● B2B offer — Purchasing & supply
Purchasing and suppliers: enquiries prepared, offers compared
Approaching several suppliers takes discipline: writing the same enquiry for each one, chasing those who are slow, then bringing offers in different formats onto a single basis. Your agent prepares the enquiries from your records, tracks the replies, chases according to your deadlines and sets the offers side by side, item by item. Hosted in France: your purchasing terms stay confidential. Choosing the supplier is the buyer's call.
Hosted in France
Purchasing terms kept confidential
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in a few weeks
Purchasing · hosted in France
Prepare the enquiry for renewing the printer fleet.
Enquiry prepared from your template and the need as described: scope, quantities, technical requirements, deadline for replies.
Recipients proposed from your supplier records, each with the negotiated terms currently in force.
Nothing is sent: the list and the text are waiting for your approval.
✎ Action · enquiry ready, sending is your call
Recipients proposed from your supplier records, each with the negotiated terms currently in force.
Nothing is sent: the list and the text are waiting for your approval.
✎ Action · enquiry ready, sending is your call
Two suppliers have replied — set their offers side by side.
Item-by-item comparison, bringing the two offers onto the same basis: unit prices, quantities, lead times, warranties, services included.
Two items are not comparable as they stand — different scopes: I flag them rather than lining them up artificially.
🔗 Sourced · every line refers back to the offer it came from
Two items are not comparable as they stand — different scopes: I flag them rather than lining them up artificially.
🔗 Sourced · every line refers back to the offer it came from
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Supplier records hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
The buyer decidesThe agent prepares, never rules
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent purchasing agent prepares your supplier enquiries from your records and your templates, tracks the replies, chases according to your deadlines and sets the offers received side by side, item by item. Where two offers do not cover the same scope, it says so rather than lining them up artificially. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your negotiated terms and the offers you receive stay with you, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
6
purchasing uses ready to deploy
0
decision taken without human approval
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your volume of enquiries is confirmed by a pilot.
The context
What does an AI agent bring to your purchasing?
Approaching several suppliers and comparing their offers seriously takes time that urgency eats into. Preparing and comparing automatically makes competitive tendering systematic.
! The issue
A good purchasing decision means approaching several suppliers and comparing them on an identical basis — two requirements that urgency often sweeps aside. The agent prepares the enquiries from your records, chases according to your deadlines and brings the offers received onto a common basis, item by item, so that competitive tendering becomes systematic again.
✓ Our answer
You keep control of the supplier relationship: nothing is sent without your approval, and the comparison refers back to the original offer line by line. Items that are not comparable are flagged as such — lining them up artificially would distort the decision. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: your negotiated terms are known to no third party.
The decisive point
Your purchasing terms and your suppliers' offers: sovereignty & compliance
Your negotiated terms and the offers you receive are sensitive commercial information. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: no purchasing terms and no offer received leaves the network.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your supplier records and your enquiries: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For your purchasing terms and your suppliers' offers, the architecture aims to reduce exposure to the Cloud Act and FISA 702; being located in France or in the European Union does not, on its own, guarantee immunity.
Isolated resource
No pooling: an environment strictly dedicated to your company and its supplier records.
Comparison tied back to the original offers
Every line of the comparison refers back to the offer it came from; encryption, role-based access and logging of every enquiry prepared.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent is strictly in support; no enquiry is sent and no supplier is chosen automatically; traceability and human oversight from end to end.
What depends on the architecture chosen These points are not general guarantees: they are settled deployment by deployment, in the quotation.
- The applicable location is that of the architecture set out in the quotation and verified before commissioning.
- Local execution is announced only for the configuration explicitly described and accepted in the quotation.
- The applicable isolation depends on the deployment mode set out in the quotation; no dedicated isolation is presumed.
- Roles and permissions are configured and accepted for the identities and systems actually connected.
- The events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
For enquiries covered by a non-disclosure agreement or concerning sensitive equipment, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting are options depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.
Demonstration
See the agent at work
4 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.
A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.
Purchasing · hosted in France
Four flags this morning on your tenders.
· Forty-one tenders never received an answer. Suppliers priced the work, and nobody told them no.
· Three quotes compared covered three different scopes. I did not make the comparison.
· One supplier wins one hundred per cent of the tenders it appears in. Twenty-two out of twenty-two.
· A supplier with eleven employees received nine chases in six weeks. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf41 tenders unanswered · 22 out of 22
⛓ Source · 380 tenders, 94 suppliers, sending log
· Forty-one tenders never received an answer. Suppliers priced the work, and nobody told them no.
· Three quotes compared covered three different scopes. I did not make the comparison.
· One supplier wins one hundred per cent of the tenders it appears in. Twenty-two out of twenty-two.
