How to Write a Method Statement That Scores in the Top Band
How to write a method statement that scores 5/5: mirror the spec, name roles, systems and timeframes, evidence outcomes, and self-score before you submit.
How to Write a Method Statement That Scores in the Top Band
Posted by the TenderLab Editorial Team on 26 August 2026. Last updated 26 August 2026.
A method statement is a scored, written quality response that describes exactly how you will deliver a requirement set out in the specification. It is not a mission statement or a summary of your values. It is the evidence a commissioner reads, marks against a published scale, and uses to rank you against every other bidder.
The gap between a 3 and a 5 is rarely better writing. It is coverage, evidence and specificity. A 3 asserts that you will do the right things. A 5 shows the mechanism, names who runs it, states when it happens and proves it works. This guide sets out the anatomy of a top-band method statement and the moves that take an answer from competent to Excellent or Outstanding.
At a glance
- Answer every printed requirement, in the order the question sets them out.
- Mirror the specification's wording so the evaluator can tick each point off.
- Open with a direct thesis sentence that states how you deliver, not what the question asked.
- Name roles, systems, timeframes and review cycles behind every claim.
- Evidence claims with measurable outcomes, not adjectives.
- Stay inside the word or page limit, with a small buffer.
- Self-score against the published rubric before you submit.
What a method statement is, and how it is marked
Most health and social care tenders mark quality responses on a 0-5 rubric. Each score has a written definition the evaluator must justify against your text. A 5 is not awarded for confidence or tone, but for meeting every element of the highest band. Many tenders also set a minimum threshold, often a 2 or a 3, that acts as a pass or fail floor on each question. Score below it and the whole bid can be excluded, regardless of price.
Under the Procurement Act 2023, contracts are awarded to the Most Advantageous Tender (MAT), and quality method statements usually carry the weighting that decides the award. Read the full scoring mechanics in our guide to how UK health and social care tenders are scored. The rest of this guide assumes you know your marking scale.
Start from the scoring criteria and the question, not a blank page
Before you write a sentence, read the marking scale, the weighting, the word limit and every printed sub-requirement in the question. Commissioners rarely ask one thing. A single method statement often bundles four or five distinct requirements into one paragraph, and each is a place to gain or lose marks.
Build a checklist of every requirement the question contains, including those buried mid-sentence. Then answer each one explicitly and in order. Mirror the commissioner's wording as you go, so the evaluator can match your response to their marking grid without hunting for it. A point that is present but hidden is often marked as missing.
Open with a thesis sentence that preloads the answer
The first sentence of each section should state how you deliver the requirement, not restate the question or warm up with context. An evaluator reading 40 submissions forms a view in the first two lines, so a strong opening tells them the answer is here.
Use headings that mirror the specification. If the question asks how you ensure continuity of care during staff absence, head that section with continuity of care during staff absence and open with the mechanism that delivers it. Specification-mirrored headings let the evaluator navigate at speed and confirm coverage.
Name roles, systems, timeframes and review cycles
This is the single largest difference between assertion and evidence. An assertion says the thing will happen. Evidence shows the machinery that makes it happen and the record that proves it did.
Every material claim should carry four things: a named role, so the reader knows who is accountable; a named system or record, so the reader knows where it lives; a timeframe or frequency, so the reader knows when it happens; and an audit or escalation route where relevant, so the reader knows what happens when it does not. Then state why the mechanism matters, in terms of safety, quality, continuity or outcomes. Named roles, systems and frequencies are what an evaluator underlines when justifying a top-band score.
Replace "we will" with named mechanisms
Repeated "we will" openings read as intention, not delivery. A method statement stacked with "we will ensure", "we will provide" and "we will always" tells the evaluator what you promise, not how you operate.
Show the mechanism instead. Rather than "we will make sure staff are trained", write "care workers complete the Care Certificate within 12 weeks, tracked on our training matrix by the registered manager". The second version names the standard, the timeframe, the record and the accountable role in one line, and reads as a system already running.
A worked example: weak versus strong
The same point, written two ways, shows the distance between the bands, both on how a provider responds to a safeguarding concern.
Weak (around a 3). "We take safeguarding extremely seriously and have robust systems in place to protect the people we support. All staff are trained in safeguarding and know how to recognise and report concerns. We work closely with the local authority and always act in the best interests of the people we support, dealing with any concern promptly and effectively."
