Guidance

Annex B: British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme example free-text statements

Updated 2 October 2026

Applies to England, Scotland and Wales

These examples are fictional and are provided for illustrative purposes only.  

As part of the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme (BICS) application process, applicants may be asked to provide: 

• a statement describing the manufacturing site and the activities carried out there 
• a statement describing the production evidence and process 
• a statement explaining how the site’s pro-rating tier has been determined

The examples demonstrate the level of detail the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade expects from these statements. 

There will also be an option to upload supporting documents, such as site maps, process diagrams, site layouts and for pro-rating production records, electricity-monitoring reports or calculation worksheets. 

1. Example manufacturing site statements  

Example 1: single-product manufacturing site 

This manufacturing site produces industrial nitrogen gas, which the company considers to be an eligible product for BICS. 

Atmospheric air is drawn into an air separation unit where it is separated into nitrogen, oxygen and other gases. The nitrogen stream is then purified, compressed and packaged for sale to industrial customers. These activities are treated as eligible manufacturing activities. 

The site contains air separation equipment, gas compression equipment, storage vessels, packaging facilities and quality-control laboratories. Supporting activities include process control systems, compressed-air systems, quality testing, storage and material handling. Since all of these processes contribute to manufacturing of an eligible product, we consider them eligible as supporting activities. 

The site also carries out cylinder inspection and refurbishment services for third parties within the site boundary. These activities are treated as ineligible activities and do not contribute to manufacturing of the eligible product. 

A site map and process flow diagram have been provided to show the location of the eligible manufacturing activities, supporting activities and ineligible activities carried out on the site. 

Example 2: mixed manufacturing site 

This manufacturing site produces electric motors and general-purpose metal shelving. 

Electric motors are manufactured through a series of machining, winding, assembly and testing processes. These activities are treated as eligible manufacturing activities. The site also manufactures metal shelving using cutting, forming, welding and finishing processes. These activities are treated as ineligible manufacturing activities. 

The site includes shared maintenance facilities, quality-control equipment, internal logistics operations, packaging facilities and storage areas. These supporting activities serve both manufacturing processes. 

All activities are carried out within the site boundary. The company has identified electric motor production as eligible manufacturing and shelving production as ineligible manufacturing for the purposes of its application. 

A site map, production flow diagram and photographs of the principal production areas have been provided. 

Example 3: large integrated manufacturing site 

This manufacturing site produces radar apparatus and consumer electronic assemblies. 

Radar manufacturing activities include circuit-board assembly, software installation, calibration, testing and final assembly. These activities are treated as eligible manufacturing activities for the purposes of this application. 

Consumer electronics manufacturing is carried out in separate production areas within the same site and is treated as ineligible manufacturing activity. 

The site also contains central utilities, process cooling systems, component storage areas, quality laboratories, maintenance workshops and internal logistics operations. Some support functions serve both eligible and ineligible production. 

The site operates a warehouse used to store products on behalf of another business. This activity takes place within the site boundary but does not support manufacturing carried out on the site and is treated as an ineligible activity. 

The company has provided a site layout, process flow diagrams and organisational maps showing how site activities relate to eligible and ineligible production. 

Checklist: manufacturing site statement 

Before submitting your site activity statement, consider whether you have: 

• explained what products are manufactured on the site 
• identified which products are eligible products 
• identified any ineligible products or activities 
• described the main manufacturing processes carried out on the site 
• identified supporting activities carried out on the site 
• explained any third-party activities carried out on the site 
• made clear which activities take place within the site boundary 
• explained any shared facilities used by both eligible and ineligible production 
• uploaded any site maps, layouts or process diagrams that help explain the site and its activities 

2. Example production evidence and process statement

This application includes evidence for the manufacture of motor vehicles under HS Codes 870323, 870340 and 870380. 

Evidence 1: SAP_Production_Orders_Q1_2026.xlsx Downloaded directly from our SAP ERP system. This report shows completed production orders during the claim period. Key columns include Production Order Number, Vehicle Model, Plant Location, Production Start Date, Production Completion Date, Quantity Produced and Production Status. The report demonstrates completed vehicle production for the products included in this application. 

