These avoidable tender mistakes are costing you contracts

With NHS commissioning budgets tighter than ever and local authorities increasingly selective about their care partnerships, even experienced health and social care providers are finding themselves unsuccessful in tender processes they should be winning.

Recent contract award notices reveal a concerning pattern. Quality providers with excellent care records are being eliminated not because of their service delivery, but due to fundamental application errors that could easily be avoided.

Having reviewed hundreds of unsuccessful tender submissions across the health and social care sector, we’ve identified the most common – and most costly – mistakes that are preventing good providers from securing the contracts they deserve.

The Documentation Disasters

• Missing signatures remain the biggest culprit: Unsigned declaration forms, missing director signatures on company information, or incomplete signatory details continue to result in automatic disqualification. One recent NHS framework saw 23% of applications rejected at the initial compliance stage for signature-related issues alone.
• Policy uploads are another critical failure point: Safeguarding policies, health and safety procedures, and equality and diversity statements aren’t optional extras – they’re mandatory requirements. Yet providers regularly submit applications missing these essential documents, or upload outdated versions that don’t reflect current legislation.
• Business Continuity Plans (BCPs) cause particular problems: Many providers either don’t have an adequate BCP or fail to upload one that specifically addresses healthcare service delivery. With recent global disruptions highlighting business resilience, commissioning bodies now scrutinise these documents more carefully than ever.

The Compliance Catastrophes

CQC/ PAMMS registration details frequently cause unnecessary rejections: Providers list incorrect registration numbers, reference outdated ratings, or fail to include all relevant registered locations. With CQC/ PAMMS. information readily verifiable online, these errors immediately flag applications as poorly prepared.

Insurance documentation presents ongoing challenges. Public liability, professional indemnity, and employer’s liability certificates must be current and show adequate coverage levels. Expired policies or insufficient coverage amounts result in immediate disqualification, regardless of how strong the service proposal might be.

The Quality Response Failures

Social value responses often receive inadequate attention: Many providers treat these questions as afterthoughts, providing generic responses about “supporting local communities” rather than specific, measurable commitments. With social value weighting increasing across public sector contracts, weak responses here significantly damage overall scores.

Financial standing evidence regularly falls short: Beyond basic accounts, commissioners want to see evidence of financial stability and cash flow management. Providers who submit bare minimum financial information without demonstrating their ability to sustain service delivery throughout the contract term often score poorly in this crucial section.

Staff qualification evidence lacks proper substantiation: Simply listing qualifications isn’t enough – commissioning teams want to see evidence of current registrations, ongoing training programmes, and compliance with sector-specific requirements like mandatory training matrices.

The Timing and Technical Troubles

Late submissions remain surprisingly common: Portal technical issues, last-minute document discoveries, or simple diary management errors result in applications submitted after deadline. No commissioning body accepts late submissions, regardless of circumstances.

Poor document formatting creates unnecessary barriers: Illegible scans, incorrectly named files, or documents that exceed size limits suggest poor attention to detail, not the impression any care provider wants to give.

Avoiding These Pitfalls

The frustrating reality is that most of these failures are entirely preventable with proper preparation and systematic checking. Successful providers typically maintain up-to-date document libraries, establish clear submission processes, and build adequate time buffers into their tender response schedules.

More importantly, they recognise that tender applications are themselves a demonstration of organisational competence. Commissioners reasonably assume that providers who can’t manage a tender application properly may struggle with contract delivery requirements.

At AssuredBID, we’ve helped numerous health and social care providers transform their tender success rates by addressing these fundamental issues before they become costly mistakes. Our systematic approach ensures that excellent care providers aren’t eliminated on technicalities, allowing their service quality to shine through.

Ready to stop losing tenders on avoidable mistakes? Contact our specialist health and social care tender team today to discover how we can help you submit winning applications that reflect the true quality of your care services.