Strong (toward a 5). "Every care worker completes Level 2 safeguarding training within the first 5 working days of induction, refreshed annually and recorded on our training matrix. The registered manager is the named safeguarding lead. Where a worker identifies a concern, they secure the person's immediate safety, log it on our care management system the same day, and the registered manager refers to the local authority safeguarding team where the threshold is met. Under the Care Act 2014 the local authority makes, or causes to be made, any Section 42 enquiry. Our role is to secure safety, preserve records, share information and support that enquiry, supplying statements and evidence within agreed timescales. Themes are reviewed at monthly quality meetings. At the most recent meeting, all concerns raised in the period had been logged the same day and referred within 24 hours where the threshold was met, and two learning actions were added to the service improvement plan."
The weak version asserts. The strong version names the training level and timeframe, the accountable role, the referral route, the statutory boundary and a monthly review cycle with a measured outcome. It also states the provider's role correctly: the provider secures safety, records, refers and supports the enquiry. It does not lead the Section 42 enquiry.
Evidence with outcomes, not adjectives
Words like robust, comprehensive, person-centred, tailored, flexible and high-quality carry no marks on their own. An evaluator cannot score an adjective.
Use these words only when a named mechanism, role, timeframe or measurable outcome sits immediately alongside. "Person-centred" earns nothing. "Each person has a support plan built with them and their family within 5 working days of starting the service, reviewed monthly and after any change in need" earns the point. Attach numbers and results wherever you have them: response times, retention rates, CQC ratings, complaint resolution times, outcomes achieved.
Respect the word limit
Word and page limits are hard ceilings, not guidance. Many commissioners stop reading at the limit and score only what falls inside it, so text that runs over is commonly not scored at all.
Write to the limit, then cut back to it. Use numerical figures rather than words, 5 rather than five, 24/7 rather than around the clock, to save space. Leave a small buffer so a final edit does not push you over. A disciplined answer that covers every requirement inside the limit beats a longer one that is marked short.
Self-score, then get an independent review
Before submission, mark your own answer against the published rubric exactly as an evaluator would. Read the top-band definition, then read your response and confirm every element is present and evidenced. If any requirement from your checklist is unanswered, the answer is not yet a 5, however well it reads.
Then hand it to someone who has not seen it. A fresh reader scoring cold, against the rubric and the question, catches the unanswered sub-point, the unproven claim and the missing timeframe while there is still time to fix them. The evaluator will read it cold on the day; better a colleague finds the gap first.
Frequently asked questions
What is a method statement in a tender?
A method statement is a written, scored response that explains how you will deliver a specific requirement in the specification. It is marked against a published scale, usually 0-5, and the scores across all method statements combine with price to decide the award. It is quality evidence, not a statement of values.
How long should a method statement be?
As long as the word or page limit allows, and no longer. The limit is a hard ceiling, and most evaluators score only what falls inside it. Write to the limit, cover every printed requirement, and leave a small buffer rather than padding to fill space.
What is the difference between a 3 and a 5 on a method statement?
A 3 typically answers the question but relies on assertion, leaves sub-requirements thin, or claims quality without proof. A 5 answers every element in order, names the roles, systems, timeframes and review cycles behind each claim, and evidences outcomes with numbers. The gap is coverage, evidence and specificity, not writing style.
Can TenderLab write our method statements?
Yes. Method statements are the core of our bid writing service. We write to the specific rubric, weighting and word limit of your tender, mirror the specification and evidence every claim against your operation. See bid writing.
Do you review a method statement we have already drafted?
Yes. Our pre-submission review scores your draft against the published rubric the way the evaluator will, flags every unanswered sub-requirement and unproven claim, and returns specific fixes before your deadline. Send a draft through score my response.
What is a realistic lead time to engage TenderLab before a deadline?
The earlier the better, ideally as soon as the tender is published. We work to tighter timescales when needed, but more time means a fuller evidence-gathering stage and a proper pre-submission review. Contact us as early as you can through the contact page.
Score your method statements the way the evaluators will
TenderLab is a sector-exclusive UK health and social care bid-writing consultancy with a 92% win rate across more than 200 UK health and social care submissions. Our writers are evaluator-trained, and most began on the frontline of care before joining, so they read a draft the way a marking panel will. Every engagement includes a pre-submission review against the published rubric. We are registered at Companies House, number 17184263.
Send us a draft for a score through score my response, or book a free consultation at the contact page, whether or not we turn out to be the right fit. Start with bid writing if you need the response written, or pre-submission review if you have a draft that needs marking before the deadline.
Related content
The 20 Most Common Reasons a Tender Bid Is Disqualified
The 20 most common reasons a UK health and social care tender bid is disqualified, from missed deadlines to exclusion grounds, and how to avoid each.
Read article
30 Lessons From Won Tenders
30 lessons from winning health and social care tenders: the evidenced, scoring-driven moves that place providers on the framework.
Read article
30 Lessons From Failed Tenders
Why health and social care bids really fail: 30 lessons from council evaluator feedback to stop losing avoidable marks on your next tender.
Read article