwell St, Chicago, IL 60618, United States
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• IA Collaborative - 218 S Wabash Ave 9th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• EVE - User Experience Design Agency - 7135 N Merrimac Ave, Chicago, IL 60646, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States

Yes. For a municipal project, I’d weight public-sector experience, actual user research, accessibility expertise, and procurement maturity much more heavily than a flashy consumer UX portfolio.

My shortlist for an RFP would be:

1. Sandstorm Design — strong overall candidate. Chicago-based, research-driven, and explicitly offers accessibility/inclusive design, usability testing, and remediation/training. This is probably where I’d start for a conventional municipal website or digital-service redesign.
2. Clique Studios — strong design + implementation option. Their Chicago team does UX research, information architecture, usability testing, and accessibility-focused design, which is useful if you want the same vendor to carry research through implementation.
3. Grand Studio — best for complicated service-design problems. Their mix of qualitative research, service/operational design, UX/UI and prototyping makes them attractive if the project involves more than simply redesigning a website—for example, rethinking a permitting, benefits, licensing, or constituent-service journey.
4. UX 4Sight — research-heavy contender. They specifically offer user research, usability testing, UX audits and design validation. I'd include them if the research component is substantial. UX Planet
5. Maven Digital — interesting civic/mission-driven option. Their positioning around nonprofits, foundations and civic/community programs, with UX and inclusion/equity work, makes them worth an RFI/RFP invitation if community engagement is important.
6. Dialogue Theory — worth considering for a mission-driven/civic experience where stakeholder alignment, UX, accessibility and communications all matter.

One I would especially investigate: Promet Source

Promet Source is particularly interesting if this is a government website/platform rather than just a UX-design engagement. They explicitly serve government agencies, have public-sector procurement vehicles, and invite agencies to submit RFPs. Promet Source

Their Chicago location and government procurement experience could make them a particularly practical bidder.

Also consider a specialist research firm

If you don't necessarily need one company to do everything, I'd consider pairing a research specialist with a design/build firm. Centralis in nearby Evanston focuses specifically on UX research, qualitative research, usability testing and UX evaluation. That can be valuable if you want genuinely independent research rather than research conducted primarily to support an agency's preferred design.

A municipal-specific wildcard

CivicSitePro is worth an RFI if the project is primarily a municipal website. They explicitly specialize in municipalities/townships and advertise ADA accessibility, municipal website design and accessibility remediation. CivicSitePro CivicSitePro

I wouldn't automatically make them the winner for a complex service-design project, but I'd absolutely ask them for a proposal if the scope is a resident-facing municipal web platform.

How I'd structure the shortlist

I'd probably send the RFP to 5–7 firms, rather than 15:

• Sandstorm — research + UX + accessibility
• Grand Studio — service design/research
• Promet Source — government + technology/procurement
• Clique Studios — UX + implementation
• UX 4Sight — research/usability
• Maven Digital — civic/mission-driven perspective
• CivicSitePro — municipal specialization, if it's primarily a government website

And I'd make accessibility testing with actual disabled users a mandatory proposal requirement, not merely ask whether they are "WCAG compliant." An agency saying it can produce WCAG-compliant code is very different from demonstrating that it researches with people using screen readers, keyboard navigation, magnification, voice control, cognitive-accessibility considerations, etc.

What I'd put in the RFP

I'd require bidders to show:

• 2–3 government/civic case studies, preferably municipal
• Examples of actual user research, not just stakeholder interviews
• Recruitment of residents representing different ages, languages, digital-literacy levels and disabilities
• Research with disabled users, including assistive-technology users
• WCAG 2.2 AA methodology
• Accessibility throughout research → IA → wireframes → visual design → development → QA
• Keyboard, screen-reader and automated + manual accessibility testing
• Plain-language/content-design capability
• Multilingual/inclusive research capability
• A reusable accessible design system
• Figma/design-system deliverables and developer handoff
• Usability testing of prototypes before launch
• Post-launch accessibility validation
• Experience working within municipal procurement and stakeholder environments
• Named personnel who will actually perform the work

I'd also make them price research/discovery separately from design and implementation. That makes proposals much easier to compare and gives you an exit point if the research reveals that the initial project assumptions were wrong.

If you tell me roughly what the municipal project is (e.g. website, permitting, benefits, 311, public meetings, payments, internal staff tool) and your approximate budget, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms I'd actually invite to the RFP and give you a weighted evaluation scorecard.

How I'd structure the shortlist

I'd probably send the RFP to 5–7 firms, rather than 15:

• Sandstorm — research + UX + accessibility
• Grand Studio — service design/research
• Promet Source — government + technology/procurement
• Clique Studios — UX + implementation
• UX 4Sight — research/usability
• Maven Digital — civic/mission-driven perspective
• CivicSitePro — municipal specialization, if it's primarily a government website

And I'd make accessibility testing with actual disabled users a mandatory proposal requirement, not merely ask whether they are "WCAG compliant." An agency saying it can produce WCAG-compliant code is very different from demonstrating that it researches with people using screen readers, keyboard navigation, magnification, voice control, cognitive-accessibility considerations, etc.

What I'd put in the RFP

I'd require bidders to show:

• 2–3 government/civic case studies, preferably municipal
• Examples of actual user research, not just stakeholder interviews
• Recruitment of residents representing different ages, languages, digital-literacy levels and disabilities
• Research with disabled users, including assistive-technology users
• WCAG 2.2 AA methodology
• Accessibility throughout research → IA → wireframes → visual design → development → QA
• Keyboard, screen-reader and automated + manual accessibility testing
• Plain-language/content-design capability
• Multilingual/inclusive research capability
• A reusable accessible design system
• Figma/design-system deliverables and developer handoff
• Usability testing of prototypes before launch
• Post-launch accessibility validation
• Experience working within municipal procurement and stakeholder environments
• Named personnel who will actually perform the work

I'd also make them price research/discovery separately from design and implementation. That makes proposals much easier to compare and gives you an exit point if the research reveals that the initial project assumptions were wrong.

If you tell me roughly what the municipal project is (e.g. website, permitting, benefits, 311, public meetings, payments, internal staff tool) and your approximate budget, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms I'd actually invite to the RFP and give you a weighted evaluation scorecard.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Clique Studios - 20 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1075, Chicago, IL 60606
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, 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
• Civic Projects Architecture - 6100 S Blackstone Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, United States
• Beyond Design, Inc. - 3759 N Ravenswood Ave, Chicago, IL 60613, United States
• Ad Hoc Home - 705 Chicago Ave, Evanston, IL 60202, United States
• Institute for Healthcare Delivery Design - 1220 S Wood St 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• VERSIONS - 10 S LaSalle St Ste 201, Chicago, IL 60603, United States
• COLLABO Planning + Design - 401 N Franklin St Ste 200, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642

Yes. For a municipal project combining UX research + accessible UI, I’d avoid treating this as a generic “web design” procurement. You want a team that can do civic user research, inclusive recruitment, service/UX design, accessibility testing, and production-ready UI/design systems.

Based on the Chicago market, I’d put these on the RFP shortlist:

My shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — strongest overall Chicago fit

• Chicago-based digital experience/UX agency.
• Explicitly emphasizes UX research, usability testing, accessibility, and digital products.
• Particularly interesting if this is a substantial public-facing website/platform rather than a small interface.
• Their research approach includes testing prototypes and using evidence to inform IA, navigation, messaging, and product direction.

I'd definitely invite them to bid. Highland Solutions

2. Dialogue Theory — strong civic/mission-driven option

• Chicago studio focused on mission-driven organizations, civic/advocacy work, and social impact.
• Combines UX/UI, content strategy, engineering and accessibility.
• I'd particularly consider them if the project involves complicated public information, community-facing services, or equity/inclusion considerations.
• DataMade — especially compelling for civic tech

• Chicago-based civic technology/data firm.
• Their work is explicitly oriented toward governments, nonprofits, journalists and civic organizations.
• Particularly worth an RFP if your project involves open data, maps, search, applications, dashboards, or complex information architecture.
• Clique Studios — good larger-agency alternative

• Chicago presence and broad UX/UI, usability testing, accessibility and engineering capabilities.
• Better fit if you need one vendor to carry the project from research through implementation and ongoing digital work.
• IDEO Chicago — research/design heavyweight

• Strong option if the project is strategically important and you need substantial discovery, service design, prototyping and human-centered design.
• I'd expect them to be a more expensive proposition, so I'd use them as a benchmark bid if the procurement allows it.
• IDE Interactive, Inc. — potentially good smaller/local option

• Chicago-based experience design and development shop.
• Offers UX/UI, digital platforms, accessibility improvements and custom web applications.
• Worth considering if you want a smaller team with hands-on implementation capability.

One specialist I'd also contact

Bold Insight is worth considering specifically for the research component. They have a Chicago office and explicitly describe government research, accessible/inclusive research, usability testing, journey mapping, co-design workshops and WCAG/Section 508-informed studies. Bold Insight Bold Insight

They could be a particularly good research lead + design-agency partner if you don't find one firm that does both exceptionally well.

If I were running the procurement

I'd probably invite 5–6 teams, something like:

I'd also consider a two-vendor model: Bold Insight (research) + a UI/design/engineering firm. That can give you more independence between research findings and the team responsible for designing the solution.

What I'd put in the RFP

Don't simply ask for "UX research and accessible UI." I'd explicitly require:

• Discovery research: stakeholder interviews, contextual inquiry, existing-data review and service/user journey mapping.
• Inclusive participant recruitment: residents with disabilities, older adults, limited digital literacy, limited English proficiency, and other populations relevant to the service.
• Usability testing: moderated testing with representative residents, including assistive-technology users.
• Iterative prototyping: research → prototype → test → revise, rather than a single research phase followed by a handoff.
• Accessibility: WCAG 2.2 AA as the design target, with accessibility built into the design system rather than audited at the end.
• Design system: accessible components, interaction states, typography, color, forms, navigation, error handling, responsive behavior and documentation.
• Accessibility validation: keyboard, screen-reader and other assistive-technology testing by people with disabilities where appropriate.
• Plain language/content design: particularly important for municipal services.
• Research artifacts: recordings/notes where permitted, findings, personas or audience models, journey maps, prioritized problems and recommendations.
• Production-ready Figma/design files and component specifications.
• Knowledge transfer: training municipal staff so accessibility doesn't degrade after launch.

There's actually good civic-specific guidance for structuring this: the Civic User Research Playbook recommends putting civic user research directly into RFPs/contracts and explicitly calling for user-test design, moderation and iterative incorporation of public feedback. Digital Government Hub

And because this is municipal work, I'd make accessibility a scored procurement criterion, not merely a compliance checkbox. CMAP's current guidance emphasizes that Illinois municipalities have ADA obligations and provides resources around accessible public engagement and digital accessibility. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

One important distinction

If by "municipal project" you mean a resident-facing digital service—e.g. permits, benefits, payments, reporting problems, applications, licensing, etc.—I'd weight DataMade / Dialogue Theory / Sandstorm more heavily.

If you mean a municipal website redesign, I'd weight Sandstorm / Clique / IDE Interactive more heavily.

If you mean a complicated service that cuts across departments and requires significant resident research before anyone designs the UI, I'd strongly consider Bold Insight + a design agency, or IDEO if the budget supports it.