Evidence 2: SAP_Finished_Goods_Movements_Q1_2026.xlsx Downloaded directly from our SAP ERP system. This report shows finished vehicles entering inventory following manufacture. Key columns include Material Number, Vehicle Description, Movement Date, Movement Type, Quantity Moved, Manufacturing Plant and Storage Location. The report provides supporting evidence that vehicles were manufactured and transferred into stock during the claim period. 

Evidence 3: Daily_Vehicle_Production_Log_Q1_2026.xlsx This is an internal production log maintained by Manufacturing Operations. It records daily vehicle production by assembly line. Key columns include Production Date, Vehicle Model, Planned Output, Actual Output, Shift and Production Supervisor. This log provides operational evidence of daily production volumes. 

The 3 documents provide complementary evidence. Evidence 1 demonstrates completed manufacturing orders, evidence 2 demonstrates finished vehicle inventory movements, and evidence 3 demonstrates daily production activity. Together they support the production of the HS Code products included in this application during the claim period. 

3. Example pro-rating methodology statements 

Example 1: manufacturer with sub-metering and electricity monitoring equipment 

Activity on site 

Eligible product: industrial nitrogen gas 

Ineligible activity: third-party cylinder refurbishment 

Methodology statement 

Between 1 January and 30 June, the site used 1,000 MWh of grid electricity. Electricity generated on site from solar panels was excluded. 

The site uses sub-metering and an electricity-monitoring system. Sub-meter data showed that the air separation, nitrogen compression and packaging lines used 600 MWh during the 6-month period. 

The site also operated shared quality-control, compressed-air and material-handling systems which used 200 MWh. Electricity-monitoring data showed that 60% of these activities supported eligible nitrogen production. As this was 50% or more, all 200 MWh was included within the estimate of electricity used for eligible manufacturing. 

The remaining 200 MWh related to cylinder refurbishment and other ineligible activities and was excluded. 

Electricity attributable to eligible manufacturing was therefore: 

600 MWh core eligible production 

200 MWh supporting activities 

Total eligible electricity = 800 MWh 

Pro-rating percentage = 800 ÷ 1,000 × 100 = 80%. 

As the result was 50% or more, the site selected the 100% pro-rating tier. 

Supporting evidence includes 6 months of electricity bills, monthly sub-meter reports, electricity-monitoring data, production records and calculation worksheets. 

Example 2: no sub-metering using equipment ratings and production records 

Activity on site 

Eligible product: electric motors 

Ineligible product: general-purpose metal shelving 

Methodology statement 

Between 1 February and 31 July, the site used 500 MWh of grid electricity. 

The site does not have sub-metering. The company therefore used equipment power ratings, machine operating hours and production records to estimate electricity consumption associated with each manufacturing activity. 

The company estimated that machinery used to manufacture electric motors consumed 170 MWh. Machinery used to manufacture shelving consumed 180 MWh. 

Shared lighting, compressed-air, maintenance and material-handling activities consumed an estimated 100 MWh. Production records showed that 40% of these supporting activities supported eligible motor production. As this was more than 25% but less than 50%, half of the electricity used by these supporting activities was included as eligible. This equated to 50 MWh. 

Electricity attributable to eligible manufacturing was therefore: 

170 MWh core eligible production 

50 MWh supporting activities 

Total eligible electricity = 220 MWh 

Pro-rating percentage = 220 ÷ 500 × 100 = 44%. 

As the result was more than 25% but less than 50%, the site selects the pro-rating tier with 50% exemption. 

Supporting evidence includes electricity bills, equipment specifications, production logs, operating-hour records and calculation spreadsheets. 

Example 3: large mixed site using top-down apportionment 

Activity on site 

Eligible product: radar apparatus 

Ineligible product: consumer audio equipment 

Ineligible activity: third-party warehousing 

Methodology statement 

Between 1 March and 31 August, the site used 2,000 MWh of grid electricity. 

