Writing a Winning Tender: Structure, Plan of Approach and Pitfalls

For a bidder, writing a tender means producing the bid: the texts that demonstrate you are best placed to deliver the contract. This article covers the writing side, from reading the award criteria to building a convincing Plan van Aanpak (Plan of Approach), substantiating it with evidence and avoiding exclusion risks. The goal is a bid that scores highly on the assessment matrix and does not fail on formal errors.

What we mean by writing a tender

The term is used in two ways and the distinction matters. A contracting authority writes a tender in the sense of drafting the bestek (specifications), the leidraad (tender guide) and the gunningsleidraad (award guide). A bidder writes a tender in the sense of writing the bid: the answers to the request, the Plan van Aanpak and the qualitative documents.

This article addresses the second meaning. You do not write the rules of the tender, you answer them. Everything that follows is about producing convincing, scorable bid texts within the framework set by the contracting authority.

The award criteria as your compass

A winning bid does not start with writing, but with reading. The award criteria and the associated scoring matrix determine where the assessment committee awards points. Writing without that matrix as a guide produces nice texts that do not score.

So work backwards from the matrix. For each sub-award criterion, identify the maximum number of points, the weighting and the assessment framework. Then write your answer so that an assessor can literally find every scoring element.

• Follow the weighting: Spend the most words and the most evidence on the most heavily weighted criterion, not on the topic you personally find most interesting.
• Mirror the assessment language: Use the terms from the request. If they ask about your approach to risk management, use the word risk management as a heading or key term.
• Show distinctiveness: The best scores go to bids that not only comply, but are demonstrably better than the required minimum.

Write every answer as if the assessor reads it with the scoring matrix beside them, wanting to tick a box on each line.

Structure of a Plan van Aanpak

The Plan van Aanpak (Plan of Approach) is often the most important qualitative document. A recognisable, logical structure helps the assessor and prevents strong content from disappearing into an unreadable whole. A proven structure looks as follows.

1. Understanding of the assignment: Show that you grasp the context, the objective and the underlying problem of the contracting authority.
2. Approach and methodology: Describe how you deliver the contract, what phasing you use and which choices you make and why.
3. Team and organisation: Make it concrete who does what, in which role and with what availability.
4. Risk management: Name the relevant risks, the probability and impact, and your control measures.
5. Planning and milestones: Provide a realistic, verifiable schedule with clear handover moments.
6. Quality assurance: Describe how you steer on results and adjust when things go differently.

Not every tender requires every component, and the request is always leading. Follow the requested layout and page limits exactly. A deviating structure costs the assessor time and you points.

Qualitative answers with concrete evidence

The difference between an average and a winning bid rarely lies in nicer sentences, but in concreteness and evidence. General promises score low, demonstrable claims score high. The STAR method is a reliable framework for this.

The STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result) makes abstract competencies verifiable for an assessor.

Use references not as a separate appendix but as evidence within your narrative. In the Plan van Aanpak, refer to the reference assignment that substantiates your claim, and ensure the suitability requirements and the substantive claims align. Note the distinction between suitability requirements (a threshold: do you qualify) and award criteria (a score: how well). The same reference can play a role in both, but with a different function.

Tone, readability and making it SMART

An assessor reads dozens of bids. Readability is therefore not a matter of style but a scoring factor. Write actively, concretely and without non-committal language.

• Formulate SMART: Make commitments Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic and Time-bound. Not we strive for a quick response, but we respond to reports within four hours.
• Active language: Write we deliver instead of it will be delivered. A passive sentence hides who is responsible.
• One claim, one piece of evidence: Follow every promise with substantiation or an example, otherwise it remains an intention.
• Structure visually: Use headings, short paragraphs and lists that follow the scoring elements, so the assessor quickly finds the scoring answer.

Avoid jargon that only has meaning internally. Write for an assessor who does not know your organisation and can only judge what is on paper.

Common writing errors and exclusion risks

Some errors cost points, others cost the entire bid. So distinguish soft writing errors from hard exclusion risks.

Formal requirements and submission deadlines are strictly applied in Dutch procurement law; subsequent correction is only possible to a limited extent and is never guaranteed.

Treat the bid as two tasks at once: convincing on substance and flawless on procedure. A trial submission well before the deadline and an independent final check against the request reduce the risk considerably.

Practical tips

For bidders

• Start with a scoring matrix analysis before writing a single answer.
• Assign a writer and an independent reviewer to each qualitative answer.
• Have someone unfamiliar with the request read your bid for clarity.
• Plan an internal milestone for asking questions during the Nota van Inlichtingen (Note of Information).
• Keep at least half a day of margin before the submission deadline for the technical upload.

For contracting authorities

• Formulate sub-award criteria and the scoring matrix explicitly enough that a bidder knows what will be assessed.
• Set realistic page limits that match the complexity of the contract.
• Be consistent in terminology between the tender guide, award guide and assessment framework.

How TenderView helps

The Dutch procurement market is large and varied. TenderView.ai tracks over 141,000 tender records from nearly 3,900 contracting authorities, spread across services, supplies and works. Anyone wanting to learn to write to the scoring matrix benefits from access to many comparable requests and their structure.

TenderView.ai offers real-time alerts for new tenders, AI-supported questions about tender documents and insight into comparable contracts and awards. This leaves more time for the writing that makes the difference and less for searching and sifting. Browse the current tenders to see how comparable requests are structured.

Conclusion

Writing a tender is at its core the translation of your quality into scorable answers. Start with the award criteria, build a Plan van Aanpak that follows the requested structure, substantiate every claim with concrete evidence following STAR, write SMART and readably, and guard the formal requirements as strictly as the substance. The winning bid is rarely the nicest text, but almost always the best substantiated and the most verifiable. Those who systematically write to the matrix and submit without procedural errors considerably increase their chance of being awarded the contract.