Writing a method statement that scores, not one that describes

Quality answers usually carry more marks than price, and they are where most avoidable losses happen. Not because suppliers cannot do the work — they usually can — but because they describe themselves instead of answering the question, and an evaluator can only award marks for what is on the page.

Answer the question that was asked

Read the question, then read the scoring guide beside it, then write to both. If a question asks how you will mobilise the contract in the first eight weeks, every paragraph should be about the first eight weeks of this contract. Company history, client lists and awards belong somewhere else — usually nowhere.

Where the guide describes what an excellent answer contains, treat that description as a list of things to include explicitly. Evaluators mark against the guide with the guide in front of them.

Claim, evidence, consequence

A reliable structure for any scored paragraph is three moves. State what you will do. Show that you can, with something verifiable. Say what it means for this buyer.

"We will assign a named contract manager" is a claim. "We will assign a named contract manager; on a comparable contract for a district council this reduced average response time from four days to one" is a claim with evidence. Adding "which matters here because your specification requires response within 48 hours" makes it about them. Most bids do the first, some do the second, and the third is where marks separate.

Be specific about this contract

The fastest way to lose marks is a response that could be submitted to any buyer. Name the sites. Use the buyer's own terminology from the specification. Reference the shift patterns, the geography, the volumes, the systems they told you about. Where a requirement is unusual, address it head-on rather than hoping the general answer covers it.

Write for someone reading forty of these

Evaluators read the same question forty times in a week, often against a scoring matrix, often under time pressure. Help them:

• Signpost with sub-headings that mirror the parts of the question.
• Lead each paragraph with the point, not with a run-up to it.
• Use a table where the answer is genuinely tabular — roles, timescales, escalation levels.
• Respect the word limit. Going over is at best ignored and at worst a zero.

Have someone else check it against the question

The person who wrote the answer is the worst judge of whether it answered the question, because they know what they meant. Give the question, the scoring guide and the answer to a colleague who was not involved and ask them to mark it. Where they cannot find the evidence for a claim, neither will the evaluator.

Reuse carefully

A library of previous answers is useful and dangerous in equal measure. Reuse the evidence — the case studies, the figures, the descriptions of process. Rewrite the framing every time. A recycled answer is usually obvious, and the tell is that it answers a slightly different question very well.

Common patterns that lose marks

Across enough responses the same failures recur, and all of them are avoidable in the writing rather than in the business:

• Restating the specification back. Telling the buyer what they asked for demonstrates comprehension and nothing else. They know what they asked for; they want to know how you will do it.
• Unevidenced superlatives. "Industry-leading", "robust" and "seamless" are unmarkable. A number, a name or a date is markable.
• Answering the previous contract. Reused text that describes a similar job for a different client, with the names changed and the specifics left behind.
• Burying the answer. Three paragraphs of context before the thing the question asked for, when the evaluator is scanning for it.
• Ignoring the weighting. Equal effort across questions worth 5% and 25%.

Build a small library of real evidence

The constraint on most quality answers is not writing ability, it is having something concrete to say. That is a collection problem, and it is solved between bids rather than during them.

Keep a file of delivery facts as they happen: response times achieved, volumes handled, savings delivered, incidents avoided, satisfaction scores, staff retention, social value actually provided with figures attached. Six months of that turns a generic claim into a specific one, and specificity is most of the difference between a middling score and a good one.

Leave time for the last read

The final pass should not be a proofread. Take the question and the scoring guide, and read the answer only to check that every element the guide describes is visibly present and easy to find. Then check the word count, the format rules and the file naming, which are the requirements that void otherwise excellent bids.

Doing that properly needs a day you have not spent. It is the strongest argument for the bid/no-bid discipline: the bids you decline are what make the ones you write good.