How long should a tender method statement be?

As long as the buyer allows and no longer. Most UK public sector tenders set a word or page limit per question, often between 500 and 2,000 words. Treat the limit as a budget: spend most of it on your methodology and evidence, and never exceed it, because content beyond the limit is usually ignored.

How are method statements scored?

Most buyers score each quality answer on a published scale, commonly 0 to 5 or 0 to 10, with descriptors such as unacceptable, poor, acceptable, good and excellent. The score is then multiplied by the question weighting. The jump from acceptable to good usually depends on specific detail, relevant evidence and clear alignment with the buyer's priorities.

Can I reuse method statements between tenders?

You can reuse proven processes, case studies and evidence, but every answer must be tailored to the specific question, scoring criteria and buyer. Evaluators quickly spot generic content, and an answer that does not address the exact question asked will score poorly however well written it is.

How to Write a Method Statement for a Tender (UK Guide)

Q: What is a method statement in a tender?

In a tender, a method statement is your written answer to a quality question explaining how you will deliver the contract: your understanding of the requirement, the steps you will take, the people and resources involved, how you will manage risk and quality, and the evidence that you can do it. It is different from a site safety method statement (RAMS), which describes how a specific task will be carried out safely on site.

A method statement is where most tenders are won or lost. Price matters, but in most UK public sector procurements the quality questions carry the bulk of the marks, and the method statement is the heart of the quality response. It is your chance to show an evaluator, in writing, exactly how you will deliver their contract and why they can trust you to do it.

This guide covers what a tender method statement is, how evaluators score it, a reusable template, a worked example and the mistakes that cost bidders marks. It is part of our wider bid writing guide.

What Is a Method Statement in a Tender?

In a tender, a method statement is the written answer to a question such as "Describe your approach to delivering the service" or "Explain how you will mobilise the contract". It sets out:

Your understanding of the requirement and the buyer's priorities
The methodology you will follow, step by step
The people, systems and resources you will use
How you will manage risk, quality and performance
The evidence that you have done this successfully before

It is not the same as a site safety method statement (often called RAMS, risk assessment and method statement), which describes how a specific task will be carried out safely. Construction tenders may ask for both, but the tender method statement is a persuasive document that is scored against criteria.

Why method statements carry so much weight

Quality weightings of 60% or more are common in services contracts, and the method statement questions often account for most of that. Under the Procurement Act 2023, buyers award contracts to the most advantageous tender (MAT) and must publish their award criteria and how they will be assessed, so you can see exactly where the marks sit. Read our guide to how tenders are evaluated for the wider picture.

How Evaluators Score Method Statements

Each buyer defines its own scale, but most use a variant of this 0 to 5 model:

Score	Descriptor	What it usually means
0	Unacceptable	No answer, or an answer that is irrelevant to the question
1	Poor	Major gaps in understanding, method or evidence; significant delivery risk
2	Weak	Some elements addressed, but important omissions and little evidence
3	Acceptable	Answers the question with a sound approach, but generic and lightly evidenced
4	Good	Detailed, well structured, tailored and supported by relevant evidence
5	Excellent	Comprehensive, fully evidenced, risk aware and adds clear value

The important gap is between 3 and 4. Most bidders cluster at "acceptable": they answer the question but without the specificity and proof that evaluators need to justify a higher mark. Moving up requires three things: more detail in your methodology, stronger evidence and a closer fit to this buyer's priorities.

What evaluators look for

Specificity. Named people, quantified targets, described processes and real systems. "Our experienced team" cannot score above acceptable.
Relevant evidence. Case studies and performance data from comparable contracts, as close in scope, scale and sector as possible.
Local and contextual understanding. Knowledge of the site, the service users, the local labour market or the buyer's strategy.
Risk awareness. A realistic view of what could go wrong and how you will prevent or respond to it. A suspiciously smooth plan reads as inexperience.
Added value that is deliverable. Improvements beyond the specification that you can genuinely commit to and measure.

A Reusable Method Statement Template

Adapt the proportions to the word limit and the exact wording of the question.

1. Understanding and context (10 to 15% of the word count). Show you understand the requirement, the buyer's priorities and the main challenges. Add insight rather than repeating the specification back. 2. Objectives (5 to 10%). Set out measurable objectives that define success, aligned to the buyer's KPIs or service levels where they are published. 3. Methodology (40 to 50%). Describe your approach in a logical sequence: mobilisation, steady state delivery and continuous improvement. Include specific processes, tools, resources and timelines, and name the key people with their relevant experience. 4. Risk management (10 to 15%). Identify the main delivery risks and your mitigations. A short table of risk, likelihood, impact and mitigation is easy to score. 5. Evidence (15 to 20%). Case studies, performance data and credentials. Every piece of evidence should support a specific point you have made. 6. Added value (5 to 10%). Realistic enhancements, innovations or efficiencies beyond the minimum requirement. 7. Governance and reporting (around 5%). How you will manage the contract, report performance and escalate issues.