If you tell me what the municipal product actually is, approximate budget, and whether you're procuring under Chicago/Illinois public procurement rules, I can turn this into a 10-vendor Chicago RFP shortlist with estimated fit, relevant government/civic projects, accessibility credentials, likely size/cost tier, and exactly what I'd ask each firm in an RFI.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• Bold Insight (Chicago) - 125 S Wacker Dr Suite 3020, Chicago, IL 60606, 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
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Centralis - 2822 Central St Ste 100, Evanston, IL 60201, United States
• Khoj Lab LLC - Research, Design and Strategy for Innovation - Khoj Lab LLC c/o Guild Row, 3130 N Rockwell St, Chicago, IL 60618, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• EVE - User Experience Design Agency - 7135 N Merrimac Ave, Chicago, IL 60646, United States
• First Insights - 401 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Clique Studios - 20 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1075, Chicago, IL 60606
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States

Yes. For a municipal project, I’d avoid choosing purely on visual/UI portfolio. You want a firm that can do resident research + inclusive research + accessible interaction design + design-system-level UI, and ideally understands government constraints.

I’d put these firms on the RFP list:

My shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — strongest overall fit

• Chicago-based and explicitly research-driven.
• UX research, usability testing, information architecture, digital strategy, and accessibility/inclusive design.
• Particularly attractive for a civic project because they emphasize mission-driven organizations.
• RFP priority: High. UX Planet
• Fuzzy Math — strongest pure UX option

• Very good fit if the project involves complicated workflows, multiple user types, forms, dashboards, case management, etc.
• Their research includes contextual inquiry, interviews, surveys, diary studies, task analysis, and usability testing.
• I'd ask them specifically to demonstrate accessibility testing with disabled residents, not just WCAG compliance. UX Planet
• Bold Insight (Chicago) — strongest research/accessibility specialist

• Especially interesting if the research component is substantial.
• They explicitly describe inclusive research involving people with disabilities and assistive technologies, alongside usability/human-factors research.
• Chicago office at 125 S. Wacker. Bold Insight
• Potential structure: have Bold Insight lead research and pair them with a UI/design-system firm if necessary.
• Grand Studio — strong research + service design + UI

• Good candidate if this is bigger than a website redesign and involves redesigning an actual municipal service.
• Their strength is connecting research, service strategy, complex workflows and UX/UI rather than treating UI as a visual exercise.
• Dialogue Theory — interesting civic/mission-driven contender

• Chicago-based and oriented toward social-impact, civic/advocacy and mission-driven organizations.
• Particularly worth an RFP if community engagement and accessible public-facing experiences are central.
• Greater Good Studio — consider for deep community research

• I'd include them if the project has significant equity, community-engagement, or stakeholder-research requirements.
• Their work emphasizes qualitative research, co-design and facilitation across civic and social-sector issues.

One I would also consider

IDEO Chicago is worth an RFP if the budget is substantial and you're tackling a genuinely difficult service-design problem. They're much more of a large innovation/design partner, though, so I wouldn't automatically assume they're the best value for a municipal UI project.

My recommended RFP field

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

I would not make the RFP primarily about "designing an accessible website." Make it about understanding residents and designing a service that works for them.

That's consistent with Chicago's own digital-service philosophy: the City's Design Office describes its approach as human-centered design and specifically emphasizes resident research, usability and accessibility. Chicago's guidance also says accessibility testing should involve community members with disabilities rather than relying solely on automated tools. Chicago Design System Chicago Design System

The federal digital-service guidance similarly recommends combining automated accessibility testing with manual testing and usability testing with people with disabilities and assistive technologies. The White House

I'd put these requirements directly into the RFP

Require each proposer to show:

• 5–10 relevant public-sector/civic projects, preferably municipal.
• Research with actual residents/users, not just stakeholder interviews.
• Recruitment of people with disabilities into research and usability testing.
• Research in the project's relevant languages and communities.
• Moderated usability testing with prototypes.
• WCAG 2.1 AA or newer applicable standard expertise.
• Manual accessibility testing—not merely an automated scan.
• Testing with screen readers, keyboard-only users and other relevant assistive technologies.
• An accessible design system/component library.
• Figma designs with accessibility specifications for developers.
• Design QA after implementation.
• A plan for ongoing accessibility governance, so the city doesn't become dependent on the agency.
• Compensation/reimbursement for community research participants.
• A research repository and transferable documentation.
• Clear identification of the actual people who will work on the account, rather than just senior people appearing in the pitch.

One other potentially valuable option: Illinois Digital Service describes itself as an Illinois civic-technology nonprofit with expertise in UX research/design and service design, and says it provides pro-bono services to state and local Illinois government agencies. If your municipal project qualifies, I'd investigate them before spending the whole budget on an agency. Illinois Digital Service

If you tell me what kind of municipal project this is (e.g. permitting, benefits, 311, public works, housing, transportation, elections, licensing, internal staff system), I can narrow this to 3–5 agencies that are specifically proven for that type of government service and give you an RFP-ready scope and evaluation scorecard.

I would not make the RFP primarily about "designing an accessible website." Make it about understanding residents and designing a service that works for them.

That's consistent with Chicago's own digital-service philosophy: the City's Design Office describes its approach as human-centered design and specifically emphasizes resident research, usability and accessibility. Chicago's guidance also says accessibility testing should involve community members with disabilities rather than relying solely on automated tools. design.chicago.gov design.chicago.gov

The federal digital-service guidance similarly recommends combining automated accessibility testing with manual testing and usability testing with people with disabilities and assistive technologies. The White House

I'd put these requirements directly into the RFP

Require each proposer to show:

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Bold Insight (Chicago) - 125 S Wacker Dr Suite 3020, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Artversion - 205 N Michigan Ave 8th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
• Centralis - 2822 Central St Ste 100, Evanston, IL 60201, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Usability Sciences - 707 Lake Cook Rd Ste 105, Deerfield, IL 60015, United States
• Alpha Efficiency - Web Design Chicago Agency - 875 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611, United States

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research and accessible UI are both core requirements, I would not send the RFP to generic web-design shops. I’d create a shortlist around civic/public-sector experience + serious research + accessibility-by-design.

My Chicago shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — strongest overall RFP candidate

• Chicago-based, research-driven digital/UX agency.
• Particularly interesting for mission-driven organizations and complex digital services.
• Their offering combines UX research, strategy, design and accessibility rather than treating accessibility as a final QA exercise.
• I'd definitely invite them.
• Dialogue Theory — strong civic/mission fit

• Chicago studio focused substantially on social-impact, nonprofit and civic/advocacy organizations.
• Good candidate if the project involves multiple stakeholder groups, complicated service journeys and public-facing communications.
• Their mix of UX/UI, service design and digital experience work is appealing for municipal work.
• Definitely worth an RFP.
• Grand Studio — strong for service design + complex systems

• Chicago-based human-centered design consultancy.
• Particularly compelling if this isn't merely a website redesign but involves service journeys, workflows, research, product strategy and cross-department complexity.
• I'd invite them for a larger/strategic project.
• UX 4Sight — strong research/UX specialist

• Chicago-based and explicitly focused on UX research, usability testing, UX/UI, audits and design validation.
• A good candidate if you want the research component to be especially rigorous rather than primarily a design exercise.
• Good RFP candidate.
• Bold Insight (Chicago) — research/accessibility specialist

• This is the one I'd consider if research quality and accessibility testing are unusually high-stakes.
• Its government practice specifically describes accessible/inclusive research, WCAG/Section 508 work and research with people with disabilities. It has a Chicago office. Bold Insight
• The potential downside is that it is more of a research/human-factors firm than a classic municipal digital-design agency.
• Potentially pair with a UI/design firm.
• Fuzzy Math — another serious UX contender

• Chicago UX strategy/research consultancy with a strong orientation toward complicated enterprise/service experiences.
• Worth including if the municipal product has complicated workflows, staff-facing tools or multiple user roles.

One non-Chicago option I'd seriously consider

Illinois Digital Service isn't a conventional agency—it describes itself as a nonprofit technology partner providing pro-bono product management, UX research/design, service design, content design, engineering and data expertise to Illinois state and local government. Illinois Digital Service

If your project qualifies, I'd contact them before spending money on the RFP.

I'd also look at these two specialists

DataMade is interesting if your project involves civic data, maps, public records, dashboards or open-government information. Its work combines research, information design and software with a particular civic/open-government orientation.

And AUX Consulting is worth considering as an accessibility research/testing partner. It specifically offers accessibility and usability testing and research involving blind/low-vision participants with lived experience using assistive technology. AUX Consulting

My recommended RFP pool

If I were running the procurement, I'd probably invite 6–7 firms, rather than sending it to 20:

I wouldn't make "Chicago office" the deciding criterion, though. For a public-sector project, demonstrated accessibility practice and experience researching actual residents—including people with disabilities—matter much more than having a local office.

One important procurement point

I'd explicitly require proposals to show how accessibility is incorporated into research and design, not merely ask whether the agency is "WCAG compliant."

Chicago itself describes its Design System as intended to produce accessible digital services, and its general standard is WCAG AA. Chicago Design System That gives you a useful local baseline for the RFP.

I'd require each bidder to explain:

• How they recruit residents with disabilities into research.
• How they test with screen readers, keyboard-only users, low vision, cognitive disabilities, etc.
• Their target WCAG level and how they validate it.
• Whether accessibility specialists participate during discovery and design, not just before launch.
• How research findings become design requirements.
• How they handle language access, including Chicago's multilingual population.
• How they involve community organizations rather than relying exclusively on a generic participant panel.
• How they deliver accessible Figma/design-system components and developer specifications.
• How they conduct accessibility testing on the actual implemented product.
• Who on the proposed team—not merely the agency—has this expertise.

The City of Chicago's own digital-services work emphasizes resident research and accessibility, and its design guidance specifically calls for accessibility to be integrated into digital-service work. Chicago Design System Chicago Design System

If you give me the rough project scope (e.g. "resident benefits portal," "311-style service," "municipal permitting," "public website," approximate budget, and whether you need research only or research → Figma → development), I can narrow this to 3–4 firms I'd actually invite and draft a municipal UX/accessibility RFP scoring matrix for you.

My recommended RFP pool

If I were running the procurement, I'd probably invite 6–7 firms, rather than sending it to 20:

I wouldn't make "Chicago office" the deciding criterion, though. For a public-sector project, demonstrated accessibility practice and experience researching actual residents—including people with disabilities—matter much more than having a local office.

One important procurement point

I'd explicitly require proposals to show how accessibility is incorporated into research and design, not merely ask whether the agency is "WCAG compliant."

Chicago itself describes its Design System as intended to produce accessible digital services, and its general standard is WCAG AA. That gives you a useful local baseline for the RFP.

I'd require each bidder to explain:

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• IA Collaborative - 218 S Wabash Ave 9th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Khoj Lab LLC - Research, Design and Strategy for Innovation - Khoj Lab LLC c/o Guild Row, 3130 N Rockwell St, Chicago, IL 60618, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• EVE - User Experience Design Agency - 7135 N Merrimac Ave, Chicago, IL 60646, United States
• Centralis - 2822 Central St Ste 100, Evanston, IL 60201, United States
• Maven Digital - 23 N Racine Ave, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States

Yes. For a Chicago municipal project, I’d avoid treating this as a generic “web design agency” procurement. You want a team that can do civic user research → service/UX design → accessible UI → usability testing, with accessibility embedded throughout rather than checked at the end.

