How to write a method statement that actually scores

Last reviewed: 29 July 2026

The short answer

A method statement is the part of a tender where you explain, in specific and checkable detail, how you will actually deliver the contract if you win it. It is scored, usually as the largest single component of the quality score, so a weak method statement can lose a bid that had the strongest price and the best social value offer sitting next to it. Evaluators mark your answer against a published or internal scoring guide, question by question, and they reward specific, evidenced, contract-relevant detail over general statements about how good your company is. The method statements that score well share a pattern: they restate the requirement in their own words, set out a clear and logical approach, back every claim with a specific example or figure, and address what could go wrong alongside how it will be managed.

None of this is about writing flair. A method statement is a technical answer wearing the clothes of an essay. Buyers are not looking for the most elegant prose; they are looking for the lowest-risk way to get the outcome they need, described clearly enough that they can picture you actually doing it.

What a method statement actually is

Strip away the tender jargon and a method statement answers one question: how, specifically, will you do this? Not what you believe in, not how experienced your company is in general, but the actual sequence of activities, resources, and decisions you will apply to this contract, for this buyer, in this location, on this timescale.

Method statements appear under different labels depending on the buyer and sector: quality questions, technical responses, delivery plans, or simply "method statement" on construction and works contracts, where the term originated as a health and safety document describing how a task would be carried out safely. In modern tendering the term has broadened to cover any scored narrative response describing your delivery approach, whether the contract is facilities management, professional services, IT, or works.

Under the Procurement Act 2023, contracts are awarded on the basis of the Most Advantageous Tender, not simply the lowest price. That makes the method statement one of the places where a smaller supplier without the lowest day rate can still win, because quality and delivery approach sit inside the award test on equal footing with cost.

What evaluators are marking against

Most public sector evaluators, and an increasing number of private sector ones, score against a moderated evaluation matrix. Typically this sets out, for each question, what a response needs to demonstrate to reach each score band, for example unacceptable, poor, acceptable, good, and excellent. Evaluators are trained to mark independently before a moderation meeting reconciles differences, and they are instructed to look for evidence against specific criteria, not to be swayed by tone or design.

This matters because it means a method statement is not marked on how confident or persuasive it sounds. It is marked on whether it contains the specific things the evaluator has been told to look for. A response that reads well but is vague about resourcing, timescales, or named individuals will often score lower than a plainer response that answers every element the evaluator has been briefed to check.

Where you can see the evaluation criteria or weighted sub-questions in the tender pack, and buyers under the Procurement Act 2023 are required to be transparent about how they will assess bids, work through them line by line before you draft. Treat each one as a checklist item your answer must visibly satisfy.

A structure that scores

There is no single format every buyer accepts, but a structure that consistently scores well follows four movements within each question:

• Understanding. A short paragraph that restates the requirement in your own words and shows you have understood the buyer's specific context, not a generic version of the service. This signals you have read the specification, not recycled a template.
• Approach. The core of the answer: the sequence of activities, methods, resources, and decision points you will use to deliver the requirement. Use headings and a logical order, usually chronological or by phase, so an evaluator can follow it without re-reading.
• Evidence. Specific examples, figures, named tools, processes, or track record that back up the claims made in the approach section. This is where marks are actually won or lost; see the section below.
• Risk and assurance. What could go wrong with this approach, how you will spot it early, and what you will do about it. Buyers reward suppliers who show they have thought about failure modes, not just the happy path.

Within that structure, subheadings that mirror the buyer's own question wording help an evaluator map your answer directly onto their scoring criteria. If the question has three parts, answer with three visible, labelled parts. Do not make the evaluator hunt for content that answers part two.

Answer the question asked

The single most common reason a technically capable bidder scores poorly is that the response answers a different, adjacent question to the one asked. A question about how you will manage mobilisation in the first eight weeks of a contract needs an answer about mobilisation in the first eight weeks, not a general statement about your company's implementation methodology developed over many contracts.

Before drafting, break every question into its component parts. A question that asks "describe your approach to quality assurance, including how you will monitor performance and respond to underperformance" contains at least three separate things to address: the quality assurance approach itself, the monitoring mechanism, and the escalation or remediation process. Miss one, and you have left marks on the table even if the other two parts are excellent.

It is worth repeating the discipline that applies across the whole bid, not just the method statement: read the clarification process set out in the tender and use it if a question is genuinely ambiguous. An answer built on a wrong assumption about scope cannot be rescued by good writing.

Evidence beats adjectives

"Robust", "proven", "market-leading" and "best-in-class" are adjectives, not evidence, and evaluators are trained to discount them. They cost you word count without adding a mark. The response that says "we operate a robust quality management system" tells the evaluator nothing they can score. The response that says "our quality management system is certified to ISO 9001, independently reviewed twice yearly, and generated 14 corrective actions in the last cycle, all closed within the target 30 days" gives the evaluator something specific to award marks against, and something a moderator can point to when defending the score in a debrief.

