01The Questions Are Not a Surprise
Domiciliary care tenders in England follow a predictable pattern. Whether the commissioning authority is Bradford, Hertfordshire, Redbridge, or Westmorland and Furness, the quality questions cluster around the same ten topics. The wording changes. The word limits vary. The scoring scale differs. But the subject matter is consistent.
This means preparation is possible. A provider who has a strong, pre-drafted response for each of the ten core question types can adapt to any new tender in hours rather than weeks. The alternative is writing from scratch every time, under deadline pressure, producing answers that are rushed, thin, and low-scoring.
This article identifies the ten question types, explains what the evaluator checks for on each, and highlights the specific mistakes that cost marks.
021. Service Delivery and Care Model
“Describe how you will deliver the service in accordance with the specification, including your approach to person-centred care, promoting independence, and achieving positive outcomes for individuals.”
This is the anchor question. It appears in every tender, sometimes as a single question, sometimes split across two. It carries the most weight or the highest word limit or both.
03What the evaluator checks for:
A described care model (not just a philosophy statement)
Reference to the specification’s outcomes framework
Named systems used in care planning and delivery
Evidence of promoting independence with measurable outcomes
A case example with all five elements
04Where providers lose marks:
Writing about values instead of operations. “We put the person at the heart of everything we do” is not a service model. It is a sentence that could appear in any provider’s brochure. The evaluator needs to know what your service model looks like in practice: how assessments are conducted, how care plans are built, how reviews are triggered, what technology you use, what your staff ratios are.
052. Safeguarding
“Describe your approach to safeguarding adults, including how you identify, report, and respond to concerns, and how you embed a culture of safeguarding across your organisation.”
06What the evaluator checks for:
All six Care Act 2014 safeguarding principles named
Making Safeguarding Personal referenced explicitly
Reporting timescales and escalation pathways
Multi-agency working with the local authority safeguarding team
Trend analysis across incidents, accidents, and safeguarding concerns
A case example showing the full pathway from identification to learning
07Where providers lose marks:
Omitting Making Safeguarding Personal. This is the single most frequently missed element in safeguarding answers. Evaluators from Bradford, Redbridge, and Hertfordshire all confirmed they check for it by name. A safeguarding answer that does not reference it cannot score full marks on any rubric.
083. Workforce Recruitment, Training, and Retention
“Describe your approach to recruiting, training, and retaining a skilled and motivated workforce, including how you ensure staff competency and development.”
09What the evaluator checks for:
Values-based recruitment named explicitly
DBS and safer recruitment procedures
Induction programme with named modules and timeframes
Ongoing training programme with specific courses listed
Supervision and appraisal frequency stated
Retention strategy with evidence of effectiveness
Involvement of people supported in recruitment processes
10Where providers lose marks:
Listing qualifications without describing the recruitment process. The evaluator wants to know how you recruit, not what your staff hold. Values-based recruitment is the specific named practice that evaluators check for. If the phrase does not appear in your answer, expect to lose marks.
114. Quality Monitoring and Continuous Improvement
“Describe how you monitor, review, and improve the quality of your service, including your governance framework, audit programme, and approach to learning from incidents.”
12What the evaluator checks for:
A governance framework with board-level or director-level oversight
An audit programme covering multiple domains (not just care plans)
Trend analysis around incidents, accidents, and safeguarding
KPI tracking with named metrics
A learning cycle: measure, find, act, change, remeasure
Involvement of people supported in quality monitoring
13Where providers lose marks:
Describing audits without describing what happens when audits find problems. The evaluator is checking for a closed learning loop. An audit that identifies issues but does not lead to documented changes and remeasurement is incomplete. This is the element that separates 3/5 from 5/5 on quality questions.
145. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion
“Describe how you promote equality, diversity, and inclusion in your service delivery and workforce, including how you meet the needs of individuals from diverse backgrounds.”
15What the evaluator checks for:
Equality Act 2010 referenced
Accessible Information Standard with operational steps
Physical accessibility provisions
Culturally competent staffing with practical examples
Recruitment targeted to reflect district demography
Staff training on equality and unconscious bias
16Where providers lose marks:
Missing physical accessibility. Across every evaluator feedback sheet TenderLab has reviewed, physical accessibility is the most frequently omitted element in equality answers. Providers write about cultural sensitivity, language needs, and dietary requirements, but forget wheelchair access, environmental adaptations, and sensory impairment provisions. One omission. One mark lost. On a 0-2 scale, that is the difference between 2 and 1.
