Mini-competitions & call-offs: how work is actually awarded (and how you win it)

I hear this a lot: “We’re on the framework—when do the orders arrive?” They don’t. Call-offs (aka mini-competitions) are where the real game happens. A framework gives you permission to compete; a call-off is where a buyer decides who delivers this specific piece of work for their school, council, MAT, NHS trust, or blue-light service. If you don’t tailor your response to that buyer’s outcomes, place, timetable and risks, you’ll lose to someone who did—no matter how shiny your framework listing looks.

Below is the playbook I deploy with clients across CCS, YPO, NHS SBS, Everything ICT and friends, typically running on Jaggaer, Atamis, Proactis or SAP Ariba.

What a call-off looks like in real life

A public body issues an Invitation to Further Competition (ITFC) to suppliers on the relevant lot (sometimes a filtered subset). The pack usually includes:

Specification / Statement of Requirements – what they actually need, in their context.
Response template – method statements with word/character limits and sometimes fixed headings.
Pricing schedule – often separate from framework rate cards; may include volumes, banding, OOH, mobilisations.
Evaluation model – quality/price/social value weights (e.g., 60/30/10) and scoring guidance.
T&Cs / call-off contract – any departures from the framework baseline.
Clarifications window – a hard deadline for questions via the portal.
Submission instructions – file types, naming, evidence rules, and non-negotiables that get you binned if you ignore them.

Sometimes you’ll see direct award (catalogue/price-card), but treat it as the exception, not a plan.

Why agencies trip up

They recycle framework text. Call-offs are marked against the buyer’s specific outcomes, not your generic capability.
They ignore the marking scheme. Evaluators award points against the published criteria. If you don’t mirror them, you’re giving away marks.
They miss the local detail. Schools and councils live by term dates, DBS/safeguarding, site access, estates constraints, and place-based social value. “We’re compliant” isn’t an answer.
They submit pretty PDFs that break the rules. Wrong format, over word-count, missing evidence links = non-compliant.
They price inputs, not outcomes. Rate caps are ceilings; you still need outcome-based commercials that match volumes, geographies and risk.

The bidder’s map: step-by-step

1) Triage in 30 minutes

Fit: Does the scope sit firmly on one of your proven offers?
Win themes: Can you state three buyer-specific advantages in two sentences? If not, stop.
Risks: TUPE? OOH? Multi-site travel? Security clearances? Named tooling/licences?
Numbers: At your modelled target margin, are you likely to be competitive? If price must go near floor, who signs that off?

Outcome: Go/No-Go. No half-pregnant bids.

2) Build an Answer Plan that mirrors the marking scheme

Create a mini matrix:

QuestionWeightEvaluator wantsOur proofEvidence attach/link

Lift the buyer’s verbs (“demonstrate”, “evidence”, “provide”) into your sub-headings. If the scheme mentions “how, who, when, risk and measure”, your answer has exactly those sub-sections, in that order.

3) Clarifications that shape the tender (legally)

Use the window to improve the spec for both sides:

Confirm volumes, geographies, SLAs, on-site/remote blend.
Ask whether DBS/BPSS is required for all personnel or site-specific roles.
Pin down service boundaries (what’s in the school/council remit vs supplier).
Challenge impossible timelines professionally (“Can the start move to accommodate TUPE/clearances?”).
Publish-able questions only; never ask what you can find in the pack.

4) Solution first, prose second

Design the actual delivery with Ops before you write:

Staffing model and rota that respects term time, holidays, and OOH multipliers.
Mobilisation Gantt (induction, vetting, tooling, comms, go-live gates).
Risk register with treatments (backfill, peak cover, security access, site constraints).
Local social value menu tied to the buyer’s plan (apprenticeships, local SMEs, targeted volunteering with metrics and cadence).

Then write the method statement in the buyer’s language. Show sequence and ownership: who does what, when, and how it’s evidenced.

5) Price the outcome, not just the hours

Keep labour rates ≤ cap, but move to unit pricing where allowed (per user/site/month; per incident band; per install; per mobilisation).
Band volumes (1–100, 101–500, 501–2,000) so small clients don’t wreck your margin.
Publish options: OOH premiums, accelerated onboarding, extra geographies, named-tool licence uplift.
State assumptions clearly (response windows, site access rules, data owner responsibilities). If an assumption is wrong, it becomes a priced change—not free extra scope.

6) Format like a hawk

Obey word/character limits. If the portal counts characters, your “1200 words” will get chopped.
Use the provided template; if none, plain accessible Word/PDF (no locked content, no external logins).
Evidence must open without passwords. Appendices are signposted in the text.

7) Internal red team

Get someone not involved to review against the scoring guidance. They should be brutal:

Did we answer this buyer’s outcomes?
Are proofs right-sized (recent, relevant, measurable)?
Any “we will consider / explore / aim to” fluff? Kill it. Replace with “We will do X by Y, measured by Z.”

8) Submit early

Portals crash. Upload a day before and do a full file open/preview inside the tool.

What evaluators are really looking for

Traceability to their outcomes. If their spec says “reduce unauthorised access incidents by 30% in six months”, your answer shows a baseline, control stack, ownership, and reporting cadence that achieves 30%, not “we take security seriously.”
Operational credibility. Named roles, rota, skills, clearances, onboarding plan. Not “a team of experienced engineers.”
Risk & resilience. Peaks, absences, site closures, exam weeks, snow days—what breaks and how you keep service stable.
Place-based social value. Concrete actions linked to the local plan with quarterly reporting.
Commercial clarity. No hidden extras; options priced; indexation handled if the framework allows; assumptions that make sense.

Schools & local authorities: specific tailoring notes

Schools/MATs

DBS for all on-site roles; safeguarding training currency; single point of contact who knows the timetable.
Classroom disruption is the mortal sin—plan changes around exams, SATs, and parent evenings.
Asset and access discipline: who holds keys/cards; who signs for kit; who is allowed on site without escort.

Local authorities

Multi-site reality (libraries, depots, civic buildings). Price travel/site days sensibly.
Environmental factors (fleet, waste, carbon) and local supply chain use are marked, not decorative.
Collaboration with incumbent/other providers—show interfaces, not just your bit.

Debriefs: the free consultancy you’re owed

Win or lose, ask for a formal debrief:

Scores by question vs winner (if available).
Strengths/weaknesses in the evaluator’s words.
Where price points were won/lost (bands, options, OOH).
Feed the learning back into your SSOT, pricing model, and case-study pack. If you’re losing on the same issue (e.g., mobilisation risk), fix the root cause.

The minimal kit you need ready before the next call-off drops

Template set: method statement shell mirroring common criteria (service design, mobilisation, risk, H&S/safeguarding, data protection, social value, exit).
Evidence pack: three current case studies per lot; role-based CVs; signed policies; training matrix; CE/CE+; insurance; vetting log sample; mobilisation Gantt.
Pricing workbook: caps vs roles, utilisation, banded unit pricing, OOH multipliers, options, assumptions, risk costed.
Portal hygiene: correct lots, geographies, catalogues, contacts; notifications working; spam filters trained.

Bottom line

Mini-competitions are not admin—they’re the sale. The buyer is telling you exactly how they will mark; your job is to mirror that, prove it with recent and relevant evidence, and price the outcome safely inside the caps. Get the triage right, shape the clarifications, design the delivery before the prose, and format to the letter. Do that, and “on the framework” turns into won the work.