The same principle applies to staffing and resourcing claims. Naming a role and stating how many hours per week it is allocated is stronger than saying you will provide "dedicated resource." Where you can, reference how you have delivered a comparable requirement before, with a specific and relevant detail rather than a company-wide sales claim. If you are early in your public sector track record, evidence can still come from private sector delivery, pilots, or named individuals' prior experience; specificity is what counts, not the size of the client logo.

A growing number of bid teams draft first passes with AI tools to save time on structure and first-draft language. If you use one, keep two things in mind. First, any AI-drafted figure must be checked against your own real data before it goes in the response; an evaluator who spots an invented statistic will mark you down on credibility across the whole submission, not just that answer. Second, where a tender is subject to Procurement Policy Note 017 on the transparent and responsible use of artificial intelligence in bidding, disclose your AI use to the buyer as instructed rather than leaving it unstated.

Risk, mitigation and contingency

A method statement that describes only the ideal path through delivery reads as inexperienced. Buyers who have run a contract before know things go wrong, and they are evaluating whether you have thought about that too. A short, well-placed risk section, even where the question does not explicitly ask for one, often lifts a response from good to excellent.

The strongest risk content follows a simple pattern for each risk named: what could go wrong, how likely and how significant it is, how you will detect it early, and what you will do in response. Naming two or three genuinely relevant risks, specific to this contract rather than generic ones lifted from a template, and showing a credible mitigation for each, demonstrates the kind of operational maturity evaluators are trained to look for. Naming ten risks with a one-line mitigation each usually reads as padding and dilutes the strongest points.

Word limits and formatting discipline

Word and character limits in tenders are hard constraints, not suggestions. Many portals cut off text at the limit or flag over-length responses for automatic disqualification of the excess content, and evaluators are told not to read past a stated limit even where the software allows it. Treat the limit as a budget to be spent deliberately: introductions and restating the question in full should take a sentence, not a paragraph, so the bulk of your word count goes on the approach, the evidence, and the risk content that actually earns marks.

Use the formatting the tender specifies. If a template is provided with fixed fields, use it exactly; do not attach a differently formatted document unless the tender explicitly allows it. Where format is open, short paragraphs, clear subheadings that mirror the question, and bullet points for sequential steps make it easier for a time-pressured evaluator to locate the content that earns each mark, which matters more than it sounds. An evaluator who cannot find your evidence within their allotted reading time may simply score what they can see.

Common mistakes that cost marks

The same avoidable errors recur across method statement responses that under-score relative to the underlying capability of the bidder:

1. Answering the brief, not the question. Writing about the service in general rather than the specific requirement, site, timescale or constraints named in this tender.
2. Leading with adjectives instead of evidence. Claims of excellence with nothing specific behind them, discounted by evaluators trained to look past marketing language.
3. No named individuals or resourcing detail. Vague references to "our team" instead of roles, hours, and reporting lines specific to this contract.
4. Ignoring the risk dimension. Presenting only the ideal delivery path, with no evidence of having thought about what could go wrong.
5. Reusing a previous answer wholesale. A response that does not reference this buyer's specific context reads as generic, even when the underlying capability is strong.
6. Exceeding or padding to the word limit. Either losing content an evaluator never sees, or diluting strong points with repetition to fill space.
7. Inconsistency with the rest of the bid. A method statement that promises a delivery model your pricing schedule or your social value response does not support, which a careful evaluator will notice and mark down as a coherence risk.

Every one of these is fixable with a disciplined drafting and review process, not a bigger team. If you want the wider context on how quality sits inside the overall award decision, read our guide to finding and winning your first UK public sector contract, which covers how the SQ and ITT stages fit together and where social value sits alongside quality in the score.

Frequently asked questions

What is a method statement in a tender?

It is the scored section of a tender where you explain, in specific detail, how you will deliver the contract if you win it. It is marked against a published evaluation matrix, usually as part of the quality score, alongside price and, in the public sector, social value.

How long should a method statement be?

Whatever length the tender sets, and no longer. Buyers publish a word or page limit for each question and evaluators are instructed to stop reading, or to disregard content, past that limit. Spend the words you are given on evidence and specifics, not introductions.

Should I use headings and bullet points in a method statement?

Yes, unless the tender instructions say otherwise. Clear headings that mirror the question, short paragraphs, and bullet points for sequential steps make it easier for a time-pressured evaluator to find and award the marks you have earned.

Can I reuse a method statement from a previous bid?

Only as a starting point, never as a final answer. Every buyer asks the question differently and every contract has different risks, so a reused answer that does not reference this specific requirement reads as generic and scores lower than one written for the question actually asked.

Sources

• Procurement Act 2023, full text, legislation.gov.uk.
• Transforming Public Procurement, Cabinet Office guidance collection, gov.uk.
• Guidance on the transparent and responsible use of AI in procurement (PPN 017), Cabinet Office, gov.uk.