My shortlist would be:

Best firms to put on the RFP list

• Sandstorm Design — probably my first call. Chicago-based, substantial UX research/usability experience, and explicitly offers accessibility/inclusive design. They report 5,000+ hours of UX research and usability studies and accessibility audit/remediation work. Sandstorm Design

sandstormdesign.com

• Fuzzy Math — strong research-first option. Their practice includes contextual inquiry, interviews, surveys, diary studies, usability testing, tree testing and task analysis. I'd particularly consider them if the research/discovery phase is as important as the UI.

fuzzymath.com

• Grand Studio — strong end-to-end product/UX candidate. Their Chicago practice combines qualitative research, UX/UI design, prototyping and usability testing. Good choice if you're building a substantial digital service rather than simply redesigning a website.
• DataMade — especially interesting for civic/public-interest technology. Their work combines research, information design and software, including Chicago civic-data projects. I'd invite them if the project involves public data, maps, applications, eligibility, or complicated government workflows.
• Firebelly Design — worth an RFP if communications/content are significant. Their capabilities span research, usability testing, UX strategy, information architecture, accessibility and implementation, and their public client list includes the City of Chicago.
• UX 4Sight — good specialist comparison bid. They focus specifically on UX/UI, user research, usability testing and design validation rather than being primarily a branding agency.

One non-Chicago firm I'd seriously consider

boldinsight.com is based in the Chicago area and is particularly compelling if you want rigorous user research with accessibility built into the research methodology. They specifically describe government work, usability testing, journey mapping, co-design and mixed-method research, including participants with disabilities, older adults and non-English speakers. Bold Insight

For a municipal procurement, I'd actually be inclined to include them even though their positioning is more research/human-factors oriented than a traditional UI agency.

I'd structure the RFP around these requirements

Don't simply ask, “Can you make us an accessible website?” Require bidders to demonstrate:

1. Civic/municipal research

• Interviews with residents and frontline staff
• Contextual inquiry
• Journey/service mapping
• Usability testing with actual residents
• Recruitment of people with disabilities and limited digital literacy
• Language-access considerations
• Accessibility

• WCAG 2.2 AA as the baseline
• Testing with keyboard-only navigation and assistive technologies
• Testing with people with disabilities, not merely automated scans
• Accessibility acceptance criteria for designs and production UI
• Remediation/testing before launch
• Actual UI production

• Information architecture
• User flows
• Wireframes
• High-fidelity UI
• Responsive/mobile designs
• Design system/component library
• Developer-ready specifications
• Accessibility annotations
• Research → design → validation

I'd make this explicit in the scope. The process should be:

Research → synthesis → prototype → resident testing → iteration → accessible UI → accessibility validation

Rather than hiring someone to conduct a research report and then handing that report to a completely different design team.

5. Municipal procurement experience

Ask for 3 comparable projects, with at least one involving government/public services and one involving accessibility. Require references and ask specifically what the agency personally delivered versus what subcontractors delivered.

There's a good reason to emphasize this. Civic UX guidance warns that failing to involve the public during design can produce products that don't meet residents' needs or are inaccessible, while making changes later is more expensive. Digital Government Hub

My suggested invitation list

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

Sandstorm + Fuzzy Math + Grand Studio + DataMade + Firebelly + Bold Insight

That gives you a useful mix of civic experience, research depth, accessibility, design capability, and implementation capacity, rather than six agencies that all look identical on paper.

One other organization worth knowing about is the civicdesign.org. They're not my first choice as the prime UI implementation vendor, but their expertise in civic research, plain language, accessibility and information design could be extremely useful in shaping your procurement requirements or evaluation rubric. Civic Design Center

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (e.g. permitting, benefits, public works, elections, payments, inspections, resident portal), I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and build you a procurement-ready evaluation matrix with weighted scoring criteria.

• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604
• Pivot Design - 321 N Clark St #600, Chicago, IL 60654
• DS&P Digital Marketing & PR Agency - 332 S Michigan Ave #900, Chicago, IL 60604
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606
• Cultivate Brands - 111 N Wabash Ave Ste 100-1066, Chicago, IL 60602
• Flamingo Agency - 3752 N Southport Ave, Chicago, IL 60613
• CUX Studio - 122 S Michigan Ave suit 1390, Chicago, IL 60603
• Alpha Efficiency - Web Design Chicago Agency - 875 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611
• Comrade Digital Marketing Agency - 332 S Michigan Ave #900, Chicago, IL 60604
• Research By Design LLC - 10801 S Western Ave Suite 201, Chicago, IL 60643
• Design Henge - 2259 W Rosemont Ave, Chicago, IL 60659

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research + accessible UI are both core requirements, I would not treat this as a generic “Chicago web design agency” search. I’d shortlist firms with evidence of civic/government work, research capability, accessibility practice, and ability to work within public-sector constraints.

My RFP shortlist

1. Friends From The City — first call

Friends From The City

This is probably the closest match to what you described. They are Chicago-based civic-tech specialists made up of researchers, designers, developers and product managers, and explicitly work with government agencies. Their approach emphasizes understanding the problem through research before committing to a solution. They list work with the VA, CMS and U.S. State Department. Friends From The City

Why I'd invite them: unusually strong combination of civic context + UX research + service/product design.

friendsfromthecity.com

2. UX 4Sight — research-heavy contender

UX 4Sight

DirectionsWebsite[Call](tel:+13122240095)

I'd include them if the project has substantial discovery, usability testing, stakeholder research or information-architecture work. Their Chicago presence and research-oriented positioning make them worth an RFP.

A current Chicago UX-market review also specifically identifies UX 4Sight as a research-driven UX/usability option. UX Planet

3. Highland — strong end-to-end option

Highland

Highland has been doing product/service work in Chicago for 25+ years and explicitly offers UX research, including contextual research intended to improve accessibility and usefulness. Highland Solutions

I'd particularly consider them if you need the agency to go from research → UX architecture → UI → prototype → implementation/handoff, rather than producing research and handing the designs to another vendor.

highlandsolutions.com

4. IA Collaborative — best for complex service redesign

IA Collaborative

I'd put IA Collaborative on the list if this is a genuinely complex municipal service—not merely a website refresh. They're better suited to projects involving service design, organizational complexity, multiple stakeholders and significant redesign.

5. NORC at the University of Chicago — research specialist / potential partner

NORC at the University of Chicago

NORC's Market & Design Research group combines social-science research, UX research and service design. NORC

I wouldn't necessarily make them the sole UI vendor. But for a project where representative resident research, quantitative/qualitative rigor, accessibility research, or hard-to-reach populations are especially important, I'd consider either an RFP or a partnership model.

norc.org

6. Promet Source — especially if implementation matters

Promet is Chicago-based and has substantial public-sector experience, including procurement vehicles that make its services accessible to federal, state and local government agencies. It also advertises UX capabilities and government-focused digital work. Promet Source

I'd include them if the project includes CMS/web implementation, accessibility remediation, hosting/integration or long-term maintenance, rather than just research and design.

prometsource.com

One wildcard I'd definitely investigate

Illinois Digital Service

This isn't an agency you'd necessarily hire in the conventional sense, but I'd talk to Illinois Digital Service before issuing the RFP.

They're a nonprofit network of Illinois-based civic technologists offering UX research/design, service design, visual/content design, engineering and data work, and they say they provide pro bono services to state and local Illinois government agencies. Illinois Digital Service

illinoisdigitalservice.org

Depending on who the municipal client is and the project's eligibility, this could either supplement the agency or materially change your procurement strategy.

How I'd structure the competition

I'd probably invite 5 firms, rather than sending the RFP to 15:

The exact accessibility scores are my procurement-oriented assessment, not claims of formal certification.

One important requirement I'd put in the RFP

Don't simply say:

“The selected vendor must produce an accessible website compliant with WCAG.”

I'd require them to demonstrate how accessibility is incorporated into the research and design process.

For example, require:

• Research with people with disabilities, not just an accessibility audit afterward.
• Testing with screen readers and keyboard-only users.
• Research involving cognitive, visual, auditory and motor accessibility needs where relevant.
• WCAG 2.2 AA as the design/acceptance target, with the applicable municipal/state/federal requirements explicitly mapped.
• Accessible Figma/design-system components, not just an accessibility report.
• Usability testing of prototypes before development.
• Accessibility acceptance criteria for every major user flow.
• Automated and manual accessibility testing.
• Testing on the actual technology stack before launch.
• Documentation and training so the municipality can keep the system accessible after the agency leaves.

That approach is particularly important because Chicago itself describes accessibility as something that should be integrated into UX work and has used resident-centered design around services such as 311. Chicago Design System Chicago Design System

My recommended first three conversations

If I were running the procurement, I'd start with Friends From The City, Highland, and UX 4Sight, then use Promet or IA Collaborative as the fourth/fifth bidder depending on whether implementation or service-design complexity is the bigger issue.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (e.g. permitting, benefits enrollment, 311, public health, transportation, inspections, payments, parks, etc.) and roughly the budget/contract size, I can narrow this to 3–5 agencies and build you a procurement-ready RFP scorecard with weighted criteria and interview questions.

A current Chicago UX-market review also specifically identifies UX 4Sight as a research-driven UX/usability option. UX Planet

3. Highland — strong end-to-end option

Highland

Highland has been doing product/service work in Chicago for 25+ years and explicitly offers UX research, including contextual research intended to improve accessibility and usefulness. Highland Solutions

I'd particularly consider them if you need the agency to go from research → UX architecture → UI → prototype → implementation/handoff, rather than producing research and handing the designs to another vendor.

highlandsolutions.com

4. IA Collaborative — best for complex service redesign

IA Collaborative

I'd put IA Collaborative on the list if this is a genuinely complex municipal service—not merely a website refresh. They're better suited to projects involving service design, organizational complexity, multiple stakeholders and significant redesign.

5. NORC at the University of Chicago — research specialist / potential partner

NORC at the University of Chicago

NORC's Market & Design Research group combines social-science research, UX research and service design. NORC

I wouldn't necessarily make them the sole UI vendor. But for a project where representative resident research, quantitative/qualitative rigor, accessibility research, or hard-to-reach populations are especially important, I'd consider either an RFP or a partnership model.

norc.org

6. Promet Source — especially if implementation matters

Promet is Chicago-based and has substantial public-sector experience, including procurement vehicles that make its services accessible to federal, state and local government agencies. It also advertises UX capabilities and government-focused digital work. Promet Source

I'd include them if the project includes CMS/web implementation, accessibility remediation, hosting/integration or long-term maintenance, rather than just research and design.

prometsource.com

One wildcard I'd definitely investigate

Illinois Digital Service

This isn't an agency you'd necessarily hire in the conventional sense, but I'd talk to Illinois Digital Service before issuing the RFP.

They're a nonprofit network of Illinois-based civic technologists offering UX research/design, service design, visual/content design, engineering and data work, and they say they provide pro bono services to state and local Illinois government agencies. Illinois Digital Service

illinoisdigitalservice.org

Depending on who the municipal client is and the project's eligibility, this could either supplement the agency or materially change your procurement strategy.

How I'd structure the competition

I'd probably invite 5 firms, rather than sending the RFP to 15:

The exact accessibility scores are my procurement-oriented assessment, not claims of formal certification.

One important requirement I'd put in the RFP

Don't simply say:

“The selected vendor must produce an accessible website compliant with WCAG.”

I'd require them to demonstrate how accessibility is incorporated into the research and design process.