· A supplier with eleven employees received nine chases in six weeks. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf41 tenders unanswered · 22 out of 22
⛓ Source · 380 tenders, 94 suppliers, sending log
Why bother with suppliers we did not select?
Because they did the work, and the cost of your silence falls entirely on them.
What I record: 41 tenders closed with no answer going to the unsuccessful suppliers. They priced the work, sometimes visited a site, and they chase — 88 chases from them went unanswered.
What it costs, and where: at their end, a few hours per quote. At yours, nothing — which is exactly why nobody sees it. A cost that does not land in your accounts appears in no indicator.
What it does cost you, later: your response rate. Among suppliers consulted three times without ever hearing back, 6 out of 14 no longer respond. You lost six sources of pricing, and nobody connected the two.
What I do: when a tender closes, an answer goes to everybody, successful and not, with the decision date. Three lines are enough.
What I prepare on top, and nobody has time to write: the factual reason, already drafted and priced — the line-by-line gap between the winning offer and theirs, taken from the comparison you approved. Of the 41 closed tenders, 38 have a reason that fits in one measured line; the other 3 covered different scopes, and that is exactly what the letter says. Sending the reason stays your move: you tick it, or you leave the three-line answer. Every reason I put forward rests on a line of the comparison, never on a polite formula. 41-tenders_6-suppliers-lost.pdfA cost that does not land in your accounts appears nowhere
⛓ Source · 41 tenders closed in silence, 88 unanswered chases, 6 suppliers lost of 14
What I record: 41 tenders closed with no answer going to the unsuccessful suppliers. They priced the work, sometimes visited a site, and they chase — 88 chases from them went unanswered.
What it costs, and where: at their end, a few hours per quote. At yours, nothing — which is exactly why nobody sees it. A cost that does not land in your accounts appears in no indicator.
What it does cost you, later: your response rate. Among suppliers consulted three times without ever hearing back, 6 out of 14 no longer respond. You lost six sources of pricing, and nobody connected the two.
What I do: when a tender closes, an answer goes to everybody, successful and not, with the decision date. Three lines are enough.
What I prepare on top, and nobody has time to write: the factual reason, already drafted and priced — the line-by-line gap between the winning offer and theirs, taken from the comparison you approved. Of the 41 closed tenders, 38 have a reason that fits in one measured line; the other 3 covered different scopes, and that is exactly what the letter says. Sending the reason stays your move: you tick it, or you leave the three-line answer. Every reason I put forward rests on a line of the comparison, never on a polite formula. 41-tenders_6-suppliers-lost.pdfA cost that does not land in your accounts appears nowhere
⛓ Source · 41 tenders closed in silence, 88 unanswered chases, 6 suppliers lost of 14
How do you work, and where do you hand over?
I prepare the tenders, I chase, and I negotiate nothing.
What I do: I draft the request from the written requirement, send it to the list you chose, chase at a set rhythm, gather the replies, and present them without comparing when they are not comparable.
Routing follows who can act: a late reply is presented anyway, with its date; divergent scopes go to the buyer, before any comparison; a closed tender is followed by an answer to everybody; an imbalance in chasing is flagged to the buyer.
With a monthly summary: tenders closed with no answer, response rate per supplier, non-comparable scopes, and the distribution of awards.
What that gives you in a month: 41 tenders closed with an answer to everyone, 88 supplier chasers that no longer need sending, and the 6 price sources lost out of 14 suppliers put back in play.
What you gain from tomorrow: the buyer no longer reopens mailboxes to find out who replied: the offers arrive on one common plan, with the non-comparable lines flagged, and the call is made in minutes instead of half a day. More suppliers answering means, mechanically, more prices on the table.
And I go further the moment you want it: asking for a discount, chasing an offer by phone, placing the order. I do it on a written mandate: a ceiling in euros, a list of suppliers, an end date. Every move is logged, and the mandate is withdrawn with a single word. Without a mandate, I prepare and I stop at the signature.
The next step is ready: fifteen minutes to frame your purchasing categories, your chasing intervals and the ceiling of the first mandate.
✎ Framework · no negotiation · no offer set aside · no overall score
What I do: I draft the request from the written requirement, send it to the list you chose, chase at a set rhythm, gather the replies, and present them without comparing when they are not comparable.
Routing follows who can act: a late reply is presented anyway, with its date; divergent scopes go to the buyer, before any comparison; a closed tender is followed by an answer to everybody; an imbalance in chasing is flagged to the buyer.
With a monthly summary: tenders closed with no answer, response rate per supplier, non-comparable scopes, and the distribution of awards.
What that gives you in a month: 41 tenders closed with an answer to everyone, 88 supplier chasers that no longer need sending, and the 6 price sources lost out of 14 suppliers put back in play.
