Case Study

LIVINGSTONE HEALTH CARE LTD London Borough of Waltham Forest — Short Breaks Services for Children with Disabilities

Tender Overview

The London Borough of Waltham Forest’s contract for the Provision of Short Breaks Services for Children with Disabilities sits across four service types. Lot 1 covers Outreach Support. Lot 2 covers Group Activities. Lot 3 covers Overnight Stays. Lot 4 covers Other Short Break Services and Activities. Each lot is assessed independently, and a provider can apply for any combination of the four.

Livingstone Health Care Ltd applied for all four lots. AssuredBID prepared the submission. On 13 July 2026, PS Procure confirmed on behalf of the council that Livingstone Health Care Ltd had been appointed to the framework on every lot they applied for. The standstill period under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 was due to conclude at midnight on 23 July 2026, after which the framework agreement would proceed to execution.

Being appointed across all four lots of a children’s disability short breaks framework in east London is a result worth noting. Short breaks provision covers a wide spectrum of need, from outreach support in the community through to group activities, specialist sessions, and overnight stays. Securing a place across that full range means Livingstone Health Care Ltd is now available to Waltham Forest commissioners across every type of short break referral that comes through the framework.

The Brief

Client	Livingstone Health Care Ltd
Commissioner	London Borough of Waltham Forest
Contract	Provision of Short Breaks Services for Children with Disabilities
Reference	DN509932
Lots Awarded	Lot 1 — Outreach Support; Lot 2 — Group Activities; Lot 3 — Overnight Stays; Lot 4 — Other Short Break Services and Activities
Procurement Regime	Public Contracts Regulations 2015
Award Date	13 July 2026
Result	Appointed to the Framework — All Four Lots

Key Challenges

The evaluation split 70% quality and 30% price. Quality was assessed through four method statement questions, each carrying 15% of the total score, plus a social value section carrying 10%. Applying for four lots simultaneously means producing four complete submissions, and while the method statement questions were the same across all lots, the responses needed to be grounded in the specific service type each lot covered. A response about outreach support reads differently from a response about overnight stays, and evaluators working through a short breaks procurement know immediately if a provider has treated all four as interchangeable.

The four questions covered person-centred planning for children with disabilities, how the provider would attract children and young people to the service, how the service would improve lives of children and families, and how the proposal mapped onto the service specification’s core objectives. These are not process questions. They are questions about genuine understanding of what short breaks means for a child with a disability and their family, and what makes a service worth choosing. Our children’s disability services bid writing page covers how we approach this type of quality-weighted evaluation.

The Lot 3 Overnight Stays appointment carries an additional requirement that is worth flagging clearly. Before placements can be made under that lot, the council requires confirmation of appropriate Ofsted registration covering fostering services, childcare providers and childminders, or children’s homes. That requirement is set out in the service specification and needs to be in place before Livingstone Health Care Ltd can receive referrals under Lot 3.

Our Approach

The person-centred planning question on each lot was the foundation of the quality submission. Getting it right mattered because it set the tone for everything that followed. We wrote the response around what person-centred planning actually means when the person at the centre is a child with a disability: the importance of communication that works for that child, the need to understand what the child enjoys and values rather than what adults assume they should enjoy, and the practical steps a provider takes to make sure the child’s voice genuinely shapes their support. That response scored Good across all four lots, with evaluators confirming it met all requirements with no negative indicators.

Questions 2, 3, and 4 each scored Acceptable across all four lots. The Acceptable grade confirms the responses met the required standard in most material respects, but evaluators noted minor omissions of important factors on each. Without more specific feedback from the council on which factors those were, we cannot point to exactly what would have lifted those scores to Good. What the pattern tells us is that the submission was solid and complete but did not go as far as it could have in some areas. Those three questions together represent 45% of the total marks available, so any uplift there in a future submission would make a meaningful difference to the overall scores. Our short breaks and children’s disability tender writing guidance addresses exactly how to push quality responses from Acceptable to Good on this type of evaluation.