For example, require:

• Research with people with disabilities, not just an accessibility audit afterward.
• Testing with screen readers and keyboard-only users.
• Research involving cognitive, visual, auditory and motor accessibility needs where relevant.
• WCAG 2.2 AA as the design/acceptance target, with the applicable municipal/state/federal requirements explicitly mapped.
• Accessible Figma/design-system components, not just an accessibility report.
• Usability testing of prototypes before development.
• Accessibility acceptance criteria for every major user flow.
• Automated and manual accessibility testing.
• Testing on the actual technology stack before launch.
• Documentation and training so the municipality can keep the system accessible after the agency leaves.

That approach is particularly important because Chicago itself describes accessibility as something that should be integrated into UX work and has used resident-centered design around services such as 311.

My recommended first three conversations

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• TXI - 10 S Riverside Plaza Ste 875 - #7670, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Highland - 125 S Clark St Ste 670, Chicago, IL 60603, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• First Insights - 401 N Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60611, United States
• Catalyst Consulting Group, Inc. - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 450, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Centralis - 2822 Central St Ste 100, Evanston, IL 60201, United States
• Bold Insight (Chicago) - 125 S Wacker Dr Suite 3020, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• SMARTGOV LLC - 205 N Michigan Ave Suit 810, Chicago, IL 60601, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Khoj Lab LLC - Research, Design and Strategy for Innovation - Khoj Lab LLC c/o Guild Row, 3130 N Rockwell St, Chicago, IL 60618, United States
• Institute for Healthcare Delivery Design - 1220 S Wood St 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 1440 N Dayton, Ste 307, Chicago, IL 60642
• Watch Street Consulting - 1 N State St f15, Chicago, IL 60602, United States

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.

My Chicago shortlist

1. Sandstorm Design — strongest overall fit

• Chicago-based, research-driven UX/digital experience firm.
• Particularly interesting if this is a substantial public-facing website or digital service rather than just a visual redesign.
• Their work combines UX research, information architecture, design, development, and accessibility.
• I would definitely invite them to propose.
• TXI — best for a complex digital service/product

• Strong combination of user research, product strategy, UX/design, prototyping, and engineering.
• I'd put them high on the list if the municipal project involves workflows, portals, applications, integrations, or a service that has to be built—not merely a website.
• Chicago-based and experienced with complex product work.
• Grand Studio — strong research + service/product design candidate

• Chicago consultancy focused on human-centered design, qualitative research, UX/UI, and complex problems.
• Particularly worth an RFP if you want research to genuinely drive the service design, rather than doing an accessibility audit after the interface is already decided.
• Highland — strong full-service option

• Chicago-based with 25+ years in product design/development and 300+ products/services cited publicly.
• Explicitly offers UX research, usability testing, experience mapping, UX/UI and service design. Highland Solutions
• Good candidate if you want one firm to take research through design and potentially implementation.
• Dialogue Theory — interesting civic/mission-driven option

• Chicago studio working with mission-driven organizations and civic agencies.
• Offers discovery/research, UX/UI, content strategy, design systems and implementation.
• I'd include them particularly if the project has a strong public communication/civic engagement component.
• DataMade — wildcard, but very relevant for civic tech

• Chicago civic-technology/data consultancy with experience around government, open data and civic institutions.
• I'd consider them if the project involves public data, civic technology, transparency, mapping, or government systems, although I'd verify that their proposed team has the accessibility/UI depth you need.

One specialist I'd consider pairing with a prime

First Insights is worth considering if you want particularly rigorous independent UX research/usability testing. Their Chicago operation specializes in UX research and usability testing.

That could give you a useful procurement structure: research specialist → design agency → implementation, rather than asking one vendor to mark its own homework.

Who I'd actually RFP

If I were putting together the procurement shortlist, I'd probably start with:

I'd also be cautious about treating WCAG compliance as synonymous with accessibility. For a municipal service, your RFP should require research with actual people with disabilities, keyboard-only testing, screen-reader testing, mobile/accessibility testing, and usability validation—not merely an automated accessibility scan. Federal Digital.gov similarly frames research around understanding real user needs and behaviors rather than simply checking requirements. Digital.gov

What I'd put in the RFP

I'd make the vendors respond to a concrete sequence:

1. Discovery & research

• Stakeholder interviews
• Resident/citizen interviews
• Accessibility-focused research
• Current-state journey mapping
• Analytics/task analysis where available
• Inclusive research

• Recruitment of people with disabilities
• Older adults
• Low digital-literacy users
• Mobile-only users
• Residents with limited English proficiency, if relevant to the service
• UX/service design

• Information architecture
• User journeys
• Task flows
• Wireframes
• Prototypes
• Usability testing and iteration
• Accessible UI

• WCAG 2.2 AA target
• Accessible design system/component library
• Keyboard navigation
• Focus states
• Color/contrast
• Forms and validation
• Screen-reader semantics
• Responsive/mobile accessibility
• Validation

• Moderated usability testing
• Manual accessibility testing
• Assistive-technology testing
• Remediation
• Final accessibility/usability report
• Handoff

• Figma/design files
• Design system
• Accessibility documentation
• Developer specifications
• Research repository
• Staff training

One important procurement trick: require vendors to name the actual people who will conduct the research and design the interface, and provide 2–3 comparable government/public-service case studies. Otherwise you can wind up buying a great firm's capabilities while getting a much less experienced subcontractor team.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (website redesign, 311 service, permitting, benefits, public portal, internal staff system, etc.) and roughly the budget range, I can narrow this to 3–5 agencies and build you a vendor scorecard/RFP evaluation matrix tailored to Chicago procurement.

I'd also be cautious about treating WCAG compliance as synonymous with accessibility. For a municipal service, your RFP should require research with actual people with disabilities, keyboard-only testing, screen-reader testing, mobile/accessibility testing, and usability validation—not merely an automated accessibility scan. Federal Digital.gov similarly frames research around understanding real user needs and behaviors rather than simply checking requirements. digital.gov

What I'd put in the RFP

I'd make the vendors respond to a concrete sequence:

• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• TXI - 10 S Riverside Plaza Ste 875 - #7670, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Highland - 141 W Jackson Blvd, Ste 2200, Chicago, IL 60604
• Civic Projects Architecture - 6100 S Blackstone Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, United States
• Ad Hoc Home - 705 Chicago Ave, Evanston, IL 60202, United States
• Artversion - 205 N Michigan Ave 8th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
• Intechnic Corporation - 20 N Wacker Dr Ste 1200, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• FlyDesign - 111 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Design In Chicago - 159 N Sangamon St Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• Institute for Healthcare Delivery Design - 1220 S Wood St 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60608, United States

Yes. For a municipal project, I would not treat this as a generic “find a good UX agency” exercise. You want a team that can do community-centered research + accessible interaction/UI design + government/public-service workflows, and ideally understands procurement and stakeholder-heavy environments.

My Chicago shortlist

1. Greater Good Studio — my first call

• Probably the strongest fit if the project involves residents, equity, community engagement, or difficult public-service problems.
• They explicitly work with government agencies and the social sector, and their process covers framing, research, synthesis, prototyping and piloting. Greater Good Studio Greater Good Studio
• They specifically describe accessible research/engagement methods and have substantial community-centered work. Greater Good Studio
• They're also a Chicago WBE/DBE, which may be useful depending on your procurement requirements. Greater Good Studio
• Caveat: I'd make them demonstrate their production-level accessibility/UI engineering capability rather than assuming it from their research strength.
• Sandstorm Design — strong research + digital delivery option

• Chicago-based, research-driven UX/digital agency.
• Particularly interesting if you need to go from research into a real website/application and potentially a CMS or ongoing digital platform.
• Their positioning includes UX research, usability testing, information architecture and accessibility. UX Planet
• Grand Studio — strong product UX candidate

• Good option if this is a complex digital service/application rather than primarily a public website.
• Their work spans qualitative UX research, usability testing, UX/UI, product strategy and design systems.
• I'd put them on the RFP list if you need a sophisticated product-design team.
• TXI — consider if design needs to connect to engineering

• Chicago-headquartered digital product consultancy.
• Their approach combines discovery, human-centered design, research, prototyping and software development, making them attractive if the agency needs to stay involved beyond Figma.
• UX 4Sight — research-heavy alternative

• Worth an RFP if you want a more specialized UX research/UI firm.
• They specifically offer user research, usability testing, UX audits and accessibility evaluation. UX Planet
• Dialogue Theory — interesting civic/public-interest option

• Especially worth investigating if your project needs strategy + research + UX/UI + content + implementation.
• Their positioning specifically includes civic agencies and accessibility/inclusive design.

One I would not overlook

MUSE Community + Design isn't primarily a digital UX agency, but if your municipal project has a major public-engagement, community research, planning, or multilingual participation component, they could be a valuable research/engagement partner. They have worked on the City of Chicago's We Will Chicago planning effort.

And there is an unusually relevant local benchmark: the City of Chicago's own Digital Services/Design Office says its work centers on accessible, inclusive services, user-centered research and digital-service design. Chicago Design System Chicago Design System I'd actually use Chicago's published design methods and principles as part of your RFP evaluation criteria.

If I were issuing the RFP

I'd invite 5–6 firms, probably:

• Greater Good Studio
• Sandstorm Design
• Grand Studio
• TXI
• UX 4Sight
• Dialogue Theory

Then require every bidder to respond to the same hypothetical service scenario rather than letting everyone submit glossy portfolios.

Your RFP should require:

• Research: stakeholder interviews, resident interviews, contextual inquiry, accessibility-focused research, usability testing
• Inclusive recruitment: people with disabilities, older adults, limited digital literacy, multilingual residents, and other populations relevant to the service
• Accessibility: WCAG 2.2 AA, keyboard/screen-reader testing, color/contrast, focus management, forms, error states, content structure, and accessibility testing with disabled users
• Service design: journey maps, service blueprints, pain points, policy/process constraints
• UI: responsive designs, component library/design system, states and edge cases—not just happy-path screens
• Validation: iterative prototype testing and documented findings
• Handoff: production-ready Figma/design-system artifacts plus developer guidance
• Governance: accessibility standards and UX/design practices your municipal team can continue after the engagement
• Research deliverables: raw/structured findings, not merely a PowerPoint of recommendations
• Community engagement: explain exactly how residents participate and how their input changes the design

I'd also require three comparable references, preferably actual government/public-sector projects, and ask:

“Show us one project where your original research materially changed the proposed service or interface.”

That's a much better discriminator than asking agencies to show their “best design.”

My ranking for a municipal project: Greater Good Studio first for research/community-centered work; Sandstorm or Grand Studio for the strongest balance of research + digital product delivery; TXI if engineering integration is critical.

If you tell me what the municipal service is (e.g. permitting, 311, benefits, inspections, public health, transportation, licensing) and roughly your budget, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and build you a Chicago-specific RFP shortlist with evaluation weights and questions to send each agency.

For a municipal project, I would not just hire a UI shop. I’d prioritize firms that can demonstrate:

• Civic/public-sector experience (or comparable regulated, high-stakes services)
• Inclusive UX research (residents, frontline staff, people with disabilities, multilingual communities)
• Accessibility expertise (WCAG 2.2 AA, manual testing, assistive technology testing—not just automated scans)
• Service design capability (journeys, workflows, policy constraints)
• Ability to deliver a design system/component library that your team can maintain

Chicago is actually a strong market for this. The City’s own Digital Services team emphasizes resident-centered design, accessibility, and user research practices, which is a good benchmark for vendor expectations. Chicago Design System Chicago Design System

My shortlist for an RFP/RFQ would be:

Strongest candidates to request proposals from

Grand Studio

Best fit if this is a complex municipal service transformation.

