RM6397 guidance · 2 of 6
If you hold RM6281 or RM6277, you have to rebid
RM6397 replaces RM6281 and RM6277. A place on either does not carry over. Incumbents rebid on the same terms as a supplier who has never held a place, and the ones who struggle are usually those who assumed otherwise and started late.
The facts that decide it
- RM6397 replaces both RM6281 and RM6277
- Framework places do not transfer between generations
- Twelve lots, so incumbents must also re-decide which lots to bid
- Submissions close 3pm on Monday 21 September 2026
Incumbency is worth a lot and none of it is entitlement. What it actually gives you is evidence: live call-off performance, fill rates, compliance audit history, real escalations and how they were resolved, and referees who have worked with you rather than been told about you. That is the strongest material any bidder can have, and most incumbents under-use it because it feels like business as usual rather than something to write down.
What incumbency does not give you is credit for being known. The evaluator scores the submission in front of them against published criteria. An answer that gestures at an existing relationship, or assumes the reader knows how you perform, reads as thinner than an answer from a challenger who spelled everything out. This is the single most common way a strong incumbent scores below a weaker new entrant.
The lot decision also has to be made again from scratch. Twelve lots is a different structure from the one you hold a place on, and the honest question is where your delivered volumes and compliance evidence actually sit now, not which lots you happen to be on today. Bidding a lot out of habit costs you the effort that a winnable one needed.
Practically, the work is retrieval rather than invention. Pull your call-off data, your audit outcomes, your fill and cancellation rates and your incident records into one place, then write to the criteria from that. An incumbent who does this properly is very hard to beat. An incumbent who does not is beatable by anyone.
What we do on this
- Turn call-off performance, audit history and compliance records into evidence written to the published criteria
- Re-run the lot decision against current delivered volumes rather than against the lots you hold today
- Read a previous submission alongside its feedback where you have it, because the same gaps usually recur
The mistake that costs the most
Assuming the buyer already knows how you perform. They may, and the evaluator scoring your response does not. Everything that earns a mark has to be on the page.
Common questions
Does our place on RM6281 give us any advantage?
It gives you better evidence than almost anyone else bidding, and no procedural advantage at all. The competition is fresh and the evaluation is of your submission, not your history. Incumbents who convert their delivery record into written evidence do very well. Incumbents who rely on being known do not.
Should we bid the same lots we hold now?
Only if your delivered volumes and compliance evidence still support them. RM6397 has twelve lots and the structure is not a copy of what you hold. Decide on the evidence, not on habit.
We were unsuccessful last time. Is it worth bidding again?
Usually yes, and the first thing to do is read the previous submission next to its feedback. Most repeat losses come from the same handful of gaps, and those gaps are fixable once you can see them. If the honest answer after that reading is that the lot is not winnable, we will tell you before you commit resource.
Reviewed 24 August 2026. The published ITT on the GCA e-sourcing portal is the only authority on any date, threshold or requirement here. Nothing on this page is legal advice.
More on RM6397
Start with the RM6397 framework overview, or go straight to the NHS tender pipeline.
Bidding RM6397?
Tell us which lots you are considering and where you are up to. A director replies with a view, and will tell you if we think a lot is not winnable for you.
RM6397: Incumbents on RM6281 and RM6277
Which lots, and how far along are you?