If so, one imagines "they" have a definition of what "they" mean by "searchable"? And, accordingly, workflow guidance for the uninitiated.

Further, whilst it's commonly accepted Adobe bagged the world's fixed document format (with .pdf) it does seem odd that a public institution would stipulate the considerably less-common, and stricter-proprietary format of (Autodesk's) .dwf. Do not get me wrong, I like .dwf(x) and I know arguing the toss against city/state requirements is often a dead-end battle, but it is just, well, weird.

As for your woes:
If "searchable" means text-terms search; note that .dwf (and .dwfx) will rasterise certain elements, including text, based on certain output conditions on (your Revit) export - and there is no native, on-the-fly OCR (in Design Review at least) to accomodate searching such.

If by "searchable" the requirements mean/t "navigatable" then yes, Revit can readily produce .dwf (and .dwfx) that enable in-document movement via callout heads - but it does require the bulk-export of a set, which almost always run counter to parallel requirements of one-file-per-document.