176. Partnership and Multi-Agency Working
“Describe how you work with other agencies and professionals to deliver coordinated care and support for individuals.”
18What the evaluator checks for:
Named partner organisations (GPs, district nurses, social workers, mental health teams)
Communication protocols with partner agencies
MDT attendance and contribution
Hospital discharge coordination
A case example of a multi-agency intervention with your specific contribution identified
19Where providers lose marks:
Writing about the importance of partnership without naming any partners or describing any protocols. The evaluator cannot score partnership capability based on intent. They need evidence of existing relationships and structured communication channels.
207. Medicines Management
“Describe your approach to medicines management, including how you ensure safe administration, storage, and recording of medication.”
21What the evaluator checks for:
NICE guidance on medicines management referenced
Administration procedures (including PRN protocols)
Storage and disposal requirements
Error reporting and learning processes
Staff competency assessment for medication administration
MAR chart accuracy and audit frequency
22Where providers lose marks:
Describing the policy without describing the error response. Every provider has a medicines management policy. The evaluator wants to know what happens when something goes wrong: how errors are reported, investigated, and prevented from recurring. The learning cycle is the differentiator.
238. Complaints and Feedback
“Describe how you handle complaints, concerns, and feedback from individuals, families, and other stakeholders.”
24What the evaluator checks for:
A documented complaints procedure with timescales
Multiple channels for raising concerns (accessible, not just written)
Escalation to the Local Government Ombudsman referenced
Evidence of complaints leading to service improvements
Proactive feedback mechanisms (surveys, reviews, family engagement)
25Where providers lose marks:
Treating complaints as a defensive exercise. Providers write about how they investigate complaints without describing what changes resulted. The evaluator checks for evidence that complaints drive improvement, not just resolution.
269. Business Continuity and Risk Management
“Describe your business continuity arrangements, including how you ensure service delivery during adverse events such as staff shortages, severe weather, or organisational disruption.”
27What the evaluator checks for:
A documented BCP with specific scenarios addressed
Staff contingency arrangements (bank staff, cross-training)
Communication protocols during disruption
Pandemic preparedness (post-COVID, this remains a scored element)
Testing and review of BCP arrangements
28Where providers lose marks:
Stating that a BCP exists without describing its contents. The evaluator is not checking for the existence of a document. They are checking for specific contingency measures, trigger points, and communication protocols. A response that says “we have a comprehensive business continuity plan” without detailing what it contains scores the same as a response that says nothing.
2910. Experience and Track Record
“Describe your experience of delivering similar services, including evidence of successful outcomes and regulatory compliance.”
30What the evaluator checks for:
Operational detail about current service delivery (what, where, how many)
Named successes with quantified outcomes
CQC rating evidence (Good or Outstanding)
Contract performance data (KPIs met, targets achieved)
Evidence of promoting independence with measured results
31Where providers lose marks:
Answering with manager credentials instead of service delivery evidence. Evaluator feedback from Westmorland and Furness explicitly penalised a provider who responded to the experience question with “the registered manager has 20 years of experience” without describing what the organisation delivers. The evaluator noted: “Does not really give much detail on what it is they do now.” That provider scored 10.7/40 on Experience. A revised submission from the same provider, with operational detail and named outcomes, scored 40/40.
32Preparation Beats Panic
These ten questions will appear in your next tender. The wording will be different. The word limits will vary. The scoring scale might be 0-2 or 0-5 or 100-point weighted. But the subjects will be the same.
A provider who maintains pre-drafted, high-quality responses for all ten question types can respond to any new tender by adapting existing material to the specific specification and council. The adaptation takes hours. Writing from scratch takes weeks and produces weaker results.
TenderLab maintains response frameworks for all ten question types, updated with real evaluator feedback after every tender cycle. When we write for a client, we are not starting from blank. We are engineering from a base of evidence, adapting to the specific scoring criteria, specification, and council intelligence for that procurement.
The questions are not a surprise. The scoring criteria are published. The evaluator checklist is predictable. The only variable is whether your written submission demonstrates what your service actually delivers.