Bid Answer Bank

Plymouth Community Homes, Standard EPCs (KS/StandardEPCs/010/026) — lost Aug 2026, 81% v 82–84%. Price 60/60, identical to the winners. Level with the winner on every technical question except Q1 Social Value: 6/10 v 9/10 — the entire margin of the loss.

PCH debrief reply, 10 Sep 2026 (Kim Steer): "The scoring is done via the HACT system to work out the Social Value Return on Spend and so award the % marks accordingly." Nobody read the method statement. The mark was arithmetic: the £ social value that HACT's Social Value Bank calculates from the outcomes and head-counts entered on the platform, divided by spend. The winners simply committed roughly 1.5× more HACT value per £. Also confirmed: the "Compliance 100 Ltd" heading on our score column was a clerical error — the scores are ours.

What this means for the next bid:

1. Find out before drafting whether the social value mark is a formula (HACT / Social Value Insight / return on spend) or a judgement. Ask in clarifications if the ITT does not say.
2. On a formula, the platform entry is the answer. Head-counts drive the number: a careers workshop for 20 residents out-values one expensive event; employment and apprenticeship starts are the heaviest units (indicative HACT values: c.£12.9k per person into full-time work, c.£12k per apprenticeship start, c.£3.7k per 3-day placement, c.£9.8k per adult gaining confidence from careers advice — versioned, confirm on the platform).
3. Ask which denominator the buyer uses: bid price (maximise total value) or social value delivery cost (lean, high-value wins).
4. Every head-count entered becomes a monitored contract commitment. The volume to commit and price in is Ash's decision, taken when the question is read — never left as [TO CONFIRM] at submission.
5. Still to do: retrieve what we entered in HACT in Aug 2026 (the baseline to beat by 1.5×) and get a working HACT login before the next live bid.

Shropshire Council, PAS 2035 Retrofit Coordination & Design — lost Jul 2026, 73% v 76%. We were 7 points ahead on price and still lost by 3. Social value 2/5 v 4/5 (worth the contract on its own): a named Social Value Lead + framework awareness scores 2; only additional, measurable, evidenced commitments score higher. "More worked examples" was written against every narrative answer; "predominantly social housing" was used against us twice on an owner-occupier scheme. Our one answer that beat the winner (KPIs, 4 v 3) used named people owning specific KPIs with timelines and risk triage — copy that style.

Across both: "meets the specified requirements" scores 3/5, not 5/5; "generic" costs a visible mark; B Corp caps us at 3/5 until the company certifies; and discounting price buys the fewest points at the highest cost.

Full records: ~/.claude/skills/tender-paperwork/references/bid-outcomes.md and social-value-answer-model.md. Log every future award notification there and here.