Using ABI Service Failure Evidence in Tenders and Recommissioning: Turning Recovery Into Assurance
When commissioners re-procure ABI services or undertake contract resets, prior service failure becomes a live evaluation issue. Providers do not need to pretend failure never happened; they need to show they learned, regained control and sustained improvement. The strongest tender responses connect recovery evidence directly to ABI service models and care pathways and to ongoing service breakdown, recovery and improvement planning, demonstrating that governance and practice now operate with maturity and transparency.
Why failure evidence matters in tender evaluation
Commissioners and tender teams will assess risk. If a provider has a history of service breakdown, evaluators look for two things: (1) whether the same conditions could recur, and (2) whether leadership can evidence control under pressure. Poor practice is to provide generic assurance statements. Strong practice is to present structured evidence that shows governance grip, learning and sustained outcomes.
What “tender-ready” recovery evidence looks like
Recovery evidence is most credible when it is specific, measurable and linked to assurance mechanisms. Typical evidence categories include:
- Governance: revised dashboards, escalation routes, board oversight, audit schedules and minutes showing challenge.
- Workforce and competency: supervision compliance, competency sign-off, coaching records and staffing stability.
- Learning and improvement: incident thematic reviews, complaint learning, action tracking and evidence of practice change.
- Safeguarding and restrictions: restrictive practice review data, least restrictive practice decisions, MCA processes and safeguarding outcomes.
- Outcomes and impact: reablement progress, community participation, meaningful occupation, reduced crisis episodes and feedback.
The goal is to make assurance visible and auditable.
Operational example 1: Turning improvement plans into assurance exhibits
Context: A provider previously submitted an improvement plan to commissioners after ABI service failure, but did not translate it into tender evidence.
Support approach: The provider rebuilds tender materials using the improvement plan as a structured evidence pack.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Each improvement action is linked to an assurance mechanism (audit, supervision, observation, dashboard metric) and to an outcome indicator. The tender response includes a short “before/after” narrative supported by measurable change (e.g. reduced incident severity, improved plan review timeliness).
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Evidence includes clear action completion records, trend data over time and governance sign-off demonstrating sustained oversight.
Operational example 2: Demonstrating restrictive practice reduction after failure
Context: Service failure included concerns about restrictive practice and inconsistent MCA decision-making.
Support approach: The provider implements a restrictive practice reduction programme.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Each restriction is logged with rationale, review date, least restrictive alternatives tried, and the decision-maker. Monthly reviews include family/advocate input where appropriate. Staff receive targeted coaching on positive risk-taking and least restrictive practice. Governance oversight tracks restriction use and reduction outcomes.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Evidence includes fewer restrictions over time, stronger recording of best interests decisions, improved audit outcomes and clearer commissioner assurance.
Operational example 3: Rebuilding commissioner confidence through open performance reporting
Context: A commissioner is wary of renewed failure and questions whether performance reporting is credible.
Support approach: The provider builds transparent performance reporting into contract management and uses it in tender submissions.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Quarterly reports include incident themes, audit scores, supervision coverage and outcomes progress. The provider explicitly reports what is not yet where it should be, alongside actions and timelines. Tender submissions reference this reporting approach as routine practice, not an exceptional measure.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Evidence includes reduced commissioner monitoring over time, stable performance metrics and documented learning cycles.
How to write about failure without undermining confidence
In tenders, the safest approach is controlled transparency. Providers should:
- Acknowledge the issue in plain terms without defensiveness.
- Explain root causes and the specific controls put in place.
- Show sustained evidence over time, not isolated improvements.
- Demonstrate how learning has changed systems, not just staff behaviour.
This positions the provider as credible and mature rather than risky or evasive.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate that previous ABI service failures have been addressed through robust governance, transparent reporting and sustained improvement. In procurement, they will look for evidence that risk is understood, controlled and escalated early.
Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC)
Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC): Inspectors expect providers to evidence learning from failure and improvements in leadership oversight, safeguarding practice and outcomes. They will test whether tender claims align with real practice and whether assurance mechanisms are embedded day to day.
Making recovery evidence future-proof
The strongest tender position is not “we are better now”; it is “here is how our systems prevent recurrence, how we evidence stability, and how we respond when risk increases”. When recovery is built into governance routines and outcomes monitoring, providers can present failure history as evidence of resilience and improvement maturity.