What you gain from tomorrow: the buyer no longer reopens mailboxes to find out who replied: the offers arrive on one common plan, with the non-comparable lines flagged, and the call is made in minutes instead of half a day. More suppliers answering means, mechanically, more prices on the table.
And I go further the moment you want it: asking for a discount, chasing an offer by phone, placing the order. I do it on a written mandate: a ceiling in euros, a list of suppliers, an end date. Every move is logged, and the mandate is withdrawn with a single word. Without a mandate, I prepare and I stop at the signature.
The next step is ready: fifteen minutes to frame your purchasing categories, your chasing intervals and the ceiling of the first mandate.
✎ Framework · no negotiation · no offer set aside · no overall score
Why refuse to compare three quotes?
Because the cheapest of the three did not cover the same thing, and a table would have hidden it.
What I record: on the current tender, quote A includes installation, B delivery only, C installation and two years' maintenance. All three answer the same request — because the request did not specify.
What a comparison table would have produced: three rows, three prices, a 34% gap in B's favour. A table lines figures up in columns and makes whatever has no column disappear.
What I do: I present the three with what each covers and does not cover, and I say explicitly: these three prices are not comparable as they stand.
What I propose: going back to all three on a single written scope. On this tender, once the scope was aligned, the gap fell to 6%, and B is no longer the cheapest.
What that says about the rest: of 380 tenders, 127 had divergent scopes. The problem is not at the suppliers' end — it is in the request, which left a choice without saying so. 127-tenders_34-to-6-percent.pdfA table makes whatever has no column disappear
⛓ Source · 127 tenders with divergent scopes, gap 34% → 6%
What I record: on the current tender, quote A includes installation, B delivery only, C installation and two years' maintenance. All three answer the same request — because the request did not specify.
What a comparison table would have produced: three rows, three prices, a 34% gap in B's favour. A table lines figures up in columns and makes whatever has no column disappear.
What I do: I present the three with what each covers and does not cover, and I say explicitly: these three prices are not comparable as they stand.
What I propose: going back to all three on a single written scope. On this tender, once the scope was aligned, the gap fell to 6%, and B is no longer the cheapest.
What that says about the rest: of 380 tenders, 127 had divergent scopes. The problem is not at the suppliers' end — it is in the request, which left a choice without saying so. 127-tenders_34-to-6-percent.pdfA table makes whatever has no column disappear
⛓ Source · 127 tenders with divergent scopes, gap 34% → 6%
And the supplier that wins twenty-two out of twenty-two?
I conclude nothing, and I flag it — because it is the one figure nobody looks at.
What I record: one supplier appears in 22 tenders and wins them all. Across all awards, the top three suppliers account for 71%.
What it may mean, and I cannot settle it: it really is the best on this segment; or it is consulted alongside competitors who cannot respond; or the decision is taken before the tender, and the other two quotes serve to justify it.
Why the third hypothesis deserves naming: because it has a real cost at the other two — they price work they cannot win — and because it manufactures a record of competition where there was none.
What I do: I send the figure to whoever sets purchasing policy, with the distribution of awards and the response rate per supplier.
What I do on top, and nobody has the time for: I went back through your supplier base on this segment and I have already written the widened tender. It carries 6 suppliers on your own books who have not been consulted for twelve months, and for each one I give you its response rate to the tenders it received, its average turnaround and its price gap on the genuinely comparable line items. Four of them replied to more than 80% of the requests that reached them: those four will answer.
The list stays a buyer's choice, and you are the one who signs it — I hand it back written, priced and ready to go, so the choice rests on figures rather than on habit. It goes out the day you approve it. 22-of-22_71-percent.pdfA record of competition where there was none
⛓ Source · 22 of 22, top 3 suppliers accounting for 71% of awards
What I record: one supplier appears in 22 tenders and wins them all. Across all awards, the top three suppliers account for 71%.
What it may mean, and I cannot settle it: it really is the best on this segment; or it is consulted alongside competitors who cannot respond; or the decision is taken before the tender, and the other two quotes serve to justify it.
Why the third hypothesis deserves naming: because it has a real cost at the other two — they price work they cannot win — and because it manufactures a record of competition where there was none.
What I do: I send the figure to whoever sets purchasing policy, with the distribution of awards and the response rate per supplier.
What I do on top, and nobody has the time for: I went back through your supplier base on this segment and I have already written the widened tender. It carries 6 suppliers on your own books who have not been consulted for twelve months, and for each one I give you its response rate to the tenders it received, its average turnaround and its price gap on the genuinely comparable line items. Four of them replied to more than 80% of the requests that reached them: those four will answer.