Why consider:

• Strong human-centered design orientation
• UX research, service design, usability testing, and product strategy
• Comfortable with complicated stakeholder environments

Good RFP fit:

• Resident journey mapping
• Discovery research
• Prototyping
• Service blueprinting
• UX/UI design

Fuzzy Math

Best fit if you need a research-to-design partner that can work closely with internal teams.

Why consider:

• UX assessments
• Research and product discovery
• Journey maps/personas
• UX roadmaps and design support

Good RFP fit:

• Digital service redesign
• Web application UX
• Internal government tools

Highland

Best fit if the project includes implementation, not just design.

Why consider:

• UX research plus product design/development capability
• Experience with complex digital products
• Can bridge research findings into build decisions

Good RFP fit:

• Resident portals
• Workflow-heavy applications
• Civic platforms requiring engineering support

Highland Solutions

Sandstorm Design

Best fit if the project is primarily a public website, CMS, or communications platform.

Why consider:

• Research-driven web strategy
• UX and accessibility focus
• Experience with large organizational websites

Good RFP fit:

• Municipal websites
• Content-heavy services
• Drupal/enterprise CMS environments

IA Collaborative

Best fit for a large, strategic engagement.

Why consider:

• Deep research/design practice
• Strong service innovation background
• Useful if you are redesigning an entire resident experience rather than a single interface

Good RFP fit:

• Department-wide digital strategy
• Multi-channel services
• Transformation programs

Firms I would add specifically for accessibility-heavy work

Bold Insight

Worth including if accessibility testing and evidence-based research are major requirements.

Potential strengths:

• Human factors research
• Usability studies
• Accessibility-related evaluation

Ipsos

Consider as a research-only partner if you want an independent research phase before selecting a design/build vendor.

Potential strengths:

• Large-scale UX research capability
• Accessibility testing panels
• Research facilities in Chicago

Ipsos UX

My recommended procurement approach

I would probably not award the whole thing to one vendor initially. For a municipal project, I’d structure it as:

Phase 1 — Discovery + research (8–12 weeks)

Ask for:

• Stakeholder interviews
• Resident interviews
• Accessibility research with disabled users
• Language access considerations
• Current-state UX audit
• Journey maps
• Prioritized pain points

Phase 2 — UX/UI design

Ask for:

• Information architecture
• Wireframes
• Prototypes
• Design system components
• Accessible UI patterns
• Usability testing rounds

Phase 3 — Accessibility validation

Require:

• WCAG 2.2 AA audit
• Keyboard-only testing
• Screen reader testing
• Testing with disabled users
• Remediation guidance

RFP requirements I would include

Require vendors to provide:

1. Three comparable projects

• Municipal, government, healthcare, education, or public-benefit services preferred
• Named team members

• Lead UX researcher
• Accessibility specialist
• Product designer
• Service designer
• Accessibility evidence

• Examples of audits
• Assistive technology testing experience
• WCAG expertise
• Community engagement plan

• How they recruit residents
• How they compensate participants
• How they reach underserved populations
• Maintenance handoff

• Design tokens
• Component library
• Figma files
• Documentation
• Training

If I were creating a shortlist of 5 firms to invite, I’d start with:

1. Grand Studio
2. Fuzzy Math
3. Highland
4. Sandstorm Design
5. IA Collaborative

…and I’d add Bold Insight or Ipsos as an accessibility/research specialist if the budget allows.

For a municipal procurement, I’d also check whether your jurisdiction has a prequalified vendor list or MBE/WBE/DBE participation requirements before issuing the RFP.

• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 811 W Evergreen Ave #305, Chicago, IL 60642, United States
• Firebelly Design - 1402 N Western Ave, Chicago, IL 60622, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• Civic Projects Architecture - 6100 S Blackstone Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, United States
• Artversion - 205 N Michigan Ave 8th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
• Catalyst Consulting Group, Inc. - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 450, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Intechnic Corporation - 20 N Wacker Dr Ste 1200, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Houseal Lavigne Associates - 188 W Randolph St Ste 200, Chicago, IL 60601, United States
• Institute for Healthcare Delivery Design - 1220 S Wood St 3rd Floor, Chicago, IL 60608, United States

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research, accessibility, and actual UI design all matter, I’d avoid hiring a generic web/branding shop. I’d shortlist firms that can demonstrate civic/public-sector work + rigorous user research + accessibility-by-design.

My Chicago shortlist

1. DataMade — strongest civic-tech fit

• Chicago-based and explicitly focused on civic society.
• Has worked with governments and public agencies, including the City of Chicago.
• Their work includes user research, product design, information design, and civic digital tools. DataMade
• I would absolutely invite them to bid.
• Dialogue Theory — strong end-to-end candidate

• Chicago digital design/development studio working with mission-driven organizations and civic agencies.
• Particularly interesting if you need discovery → research → UX/UI → implementation, rather than a research report handed off to someone else.
• Their positioning specifically emphasizes accessibility and intuitive functionality.
• Invite to bid.
• Sandstorm Design — strong research + accessibility candidate

• Chicago UX/digital-experience agency with a research-driven approach.
• Does usability studies, prototype testing, UX strategy and digital design, with an explicit accessibility focus.
• Particularly worth considering if this is a substantial public-facing website or digital service.
• Invite to bid.
• Fuzzy Math — UX specialist

• Chicago UX strategy/design consultancy.
• More UX-specialist than traditional municipal web agency, which could be valuable if the hard part of your project is understanding residents and designing a genuinely usable service.
• Invite to bid, especially if you already have engineering/content resources.
• Firebelly Design — good civic/mission-driven option

• Chicago agency with experience spanning UX strategy, information architecture, content strategy, accessibility and front-end development.
• Their published client experience includes civic and public-interest organizations, including the City of Chicago and Divvy.
• Definitely worth an RFP invitation.
• UX 4Sight — research-heavy alternative

• Chicago UX/UI firm offering user research, usability testing, UX audits and accessibility evaluation.
• I'd consider them particularly if the research/testing component is substantial, although I'd probe their municipal experience carefully.
• IDEO Chicago — premium/high-budget option

• Strong human-centered research, service design and prototyping capability.
• Potentially excellent for a complicated service redesign, but I'd expect a considerably higher budget than a boutique Chicago firm.
• Worth soliciting if the project is strategically important and budget permits.

The three I'd start with

If I were running the procurement, my initial 3–5-firm RFP list would be:

• DataMade — civic-tech/public-sector depth
• Dialogue Theory — civic + end-to-end digital design
• Sandstorm Design — research + UX + accessibility
• Firebelly Design — civic/mission-driven + accessibility
• Fuzzy Math — deeper UX specialization

I'd potentially add IDEO as a "stretch" proposal to establish what best-in-class/high-budget work looks like.

One important procurement point

Don't make the RFP simply say "conduct UX research and design an accessible interface." Make the research and accessibility requirements explicit.

A good municipal UX scope should require things like:

• Recruitment and research with actual residents/service users, not just internal stakeholders.
• Deliberate inclusion of people with disabilities in research and usability testing.
• Interviews/contextual research followed by usability testing.
• Testing with screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, zoom/reflow and other relevant assistive technologies.
• WCAG 2.2 AA as the baseline, with accessibility considered throughout design—not just an audit at the end.
• Accessible prototypes and a documented design system/component library.
• Iterative research → prototype → test → redesign cycles.
• Plain-language/content considerations.
• Mobile and low-bandwidth scenarios where relevant.
• Research findings tied explicitly to design decisions.
• Accessibility acceptance criteria for the final UI.
• Handoff specifications for the engineering team.
• Post-launch usability/accessibility validation.

There's actually a useful public-sector model for structuring this: the Civic User Research Playbook recommends putting accessibility/equity into the goals and explicitly requiring vendors to handle test design, moderation, iterative design and integration of public feedback. Digital Government Hub

And I'd make disability-community participation a scored criterion rather than a checkbox. CMAP's recent accessibility procurement, for example, emphasizes engaging the disability community as accessibility initiatives are developed. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

My recommended evaluation weighting

For this particular project, I'd score proposals approximately:

Don't let lowest price dominate. For a municipal service, a beautiful interface that doesn't work for disabled residents—or research that never makes it into the design—is much more expensive than paying the right firm initially.

If you tell me what the municipal product is (website, permitting system, 311/service-request flow, public benefits portal, transportation app, internal government system, etc.) and roughly your budget, I can narrow this to 3 agencies I'd actually put on the RFP list, with a proposed scope and questions to ask each one.

• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Mightybytes - 4001 N Ravenswood Ave, Ste 404, Chicago, IL 60613
• IA Collaborative - 218 S Wabash Ave 9th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 811 W Evergreen Ave #305, Chicago, IL 60642, United States
• IDEO Chicago - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Clique Studios - 20 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1075, Chicago, IL 60606
• Khoj Lab - 3432 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• LCM Architects - 200 N LaSalle St #2700, Chicago, IL 60601, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• LUNAR - 1229 W Washington Blvd, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Beyond Design, Inc. - 3759 N Ravenswood Ave, Chicago, IL 60613, United States
• Intechnic Corporation - 20 N Wacker Dr Ste 1200, Chicago, IL 60606, United States

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research and accessibility are both core requirements, I would not simply pick the biggest Chicago UX shop. I’d shortlist firms that can demonstrate public-sector research, inclusive design, WCAG/ADA expertise, community engagement, and the ability to hand off production-ready UI/design systems.

My initial RFP list would be:

1. Sandstorm Design — probably my first call. Chicago-based, research-driven UX/digital experience work, with experience serving purpose-driven organizations. Their capabilities include usability studies, prototype testing, information architecture, and accessibility-oriented work.

sandstormdesign.com

2. Dialogue Theory — particularly interesting for a civic project. They position themselves around mission-driven organizations and complex initiatives, covering discovery/research through UX/UI, content, implementation, and accessibility.

dialoguetheory.com

3. Greater Good Studio — I'd definitely invite them if the project involves community engagement, equity, qualitative research, or designing services rather than merely redesigning screens. They're Chicago-based and explicitly work with government, nonprofits, and social-sector organizations.

greatergoodstudio.com

4. Mightybytes — a strong candidate if this is a digital service/web project and you care about accessibility, sustainability, and mission-driven work. They're Chicago-based and combine strategy, design, development, and digital improvement.

mightybytes.com

5. IA Collaborative — worth an RFP if this is a large, complicated municipal service involving multiple departments, stakeholders, or legacy processes. They're particularly strong in human-centered research, service/product design, and organizational complexity.

iacollaborative.com

6. Fuzzy Math — a good specialist UX option if you primarily need research, information architecture, interaction design, and UI rather than a giant implementation contractor.
7. IDEO Chicago — potentially excellent for a high-visibility, highly complex service-design effort, although I'd expect a substantially higher price point than the boutique firms.

One more I'd seriously consider

Promet Source isn't necessarily the first firm I'd choose for pure research, but it's highly relevant if the project includes actual government web implementation. They're Chicago-based, explicitly serve public-sector organizations, and advertise WCAG/Section 508 accessibility, UX/UI, digital strategy, and ongoing support. Promet Source Promet Source

prometsource.com

My recommended RFP slate

If you're going to request 4–5 proposals, I'd make it:

I'd also consider Promet Source as a sixth bidder if implementation/CMS is part of the scope.

