How to Audit Your Own Tender Before Submission

November 1, 2025

🧭 How to Audit Your Own Tender Before Submission

Most teams “proofread” in the final 24 hours. Fewer teams audit — and that’s where the marks are. A proofread catches typos; a tender audit checks assurance, evidence, tone and scoring logic the way a commissioner will. This guide gives you a practical, repeatable audit you can run on any submission in 60–90 minutes to lift scores without a rewrite.

If you’re days from deadline and need a second pair of eyes, our Bid Proofreading & Compliance Checks catch scoring gaps fast. If you’re rebuilding stock answers for the year ahead, we can help through Bid Writer – Home Care, Bid Writer – Learning Disability, and Bid Writer – Complex Care, aligned to the way evaluators actually score.

🎯 Why a Self-Audit Changes Scores

Commissioners don’t award marks for effort. They award marks for evidence of assurance written clearly against the question. A final self-audit forces you to read like an evaluator: Does this answer prove control, learning and impact? Or does it just describe intent?

A good audit will:

Remove copy-and-paste phrases that dilute credibility.
Add missing verification lines (the difference between “we did” and “we proved it worked”).
Surface contradictions across answers (e.g., staffing figures, training percentages).
Improve tone and readability so scorers can award marks quickly.

🧱 The 4-Box Audit Model

Use these four lenses for every scored answer. Don’t move on until each box is ticked:

Assurance: Is there a clear loop? (Trigger → Action → Verification → Learning) Named roles? Timeframes?
Evidence: Are claims backed by fresh data (time-bound, sourced) and one short example?
Tone: Do sentences sound like practice (active verbs) not policy (adjectives)? Calm, specific, measurable?
Readability: Does the structure mirror the question? Short paragraphs, scannable bullets, no jargon?

Score each 0–2 (0 = absent, 1 = partial, 2 = strong). Anything below 6/8 needs a fix before submission.

🔍 Step 1 — Trace the Question Verbs

Every quality question hides verbs the scorer must award marks against: describe, evidence, monitor, assure, improve, escalate, review. Highlight them. Now underline where your answer explicitly shows those behaviours.

Quick fix: Where you wrote “we’re committed to…”, replace with a behaviour and timebox: “We run weekly reviews; actions are logged the same day and re-audited next month.”

📊 Step 2 — Anchor Data (Time, Source, Place)

Floating numbers lose marks. Anchor each statistic with three anchors where possible:

📅 Time: “Q2 2025 documentation compliance 96% (up from 84% in Q1).”
🧾 Source: “Verified by monthly ten-file QA.”
📍 Place: “across our two LD supported living services.”

If you lack a number, create a micro-metric you can defend (e.g., “72-hour incident review compliance” or “supervision completion this quarter”). Your governance tools should provide at least one fresh, safe data point per section. If not, state the mechanism clearly and commit to how you’ll verify it.

🧠 Step 3 — Add One Mini Example

Examples convert policy into practice. Use a two-line format everywhere:

“Issue: late night escalations. Action: pocket escalation card + refresher. Effect: late escalations fell to zero in eight weeks. Assurance: sampled monthly and added to induction.”

That single example is worth more than five abstract adjectives. If you need reusable examples tuned for LD/Autism, home care or complex care, our Editable Method Statements include drop-ins that are easy to localise.

🧭 Step 4 — Close the Loop

Most lost marks come from stopping at “we acted.” Evaluators need the loop closed:

Trigger: incident/audit/feedback theme.
Action: what changed (tool, training, process).
Verification: re-audit/sample/observation proved change.
Learning: how it spread (supervision, huddles, bulletin).

Audit prompt: Does the final sentence show verification, not intention?

🧰 Step 5 — Replace Adjectives with Verbs

Delete: robust, comprehensive, proactive, world-class. Insert: run, review, sample, verify, re-audit, coach, track to closure.

Before: “We ensure robust PBS practice.”
After: “PBS champions run weekly reflective huddles; proactive strategies are observed; incident frequency reduced 43% rolling average; consistency verified at governance.”

📐 Step 6 — Mirror the Scoring Grid

If sub-criteria exist, mirror them explicitly with mini-headers or bold lead-ins. Make it impossible to miss where each mark lives.

Monitoring: what, how often, who sees it.
Action: how findings become changes (owners, dates).
Assurance: how change is verified (method, cadence).
Learning: how learning spreads (supervision, tools).

That sequence is familiar to scorers and speeds up award decisions.

🧩 Step 7 — Align Numbers Across Answers

Contradictions kill trust. Audit for consistency:

Headcount, vacancy, agency use, supervision completion.
Training percentages (mandatory, PBS, safeguarding levels).
Incident rates and time-to-review figures.

Where figures differ by service, say so. “Across X LD services… Across Y home care branch…” Specificity beats silence.

🧮 Step 8 — Supervision as Assurance

Show supervision as a governance instrument, not admin. Audit questions:

Is supervision cadence clear (e.g., monthly all staff; fortnightly for new starters/PBS roles)?
Does it include a reflective case and competence sign-off?
Are supervision actions tracked on the same governance log as incidents/audits?

If not, add one line that ties supervision to verification. Commissioners reward learning culture that’s visible and auditable.

💻 Step 9 — Digital and Data (Traceability > Brand Names)

State how issues move through your system:

“Incident logged → auto alert → 72-hour review → actions recorded → next audit verifies → theme on monthly dashboard.”

That’s stronger than listing software. Traceability signals maturity.

🧠 Step 10 — Safeguarding Integration

Audit for operational clarity:

Training levels and observation of competence.
Timeframes (same-day alert; follow-up within 48–72 hours).
Learning loop (case in supervision; re-audit of similar cases).

Drop one measured improvement if safe to share (e.g., “time-to-decision improved from 5 days to 2”).

