Mental Health · Provider List
Both lots awarded with six of eight technical responses scoring full marks on a binary 0–2 rubric.
The starting point
Quality answers written for an unwritten 0–5 gradient. Coproduction referenced rather than demonstrated.
From mid-band drift on a 0–2 rubric → 6 of 8 questions at full marks, both lots awarded.
Redacted source material
The gallery retains the source documents already published for this case. Names, identifiers and commercially sensitive details may be redacted.
Source: Bradford Council Mental Health Supported Living Provider List award documentation, reference 85402. Provider list operational from 27 January 2025.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recorded evaluation data
The table reproduces the structured result held in the case-study record.
| 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 |
Before the engagement
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.
After the recorded outcome
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.
A comparable result is not a guarantee
We will read the published conditions and assess the evidence, delivery and commercial position before agreeing to full writing support.
Share the opportunity