Tender Readiness Scorecard

Before you bid: 25 questions that save £5K-£20K

Most providers lose tenders not because they deliver poor services, but because they bid before they’re ready.

This scorecard assesses your readiness across 5 dimensions in under 10 minutes. Score below 70? Address the gaps before committing resources.

---

How to use this scorecard

Step 1: Rate yourself 0-5 on each question (0 = major gap, 5 = fully ready)

Step 2: Sum your scores (maximum 125)

Step 3: Check your readiness level

Step 4: Prioritise gaps before bidding

---

Section A: Compliance Readiness (Questions 1-5)

Question 1: CQC Status

• 5 — CQC registered, current, correct categories, Good or Outstanding rating
• 4 — CQC registered, Good rating, one area for improvement noted
• 3 — CQC registered, Requires Improvement, active improvement plan
• 2 — CQC registration issues or recent enforcement
• 1 — Not CQC registered (but need to be)
• 0 — CQC Inadequate or significant enforcement

Question 2: Insurance

• 5 — All required insurances current, adequate cover, 3+ months before expiry
• 4 — All insurances current, adequate cover, <3 months to expiry
• 3 — One minor insurance gap or lower cover than ideal
• 2 — Major insurance gap or expired certificate
• 1 — No professional indemnity (if required)
• 0 — No public/employer’s liability (mandatory gap)

Question 3: Policies

• 5 — All required policies current (<12 months), comprehensive, implemented
• 4 — Policies current, one or two need minor updates
• 3 — Some policies 12-18 months old, need refresh
• 2 — Several policies >18 months old or significant gaps
• 1 — Major policy gaps (safeguarding, health & safety)
• 0 — No policies or severely outdated

Question 4: Financial Standing

• 5 — Strong accounts, good credit, >2 years trading, solid reserves
• 4 — Adequate financials, minor concerns, 2 years accounts
• 3 — Financials acceptable but tight, <2 years accounts
• 2 — Weak financial position, credit concerns
• 1 — Recent losses, cash flow issues
• 0 — Insolvency risk, CCJs, serious concerns

Question 5: Mandatory Exclusions

• 5 — Clean record, no convictions, no tax issues, no conflicts
• 4 — Minor historical issue, fully resolved
• 3 — Historical issue with good explanation
• 2 — Current minor issue being resolved
• 1 — Moderate concern requiring disclosure
• 0 — Major exclusion ground applies

Section A Total: _ / 25

---

Section B: Evidence Readiness (Questions 6-10)

Question 6: Case Studies

• 5 — 5+ current case studies (<18 months) with specific outcomes
• 4 — 3-4 case studies, most recent <12 months
• 3 — 2-3 case studies, some >18 months
• 2 — 1-2 old case studies, weak outcomes
• 1 — Case studies exist but not documented
• 0 — No case studies documented

Question 7: KPIs and Metrics

• 5 — Comprehensive KPI tracking, monthly data, 12+ months history
• 4 — Good KPI tracking, quarterly data, 6-12 months
• 3 — Basic KPIs tracked, inconsistent, <6 months
• 2 — Minimal KPI tracking, anecdotal evidence
• 1 — Some numbers but not systematic
• 0 — No KPI tracking

Question 8: Testimonials

• 5 — 10+ testimonials with permission, diverse sources, current
• 4 — 5-9 testimonials, most with permission
• 3 — 3-4 testimonials, mixed permission status
• 2 — 1-2 testimonials, weak variety
• 1 — Few testimonials, no documented permission
• 0 — No testimonials collected

Question 9: Staff Information

• 5 — Full staff matrix, all qualifications tracked, training current
• 4 — Good staff records, minor gaps in tracking
• 3 — Adequate records, some training out of date
• 2 — Basic records, significant gaps
• 1 — Minimal documentation
• 0 — No systematic staff records

Question 10: Innovation and Improvement

• 5 — Clear improvement projects, documented results, awards/recognition
• 4 — Some innovations, basic documentation
• 3 — Improvements happening, weak documentation
• 2 — Ad-hoc improvements, no evidence
• 1 — No structured improvement
• 0 — No innovation or improvement culture

