If you’ve ever opened a tender document and felt your stomach drop at the words “Method Statement,” you’re not alone. This is the section where most bids are won or lost, and it’s also the section people put off until the night before submission. Not a great combination.
In this guide, we’ll walk through exactly what evaluators are looking for, how to structure a method statement that actually scores well, and we’ll show you real examples of weak answers turned into strong ones. No jargon, no fluff, just what works.
What Is a Method Statement in a Tender, Really?
Quick clarification first, because this trips a lot of people up. In construction and other high-risk industries, “method statement” sometimes refers to the health and safety document that sits alongside a risk assessment for a specific job. That’s not what we’re talking about here.
In a tender context, a method statement is a scored, written answer to a question the buyer has asked about how you’ll deliver the contract. Think of questions like “Describe your approach to managing continuity of staff” or “Explain how you will mobilise this contract within the first 12 weeks.” Your answer to that question is the method statement.
Here’s a simple way to think about it. A CV tells an employer what you’ve done. An interview tells them how you think and what you’d actually do in the room. Your case studies and past performance answers are the CV. The method statement is the interview.
The buyer already has a sense of your track record from your experience answers; the method statement is where they find out whether you’ve genuinely thought through their contract, or whether you’re recycling the same answer you sent to three other buyers last month.
Why Method Statements Carry So Much Weight
Most public sector tenders score quality and price separately, then combine them for a final mark. Quality, which is largely made up of method statements, often accounts for 50 to 70% of that score. On some frameworks it’s closer to 90%.
That means a brilliant price can be completely wiped out by a mediocre method statement, and a strong one can win a contract even when you’re not the cheapest bidder. Evaluators are marking against a scoring matrix, usually something like 0 to 5 or 0 to 10, and they’re comparing your answer against every other supplier’s answer to the same question.
If your response is vague where a competitor’s is specific, you lose marks, even if your actual delivery approach is just as good.
The Anatomy of a High-Scoring Method Statement
Before we get into examples, let’s break down what separates a top-mark answer from a bottom-half one.
Answer the actual question, all of it
Tender questions are often layered. “Describe your mobilisation approach, including how you will manage TUPE, recruit to any vacant posts, and ensure continuity of service from day one” is really four questions in disguise. Miss one part, and you lose marks on that part, no matter how good the rest of your answer is.
A useful habit is to highlight every verb and requirement in the question before you write a single word of your answer. Then build your structure around those points, not the other way round.
Mirror the structure the evaluator expects
Evaluators are often reading 15, 20, sometimes 40 responses to the same question in one sitting. Anything that makes your answer easier to mark quickly will work in your favour. Use headers or bold sub-points that echo the wording of the question.
Bullet points help too, especially for processes or step-by-step approaches, as long as each bullet is followed by a sentence or two of substance rather than a bare list.
Evidence beats adjectives, every time
“We have a highly experienced and dedicated team” tells the evaluator nothing they can score. It’s the equivalent of a job applicant writing “hardworking” on a CV with no examples. Compare that to “our team includes three staff with over ten years’ experience delivering similar contracts, including a two-year framework for [type of client] where we reduced response times by 22%.” One of those sentences earns marks. The other is filler.
Show that you understand this specific contract
Generic answers are the single most common reason method statements score poorly. If your response could be sent to any buyer for any similar contract without changing a word, it’s not tailored enough. Reference the buyer’s actual priorities, their location, their service users, or anything specific in the specification.
Evaluators can tell within a paragraph whether they’re reading something written for them or something copied from a previous bid.
Address risk and quality control
Buyers want reassurance that things won’t go wrong, and if they do, that you have a plan. Weaving in how you monitor performance, handle complaints, or manage risk shows operational maturity rather than just good intentions.
A Simple Framework for Every Method Statement
You don’t need to reinvent your approach for every single question. This simple structure works across almost any method statement:
- What, state clearly what you will do, in one or two sentences.
- How, explain the process or steps involved, tailored to this contract.
- Why, connect it back to the buyer’s outcomes or priorities.
- Proof, back it up with a fact, figure, or short example from past delivery.
Run through those four steps for every sub-question buried in the prompt, and you’ll naturally hit most of the scoring criteria without padding.
Method Statement Examples: Before and After
Let’s put theory into practice. Here are two examples showing a weak first draft next to a stronger, scoring-focused rewrite.
Example 1: Construction, health and safety approach
Question: “Describe your approach to managing health and safety on this site.”
Weak answer: “Health and safety is our top priority. We follow all relevant legislation and ensure our staff are fully trained. We have a strong track record of safe delivery.”
This is the kind of answer every single competitor could submit unchanged. It contains no detail an evaluator can actually score.
Stronger answer: “We will appoint a dedicated Site Manager, [role], who holds SMSTS certification and will be on site full time for the duration of the works. Before mobilisation, we will complete a site-specific risk assessment covering the access constraints noted in the specification, including the shared vehicle route with the adjacent primary school.