📈 Step 11 — Outcomes with Independence Link

Outcomes must link to enablement (SMART+I). Audit for the “I” — independence or reduced support intensity:

“Two people progressed from 2:1 to 1:1 for community access; verified for eight weeks via observation and PBS review.”

That’s the language commissioners trust.

📣 Step 12 — Family/Person Voice (Triangulate)

Triangulation boosts credibility. Add one sentence showing how person/family feedback confirms change (plus a micro-quote where appropriate).

“Family feedback: ‘Friday updates mean we’re always in the loop.’ Satisfaction rose from 92% → 98%.”

🧭 Step 13 — Make It Readable

Scorers skim. Help them:

Front-load each paragraph with the proof point.
Use short bullets for processes.
Keep sentences < 22 words where possible.

If you can’t find the mark in three seconds, neither can they.

🧩 Step 14 — One Example Per Section

Audit your sections (Service Model, Workforce, Safeguarding, Governance, Digital) and ensure each carries one example of problem → action → effect → assurance. That rhythm creates a coherent leadership voice.

🧰 Step 15 — Build a 10-Point Audit Sheet

Copy this, paste into your project sheet, and score 0–2 each (20 total):

Opener shows behaviour (not adjectives)
Sub-criteria mirrored in structure
At least one fresh, time-bound metric
One mini example (problem → action → effect → assurance)
Named roles & timeframes
Verification line present
Tone: active verbs, plain language
Consistency of data across answers
Supervision linked to learning/assurance
Readability: bullets, short paras, no jargon

Target ≥17/20 before you press submit.

🔎 Mini Audit in Action (Quality & Governance)

Original draft: “We are committed to robust governance across our services. Our policy ensures that incidents are reviewed and lessons learned.”

Audit fixes applied:

Behaviour opener: “Incidents, audits and feedback are reviewed weekly; themes escalate to monthly governance chaired by the NI.”
Data & verification: “Q2 documentation compliance 96% (84% Q1); re-audit confirmed improvement.”
Mini example: “Night escalation card introduced; late escalations dropped to zero in eight weeks; sampling continues monthly.”
Learning loop: “Findings feed supervision; a ‘what we learned’ bulletin is shared with staff.”

Rewritten answer (90 words):
“We review incidents, audits and feedback weekly; themes escalate to a monthly governance meeting chaired by the NI. Actions are logged with owners and dates. Q2 documentation compliance reached 96% (up from 84% Q1); re-audit confirmed the change. Night-shift escalation cards removed late escalations within eight weeks; sampling continues monthly and the card is now in induction. Learning from governance feeds supervision and a monthly ‘what we learned’ bulletin. This loop keeps leaders sighted and ensures improvements are verified, not assumed.”

🧠 Common Audit Failures (and Quick Fixes)

❌ No timeframe: Add “Q2 2025… last quarter… eight weeks.”
❌ Policy list: Replace with loops and verification steps.
❌ Unanchored claims: Add source (“ten-file audit,” “observed practice”).
❌ Old examples: Replace with current cycle data or safe micro-metrics.
❌ Unsupported adjectives: Swap for verbs and evidence.

💬 Social Value & Innovation: Auditing Without Hype

These sections drift into aspiration quickly. Audit questions:

Is the “innovation” measurable (e.g., fewer missed appointments, faster access, lower support intensity)?
Is social value time-bound and local (e.g., volunteering hours, local spend, workforce pathways)?
Is there a line tying the initiative back to governance (reported, tracked, verified)?

Use the same mini-example cadence to keep these grounded.

📣 Experience & Co-Production: Prove It’s Lived

Don’t promise “we listen”; show how listening changes service:

“Family feedback flagged communication gaps; we launched Friday updates; satisfaction rose 92% → 98%.”

One sentence, three marks: mechanism, measurement, outcome.

🧮 Workforce: Risk, Retention, Readiness

Audit for realism. Commissioners accept risk when it’s owned and mitigated:

Vacancy forecast + relief pool/mentors + agency quality sampling.
Induction with competence observations (not just e-learning completion).
Supervision cadence and content tied to outcomes/PBS.

Add a statistic you can defend (e.g., “retention improved 18% YOY after mentor shifts”).

💻 Digital Confidence: IG + Traceability

Two lines to score this reliably:

IG & access: “DSPT met; role-based access; incident logs audited monthly.”
Traceability: “Live action tracker flags overdue items; governance samples closures.”

That’s enough to reassure without overselling tools.

🧭 Final 30-Minute Submission Audit (Timer On)

Openers: Replace generic first sentences with behaviour lines.
Verification: Ensure last line per section shows how change was checked.
Numbers sweep: Standardise formatting (%, dates), align across answers.
Examples: One mini example per section (problem → action → effect → assurance).
Tone pass: Remove stacked adjectives; keep verbs active; shorten long sentences.

📘 Tools & Templates to Speed Audits

Clients often pair a final audit with reusable frameworks so future drafts start closer to “scorable.”

Editable Method Statements — service model, governance, safeguarding, outcomes (with verification lines).
Editable Strategies — RCA learning, supervision, PBS/enablement integration.
Proofreading & Compliance Checks — rapid uplift, contradiction checks, tone alignment.
Bid Strategy Training — team practice on loops, evidence, and leadership tone.

🚀 Key Takeaways

Audit for marks, not typos. Use Assurance, Evidence, Tone, Readability.
Close the loop: action and verification.
Anchor numbers with time, source, place.
One mini example per section keeps answers real and scorable.
Finish every answer with assurance, not ambition.

Need help this week? We can run a 48-hour audit to align tone, add verification lines and remove copy-paste drift — or partner on full builds via Bid Writer – Learning Disability, Bid Writer – Home Care and Bid Writer – Complex Care.