RM6397 guidance · 6 of 6
Writing an RM6397 response that scores
Most losing responses from capable agencies contain the right evidence in the wrong shape. They describe the business rather than answering the question that was published, and an evaluator working to a band rubric can only award marks for what the criteria ask about.
The facts that decide it
- Responses are marked against published criteria and weightings, in bands
- Evaluators give no benefit of the doubt: an implied answer scores as an absent one
- Character budgets are hard limits, and a rewrite has to land inside the same budget
- Future tense presented as current practice is a standard markdown
Band rubrics are unforgiving in a specific way. The gap between a middle and a top band is usually not quality of prose, it is presence of specifics: a number, a named system, a dated example, a stated outcome. Two responses can describe the same genuine capability and score a band apart because one of them evidenced it and the other asserted it.
The most common markdown is describing the company rather than answering the question. It happens because the person who knows the business best writes about the business, while the evaluator is holding a scoring matrix that asks something narrower. Reading the criteria back to yourself sentence by sentence, and asking which words earn a mark, catches most of it.
The second most common is future tense presented as current practice. An assessor reads will implement as do not currently do, and marks it accordingly. If a process is genuinely planned rather than live, say so and evidence the plan. Claiming it as current is both a markdown and, in a public procurement, a risk you do not want.
The third is unverifiable numbers. A percentage without a denominator or a source is worth less than a smaller number that can be checked, because the assessor's mandate is protecting public money and they extend no benefit of the doubt. Our own published figure is 93 per cent across more than 500 submissions between 2022 and 2025, and we quote the denominator every time for exactly this reason.
The last is the character budget. Going over is not a style issue, it is a compliance one, and a rewrite that fixes an answer but breaks the limit has not fixed anything.
What we do on this
- Write every response against the published criteria and weightings rather than against a template
- Run an assessor-standard review before submission: a mark per criterion, the reason for each markdown, and rewritten text inside the same character budget
- Hand back the evidence gaps early, because those are the ones only you can close
The mistake that costs the most
Reviewing your own work. Authors read their intended meaning into a sentence that does not carry it, and the evaluator, who has no such context and a rubric in front of them, awards the lower band.
Common questions
What does an assessor-standard review actually produce?
A mark per criterion against the published bands, the specific reason for every markdown, rewritten text for the sentences costing marks, and a list of evidence gaps only you can fill. It is written to be acted on in the days before submission.
Can you guarantee a score or a place on the framework?
No. The evaluation belongs to the buyer and no consultancy controls it. Treat anyone who promises otherwise with caution. What can be committed to is the work: directors on the engagement, every response written to the published criteria, an independent scored review before submission, and the portal submission handled with acknowledgement obtained.
How early should the review happen?
Early enough to act on it, which means at least a week before submission rather than the day before. A review that surfaces a missing referee or a lapsed accreditation is only worth having while there is time to fix it.
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: Writing to score
Which lots, and how far along are you?