Merit & Method Bid & tender writing

Most bids don’t lose on price. They lose marks.

Merit & Method writes tender responses for care and support providers bidding for council-commissioned contracts. Every answer is built around the published scoring scheme, and every claim traces back to evidence your organisation already holds.

Request a bid assessment

Send the specification and receive a written analysis of how well the contract fits your organisation. No charge, no obligation.

£3.8m+Value of contracts won
£90k–£1.25mIndividual contract range
Since 2022Writing public sector bids

The same facts, three marks apart

Below is a quality question of the kind that appears in almost every care tender, answered twice. Nothing has been added that a provider would not already know about itself. The second version simply shows the evaluator what they are permitted to award marks for.

Choose an example question

Illustrative examples, written for this page. Client answers are never published.

Question 4.2 · Quality · weighted 10%

Describe your approach to safeguarding, including how you identify, escalate and learn from concerns.

2/5 How most providers answer

We take safeguarding extremely seriously and have comprehensive policies and procedures in place. All staff receive safeguarding training and we have a designated safeguarding lead. We work closely with the local authority and follow all relevant guidance. Concerns are escalated promptly and we are committed to continuous improvement.

5/5 How the same facts score full marks

Our safeguarding policy (v4.2, reviewed March 2026) is owned by our Designated Safeguarding Lead, a registered manager holding Level 4 safeguarding certification. All 62 staff complete Level 2 training within their first week and refresh annually. Compliance was 100% at our January 2026 audit. We made seven referrals to the local authority in the past 12 months, all inside the 24 hour window. Our November audit found a delay in escalating low level concerns, so we introduced a weekly concerns huddle. Median escalation time fell from four days to under 24 hours.

What changed

  • Every claim is attached to a document, a date or a number
  • A weakness is disclosed, then closed, because evaluators give credit for learning
  • The answer follows the question’s own three parts: identify, escalate, learn
Question 6.1 · Social value · weighted 10%

Describe the social value you will provide through this contract and how you will measure it.

2/5 How most providers answer

We are deeply committed to the local community and to delivering meaningful social value. We recruit locally wherever possible, support local charities, and are strongly committed to reducing our environmental impact. Social value will be monitored throughout the contract and reported to the commissioner.

5/5 How the same facts score full marks

We commit to four paid placements for care leavers in year one, recruited with the county’s Virtual School and reported quarterly under TOMs measure NT7. Eighty per cent of the contract workforce will live within ten miles of the delivery area, tracked by payroll postcode. We will spend at least £18,000 a year with local suppliers, evidenced in our purchase ledger. Baselines are set in mobilisation week two, and progress is reported on the same cycle as performance data so the commissioner receives one report rather than two.

What changed

  • Commitments are countable, dated and tied to a named measurement framework
  • Each promise names exactly how it will be evidenced
  • Reporting is designed around the commissioner’s workload rather than ours

Three things cost more marks than anything else

Most submissions are written by the person who runs the service, late at night, after a full day of running the service. These are the patterns that recur.

  1. Answering the question you wished they had asked

    Evaluators score against the question in front of them. A strong answer to an adjacent question scores nothing at all, and it happens constantly, usually because the response reuses text written for a different tender.

  2. Asserting where you should be evidencing

    “Firm-sounding procedures” earn nothing. The policy version, the review date, the named lead and the last audit outcome earn the marks. An evaluator cannot award credit for something you have not shown them.

  3. Ignoring how the scheme allocates marks

    Every published scoring scheme describes what a top scoring answer contains. Most submissions are never structured around it, so the evaluator has to hunt for the points they are allowed to give you.

Services and fees

Published so you can size the work before making contact. Every fee is fixed and agreed in writing before anything begins, and there is no hourly billing.

Indicative starting fees. Larger and multi‑lot tenders are quoted once the pack has been read.
Service What you receive From
Bid review Your draft marked against the scoring criteria, weakest answers rewritten, gaps listed with what would close them. £250
SQ and PQQ Selection questionnaire completed and compliance checked against every mandatory requirement. £450
Full tender response All quality questions written to the scheme, with social value, mobilisation, risk and safeguarding. £900
Grant application Needs assessment, outcomes framework, measurable indicators and a costed delivery plan. £600

Short deadlines are normal in this work and are welcome. Drafting begins on the day scope is agreed.

Nothing in your bid gets invented

Everything written traces back to something your organisation actually does. The process exists to get that detail out of your team’s heads and onto the page, using as little of their time as the tender allows.

  1. A mutual NDA is signed first

    Before you send a single document, a mutual non-disclosure agreement is signed and returned. Your specification, financials, staffing detail, pricing and draft answers are legally protected before they leave your inbox, and they are never used to inform work for another bidder.

  2. The tender is assessed, at no cost

    The specification and scoring scheme are read in full, and you receive a written analysis of how well the contract fits: where you are strong, where the gaps sit, and what a competitive submission would need. That arrives before you have committed to anything.

  3. Your existing material does most of the work

    Policies, previous submissions, CQC or Ofsted reports, performance data, service user feedback, whatever already exists. The more context you provide, the fewer questions come back and the stronger the evidence base becomes.

  4. An evidence request closes the gaps

    Where the tender demands proof your documents do not cover, you receive a single structured evidence request: specific questions about the specific things this evaluator will score, answered in your own time. Where a judgement call is involved, usually pricing, lot strategy or positioning against an incumbent, a short call settles it faster than email.

  5. You read the submission before you pay

    The finished response arrives compliance checked and early enough to review properly, rather than the night before the portal closes.

Half fee on your first submission

A first engagement does more than produce one bid. It builds an evidence base: the policies, case examples, outcome data and arguments that work for your organisation. Later submissions draw on that base, so they are faster to produce and stronger for it, and any feedback from the buyer sharpens the next one further. The first submission is charged at half the standard fee while that base is built.

Who this is for

Providers bidding for council-commissioned care and support contracts. The ones with real delivery capability and no in-house bid team.

  • Domiciliary care, supported living and extra care
  • Domestic abuse services, refuge and safe accommodation
  • Children’s services, short breaks and family support
  • Mental health and recovery support
  • Housing related support and homelessness services
  • Charities and VCSE organisations delivering commissioned services

If you work in an adjacent area and the tender is council-commissioned, ask anyway.

Who writes your bid

Track record
Four years writing competitive tenders and funding proposals for public sector commissioners, across £3.8m+ of awarded contracts. Individual awards from £90,000 to £1.25m, plus framework and DPS applications including G‑Cloud.
Background
A medical degree, awarded with distinction, and a degree in psychology. In practice that means two things. Clinical, technical and regulatory material does not need explaining twice. And answers are written for how evaluators actually read: quickly, under pressure, looking for specific evidence.
Confidentiality
A mutual non-disclosure agreement is signed before you send anything. Your documents are not shared, are never used to inform work for a competitor, and are deleted on request once an engagement ends. No client names or contract details are published anywhere, including on this page.
Independence
One bidder per tender. If a competitor for the same contract is already a client, you will be told immediately and the work declined.

Send the tender. Find out how well it fits.

Email the specification, or simply a link to the notice. You will receive a written analysis of your compatibility with the contract: strengths, gaps, and what a competitive response would need. No charge, no obligation, and an honest answer either way.

Email
seb@meritandmethod.co.uk
Location
Norwich, United Kingdom
Response
Same working day

Request a bid assessment