One important point: don't make “WCAG compliance” the entirety of your accessibility requirement. For a municipal service, I'd require the winning firm to conduct research with people with disabilities and include screen-reader, keyboard-only, low-vision, cognitive, motor, and mobile testing where relevant. Accessibility should be part of the research and design process, not a QA exercise at the end.

Chicago-area municipalities also have a useful accessibility context: CMAP specifically provides local-government ADA resources and notes the obligations of public entities under ADA Title II. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (resident portal, permitting, benefits, transportation, public works, elections, 311, etc.), I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and rank them, including which ones I'd trust to lead the research versus which I'd use for UI/implementation.

• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 811 W Evergreen Ave #305, Chicago, IL 60642, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• LCM Architects - 200 N LaSalle St #2700, Chicago, IL 60601, United States
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• Artversion - 205 N Michigan Ave 8th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Design Workshop - 401 N Franklin St, Chicago, IL 60610
• Catalyst Consulting Group, Inc. - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 450, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• EVE - User Experience Design Agency - 7135 N Merrimac Ave, Chicago, IL 60646, United States

Yes. For a Chicago municipal project combining UX research + accessible UI, I’d avoid treating this as a generic “web design agency” search. You want a team that can do resident research, service/interaction design, accessibility, prototyping, usability testing, and design-system/handoff work.

Based on current Chicago-area capabilities, I’d put these firms on the RFP shortlist:

My shortlist

1. DataMade — strongest civic-tech fit

• Chicago-based and deeply rooted in civic/public-interest technology.
• Their work explicitly includes user research, product design, information design, and government projects.
• They have worked with the City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development on Chi Block Builder and have experience with open-government tools. DataMade
• My take: If this project involves public data, complex government workflows, civic participation, or a resident-facing digital service, I'd absolutely invite them.
• Dialogue Theory — excellent mission-driven option

• Chicago digital design/development studio working with civic agencies and mission-driven organizations.
• Their capabilities span discovery/research, UX/UI, content strategy and implementation, with accessibility called out in their work.
• My take: Particularly interesting if you want one partner to take research all the way through production.
• Sandstorm Design — strong UX + accessibility candidate

• Chicago UX/digital experience firm with a research-driven process.
• Their UX work includes usability studies, prototype testing, information architecture and digital strategy, with accessibility among their stated focus areas.
• My take: I'd include them if the project is substantial enough to need a mature UX/design operation rather than a small boutique.
• Fuzzy Math — strongest pure UX/product-design contender

• Chicago UX strategy and design consultancy specializing in complex digital products and workflows.
• A recent Chicago UX industry review specifically identifies Fuzzy Math as a strong choice for complex enterprise systems. UX Planet
• My take: Very attractive if your municipal project has complicated internal/external workflows, multiple user roles, dashboards, forms, case management, etc.
• Grand Studio — strong research-to-UI option

• Chicago strategic digital product consultancy doing qualitative UX research, interviews, usability testing, UX/UI design and design systems.
• My take: Worth an RFP if you want a polished, research-heavy product-design process rather than primarily a website redesign.
• UX 4Sight — good research/testing alternative

• Chicago UX/UI consultancy offering user research, usability testing, UX audits and accessibility-oriented evaluation.
• My take: I'd consider them especially for a research-heavy engagement or an existing product that needs evaluation before redesign.
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency — broader design/brand option

• Chicago agency offering UX research, user testing, UI/UX and development.
• My take: More compelling if the project also needs substantial visual identity/communications work. For a deeply civic UX problem, I'd rank the firms above them.

One specialist I'd consider separately

Greater Good Studio is interesting if the project has a substantial equity, community-engagement, or participatory-design component. They're a Chicago social-impact design/consulting firm working with government and civic organizations and emphasize co-design and qualitative research.

And if by “accessible UI” you mean physical/public-space accessibility rather than digital accessibility, that's a different procurement: LCM Architects has a specific ADA/universal-design practice, but I wouldn't use them as the primary digital UX vendor.

The one I would not overlook

There's also CivicSitePro, a Chicago/Illinois specialist explicitly focused on municipal websites. They say they build to WCAG 2.1 AA and have Illinois municipal experience, including FOIA/open-meetings and municipal-content requirements. CivicSitePro CivicSitePro

I'd include them if this is primarily a municipal website/CMS project. If you're building a more complicated resident service or digital product, I'd favor DataMade/Fuzzy Math/Grand Studio/Sandstorm.

How I'd structure the RFP

I would not make the RFP say simply:

“Design us an accessible website.”

I'd ask vendors to propose a process roughly like:

1. Discovery & stakeholder research

• Department/staff interviews
• Existing analytics/data review
• Policy and service-journey review
• Technical/system constraints
• Resident/user research

• Interviews with residents
• Usability testing
• Recruitment of people with disabilities
• Testing across age, language, digital-literacy and device contexts
• Explicit inclusion of screen-reader/keyboard users
• Service + information architecture

• User journeys
• Task flows
• Navigation/IA
• Content strategy
• Prioritization of high-value/high-friction services
• Accessible interaction design

• Wireframes → prototypes → high-fidelity UI
• WCAG 2.2 AA as the target
• Keyboard and screen-reader behavior
• Focus states, error handling, forms, contrast, typography, motion, etc.
• Mobile/responsive accessibility
• Usability validation

• Test prototypes with actual residents
• Accessibility testing with disabled users
• Iterate based on evidence
• Design system + implementation handoff

• Figma component library
• Accessible components/patterns
• Design tokens
• Developer specifications
• Accessibility acceptance criteria
• QA/testing plan
• Post-launch measurement

• Task success
• Completion rates
• Search failures
• Support/contact volume
• Accessibility defects
• Resident satisfaction

That last piece is important: don't let vendors satisfy the accessibility requirement with an automated accessibility scanner. Automated tools are useful, but your RFP should require manual testing and testing with people who actually use assistive technologies.

If I were issuing the RFP tomorrow

I'd probably invite 5 firms:

• DataMade — civic-tech/domain expertise
• Fuzzy Math — deep UX/product expertise
• Sandstorm Design — mature UX/research/design operation
• Grand Studio — research + product design
• Dialogue Theory — civic/mission-driven design + implementation

And I'd add CivicSitePro if the project is fundamentally a municipal website/CMS rather than a broader digital service.

That gives you a much more useful competitive field than five generic Chicago web agencies. A recent Chicago UX review likewise puts Fuzzy Math, Sandstorm, UX 4Sight, ArtVersion and Codal among notable local UX firms, but for a municipal procurement I'd weight civic/public-sector experience much more heavily than a conventional UX ranking. UX Planet

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (website, permitting, 311, benefits, public works, transit, licensing, internal staff system, etc.) and roughly the budget, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and give you an RFP-ready evaluation matrix with scoring criteria and questions to send each one.

I'd ask vendors to propose a process roughly like:

1. Discovery & stakeholder research

• Department/staff interviews
• Existing analytics/data review
• Policy and service-journey review
• Technical/system constraints
• Resident/user research

• Interviews with residents
• Usability testing
• Recruitment of people with disabilities
• Testing across age, language, digital-literacy and device contexts
• Explicit inclusion of screen-reader/keyboard users
• Service + information architecture

• User journeys
• Task flows
• Navigation/IA
• Content strategy
• Prioritization of high-value/high-friction services
• Accessible interaction design

• Wireframes → prototypes → high-fidelity UI
• WCAG 2.2 AA as the target
• Keyboard and screen-reader behavior
• Focus states, error handling, forms, contrast, typography, motion, etc.
• Mobile/responsive accessibility
• Usability validation

• Test prototypes with actual residents
• Accessibility testing with disabled users
• Iterate based on evidence
• Design system + implementation handoff

• Figma component library
• Accessible components/patterns
• Design tokens
• Developer specifications
• Accessibility acceptance criteria
• QA/testing plan
• Post-launch measurement

• Task success
• Completion rates
• Search failures
• Support/contact volume
• Accessibility defects
• Resident satisfaction

That last piece is important: don't let vendors satisfy the accessibility requirement with an automated accessibility scanner. Automated tools are useful, but your RFP should require manual testing and testing with people who actually use assistive technologies.

If I were issuing the RFP tomorrow

I'd probably invite 5 firms:

• DataMade — civic-tech/domain expertise
• Fuzzy Math — deep UX/product expertise
• Sandstorm Design — mature UX/research/design operation
• Grand Studio — research + product design
• Dialogue Theory — civic/mission-driven design + implementation

And I'd add CivicSitePro if the project is fundamentally a municipal website/CMS rather than a broader digital service.

That gives you a much more useful competitive field than five generic Chicago web agencies. A recent Chicago UX review likewise puts Fuzzy Math, Sandstorm, UX 4Sight, ArtVersion and Codal among notable local UX firms, but for a municipal procurement I'd weight civic/public-sector experience much more heavily than a conventional UX ranking.

• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Clique Studios - 20 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1075, Chicago, IL 60606
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• VERSIONS - 10 S LaSalle St Ste 201, Chicago, IL 60603, United States
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Fuzzy Math - 811 W Evergreen Ave #305, Chicago, IL 60642, United States
• Intechnic Corporation - 20 N Wacker Dr Ste 1200, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Maven Digital - 23 N Racine Ave, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• Artversion - 205 N Michigan Ave 8th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
• EDUCO Web Design - 128 Chicago Ave, Oak Park, IL 60302, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research and accessible UI are both core requirements, I would not simply hire a generic Chicago web-design shop. I’d shortlist firms that can demonstrate public-sector/community research, service design, accessibility, and actual UI delivery.

My Chicago shortlist

1. Dialogue Theory — strongest overall fit

• Chicago-based and explicitly works with civic agencies and mission-driven organizations.
• Covers discovery/research → UX/UI → content strategy → implementation.
• Particularly interesting if this is a complicated public-facing service rather than just a website redesign.
• Their positioning around accessibility and civic/public-interest work makes them one of my first calls.
• Grand Studio — strong for serious UX/service design

• Particularly good candidate if the project involves complex services, multiple stakeholders, workflows, or legacy systems.
• Their offering combines qualitative/mixed-method research, product strategy, UX/UI, prototyping and design systems.
• I'd ask them specifically for examples of accessibility work in government or other high-stakes public services.
• MUSE Community + Design — strongest community-engagement complement

• This is especially interesting if "UX research" really means understanding residents, underserved communities, language access, and community needs, rather than conventional usability testing.
• They've worked with public agencies and on Chicago's We Will Chicago planning effort, including bilingual engagement and community-partner coordination.
• I'd consider them either as the prime research/engagement partner or as a teaming partner with a digital UX agency.
• Sandstorm Design — strong research + digital experience option

• Chicago-based and research-driven, with UX research, usability testing, information architecture and digital design.
• Worth an RFP if the project includes a substantial website/platform component and you want one firm handling research through design.
• DataMade — particularly compelling for civic tech

• Chicago firm with a longstanding civic-tech/public-interest orientation.
• Their combination of information design, UX and engineering is attractive if the interface will ultimately connect to data, open-government systems, or other technical infrastructure.
• Greater Good Studio — consider for equity-centered research

• Chicago-based social-impact design consultancy working with government agencies and other public-interest organizations.
• Strong candidate if the research component needs co-design, qualitative research, facilitation and equity/community perspectives.
• Clique Studios — good larger digital-agency option

• Chicago office and broad capabilities spanning UX research/interviews, IA, UX/UI, usability testing and accessibility-focused design.
• I'd include them if you want a larger agency capable of carrying the project through implementation.

