HESKETH & SON Free Snapshot

The method

Map the rubric first. Draft to the map.

Nothing the buyer scores gets missed, and nothing you put your name to goes out without a source behind it. Below is the whole method, with a real tender worked all the way through. Read it before you trust us with a deadline.

Last updated .

How it works

  1. You send us the notice and your evidence. The tender, grant, or award you are chasing, plus your proof: past work, case studies, quality marks, delivery figures. Whatever the rubric can score.
  2. We map the scoring criteria before drafting a word. Every question is broken down against the rubric (the buyer's published scoring criteria) and its weightings, so we know what each answer has to earn before we write it.
  3. Drafting runs against that map only. Every factual claim is tagged to its source in your materials or the notice, so you can see where each sentence comes from; nothing is asserted that we cannot point to.
  4. A person reviews the draft against the rubric and your delivery reality. Where the evidence is thin, we tell you and change the angle rather than pad it with words that score nothing.
  5. You get the full draft, with every tag and the mapping visible. You revise it, approve it, and submit it under your own name, on your own portal.

Example: see the discipline before you commit

Here is the method on a real tender, with the working left in. Every element is labelled by where it came from: taken from the notice, inferred by us, or something you would supply. Nothing is hidden behind a click, so you can check the reasoning line by line.

A worked example: mapping the criteria on a real public-sector tender (demonstration draft).

This is an unsolicited worked example. We drafted it against a real, publicly-advertised UK Care-at-Home council tender purely to show how we work. No one asked us to, it is not a client engagement, and we had no part in that procurement. We are showing it because we would rather you judged the method than took our word for it. Every element below is marked by where it came from: taken from the notice, inferred by us, or something you would supply.

Criterion
Published descriptor
Evidence used (source-tagged)
Resulting draft paragraph
Criterion Understanding of Requirement & Methodology (Quality is worth 60% of the total score; this criterion, we estimate, is roughly 20-25% of that 60%)
Published descriptor "…support the streamlining, standardisation, and optimisation of Care at Home operational processes in preparation for the introduction of an Electronic Care Monitoring (ECM) system… ensure that current processes, structures, and ways of working are efficient, consistent, and aligned to the ECM to maximise the benefits of the investment."
Evidence used (source-tagged) [FROM NOTICE] exact requirement wording, quality/price 60/40 split. [INFERRED: verify against the Invitation to Tender (ITT) documents] sub-question weighting (~20-25% of the quality score): standard Scottish council tender shape, not the actual published question set.
Resulting draft paragraph "We read three distinct jobs inside that sentence… Readiness: existing processes must be able to take the new system on without amplifying the inconsistencies already in them. Optimisation: the 'before' state should be actively improved, not merely documented. Benefit realisation: the investment must be positioned to pay back, with a baseline agreed before go-live…"
Criterion Community Benefit / Social Value (part of the Quality score, 60% of the total; no separate weighting published in the notice)
Published descriptor "Community benefits are included in this requirement," pointing to the Scottish Government community-benefits-in-procurement policy; the specific community-benefit menu sits in the tender documents.
Evidence used (source-tagged) [FROM NOTICE] the explicit community-benefit requirement statement and the policy reference. [INFERRED: verify against the ITT documents] the specific community-benefit menu and any sub-weighting are not published in the notice; the commitments drafted are standard, proportionate options, not the actual published menu.
Resulting draft paragraph "For an engagement of this size we propose proportionate, deliverable, and locally-relevant community benefits. Each is scoped to be delivered in full within the contract term, with a named owner and a measurable outcome. Local capability transfer is core, not an add-on: the train-the-trainer element leaves durable skills inside the workforce, a genuine, measurable community benefit, not a bolt-on."

Every draft we send carries these tags. You see the source of every claim before it goes out under your name.

We're plain about how the work gets made: drafting is AI-assisted, evidence-tagged, and human-reviewed. That's the method, on the tin.

Put the method to work on your tender

The best test of a method is your own tender. Send us what you have and get a free Evidence Snapshot. There is no obligation, and the decision to go any further stays entirely yours.