Higher Heights Care Ltd — first framework submission
Needed onto a regional DPS to access contract opportunities. Accepted first attempt, zero compliance issues.
At a glance
Summary
Where the client started and what we delivered — at a glance.
The Starting Point
Higher Heights Care Ltd had never applied to a DPS or framework before. They had the CQC registration, the staff, and the track record, but no submission pack, no mapped evidence, and no experience with what a compliance failure looks like.
- First-time framework applicant with no template or prior submission to learn from
- Policies and evidence existed but weren't formatted to framework standards
- Four genuine policy gaps that would have caused rejection, not yet identified
- Other providers had told them first-time rejections were common
What We Delivered
We built the submission from scratch: audited all 31 requirements, identified and helped close 4 policy gaps before submission, wrote every narrative response, and created a reusable evidence library.
- Requirement-by-requirement audit across all 31 framework conditions
- Identified 4 policy gaps and worked with the client to close them before submitting
- Wrote all narrative responses in the format DPS evaluators use for compliance assessment
- Labelled every document against requirement numbers for clean cross-referencing
- Built a structured evidence library already reused on two further bids
Background
The challenge
What the client was dealing with before we got involved.
Higher Heights Care Ltd had been growing through spot purchasing and direct referrals for three years. That model had taken them a long way. But it was reaching its ceiling. The commissioners they wanted to work with were shifting toward framework-based commissioning. The contracts with real volume, 12-month terms, and stable income were increasingly only available to providers already on an approved DPS. Higher Heights weren't on it. That meant an entire category of contract opportunity was structurally inaccessible to them, not because their service wasn't good enough, but because they hadn't applied.
They'd been aware of the framework for over a year. The reason they hadn't applied wasn't laziness. It was uncertainty. They had the CQC registration, the trained staff, the operational track record. What they didn't know was how those things needed to be presented for a framework evaluation, what a DPS evaluator actually looks for, or what a compliance failure looks like in practice. Other providers had told them first-time rejections were common. They came to us not wanting to find out why the hard way.
Method
Our approach
How we structured the work to address the brief.
We started with a requirement-by-requirement audit across all 31 framework conditions. For each one we identified whether Higher Heights had existing evidence that satisfied it, partial evidence that needed reformatting, or a genuine gap. Most providers are surprised at this stage. Documents they assumed covered a requirement often don't, and not because the document is wrong. It's because it addresses a slightly different scenario than the framework describes.
Four requirements had genuine gaps. Two were around business continuity planning, specifically around the loss of key staff in a domiciliary care context. The existing policy covered general business disruption but didn't address the care-specific scenario the framework required. We worked through what the requirement was looking for and what the policy needed to say to satisfy it. The other two gaps were around data handling. Documents existed but didn't reference the commissioner's specific information governance standards by name. Small gaps, but the kind that result in rejection without explanation. We flagged all four immediately so the client could close them before submission.
For the narrative responses, we wrote to match how DPS evaluators actually work. Framework evaluation is fundamentally different from tender evaluation. It's compliance-driven, not quality-scored. The evaluator isn't looking for a persuasive argument. They're checking: is the answer complete, is it evidenced, and can I verify it against the document it references? Every statement in the submission pointed back to a specific document, labelled against the requirement number it satisfied. Nothing required the evaluator to search, assume, or infer.
Outcome
The result
What changed after the engagement.
Higher Heights Care Ltd were accepted onto the DPS first attempt. Zero compliance issues flagged. They're now on the approved list for 12 call-off contract opportunities that simply weren't accessible to them before the submission.
The evidence library we built has already been reused on a separate local authority tender, saving roughly two weeks of preparation time. Getting onto the framework was never the actual goal. It was the access point. The contracts sitting behind it are where the value is, and the infrastructure to pursue them is now in place.
We'd been aware of the DPS for over a year and kept putting it off because we didn't know where to start or what we were missing. JC Tenders mapped every requirement against what we had, told us exactly what needed fixing, helped us close the gaps, and we were accepted first time with no issues. We're already using the evidence pack on other bids. We'd wasted a year not knowing it was this manageable.
In a similar position?
If you need to get onto a framework or DPS but aren't sure where to start or what gaps you have, we can audit the requirements, identify what's missing, and build a submission designed to pass first time.
Send the tender pack
Share the tender pack (or link) and deadline — we’ll confirm fit, timelines, and recommend the most cost-effective scope.