Mirror the structure of the question. If the buyer asks about scheduling, workforce, quality assurance and reporting, use those four words as your subheadings in that order so the evaluator can find each element in seconds.

Worked Example

Question: "Describe your approach to delivering planned preventive maintenance across the estate, including scheduling, workforce deployment, quality assurance and reporting."

Understanding. "Your estate of 47 buildings across six sites combines statutory plant with general fabric maintenance. Our approach prioritises statutory and critical assets while keeping all planned cycles within agreed access windows, so that occupied buildings are not disrupted." Objectives. "100% statutory compliance from month one; 99% of planned tasks completed in their scheduled month; a year on year reduction in unplanned failures through condition monitoring." Methodology. "Our planned maintenance follows a four stage cycle: schedule, execute, verify, improve. Our CAFM system generates a 13 week rolling schedule based on asset criticality and statutory frequencies. Schedules go to site contacts four weeks ahead, with reminders at two weeks and one week..." The answer then continues through workforce deployment, quality inspections, completion sign off and how asset data drives lifecycle recommendations.

Notice what makes this work: it uses the buyer's own numbers, names a real system, commits to measurable outcomes and follows the question's structure. (The figures here are illustrative; use your own.)

Common Mistakes That Lose Marks

Answering a different question. Re-read the question and the scoring guidance before you write, and again before you submit.
Brochure writing. Company history and generic claims take words away from your method.
Not enough detail. If an evaluator cannot picture how the work will be done, they cannot score it highly.
No evidence. Claims without case studies, data or named people are only promises.
Ignoring the word limit. Content beyond the limit is usually disregarded, and padding to reach it is just as damaging.
Poor structure. Long unbroken paragraphs hide your best points. Use subheadings that match the question.
Missing the buyer's priorities. If the specification stresses social value, carbon or resident satisfaction, your method should show how you deliver them.

How to Evidence Your Claims

Case studies: client, scope, challenge, what you did and the measurable result. Keep them short and directly relevant.
Named personnel: the people who will actually deliver, with qualifications and experience relevant to this contract.
Performance data: KPI results, compliance rates or satisfaction scores from current contracts.
References and accreditations: quote them where they prove a point, not as a list.

Our tender response evidence matrix guide shows how to map evidence to every question before you start writing.

Sector Tips

Construction and infrastructure

Evaluators are often experienced construction professionals who will test your programme, resources and logistics for feasibility. Address buildability, design coordination, site logistics and CDM 2015 duties, and name your site management team with relevant qualifications such as SMSTS or SSSTS. See our construction tender writing guide and CDM compliance guide.

Facilities management

Show you understand the building user's experience as well as the engineering. Cover helpdesk management, communication with occupants, CAFM capability, the balance of planned and reactive work, and how you manage multiple sites and stakeholders. Our FM tender writing guide goes further.

Professional services

Focus on how you will understand the client's problem, your analytical method and how you will transfer knowledge. Name the people who will do the work, not only the partners who attend the pitch, and explain how you will manage scope and quality.

IT and technology

Balance technical depth with plain English, because not every evaluator is a specialist. Cover data security, integration, testing, deployment, rollback, user training and ongoing support. See our IT tender writing guide.

Method Statement Quality Checklist

Every part of the question is answered, in the order it was asked
The answer reflects the published scoring criteria and weighting
Key people are named and their relevance is clear
Objectives are measurable and aligned to the buyer's KPIs
Risks are specific to this contract, with credible mitigations
Every claim is backed by evidence
The word or page limit is respected
An independent reviewer has read it against the scoring guidance

Using AI Responsibly for Method Statements

AI tools can speed up the slowest parts of the job: pulling requirements out of a long specification, finding the right case study in your bid library and producing a structured first draft. They cannot supply experience you do not have, and buyers increasingly ask how AI was used. Keep a human expert in charge of the approach, check every factual claim and make sure the final answer reflects how you will actually deliver. Our guides on what to write when a buyer asks if you used AI and grounded AI tender responses cover this in more detail.

mytender.io is built for exactly this workflow. It extracts requirements and scoring criteria from tender documents, drafts answers from your own bid library and checks responses for compliance before submission, while your team stays in control of the content. Request a demo to see it on one of your live tenders.