Section B Total: _ / 25

---

Section C: Capacity Readiness (Questions 11-15)

Question 11: Staff Capacity

• 5 — Clear capacity for new contract, recruitment pipeline, low agency use
• 4 — Capacity with minor stretch, manageable recruitment
• 3 — Significant stretch but achievable
• 2 — Major capacity gap, heavy recruitment needed
• 1 — Severe understaffing for current work
• 0 — Cannot staff current contracts adequately

Question 12: Management Bandwidth

• 5 — Management capacity for new contract, clear oversight plan
• 4 — Adequate management, minor stretch
• 3 — Management stretched, will need support
• 2 — Management severely stretched already
• 1 — Insufficient management for current work
• 0 — Management crisis

Question 13: Financial Capacity

• 5 — Cash reserves for mobilisation, credit facilities, no liquidity concerns
• 4 — Adequate cash flow, minor mobilisation costs manageable
• 3 — Tight cash flow, mobilisation will strain
• 2 — Cash flow concerns, cannot fund mobilisation
• 1 — Severe financial constraints
• 0 — Financial distress

Question 14: Systems and Infrastructure

• 5 — All systems scalable, proven at this volume, robust
• 4 — Systems adequate, minor scaling needed
• 3 — Systems will need significant upgrade
• 2 — Systems inadequate for contract size
• 1 — Major systems investment required
• 0 — No systems in place

Question 15: Geographical Reach

• 5 — Contract area within current footprint, easy expansion
• 4 — Adjacent to current area, manageable expansion
• 3 — Some distance, operational challenge
• 2 — Significant geographical stretch
• 1 — Remote from current operations
• 0 — No experience in this geography

Section C Total: _ / 25

---

Section D: Experience Readiness (Questions 16-20)

Question 16: Sector Experience

• 5 — 5+ years in exact sector, multiple contracts, deep expertise
• 4 — 3-5 years, several contracts, strong expertise
• 3 — 1-3 years, some contracts, developing expertise
• 2 — <1 year, new to sector
• 1 — No direct sector experience
• 0 — Completely new sector

Question 17: Service Type Experience

• 5 — Delivered this exact service type multiple times
• 4 — Delivered similar services, transferrable model
• 3 — Related service experience
• 2 — Minimal relevant experience
• 1 — No relevant service experience
• 0 — Service type completely new

Question 18: Cohort Experience

• 5 — Extensive experience with specific service user group
• 4 — Good experience with similar groups
• 3 — Some experience, learning curve manageable
• 2 — Minimal experience with this cohort
• 1 — No experience with cohort needs
• 0 — Cohort completely unfamiliar

Question 19: Contract Size Experience

• 5 — Regularly deliver contracts of this size or larger
• 4 — Delivered slightly smaller, scaling manageable
• 3 — Delivered 50-75% of this size
• 2 — Delivered <50% of this size
• 1 — No experience with large contracts
• 0 — Only small contracts delivered

Question 20: Tender Experience

• 5 — Extensive tender experience, regular wins
• 4 — Regular tendering, occasional wins
• 3 — Some tendering experience
• 2 — Limited tendering, few submissions
• 1 — Very little tender experience
• 0 — Never tendered before

Section D Total: _ / 25

---

Section E: Strategic Readiness (Questions 21-25)

Question 21: Strategic Fit

• 5 — Perfect strategic alignment, advances core goals
• 4 — Strong fit, supports strategic plan
• 3 — Moderate fit, not harmful
• 2 — Weak fit, somewhat off-strategy
• 1 — Poor fit, distracts from priorities
• 0 — Completely misaligned

Question 22: Win Probability Assessment

• 5 — Strong chance of winning, clear advantages
• 4 — Competitive, good chance with effort
• 3 — Possible, needs excellent bid
• 2 — Long shot, many stronger competitors
• 1 — Unlikely, incumbent likely to retain
• 0 — Unwinnable

