Tender, grant, and award submissions drafted to the published scoring criteria — and your evidence.
Fixed-fee drafting for UK and Norwegian SMEs. We map every requirement to the buyer's published rubric before drafting begins, write from your own evidence with every claim tagged to its source, and review by hand before anything reaches you.
Reserve a slot for your deadlineThe situation
You've found a tender, grant, or award worth going for. You don't have a bid-writing team, and doing it properly takes days you don't have alongside running the business.
We draft the submission. You review it, sign it off, and submit it as your own — because it is: written from your evidence, your track record, and the specific criteria the evaluator is scoring against.
How it works
- You send the notice and your evidence pack — past work, case studies, accreditations, delivery data; whatever the rubric scores.
- We map the scoring criteria first. Every question is broken down against the published rubric and weightings before a word is drafted.
- Drafting runs against that map only — with every factual claim tagged to its source in your materials or the notice.
- A human reviews the draft against the rubric and your delivery reality — where evidence is thin, we tell you and change the angle rather than pad.
- You receive the full draft with the tags and mapping visible. You revise, approve, and submit under your name, on your portal.
Example — see the discipline before you commit
See a real example: criteria mapping from a live public-sector tender (demonstration draft).
This is from our demonstration response to a live Scottish council tender (Care at Home ECM Readiness, Argyll & Bute, notice 836214) — drafted to show the working method, with the provenance of every element marked: verified-from-notice, inferred, or client-to-supply.
Every client draft carries these tags. You see the source of every claim before it goes out under your name.
Why not just run it through ChatGPT yourself?
Generic models produce fluent text quickly. They don't know which of your past projects actually match this buyer's descriptors and weightings. They don't flag where your evidence is thin against a heavily-weighted criterion and needs a different angle rather than padding. And nobody is accountable for the result.
And it won't sound like you. Generic AI has a voice of its own — and evaluators, who read hundreds of submissions, have learned to smell it. We build a voice reference from your company's own writing and measure every draft against it, so what goes out reads as you on your best day, not as a chatbot.
What closes those gaps here: the rubric is mapped before drafting starts, every claim is tagged to its source, every draft is scored against your own voice, and a named person reviews the result against both the scoring criteria and what your business can actually deliver. That's the difference between a document that reads well and one that scores.
We're plain about how the work gets made: drafting is AI-assisted, evidence-tagged, and human-reviewed. That's the method, on the tin.
The firm
Hesketh & Son is exactly what it says.
Dan Hesketh — Founder. Builds the drafting system, runs every engagement, and signs off every draft.
Philip Hesketh — Chairman. One of the UK's leading speakers on the psychology of influence and persuasion. Built an acclaimed £48m business over 17 consecutive years of growth; author of two Amazon No.1 bestsellers; trusted by audiences from Barclays Wealth to St. James's Place. He reviews our client drafts for one thing: does this persuade the person scoring it?
Our first client was the Chairman: the writing system behind this firm produced his professional correspondence for years — in his voice, under real scrutiny, with repeat bookings to show for it. He put his name on it. Then he put his name on the firm.
The same protocol described above is applied to this website: every claim on this page is checkable, and nothing here is written by a template.
Pricing
Fixed fee, confirmed before work begins. The number is driven by what the rubric demands: number and weighting of criteria, page or question count, technical depth, and how much evidence-gathering your pack needs.
| Submission type | Market band (fixed, per job) |
|---|---|
| Tender response | £2,000–£8,000 |
| Grant application | £1,500–£5,000 |
| Award entry | from £1,500 |
No percentage-of-value fees. No success fees that reprice after you win.
And one rule we hold ourselves to: if the mapping stage shows your evidence genuinely can't support a competitive score, we decline the job and tell you why — we assess this against the specific rubric during mapping, and we decline only when the gap is material and can't be closed with what you have.
Reserve a slot
We take a limited number of live deadlines at once — a rushed submission scores worse, and we'd rather turn work away than draft something that isn't ready.
Reserving costs nothing and starts the evidence conversation. No commitment until you've seen the quote.