We write tenders that win contracts
Not just compliant submissions. Scoring responses that beat competitors. 94% average quality score. Zero compliance failures across 50+ submissions.
The difference between writing a tender and winning one
Most bid writers will produce a compliant document. It’ll be on time, properly formatted, technically acceptable.
And it’ll score 71% and lose.
Compliance is the floor, not the ceiling. Evaluators mark against a scoring rubric, usually with grade descriptors at each level. A response that confirms you can do the job scores in the middle. A response that proves you’ve done it — with named outcomes, documented processes, and evidence referenced to attachments — scores at the top. The difference between a 2 and a 4 on a question weighted at 20% often determines whether you win.
We don’t write for compliance. We write for scores.
“We’ll write what you tell us.” Generic templates, 2-week turnaround, no view of the marking scheme.
We map every answer to evaluation criteria. We predict scores before submission. We decline bids we don’t think will win.
How we engineer wins
-
Pack analysis — before we agree to work together. We review the tender pack for free. Not to win your business — to see if this is winnable. We check whether your evidence matches the requirement, whether the timeline is realistic for quality work, and where the scoring opportunities are. If it’s not winnable, we tell you. We’d rather preserve our win rate than take your money on a losing bid.
-
Compliance matrix — Day 1. 47 checkpoints before writing begins. Mandatory requirements, pass/fail items, document dates, insurance thresholds, portal rules. One missed checkbox means automatic disqualification. We leave nothing to chance.
-
Response architecture — Days 2–3. Before we write, we plan. Which questions carry the most marks. What evidence supports each answer. Who needs to review what. Timeline with buffer. No more ‘who’s writing section 4?’ chaos.
-
Criteria-led drafting — Days 4–10. Each answer is written to the marking scheme, not to a generic template. We map specific evidence to each criterion and write responses that a scorer can grade at the top of the range.
-
Red-team review — Days 11–12. We review like evaluators: marking each answer against the criteria, identifying gaps, strengthening weak responses. We typically catch 100+ issues per tender — issues that would otherwise cost marks.
-
Submission validation — final day. Portal upload. File formats. Naming conventions. Deadline verification. We aim for 5 PM, not 11:59 PM.
What a scoring response looks like in practice
The single biggest gap between a 2 and a 4 is specificity. Here’s the same safeguarding answer at both levels:
“We have robust safeguarding procedures and our staff receive regular training to ensure the safety of the people we support.”
“Our safeguarding protocol includes Level 3 training for 100% of staff (certificates attached), a 2-hour incident reporting requirement, monthly internal audits, and zero CQC escalations in 24 months. Named safeguarding lead: [Name], DSL-qualified since [date].”
The second response is scoreable. The first is a claim. Evaluators can’t award marks for claims they can’t verify.
This is why evidence structure matters as much as the words. We extract proof points you may not have thought to include — contract outcomes, KPIs, inspection results, TUPE transfer data — and reference them to specific attachments evaluators can check.
Case study: £890K supported living contract
A 12-staff supported living provider came to us for their first major public tender. They were competing against three national providers. Their main weakness: limited mobilisation experience.
We identified mobilisation as a 20%-weighted criterion, built a week-by-week transition plan with a risk matrix, and sourced a TUPE transfer from their operational history as evidence of comparable experience.
Result: 100% on mobilisation. 94% overall quality score. Won the contract against all three national providers.
“The mobilisation plan alone scored us full marks. It turned our biggest weakness into a strength.” — Supported living provider, West Midlands
What’s included
The Compliance Pack
- Pass/fail checklist (all 47 items verified)
- Document inventory with expiry dates
- Insurance validation
- Mandatory declarations (pre-completed)
The Response Pack
- Method statements for each quality question, written to the marking scheme
- Evidence cross-referenced to attachments
- Word count optimised
- Scoring self-assessment (predicted marks before submission)
The Evidence Library
- Case studies formatted for reuse
- Policy summaries
- KPI dashboard
- Reusable on future tenders (reduces future cost)
The Submission Pack
- Portal-ready files with naming convention compliance
- Upload checklist and backup copies
Sectors we write for
Our work covers a range of public sector health and social care contracts, with particular depth in supported living, domiciliary care, patient transport, and children’s services. We understand the buyer market, the regulatory context, and what commissioners look for in a quality response — which means we know which evidence sources carry weight and which questions get heavy scrutiny from evaluators in these markets.
Timeline and what’s not possible
Ideal: 3–4 weeks. Week 1: pack analysis, compliance, planning. Week 2: drafting. Week 3: reviews and refinement. Week 4: final QA and submission.
Urgent: 10–14 days. +20% fee for compressed timelines. Requires rapid turnaround from your team. Full quality — we don’t cut corners.
Not possible: under 7 days. Evidence gaps can’t be fixed in a week. We decline rather than submit weak work.
We don’t guarantee wins. Competition varies. Incumbents have advantages. Sometimes the best bid loses.
We do guarantee: zero compliance failures, zero disqualifications, scoring prediction within 5%, and the best possible submission given your evidence and timeline.
Social value
Social value is a standard element of most public sector care procurements, typically carrying 10% or more of the quality score. The TOMs framework (Themes, Outcomes, Measures) is the most common structure. Vague commitments about “supporting local communities” score nothing. Specific, measurable commitments — named roles to create, training outcomes, local organisations to partner with — score at the top of the range. We draft social value sections the same way we draft every other scored question: against the criteria, with evidence. Our article on social value in tenders breaks down how to build a response that scores.
Is your next tender worth winning?
Book a free call and we’ll tell you honestly if it’s winnable — and what it costs to get there.
Send the tender pack
Share the tender pack (or link) and deadline — we’ll confirm fit, timelines, and recommend the most cost-effective scope.