One specialist I'd also contact

CivicActions isn't Chicago-specific, but I'd seriously consider inviting them if accessibility is a non-negotiable procurement requirement. Their accessibility practice explicitly incorporates user research, organizational accessibility maturity, technical reviews, testing and accessibility throughout development rather than treating WCAG as a final audit. CivicActions Accessibility

There's also CivicSitePro, a Chicago-area specialist focused specifically on municipal websites and WCAG 2.1 AA. They're more municipality/web-CMS oriented than the research-heavy firms above, but could be a useful proposal for a conventional municipal website project. CivicSitePro CivicSitePro

civicsitepro.com

If I were issuing the RFP

I'd invite 5–6 firms, rather than 15. My initial list would be:

• Dialogue Theory
• Grand Studio
• MUSE Community + Design
• Sandstorm Design
• DataMade
• Greater Good Studio

And I'd give them a very explicit scope requiring:

• Discovery and resident research before visual design
• Recruitment of actual municipal-service users, including people with disabilities
• Interviews + contextual inquiry where appropriate
• Usability testing of prototypes
• Multilingual/community engagement where relevant
• WCAG 2.2 AA as the design target
• Manual accessibility testing, not merely an automated scanner
• Testing with keyboard navigation and screen readers
• Accessible interaction patterns, forms, error states, focus management, contrast, typography, etc.
• A reusable accessible design system/component library
• Figma designs plus design specifications that developers can actually implement
• Accessibility acceptance criteria and testing artifacts
• Knowledge transfer to the municipality's internal team
• A plan for maintaining accessibility after launch

I'd also make "show us the actual research and accessibility work" a scored requirement. Agencies can all say "human-centered" and "WCAG compliant"; you want to see the interview protocol, research synthesis, prototypes, usability findings, accessibility test results, and final components from comparable projects.

One particularly useful benchmark: the City of Chicago itself has a digital-services/accessibility focus and a Chicago Design System intended to support consistent, accessible city digital services.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (website, permitting, benefits/service application, public works, civic engagement, internal staff system, etc.) and roughly the budget, I can narrow this to 3 firms I'd actually invite, compare their likely strengths/weaknesses, and draft the UX research + accessible UI scope/RFP requirements for you.

• Fuzzy Math - 811 W Evergreen Ave #305, Chicago, IL 60642, United States
• Sandstorm Design - 4422 N Ravenswood Ave #50, Chicago, IL 60640, United States
• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Highland - 141 W Jackson Blvd, Ste 2200, Chicago, IL 60604
• Chicago Department of Technology and Innovation - 2 N LaSalle St Ste 1010, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• SMARTGOV LLC - 205 N Michigan Ave Suit 810, Chicago, IL 60601, United States
• Blue Daring - 162 W Hubbard St Ste 400, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Watch Street Consulting - 1 N State St f15, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• Intechnic Corporation - 20 N Wacker Dr Ste 1200, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• Mightybytes - 4001 N Ravenswood Ave, Ste 404, Chicago, IL 60613
• EVE - User Experience Design Agency - 7135 N Merrimac Ave, Chicago, IL 60646, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Center for Neighborhood Technology - 17 N State St #1850, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• The Office of Experience, LLC - 980 N Michigan Ave Ste 1090, Chicago, IL 60611, United States

Yes. For a municipal project where resident research + accessible UI are both core requirements, I would not simply hire the prettiest Chicago UX shop. I’d shortlist firms that can demonstrate public-sector research, accessibility testing with people with disabilities, service design, and production-ready UI/design systems.

My Chicago shortlist

1. Fuzzy Math — first RFP

• Strongest general-purpose candidate for a complicated municipal product.
• Chicago-based UX strategy/design consultancy with an emphasis on complex systems and research-led design.
• A current Chicago UX review specifically identifies Fuzzy Math as a strong fit for complex enterprise systems and research-driven product decisions. UX Planet
• Ask them to prove: municipal/public-sector work, accessibility methodology, and whether disabled residents participate directly in their research.
• Sandstorm Design — very strong RFP candidate

• Particularly interesting if this is a public-facing website/service, rather than just an internal application.
• Their offering combines UX research, usability testing, information architecture, content and digital strategy, with accessibility work.
• I'd put them high on the list for a project where research → content/IA → accessible design → implementation needs to be connected.
• Dialogue Theory — civic/mission-driven option

• This one jumps out because it works with civic agencies and mission-driven organizations, and its work spans discovery/research, UX/UI, content strategy and implementation.
• Public feedback also specifically mentions accessibility and intuitive functionality.
• Potentially a particularly good fit if the project has significant community/stakeholder complexity.
• DataMade — consider seriously if technology is part of the scope

• Chicago civic-tech roots are a meaningful differentiator.
• They combine information design/UX with engineering and have experience with public-interest technology.
• I'd favor them if you want one partner capable of taking research and design into actual civic software, rather than handing Figma files to another vendor.
• UX 4Sight — good research/UI specialist

• Their offering explicitly includes UX research, usability testing, UX/UI design and accessibility audits.
• Worth an RFP if you want a more traditional research-and-design engagement rather than a civic-tech implementation partner.
• Highland — good end-to-end alternative

• Chicago product-design/development firm with 25+ years in the market and an explicit UX research practice. Highland Solutions
• Makes sense if the eventual requirement includes software/product development, not just research and UI.

One wildcard I'd absolutely investigate

Illinois Digital Service isn't a conventional agency, but it is unusually relevant. It's a nonprofit network of Illinois civic technologists with experience in government UX research/design, service design, visual/content design and engineering, and says it provides pro-bono services to state and local Illinois government agencies. Illinois Digital Service

If your municipal entity qualifies, I'd contact them before issuing the RFP. Even if they can't take the work, they could be a useful source of procurement/specification advice.

There's also a uniquely Chicago resource worth knowing about: CUTgroup, operated by City Tech, has put residents into the UX testing process for civic and government technology and has supported more than 30 local design exercises. City Tech Collaborative That could be useful whether the eventual vendor is one of the agencies above or not.

The accessibility piece is where I'd be demanding

I'd make accessibility a scored requirement, not a checkbox saying "WCAG compliant."

For each proposal, require the vendor to explain:

• How they recruit people with disabilities for research and usability testing.
• How screen-reader, keyboard-only, low-vision, cognitive and other accessibility needs get incorporated into research.
• Their target standard — I'd specify WCAG 2.2 AA unless your legal/procurement team has a different requirement.
• How accessibility is evaluated during wireframes, prototypes and final UI, rather than only at the end.
• Whether accessibility testing is performed by people with relevant lived experience as well as automated tools.
• How they handle accessible design systems and reusable components.
• What they deliver to developers: annotated designs, component specifications, accessibility acceptance criteria, etc.
• Who on the proposed team actually has accessibility expertise. Don't accept "our agency follows WCAG" as evidence.

For an especially accessibility-intensive project, I'd consider bringing in a specialist alongside the UX agency. AUX Consulting, for example, explicitly provides accessibility/usability testing and accessibility-focused UX research with blind and low-vision testers. AUX Consulting

Who I'd actually invite to the RFP

If you're trying to keep procurement manageable, I'd invite 5–6 firms:

Then I'd give AUX Consulting the option to bid as an accessibility specialist/subcontractor, or explicitly permit prime vendors to team with them.

One important point: the City of Chicago itself describes its digital-services approach around resident research, user-centered design and accessibility, including work on 311 and the Chicago Design System. Chicago Design System Chicago Design System I'd therefore make the RFP look much more like a civic service-design engagement than a conventional "website redesign."

If you tell me what municipal service you're designing (e.g. permitting, 311, benefits, inspections, public works), approximate budget, and whether the agency also has to build the software, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and give you a procurement-ready evaluation matrix/RFP requirements.

• Dialogue Theory - 1932 S Halsted St #509, Chicago, IL 60608, United States
• DataMade - 626 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, 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
• Greater Good Studio - 3759 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604, United States
• Centralis - 2822 Central St Ste 100, Evanston, IL 60201, United States
• IDE Interactive, Inc. - 2945 W Peterson Ave Ste 103, Chicago, IL 60659, United States
• Artversion - 205 N Michigan Ave 8th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
• Fuzzy Math - 811 W Evergreen Ave #305, Chicago, IL 60642, United States
• Grand Studio - 444 N Wells St #501, Chicago, IL 60654, United States
• Design In Chicago - 159 N Sangamon St Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60607, United States
• MUSE Community + Design - 1616 N Damen Ave #201, Chicago, IL 60647, United States
• Brand Vision Marketing - Web Design & Branding - 30 N Michigan Ave #504, Chicago, IL 60602, United States
• Wojo Design - 318 W Adams St #1609, Chicago, IL 60606, United States
• INSITUM US - 560 W Washington Blvd, Chicago, IL 60661, United States

Yes. For a municipal project where UX research, accessible UI, and public-sector realities all matter, I would not send the RFP to generic Chicago web-design shops. I’d create a shortlist around firms that can demonstrate civic/public-sector research + inclusive design + accessibility + actual product/UI delivery.

My Chicago shortlist

1. Dialogue Theory — strongest overall fit to investigate

• Chicago-based, mission-driven digital design/development studio.
• Particularly interesting for a municipal project because its positioning includes civic agencies, nonprofits, discovery/research, UX/UI, content strategy, implementation, and accessibility.
• I'd definitely invite them to an RFP.
• DataMade — strongest civic-tech pedigree

• This would be one of my first calls if the project involves government data, public information, civic participation, maps, dashboards, or complex workflows.
• Their work is explicitly oriented toward governments and public-interest organizations, with information design/UX aimed at making complex subjects understandable.
• Particularly compelling if you need the eventual UI to work with complicated underlying data rather than just look good.
• Sandstorm Design — strong UX + digital-experience candidate

• Chicago UX/digital-experience agency with research-driven UX, usability testing, information architecture and accessibility experience.
• Worth an RFP if you're looking for a relatively mature agency capable of taking research through design and implementation.
• Highland — strong end-to-end product option

• Their published UX-research practice includes interviews, usability testing, observational research, heuristic analysis, experience mapping and validation.
• They specifically discuss accessibility as part of prioritizing product features. Highland Solutions
• I'd put them on the list if the project is a substantial digital service rather than simply a website redesign.
• Greater Good Studio — especially interesting for community-facing work

• Chicago social-impact design consultancy working with government agencies, nonprofits and foundations.
• Stronger candidate if the research needs to involve community engagement, equity, co-design and qualitative research, rather than just conventional usability testing.
• UX 4Sight — research/UI specialist to consider

• Their capabilities include UX/UI, UX audits, accessibility evaluation, user research, usability testing and design validation.
• I'd consider them as a specialist/boutique bidder, particularly if you want rigorous usability research and interface design.

Two additional specialists I'd consider

Centralis in nearby Evanston is worth contacting if you want serious UX research rather than an agency whose main business is implementation. Their specialization is qualitative research, usability testing and UX evaluation.