The social value section scored zero across all four lots. This is the most significant gap in the submission and needs to be addressed directly. Social value carried 10% of the total marks. The spreadsheet submission and the qualitative method statement both needed to be completed and submitted. A zero score indicates the social value submission either was not completed or did not score under the quantitative methodology. Regardless of the reason, 10% of available marks across four lots is a substantial amount to leave on the table, and it is the clearest single improvement available for any future tender of this type.

Price scores varied considerably between lots. Lots 3 and 4 both achieved the maximum price score of 30%, which made a significant contribution to those lots’ overall totals of 69.00% each. Lots 1 and 2 achieved 15.00% and 15.42% respectively from the 30% available, which kept those totals at 54.00% and 54.42%. The maximum price score on Lots 3 and 4 is a strong result and demonstrates that Livingstone Healthcare’s pricing in those service areas was the most competitive submitted.

Results

All four lots were confirmed on 13 July 2026.

Lot 1 — Outreach Support

Criteria	Weighting	Weighted Score
Q1 — Person-Centred Planning	15%	12.0% (Good)
Q2 — Attracting Children and Young People	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Q3 — Improving Lives	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Q4 — Service Specification Alignment	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Social Value	10%	0.00%
Price	30%	15.00%
Total	100%	54.00%

Lot 2 — Group Activities

Criteria	Weighting	Weighted Score
Q1 — Person-Centred Planning	15%	12.0% (Good)
Q2 — Attracting Children and Young People	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Q3 — Improving Lives	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Q4 — Service Specification Alignment	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Social Value	10%	0.00%
Price	30%	15.42%
Total	100%	54.42%

Lot 3 — Overnight Stays

Criteria	Weighting	Weighted Score
Q1 — Person-Centred Planning	15%	12.0% (Good)
Q2 — Attracting Children and Young People	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Q3 — Improving Lives	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Q4 — Service Specification Alignment	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Social Value	10%	0.00%
Price	30%	30.00%
Total	100%	69.00%

Lot 4 — Other Short Break Services and Activities

Criteria	Weighting	Weighted Score
Q1 — Person-Centred Planning	15%	12.0% (Good)
Q2 — Attracting Children and Young People	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Q3 — Improving Lives	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Q4 — Service Specification Alignment	15%	9.0% (Acceptable)
Social Value	10%	0.00%
Price	30%	30.00%
Total	100%	69.00%

Conclusion

Four lot appointments on a children’s disability short breaks framework is a genuinely broad commissioning position. Livingstone Health Care Ltd goes into the framework period as an approved provider across outreach support, group activities, overnight stays, and other short break services in Waltham Forest. That is the full range of what this framework covers, and being on all four lots means the council can consider Livingstone Health Care Ltd for any short breaks referral it needs to place.

The honest picture on the scores is that there is room to go further. The person-centred planning question scoring Good across all four lots is a solid foundation. The Acceptable scores on questions 2, 3, and 4 tell us the responses covered the ground but did not fully capitalise on it. And the social value gap of 10% across all four lots is the most direct route to a higher total score next time. On Lots 1 and 2, where price scores were also lower, combining an improved social value submission with stronger quality on those three questions and more competitive pricing would produce a meaningfully different result.

The maximum price scores on Lots 3 and 4 demonstrate that Livingstone Health Care Ltd can price competitively at that level. Carrying that approach across all four lots, alongside the quality and social value improvements available, is what a stronger resubmission looks like.

If your organisation delivers short breaks, children’s disability services, or outreach support and you want a submission that maximises your score across quality, social value, and price, visit www.assuredbid.co.uk or browse our case studies to see what we have achieved for providers across children’s services and disability support. You can reach our team directly through our contact page.

Find the right contracts, get tender alerts instantly, and submit your bids — all in one place. Access now