The 5-Minute Audit: How to Self-Score Any Tender Answer
Right before you press submit, give each answer five calm minutes. Not to wordsmith — to self-score. This guide shows you a fast, evaluator-style audit that checks behaviour, cadence, evidence and assurance. Five minutes is enough to lift borderline answers into “easy to award.”
If you’d like a second pair of eyes on a live submission, we can run a rapid pass via Bid Proofreading & Compliance Checks. For deeper rebuilds, our sector services — Bid Writer – Home Care, Bid Writer – Learning Disability, and Bid Writer – Complex Care — align content to how evaluators actually mark.
🎯 What the 5-Minute Audit Does (and Doesn’t) Do
It does three things evaluators value: makes the answer easy to follow, easy to believe, and easy to award. It does not chase perfect prose or visual flair. In five minutes you will:
- Surface behaviour: show what actually runs (not what’s intended).
- Make cadence visible: “weekly, monthly, quarterly” rhythms that feel reliable.
- Add assurance: one line proving change was checked (re-audit, observation, sampling).
🧭 The 5-Minute Audit — Stopwatch Method
Minute 1 — Map the Marks
Underline the verbs in the question (describe / demonstrate / monitor / assure / improve / escalate). Put a light bold or sub-heading where you answer each verb. If a verb isn’t clearly answered, add a single sentence that does.
Minute 2 — Behaviour & Cadence
Rewrite the opener (first sentence) so it shows behaviour and rhythm: “We run weekly reviews; themes escalate to monthly governance chaired by the NI.” If your opener starts with adjectives (“robust, comprehensive”), replace it with verbs.
Minute 3 — Evidence Anchor
Insert one fresh, time-bound metric with a source and (where safe) a location. Example: “Q2 documentation compliance 96% (84% Q1), verified by ten-file QA across two LD services.” Small and current beats big and vague.
Minute 4 — Mini-Example
Add a two-line example using the Issue → Action → Effect → Assurance pattern. Example: “Night escalation card introduced; late escalations dropped to zero in eight weeks; sampling continues monthly; now in induction.”
Minute 5 — Assurance Closer
End the paragraph with how you checked and shared the change: “Re-audit next cycle confirmed consistency; learning shared in supervision and a monthly ‘what we learned’ note.”
🧱 The 4-Line Paragraph Scaffold (Paste-Ready)
- Behaviour: “We run/review/sample/verify …”
- Owners & Cadence: who leads, how often, where recorded.
- Evidence: one dated metric or micro-result (anchor with time/source/place).
- Assurance: re-audit/sampling/observation + how learning is shared.
Example: “We review incidents, audits and feedback weekly; themes escalate to monthly governance chaired by the NI. Actions are logged with owners and dates. Q2 documentation compliance 96% (84% Q1). Re-audit confirmed the improvement; a ‘what we learned’ note is circulated monthly.”
📊 The 10-Point Self-Score (0–2 Each, Target ≥17)
- Behaviour opener (verbs, not adjectives).
- Sub-criteria mirrored (the scorer can find the marks).
- Owners named (RM, NI, PBS lead, etc.).
- Cadence clear (daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly).
- Evidence anchored (time, source, place).
- Mini-example present (issue → action → effect → assurance).
- Assurance closer (re-audit/sampling/observation).
- Tone steady (short sentences, active verbs, plain language).
- Numbers consistent (training %, staffing, incidents align with other sections).
- Attachments referenced (filenames match: structure chart, training matrix, rota).
📘 Before/After: Five 90-Second Fixes
1) Governance
Before: “We have robust governance and always learn lessons.”
After: “Incidents, audits and feedback are reviewed weekly; actions tracked to closure. The NI chairs monthly governance. Q2 documentation compliance 96% (84% Q1). Re-audit next cycle confirmed consistency; themes shared in supervision.”
2) Safeguarding
Before: “We escalate promptly in line with policy.”
After: “Same-day alert; decision recorded within 48–72 hours. 100% triaged within 72 hours last quarter; quarterly sampling verified timeliness; reflection appears in monthly supervision.”
3) Service Model
Before: “We deliver person-centred support.”
