Case Study · Bradford Council · Provider List
Bradford Mental Health Supported Living Provider List 2025
Both lots awarded with six of eight technical responses scoring full marks on a binary 0–2 rubric.
From mid-band drift on a 0–2 rubric → 6 of 8 questions at full marks, both lots awarded.
The Award Letter
Verified Source
Source: Bradford Council Mental Health Supported Living Provider List award documentation, reference 85402. Provider list operational from 27 January 2025.
Section 01Case Overview
This case study examines the route Rosecare Community Services Ltd took onto Bradford Council's Mental Health Supported Living Services Provider List (reference 85402), where the provider secured Lots 1 and 2 with six of eight technical responses at full marks on a binary 0–2 rubric. The provider list went operational on 27 January 2025.
Section 04Starting Gaps & Limitations
The provider had written quality answers to a 0–5 gradient that did not exist in this procurement — Bradford's rubric was binary. A score of 1 on this rubric means incomplete or partial: only 2 is full marks. The original narrative addressed the questions confidently but at a level of generality that the binary rubric would have scored at 1 for most questions. Coproduction was mentioned rather than demonstrated with named service user roles and dated examples.
Section 08Our Role
We took the engagement as lead writer on all eight technical questions, restructuring each response to the binary rubric logic — where 2 means every element met, every example named and dated, and no evaluator discretion required. The coproduction narrative was rebuilt with named service user roles in the review cycle. Trauma-informed care practice was evidenced through specific approaches rather than referenced as a framework.
Working from a similar starting point?
Free consultation. We will read the specification, identify the deterministic and discretionary points, and tell you whether the win is realistic.
Section 12What Changed the Trajectory
The pivotal change was understanding the binary nature of the rubric and rewriting every answer to close every possible gap at 2/2 rather than at a confident 1/2. Questions 3 and 8 remained at 1/2 — Q3 Equality and Diversity and Q8 Quality — where the evidence base at the time of engagement did not fully support a 2/2 answer. All other questions were written to 2/2, with the specific recovery points for Q3 and Q8 documented for the next bid cycle.
Section 13Outcome Achieved
Lots 1 and 2 were awarded, six of eight technical responses scored full marks (2/2), the provider list went operational on 27 January 2025, and Council placements began arriving at the agreed pricing schedule.
Measurable Uplift
| Question | Topic | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Service Delivery | 2/2 |
| Q2 | Trauma Informed Care | 2/2 |
| Q3 | Equality and Diversity | 1/2 |
| Q4 | Safeguarding | 2/2 |
| Q5 | Voice of People Supported | 2/2 |
| Q6 | Workforce | 2/2 |
| Q7 | Vision and Transformation | 2/2 |
| Q8 | Quality | 1/2 |
The provider was not on Bradford Council's Mental Health Supported Living Provider List and had no structured route to receive Council placements at the Council's set pricing schedule.
The provider sits on Lots 1 and 2 with the provider list operational from 27 January 2025, six of eight responses at full marks, with documented improvement points for Q3 and Q8 built into the next bid cycle.