Bold Insight is another interesting research-heavy option. They have a Chicago office and explicitly recruit/research participants with disabilities, including people who are blind or have low vision. Their UX researchers handle study design, recruitment, moderation, analysis and recommendations. Bold Insight Bold Insight I'd consider pairing a research specialist like this with a UI/design agency if you want unusually rigorous research.

If I were running the procurement

I'd probably invite 5 firms rather than 15:

One important RFP requirement

I would not simply ask bidders to "make the interface ADA compliant." That's too easy to turn into an automated accessibility audit after the UI has already been designed.

I'd require the selected team to demonstrate:

• Research with actual residents, including people with disabilities.
• Recruitment methodology for people using screen readers, keyboard navigation, magnification, voice control, etc.
• WCAG 2.2 AA as a design/development requirement.
• Accessibility testing with real assistive-technology users, not just automated scanners.
• Research across different levels of digital literacy, language proficiency and access to technology.
• Usability testing of prototypes before visual design is finalized.
• Accessible Figma/design-system components and documented interaction states.
• Keyboard/focus, error handling, forms, authentication, PDFs/documents, tables, maps and data visualizations where applicable.
• A process for maintaining accessibility after launch.
• Concrete examples of shipped public-sector/civic interfaces, not merely accessibility audits.
• A research plan explaining who they will talk to and why, rather than promising a generic "stakeholder workshop."

For a municipal procurement, I'd also make bidders disclose exactly which team members will do the work. You don't want to select an agency because of a beautiful portfolio and then discover the actual project is staffed by junior designers.

My first three calls would be Dialogue Theory, DataMade, and Highland, with Greater Good Studio added if community engagement/equity is a major component. I'd use Bold Insight or Centralis as a benchmark if you want the research portion to be particularly rigorous.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (website, permitting, 311, payments, benefits, transportation, public-safety service, internal government tool, etc.) and roughly the budget, I can narrow this to 3–5 firms and tell you exactly what I would put in the RFP.

I would not simply ask bidders to "make the interface ADA compliant." That's too easy to turn into an automated accessibility audit after the UI has already been designed.

I'd require the selected team to demonstrate:

• Research with actual residents, including people with disabilities.
• Recruitment methodology for people using screen readers, keyboard navigation, magnification, voice control, etc.
• WCAG 2.2 AA as a design/development requirement.
• Accessibility testing with real assistive-technology users, not just automated scanners.
• Research across different levels of digital literacy, language proficiency and access to technology.
• Usability testing of prototypes before visual design is finalized.
• Accessible Figma/design-system components and documented interaction states.
• Keyboard/focus, error handling, forms, authentication, PDFs/documents, tables, maps and data visualizations where applicable.
• A process for maintaining accessibility after launch.
• Concrete examples of shipped public-sector/civic interfaces, not merely accessibility audits.
• A research plan explaining who they will talk to and why, rather than promising a generic "stakeholder workshop."

For a municipal procurement, I'd also make bidders disclose exactly which team members will do the work. You don't want to select an agency because of a beautiful portfolio and then discover the actual project is staffed by junior designers.

My first three calls would be Dialogue Theory, DataMade, and Highland, with Greater Good Studio added if community engagement/equity is a major component. I'd use Bold Insight or Centralis as a benchmark if you want the research portion to be particularly rigorous.

If you tell me what the municipal project actually is (website, permitting, 311, payments, benefits, transportation, public-safety service, internal government tool, etc.) and roughly the budget, I can narrow this to 3–5 firms and tell you exactly what I would put in the RFP.

• Bold Insight (Chicago) - 125 S Wacker Dr Suite 3020, Chicago, IL 60606
• C+R Research - 150 N Michigan Ave 34th floor, Chicago, IL 60601
• dscout - 222 N LaSalle St Ste 650, Chicago, IL 60601
• US Digital Studio LLC - 200 S Wacker Dr 31st floor, Chicago, IL 60606
• UX 4Sight - 111 W Jackson Blvd Unit 1700, Chicago, IL 60604
• Clearview Research, Inc. - 8725 W Higgins Rd Ste 150, Chicago, IL 60631
• ArtVersion® Creative Agency - 211 W Wacker Dr Ste 1130, Chicago, IL 60606
• Centralis - 2822 Central St Ste 100, Evanston, IL 60201
• UXM Studio - 230 E Ohio St Ste 210, Chicago, IL 60611
• Research By Design LLC - 10801 S Western Ave Suite 201, Chicago, IL 60643
• Digital Authority Partners - 420 W Huron St Fl 1, Chicago, IL 60654
• QualSights - QualSights @ mHUB, 1623 W Fulton St, Chicago, IL 60612
• Conifer Research LLC - 24 E Washington St Ste 875, Chicago, IL 60602
• Comrade Digital Marketing Agency - 332 S Michigan Ave #900, Chicago, IL 60604

Yes. For a municipal project where the same partner needs to do credible UX research and turn it into accessible UI, I’d keep the RFP fairly tight and invite a small field of firms rather than treating this as a generic Chicago web-design procurement.

My shortlist

1. Friends From The City — first call / strongest overall fit

This is the one I’d put at the top of the RFP list. They specifically work with government agencies and combine research, UX/UI design, service design, design systems, development, and accessibility rather than treating research and implementation as separate disciplines. Their government clients include VA, CMS, the State Department, IRS, Maryland, and others. Friends From The City Friends From The City

Their team also includes a senior UX researcher/service designer and designers with civic-tech and accessible-product experience. Friends From The City

friendsfromthecity.com

2. Bold Insight (Chicago) — strongest research/accessibility specialist

I'd absolutely request a proposal from them, particularly if the research component is substantial. They explicitly serve government, have Chicago research facilities, and cover UX research, human factors, accessibility, usability testing, journey mapping, co-design and inclusive recruitment. They specifically describe research with blind/low-vision, mobility, deaf/hard-of-hearing, neurodivergent and older participants. Bold Insight Bold Insight

The caveat: I'd ask them to demonstrate that their proposed team can take research all the way through production-ready UI/design-system work, rather than assuming that from their research credentials.

boldinsight.com

3. C+R Research — research-heavy alternative

Worth considering if you want particularly rigorous community/user research. I would, however, structure the RFP so that UI design is either explicitly demonstrated in their proposal or handled by a named design partner.

4. dscout — good research methodology option

Chicago-based and potentially interesting if you need diary studies, longitudinal research, remote research, or a large amount of qualitative participant data. Again, I'd treat them primarily as a research contender rather than assuming they're your end-to-end accessible UI agency.

5. US Digital Studio LLC / other Chicago design firms — useful as a UI-design counterpoint

I'd only put a conventional design agency into the competition if it can demonstrate actual municipal/civic work, accessibility expertise, and research capability. A pretty portfolio isn't enough for this project.

One wildcard I'd seriously investigate

Illinois Digital Service isn't an agency you'd necessarily procure in the normal sense, but it's worth contacting before you spend money. It's a network of Illinois civic technologists with experience in UX research/design, service design, content design, software engineering and data analysis, and it says it provides pro-bono services to state and local Illinois government agencies. Illinois Digital Service

illinoisdigitalservice.org

There's also a very useful benchmark in Chicago itself

The City of Chicago's Digital Services/Design Office is unusually explicit about its approach: user-centered research, accessibility, inclusive design, and the Chicago Design System. The city's design system generally uses WCAG 2.0 AA as its accessibility standard. Chicago Design System Chicago Design System

That means I'd make the RFP require bidders to explain how their work will integrate with the Chicago Design System / USWDS-style patterns where applicable, rather than letting each vendor invent a UI language from scratch.

design.chicago.gov

If I were issuing the RFP

I'd invite 3–5 firms, with these three as the core competitive set:

NORC is particularly interesting if your project involves substantial community research or complex populations: its UX/design research practice combines qualitative and quantitative methods, usability testing, journey mapping and service-design work. NORC

My recommendation: ask Friends From The City, Bold Insight, and NORC for proposals, and add one conventional Chicago product/design firm as a fourth bidder for comparison. That gives you a useful spread between civic-service design, accessibility/human-factors research, and rigorous social research.

One important procurement point: don't let vendors interpret "accessible UI" as merely running an automated WCAG checker. Your SOW should require research with people with disabilities using assistive technology, accessibility-informed interaction design, keyboard/screen-reader testing, design-system components, and accessibility acceptance criteria for the final UI. Bold Insight's description of its accessibility research is a good model for the level of specificity I'd expect. Bold Insight

If you tell me what kind of municipal project this is (311, permitting, benefits, transportation, public works, resident portal, etc.) and whether you're the municipality or a contractor serving it, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and give you a procurement-ready scoring matrix and RFP scope.

Yes. For a municipal project, I would not choose purely on “good-looking UX.” I’d prioritize agencies that can demonstrate public-sector research, inclusive recruiting, accessibility expertise, service design, and production-ready UI/design systems.

Chicago itself has a useful benchmark: the City’s Design Office uses human-centered design, resident research, and accessibility as core practices, with WCAG AA as its stated target. design.chicago.gov

My Chicago shortlist

A couple of those have particularly compelling evidence. Bold Insight, for example, explicitly says its government practice includes accessible/inclusive research, WCAG and Section 508, and recruiting people with disabilities, older adults and non-English speakers. boldinsight.com Highland explicitly offers UX research in Chicago and describes it as a way to improve product/service value, accessibility and usefulness. www.highlandsolutions.com

I would probably invite 5–6 firms

If this were my procurement, my initial RFP pool would be:

1. Grand Studio
2. Sandstorm Design
3. Dialogue Theory
4. TXI
5. Highland
6. Bold Insight — especially if you want the research component to be unusually rigorous.

I'd also consider a research + design pairing rather than forcing one agency to do everything. For example, Bold Insight could handle the research program while a product-design firm turns findings into the accessible UI. That can produce a better result than hiring a visually strong agency whose research capability is secondary.

One important thing I'd put in the RFP

Don't just say “accessible UI.” Require the vendor to demonstrate:

• WCAG 2.2 AA design and implementation capability
• research with people with disabilities, not merely accessibility audits
• representative recruiting across age, disability, language, digital literacy, etc.
• moderated usability testing of prototypes with assistive-technology users
• keyboard/screen-reader/mobile accessibility testing
• accessible design-system components and Figma artifacts
• accessibility acceptance criteria for engineering
• plain-language/content-design considerations
• research findings tied explicitly to design decisions
• usability testing after implementation, not just before
• a documented handoff/governance process so accessibility doesn't decay after launch

That is consistent with the direction Chicago has already taken: its own design guidance emphasizes resident research, user-centered methods and accessibility rather than treating accessibility as a final QA step. design.chicago.gov

One wildcard

If this is actually a City of Chicago or another Illinois government project, I'd also talk to the Illinois Digital Service before spending much money. It is a network of Illinois civic technologists with government experience in UX research/design, service design, content design and engineering, and says it provides pro-bono services to state and local Illinois government agencies. illinoisdigitalservice.org

Illinois Digital Service

Bottom line: I'd put Grand Studio, Sandstorm, Dialogue Theory, TXI, Highland, and Bold Insight into the first-round pool, with Grand Studio/Sandstorm/Dialogue Theory getting especially close scrutiny for the combination of civic fit + research + design, and Bold Insight as the research specialist.

If you tell me what the municipal service is (311, permitting, benefits, transportation, licensing, public safety, etc.), approximate budget, and whether you're procuring under Chicago/Illinois public procurement rules, I can narrow this to 3–4 firms and compare their relevant government/civic case studies and accessibility credentials.

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.