After: “Small, PBS-informed teams with weekly practice review; outcomes baselined on day one and reviewed monthly. On-time outcomes reviews 97% last quarter. Learning shared in team briefs; enablement tracked.”
4) PBS & Behaviours that Challenge
Before: “We de-escalate effectively using our training.”
After: “Functional assessment; visual schedules and graded exposure introduced; PBS champions run weekly reflective huddles. Incidents reduced 64% over three months; two people moved from 2:1→1:1 for community access; verified by observation and PBS review.”
5) Mobilisation
Before: “We will mobilise smoothly.”
After: “Daily huddles Weeks 1–2; weekly Mobilisation Board; Readiness Gateways at Weeks 2/4; mock run before go-live. Week-6 re-audit confirmed readiness; commissioner receives a one-page weekly dashboard.”
🧩 The “4-S” Sentence Builder (Use Anywhere)
System (what runs) + Schedule (how often) + Steward (who leads) + Signal (what changed)
“Weekly reviews (System) run every Tuesday (Schedule) led by the RM (Steward); documentation compliance rose to 96% (Signal) and is verified at monthly governance.”
💬 Tone: Calm Reads as Confident
Evaluators don’t reward hype; they reward clarity. Keep sentences < 22 words where possible, lead with behaviour, end with assurance. Replace promise verbs (ensure/strive) with practice verbs (run/review/observe/verify/re-audit).
🧠 The Two Audiences You Serve
- The Scorer: needs to tick sub-criteria fast. Mirror the question with light signposting.
- The Shadow Reviewer: checks deliverability. Show cadence, roles, and assurance lines.
The 5-Minute Audit satisfies both in one pass.
📎 Small Details that Prevent Big Deductions
- Number harmony: training %, headcount, incident volumes align across answers.
- File references: name attachments in-text: “See Appendix A – Structure Chart (2025)”.
- Plain paste: remove ghost formatting before portal entry; re-apply headings and bullets inside the portal.
🧰 Tools that Speed the 5-Minute Audit
- Editable Method Statements — Service Model, Governance, Outcomes, Safeguarding with assurance lines.
- Editable Strategies — Supervision cadence, RCA learning, PBS enablement integration.
- Proofreading & Compliance Checks — contradiction sweeps, tone alignment, verification inserts.
- Bid Strategy Training — train teams to self-score answers the way panels do.
📈 Mini-Examples You Can Safely Localise
- Escalation: “Pocket escalation card introduced; late escalations dropped to zero in eight weeks; sampling continues monthly; added to induction.”
- Documentation: “Targeted supervision improved completion 84%→96% Q1→Q2; re-audit confirmed.”
- Family experience: “Friday updates raised satisfaction 92%→98% in the quarter; themes discussed in supervision.”
- Enablement: “Graded exposure reduced behaviours 64%; two people moved 2:1→1:1 for community access; verified by observation and PBS review.”
🔎 The 5-Minute Audit Card (Print or Paste)
1. Opener: Behaviour line? (We run/review/sample/verify…)
2. Sub-criteria: Are the question verbs mirrored and easy to tick?
3. Owners & cadence: Named roles + frequency visible?
4. Evidence: One dated metric with source/place?
5. Example: Issue → Action → Effect → Assurance (two lines)?
6. Assurance closer: Re-audit / sampling / observation noted?
7. Tone: Short, calm sentences; practice verbs; no adjective stacks?
8. Consistency: Numbers align with other answers?
9. Attachments: Referenced by filename and included?
10. Readability: Skimmable bullets; no jargon?
🧮 Quick Scoring Grid (0, 1, 2)
| Dimension | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Behaviour Opener | Adjectives | Mixed | Clear verbs + rhythm |
| Mirrors Sub-Criteria | No | Partial | Yes, easy to tick |
| Owners & Cadence | Absent | Some role/cycle | Named roles + cycles |
| Evidence Anchor | Floating | Dated or sourced | Dated + sourced (+/- place) |
| Mini-Example | Missing | Generic | Action → Effect → Assurance |
| Assurance Closer | Missing | Implied | Explicit re-audit/sampling |
| Tone & Length | Long/stacked | Mixed | Short, calm, active |
| Consistency | Contradictions | Minor fixes | Aligned with rest |
| Attachments | Unclear | Mentioned | Named + present |
| Readability | Dense | OK | Scannable |
Score ≥17/20 before upload.
