Start with the decision the research will support
Read the tender for the buyer's unanswered questions. Does it need to understand an audience, test a prototype, improve an existing service or evaluate a programme? Those tasks may call for different methods, participants and outputs. An agency's general research experience is not enough to establish a match.
The GOV.UK research planning guide connects research questions, user groups, activities and rounds of research. Use those distinctions to interrogate the brief. A fixed number of interviews can be a deliverable, but it does not by itself explain what the buyer needs to learn.
Separate research delivery from recruitment
| Workstream | Confirm ownership | Check the dependency |
|---|---|---|
| Research design | Who agrees questions, methods and the session guide? | Access to the service team and existing evidence. |
| Recruitment | Who sources, screens and schedules participants? | Availability of the specific user groups. |
| Participant support | Who arranges access support, expenses and incentives? | Budget, suitable locations and specialist support. |
| Sessions and analysis | Who facilitates, records and synthesises? | Consent arrangements, environments and team availability. |
| Applying findings | Who decides what changes and receives the outputs? | A decision or delivery window in which findings can be used. |
Test the recruitment assumption early
The government's participant recruitment guidance describes several routes, including specialist agencies, relevant organisations and existing users. It also highlights additional time and support that may be needed to include disabled participants. Check the proposed route against the actual audience rather than promising a date from a generic recruitment estimate.
Record any dependencies on the buyer. A contact list is not the same as permission to contact everyone on it, and access to staff is not a substitute for the relevant public users. Confirm the agreed recruitment and data-handling arrangements before treating either as available.
A budget example that exposes the gap
Hypothetical example: a brief asks for two rounds of six interviews. The agency initially allocates 12 interviewing sessions and time for analysis. The documents also require it to recruit participants, arrange interpreters for some sessions and replace cancellations.
The revised estimate needs distinct lines for recruitment, scheduling, support, incentives, replacement sessions, analysis and playback. The example's participant count is an invented scope, not a recommended research sample. A survey or specialist study may require a very different design.
Questions worth asking through the tender portal
- Which user groups must be represented, and which are hardest to reach?
- What recruitment responsibility sits with the supplier and the buyer?
- Are participant incentives, travel and access support inside the stated budget?
- What happens if recruitment is delayed or participants cancel?
- Which sessions can stakeholders observe, and how will findings feed into decisions?
- What are the agreed responsibilities for consent, storage, access and deletion of research data?
Ask about deliverables too. A presentation, anonymised findings repository and detailed research report involve different work. Identify the actual acceptance criteria, rather than assuming a slide deck will satisfy them.
Make an evidence-based next decision
Match your team's methods and participant experience to the brief. If access remains uncertain, record an owner and a clarification deadline. Use the bid/no-bid checklist to decide whether the remaining uncertainty is manageable. TenderVerdict supports notice screening, while the complete tender pack remains essential to this assessment.
Keep working through the decision
See your own tenders judged.
Start with five free briefs, no card. Confirm your email and check the capability profile drafted from your website. See which published notices deserve a closer look, with the reasons.