Daily toolbox talks will be logged and reviewed weekly by our Health and Safety Advisor, and any near-miss is reported within 24 hours using our digital reporting system. On our recent contract for [example project type], this approach contributed to a RIDDOR-free 18-month delivery period.”
Notice the difference. The second version names a role, a qualification, a specific site risk taken directly from the specification, a reporting timeframe, and a measurable outcome from past delivery. That’s what earns top marks.
Example 2: Social care, continuity of care
Question: “Explain how you will ensure continuity of care for service users.”
Weak answer: “We understand how important continuity is for service users and their families. We will do everything we can to maintain consistent staffing and provide excellent care throughout.”
Stronger answer: “We will assign a named, consistent carer to each service user wherever possible, supported by a secondary carer who is briefed on the individual’s care plan to cover annual leave or sickness.
Handovers between carers are documented using [system/method], and any change of carer is communicated to the service user and their family at least 48 hours in advance except in emergencies.
Our staff turnover rate across our existing domiciliary contracts is currently 11%, against a sector average of around 30%, which we believe reflects our investment in supervision and career progression.”
The second version answers what continuity means in practice, how it’s maintained operationally, and backs it with a comparable figure the evaluator can weigh against other bidders.
Common Mistakes That Cost Marks
A few patterns show up again and again in weaker submissions:
- Recycling old content. Reusing a method statement from a previous bid without rewriting it for this buyer is one of the fastest ways to lose marks. Evaluators notice mismatched details, like a reference to the wrong local authority.
- Ignoring the word or page limit. Going over often means automatic exclusion of the extra text, or worse, disqualification. Staying well under the limit can look thin and undercooked.
- Writing what you’ll do instead of how you’ll do it. “We will provide excellent customer service” describes an intention. “Complaints are logged within one hour and responded to within 24 hours, with root cause reviewed monthly by our Quality Manager” describes a method.
- Forgetting social value. Most public sector tenders now score social value as part of quality. If you haven’t mentioned apprenticeships, local employment, or environmental commitments where relevant, you’re likely leaving marks on the table.
- No proofreading against the question. Read your finished answer against the original question one more time. If it doesn’t fully answer it, an evaluator will mark it down, even if the writing itself is excellent.
Industry-Specific Tips
Construction
Evaluators expect a phased breakdown of works, named resources, and evidence that you’ve thought about access, logistics, and interfacing with other trades. Site-specific detail matters far more than generic safety statements.
Healthcare and Social Care
Continuity, safeguarding, and CQC compliance tend to carry heavy weighting. Named roles, staff ratios, and how you handle escalation or complaints will usually score better than general statements about compassion or quality.
Facilities Management
Buyers want to see how you’ll maintain service levels across multiple sites or a long contract term, plus how you monitor and report performance. Mention KPIs, response times, and how you handle reactive versus planned maintenance.
IT, Digital and AI
Method statements in this space often ask about data security, integration with existing systems, and support arrangements. Be specific about standards you meet, such as Cyber Essentials or ISO 27001, and how you handle downtime or incidents.
Defence
Security clearance requirements, supply chain assurance, and compliance with specific defence standards are usually central. Precision and formality matter here more than almost anywhere else, along with clear evidence of vetting processes for staff.
When It’s Worth Getting Expert Help
Writing strong method statements takes time, and it’s a skill that’s genuinely different from delivering the work itself. Plenty of businesses are excellent at what they do but struggle to translate that into scoring answers under time pressure, especially without a dedicated bid person on the team.
If that sounds familiar, our Tender Writing and Bid Review and Enhancement services are built exactly for this. We also cover related topics regularly on our blog, including how to structure your bid library so you’re not starting from scratch every time.
In Short
Method statements are where tenders are genuinely won or lost, often carrying more weight than price. The strongest answers fully address every part of the question, follow a clear structure, replace vague claims with real evidence, and are tailored specifically to the buyer in front of you. Get those four things right consistently, and your scores will follow.
FAQs
It depends entirely on the word or page limit set in the tender document, and these vary widely. What matters more than length is using every word to answer the question with specific, evidence-backed detail rather than padding out sentences to hit a number.
You can reuse structure and some supporting evidence, but the answer itself needs rewriting for each buyer. Reused, unedited content is one of the most common reasons evaluators mark a response down, since it usually misses details specific to that contract.
A case study demonstrates past performance on similar work. A method statement explains how you’ll approach this specific contract going forward. Buyers usually want both, since one shows credibility and the other shows planning.
Ideally both. Delivery teams know the operational detail that makes an answer credible, while an experienced bid writer knows how to structure that detail so it scores well against the evaluation criteria. Method statements written by operations alone often lack structure, while ones written by bid writers alone can lack technical depth.
In most public sector tenders, yes. Social value is increasingly weighted as its own scoring criterion or built into method statement questions directly. Leaving it out, or mentioning it only briefly, tends to cost marks that are relatively easy to pick up with a specific, relevant commitment.