Question 23: Competition Analysis

• 5 — Weak competition, clear differentiators
• 4 — Manageable competition, can differentiate
• 3 — Moderate competition, will be tough
• 2 — Strong competition, hard to stand out
• 1 — Dominant incumbent, very difficult
• 0 — No realistic chance against competition

Question 24: Timeline Feasibility

• 5 — Plenty of time, well-resourced
• 4 — Adequate time, manageable
• 3 — Tight but doable
• 2 — Very tight, quality at risk
• 1 — Impossible to deliver quality
• 0 — Already too late

Question 25: Resource Availability

• 5 — Team fully available, no conflicts
• 4 — Minor conflicts, manageable
• 3 — Significant competing priorities
• 2 — Major conflicts, hard to resource
• 1 — Cannot dedicate resources
• 0 — No resources available

Section E Total: _ / 25

---

Calculate Your Readiness

Add all sections:

• Section A (Compliance): _
• Section B (Evidence): _
• Section C (Capacity): _
• Section D (Experience): _
• Section E (Strategic): _

TOTAL SCORE: _ / 125

---

Your Readiness Level

100-125: EXCELLENT READINESS

Status: Ready to bid with confidence Action: Proceed with full effort. You’re well-positioned to compete. Investment level: High — bring in external support if needed

80-99: GOOD READINESS

Status: Ready with minor preparation Action: Fill 2-3 gaps identified before bidding Investment level: Medium-High — worth significant effort

60-79: MODERATE READINESS

Status: Biddable but risky Action: Address 4-5 key gaps. Consider whether this is must-win or wait for better opportunity Investment level: Medium — bid selectively

40-59: POOR READINESS

Status: High risk of wasted effort Action: Only bid if strategic must-win. Significant preparation needed Investment level: Low-Medium — high chance of loss

Below 40: NOT READY

Status: Do not bid Action: Build capability first. This tender will likely fail Investment level: None — conserve resources

---

Gap Analysis & Action Plan

Your lowest scoring sections (prioritise these):

1. Section _ : Score _ / 25
2. Section _ : Score _ / 25
3. Section _ : Score _ / 25

Specific gaps to address:

• Gap 1: _
• Gap 2: _
• Gap 3: _

Actions to take:

Gap	Action	Owner	Deadline	Status
1
2
3

---

Next Steps

If your score is 80+:

1. Download the Excel template (included) for auto-scoring future opportunities
2. Proceed with bid — you’re ready
3. Consider external support to maximise quality
4. Track your score improvement over time

If your score is 60-79:

1. Identify top 3 gaps from lowest sections
2. Create 30-day action plan to address them
3. Assess if timeline allows gap closure
4. Decide: proceed with risk or wait for next opportunity
5. Contact us for bid/no-bid consultation

If your score is below 60:

1. Do not bid on this tender
2. Use this scorecard to build capability over 3-6 months
3. Focus on: CQC compliance, evidence collection, policy updates
4. Retake scorecard in 90 days
5. Prepare for future opportunities rather than rushing unready

---

The Cost of Unready Bidding

Real costs of bidding when not ready:

• Staff time: £3,000-£8,000 per tender
• Opportunity cost: stronger bids not pursued
• Morale impact: repeated losses wear teams down
• Reputation: weak bids damage credibility with commissioners

The numbers: Score below 60 = 70%+ probability of loss Cost per loss: £5,000-£20,000 wasted

Better approach: Invest in readiness first, then bid to win.

---

Excel Auto-Scoring Template

Included with this scorecard:

• Auto-calculates totals
• Charts your readiness by section
• Compares multiple opportunities
• Tracks improvement over time
• Generates gap analysis report

How to use:

1. Enter scores 0-5 for each question
2. See instant readiness rating
3. Compare with previous assessments
4. Identify improvement trends

---

Want Expert Assessment?

We offer:

• Bid/No-Bid Consultation — Review specific opportunities
• Readiness Audit — Objective assessment with recommendations
• Capability Building — Close gaps systematically

Typical results:

• Providers who assess readiness: 45% win rate
• Providers who don’t: 15% win rate

Investment in readiness pays back on first win.

---

This scorecard is updated quarterly to reflect current procurement requirements. Version 1.0 — February 2026