“We’ve Always Done It That Way” — Why That Sentence Loses You Tenders

July 24, 2025

There’s a phrase I dread reading in tenders — not because it’s written explicitly, but because it echoes loudly between the lines. Strong bidders avoid it by applying clear bid writing principles (so their answers are scoreable, evidence-led and relevant) and a disciplined tender strategy (so they demonstrate evolution, risk intelligence and alignment with commissioner priorities).

“We’ve always done it that way.”

It hides in responses that don’t challenge themselves. It lurks in sentences that list tasks without context or outcomes. It shows up when a provider describes what they do, but not why they do it, or how it changes lives.

It’s one of the biggest tender mistakes I see — and one of the easiest traps to fall into.

🧠 Familiarity breeds… low scores

If you’re delivering great care every day, it’s tempting to write about your service as though the quality is self-evident. The challenge is that commissioners are not scoring “effort” or “longevity.” They are scoring whether you can deliver against their outcomes, their risks and their service model — and whether your written response gives them enough confidence to award marks.

That’s why risk-averse phrasing like:

“We continue to…”
“Our usual process is…”
“We’ve always provided…”

…rarely helps. It often reads as if practice is routine rather than intentional. And in a competitive tender, routine language makes you indistinguishable from every other bidder who is also “continuing,” “usually,” and “always.”

In domiciliary care, commissioners typically want proof you can adapt to real-world pressures: workforce volatility, discharge surges, safeguarding complexity, and changing care needs. The bidder who can show learning and evolution tends to outscore the bidder who sounds static — even if both deliver decent care.

💡 Risk-averse ≠ risk-aware

There’s a difference between being safe and being static. “Safe” means you have controls that protect people and deliver continuity under pressure. “Static” means you have processes you repeat regardless of whether they still work for the commissioner’s priorities.

Strong bids show you are risk-aware: you understand the predictable failure points in home care delivery and you can evidence how you prevent them, detect drift early, and improve practice. That might look like:

Updating systems after feedback, not just audits
Trialling new digital tools to enhance staff efficiency
Rethinking rotas or support plans to better match individual rhythms
Changing your training focus based on real incident trends

Crucially, you don’t have to present innovation as “shiny new initiatives.” Commissioners are usually more reassured by practical improvements that make delivery more reliable: better supervision rhythms, tighter escalation thresholds, stronger continuity planning, clearer first-visit checklists, or improved medicines governance.

What makes a service good isn’t that it does the same thing well every year. What makes it great is that it listens, learns, and moves.

What commissioners are actually testing when you sound “static”

When assessors read “we’ve always done it this way,” they typically infer one of three risks:

Mobilisation risk: you may struggle to adapt quickly during start-up, contract change or service expansion
Governance risk: issues may be discovered late because monitoring relies on habit rather than data and triggers
Outcome risk: care may be delivered as tasks rather than as support that actively improves independence, wellbeing and stability

These are not theoretical. They map directly to the things commissioners worry about in home care: missed visits, inconsistent quality, late escalation of risk, workforce fragility, and avoidable complaints.

The fix is not to “sound innovative.” The fix is to make your practice intentional and evidenced: explain why you do things the way you do, what triggers a review, and what changes when data or feedback shows drift.

How to replace “we’ve always done it that way” language in tender answers

If you want a practical editing approach, look for phrases that signal routine without rationale. Then replace them with short statements that demonstrate intent, oversight and learning.

Instead of: “Our usual process is to…”
Use: “We use this approach because it reduces [specific risk] and supports [specific outcome]. We monitor it through [specific checks] and review it [frequency].”

Instead of: “We continue to provide…”
Use: “We have maintained [measured standard] and improved [measured area] through [specific operational change], evidenced by [data/audit/feedback].”

Instead of: “We’ve always delivered person-centred care…”
Use: “We capture preferences at assessment, build them into rotas and care prompts, and check delivery through spot checks, care note audits and feedback calls. Changes are reviewed at planned reviews and triggered reviews after incidents.”

Operational examples: what “learning and movement” looks like in domiciliary care

Operational example 1 (continuity and rota resilience):

Context: A locality shows increased late calls on morning rounds, impacting time-critical medication visits and raising commissioner concern.

Support approach: You adjust rota design using micro-teams and route sequencing, and introduce a daily exception review with defined escalation thresholds.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Each morning, the scheduler runs an exception report (late calls, missed calls, unusually short visits). The duty manager reviews any time-critical exceptions the same day, authorises immediate re-sequencing, and triggers cover support when thresholds are met. Supervisors add targeted spot checks for the affected routes for four weeks, and staff receive brief guidance on recording and escalation during disruption.

How effectiveness or change is evidenced: You show improved on-time performance trend data and reduced continuity-related complaints, with governance minutes demonstrating review and sustained monitoring.

Operational example 2 (safeguarding learning loop):

Context: A rise in low-level safeguarding concerns suggests staff uncertainty about thresholds and early escalation.

Support approach: You implement scenario-based refresher training focused on thresholds, decision-making and documentation quality, paired with supervisor coaching.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff attend short scenario workshops (financial exploitation, neglect indicators, domestic abuse cues). Supervisors review a sample of safeguarding logs weekly for four weeks, checking that concerns are recorded clearly and escalated appropriately. The duty manager provides case feedback to the team so learning is embedded and confidence improves.

How effectiveness or change is evidenced: You evidence improved timeliness and quality of reporting, fewer repeat themes, and stronger staff confidence scores from supervision check-ins.

Operational example 3 (person-centred practice becoming measurable):

Context: Feedback shows a recurring theme: visit timings and routines do not always match preferences, leading to dissatisfaction despite “person-centred” values.

Support approach: You strengthen preference capture and rota translation, and add an audit step that checks whether preferences are being followed.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Preferences (timings, routines, communication needs) are recorded in a standard format and flagged in rota notes. Schedulers protect preferred timings for key calls and use controlled cover protocols (handover required, communication profile reviewed). Supervisors sample care notes and spot checks to confirm that key preferences are being respected, and any repeated mismatch triggers a plan review.

How effectiveness or change is evidenced: You show improved satisfaction results for “visit times and routines” and reduced complaints, with audit outcomes demonstrating consistency across teams.

🚫 “That’s how we’ve always done it” doesn’t win tenders — it loses them

Commissioners want to know you can evolve with policy, people and priorities. Your bid should tell that story in a way that is scoreable and credible:

How you respond to change (service growth, demand surges, new pathways, workforce volatility)
How you review what’s working (and what isn’t) using data, audits and feedback
How you support staff to do things better, not just repeat the same (training focus based on trends, coaching, supervision)

Commissioner expectation: Providers should demonstrate continuous improvement that is relevant to local priorities — with measurable outcomes, clear governance oversight and practical risk controls that maintain continuity and safety under pressure.

Regulator / inspector expectation (e.g. CQC): Inspectors expect learning-driven governance: competence assurance, effective safeguarding, safe medicines practice, and evidence that improvements are embedded through audit, supervision and records.

Don’t let risk-aversion shrink your tender score. Show you’re an organisation that thinks, not just delivers.