🧠 FAQ — Five Things Teams Ask in the Last Hour
Q: We don’t have “big” numbers — include small ones?
A: Yes. Micro-metrics win trust: “72-hour incident review compliance 94% in October; verified at monthly governance.” Fresh beats grand every time.
Q: Our example isn’t spectacular — include it?
A: If it’s real and verified, include it. “2:1→1:1 for community access within eight weeks, verified by observation” reads credible and evaluable.
Q: Should we remove all adjectives?
A: You don’t need to purge them — just lead with behaviour and end with assurance. A few well-placed adjectives won’t hurt once the structure is sound.
Q: We’re short on space — what stays?
A: Keep the opener (behaviour), one metric, one mini-example, and the assurance closer. Cut stacked modifiers and policy recital.
Q: What if numbers conflict across sections?
A: Fix the contradiction before upload or qualify the scope (“Across our two LD services…”). Consistency is a trust multiplier.
📐 Section-By-Section Prompts (Use in 30 Seconds)
Service Model & Delivery
- Behaviour: “Small PBS-informed teams; weekly practice review.”
- Evidence: “On-time outcomes reviews 97% last quarter.”
- Assurance: “Re-audit confirmed; themes shared in team brief.”
Workforce & Supervision
- Behaviour: “Monthly supervision; fortnightly for PBS roles/new starters; competence observed before independent duties.”
- Evidence: “Supervision completion 96% in Q2.”
- Assurance: “Actions tracked on governance log; verification next cycle.”
Safeguarding
- Behaviour: “Same-day alert; decision within 48–72 hours.”
- Evidence: “100% triaged in 72 hours last quarter.”
- Assurance: “Quarterly sampling; reflection in supervision.”
Governance & Quality
- Behaviour: “Weekly review of incidents/audits/feedback; NI chairs monthly governance.”
- Evidence: “Documentation compliance 96% Q2 (84% Q1).”
- Assurance: “Re-audit confirmed; ‘what we learned’ note monthly.”
Digital & IG
- Behaviour: “DSPT ‘Standards Met’; role-based access; incident logs sampled monthly.”
- Evidence: “Live action tracker flags overdue items.”
- Assurance: “Governance samples closures; results on dashboard.”
Mobilisation
- Behaviour: “Daily huddles Weeks 1–2; weekly Mobilisation Board; gateways at Weeks 2/4; mock run before go-live.”
- Evidence: “Week-4 documentation ≥92% on sample.”
- Assurance: “Week-6 re-audit; weekly commissioner dashboard.”
🚀 Key Takeaways
- Five minutes can make an answer “easy to award.”
- Open with behaviour, close with assurance.
- Anchor one metric (time, source, place).
- Add one mini-example (issue → action → effect → assurance).
- Score yourself 0–2 across the 10 dimensions; aim for ≥17.
💼 Rapid Support Products (fast turnaround options)
- ⚡ 48-Hour Tender Triage
- 🆘 Bid Rescue Session – 60 minutes
- ✍️ Score Booster – Tender Answer Rewrite
- 🧩 Tender Answer Blueprint
- 📝 Tender Proofreading & Light Editing
- 🔍 Pre-Tender Readiness Audit
- 📁 Tender Document Review
🚀 Need a Bid Writing Quote?
If you’re exploring support for an upcoming tender or framework, request a quick, no-obligation quote. I’ll review your documents and respond with:
- A clear scope of work
- Estimated days required
- A fixed fee quote
- Any risks, considerations or quick wins
🔁 Prefer Flexible Monthly Support?
If you regularly handle tenders, frameworks or call-offs, a Monthly Bid Support Retainer may be a better fit.
- Guaranteed hours each month (1, 2, 4 or 8 days)
- Discounted day rates vs ad-hoc consultancy
- Use time flexibly across bids, triage, library updates, renewals
- One-month rollover (fair-use rules applied)
- Cancel anytime before next billing date
🚀 Ready to Win Your Next Bid?
Chat on WhatsApp or email Mike.Harrison@impact-guru.co.uk
Updated for Procurement Act 2023 • CQC-aligned • BASE-aligned (where relevant)