The site did not have comprehensive sub-metering and therefore used production records and standard energy consumption estimates to apportion electricity consumption between products. 

Production-line electricity consumption was estimated at 1,400 MWh. This was determined by comparing the site’s overall electricity consumption while the production line is running with consumption when it is offline. Based on production volumes and standard energy requirements, 980 MWh was attributed to radar production and 420 MWh to consumer audio equipment. 

Shared process cooling, testing facilities, maintenance, lighting and logistics activities used 400 MWh. Operational records showed that 20% of these activities supported radar production. As this was 25% or less, none of this electricity was included. 

A further 200 MWh related to third-party warehousing and office activities and was excluded. 

Electricity attributable to eligible manufacturing was therefore 980 MWh. 

Pro-rating percentage = 980 ÷ 2,000 × 100 = 49%. 

As the result was more than 25% but less than 50%, the site selected the 50% pro-rating tier. 

Supporting evidence includes electricity bills, monthly production records, operational data, site process maps and calculation worksheets. 

Example 4: Shared meter arrangement with pro-rating and sub-metering 

Activity on site 

Eligible product: industrial valves 

Ineligible product: fabricated metal furniture 

The applicant occupies part of a larger industrial estate and purchases electricity from the site owner. The applicant shares an electricity meter (MPAN) with another business located on the same site. 

Methodology statement 

Between 1 January and 30 June, the shared MPAN consumed 2,000 MWh of grid electricity across all users. 

Electricity invoices and landlord records showed that the applicant consumed 800 MWh of this electricity during the same six-month period. The remaining 1,200 MWh was consumed by the neighbouring business and was excluded from the applicant’s calculations. 

The applicant manufactures industrial valves, which are treated as eligible products, and fabricated metal furniture, which is treated as an ineligible product. 

Sub-metering and production records showed that: 

• 250 MWh related to the manufacture of eligible industrial valves 
• 250 MWh related to the manufacture of ineligible furniture 
• 300 MWh related to shared supporting activities, including lighting, compressed air, quality control and material handling 

Operational records showed that approximately 60% of the shared supporting activities supported eligible valve production. As this was 50% or more, all 300 MWh of supporting activity electricity was treated as eligible. 

Electricity attributable to eligible manufacturing was therefore: 

• 250 MWh core eligible production 
• 300 MWh supporting activities 

Total eligible electricity = 550 MWh 

Pro-rating percentage = 550 ÷ 800 × 100 = 68.75% 

As the result was 50% or more, the site selected the 100% pro-rating tier. 

The applicant’s share of the shared meter was: 

800 ÷ 2,000 × 100 = 40% 

The 100% BICS exemption therefore applies only to the applicant’s 40% electricity consumption of the shared MPAN. 

Supporting evidence includes electricity bills, landlord billing records, confirmation of the applicant’s share of metered electricity, production records, sub-meter reports and calculation worksheets.

Checklist: pro-rating methodology statement 

Before submitting your methodology statement, consider whether you have: 

• identified the eligible products manufactured at the site 
• identified any ineligible products and activities carried out on the site 
• used the same 6 consecutive months throughout the calculation 
• stated the site’s total grid electricity consumption 
• excluded any non-grid electricity 
• explained the methodology used to estimate electricity consumption 
• identified any supporting activities associated with eligible manufacturing 
• explained how shared supporting activities were treated 
• shown how electricity attributable to eligible manufacturing was calculated 
• explained any shared-meter arrangements, where relevant, in line with the guidance 
• explained any interaction with British Industry Supercharger support, where relevant, in line with the guidance
• shown how the final pro-rating percentage was calculated 
• demonstrated why the site selected the relevant 0%, 50% or 100% pro-rating tier 
• provided supporting evidence that corresponds to the figures used in the calculation 

These examples are illustrative only. Businesses may use a different methodology where it reasonably reflects their operations and is supported by appropriate evidence.