The list stays a buyer's choice, and you are the one who signs it — I hand it back written, priced and ready to go, so the choice rests on figures rather than on habit. It goes out the day you approve it. 22-of-22_71-percent.pdfA record of competition where there was none
⛓ Source · 22 of 22, top 3 suppliers accounting for 71% of awards
Nine chases to a supplier with eleven employees — is that too many?
It is the same rhythm as for a two-thousand-person group, and that is precisely the problem.
What I record: the chasing rhythm is identical for every supplier. Over six weeks this one received 9 chases — across three parallel tenders, each chasing on its own.
Why this is not merely a matter of manners: you represent 31% of its turnover. A chase from a customer worth a third of your activity does not read as a reminder, it reads as a demand — and they will answer fast, including when they should have taken the time to price properly.
What I do: I group chases by supplier, not by tender. A single contact covering all three. Chases went from 9 to 3.
What I flag to the buyer: the suppliers for whom you represent more than a quarter of their activity — where the information is public or they declared it — and the number of chases they receive.
What I have already worked out, and what it is worth: for your 94 suppliers, what you order from them over twelve months. That is a floor of dependence, not the dependence. I tested it against the 31 whose accounts are published: my invoicing alone would have ranked them all the same, while their real share spreads from 4% to 31% — a factor of three on identical amounts. The protocol that settles it is already written: one line added to the tender form — share of your activity this contract represents — declared by the supplier and dated. You open it with one word, and dependence becomes declared instead of inferred. 9-chases_reduced-to-3.pdfA chase from a customer worth a third is not a reminder
⛓ Source · 9 chases in 6 weeks, 3 parallel tenders, reduced to 3
What I record: the chasing rhythm is identical for every supplier. Over six weeks this one received 9 chases — across three parallel tenders, each chasing on its own.
Why this is not merely a matter of manners: you represent 31% of its turnover. A chase from a customer worth a third of your activity does not read as a reminder, it reads as a demand — and they will answer fast, including when they should have taken the time to price properly.
What I do: I group chases by supplier, not by tender. A single contact covering all three. Chases went from 9 to 3.
What I flag to the buyer: the suppliers for whom you represent more than a quarter of their activity — where the information is public or they declared it — and the number of chases they receive.
What I have already worked out, and what it is worth: for your 94 suppliers, what you order from them over twelve months. That is a floor of dependence, not the dependence. I tested it against the 31 whose accounts are published: my invoicing alone would have ranked them all the same, while their real share spreads from 4% to 31% — a factor of three on identical amounts. The protocol that settles it is already written: one line added to the tender form — share of your activity this contract represents — declared by the supplier and dated. You open it with one word, and dependence becomes declared instead of inferred. 9-chases_reduced-to-3.pdfA chase from a customer worth a third is not a reminder
⛓ Source · 9 chases in 6 weeks, 3 parallel tenders, reduced to 3
Can you chase until you get an answer?
No. After two chases, silence is an answer.
What I record: across tenders still unanswered after two chases, a third unlocked 4 out of 61. The other 57 produced nothing.
What the third chase produces at those 57: nothing measurable on the buying side, and a next tender they open a little less willingly.
What I do: two spaced chases, then I record "no reply" and close. The supplier stays on the list — not answering a tender is not a fault, it is often a workload.
What I do watch instead: the response rate over time. A supplier that used to answer and no longer does has changed something — strategy, capacity, or its view of you. Of the 14 suppliers concerned, 6 had stopped answering after three tenders with no reply from us.
What I put on your table: the suppliers that went silent, each with a complete file — tenders received, replies given, date of the last one, and how many times we sent them nothing back. Of the 14 concerned, 6 had stopped answering after three tenders with no reply from us: the file says the silence started at our end. Removal stays your signature, and it is taken in two minutes on a priced file rather than on a counter. 2-chases_4-of-61.pdfNot answering a tender is not a fault
⛓ Source · 61 tenders, 4 unlocked by a 3rd chase, 6 suppliers gone silent
What I record: across tenders still unanswered after two chases, a third unlocked 4 out of 61. The other 57 produced nothing.
What the third chase produces at those 57: nothing measurable on the buying side, and a next tender they open a little less willingly.
What I do: two spaced chases, then I record "no reply" and close. The supplier stays on the list — not answering a tender is not a fault, it is often a workload.
What I do watch instead: the response rate over time. A supplier that used to answer and no longer does has changed something — strategy, capacity, or its view of you. Of the 14 suppliers concerned, 6 had stopped answering after three tenders with no reply from us.
What I put on your table: the suppliers that went silent, each with a complete file — tenders received, replies given, date of the last one, and how many times we sent them nothing back. Of the 14 concerned, 6 had stopped answering after three tenders with no reply from us: the file says the silence started at our end. Removal stays your signature, and it is taken in two minutes on a priced file rather than on a counter. 2-chases_4-of-61.pdfNot answering a tender is not a fault
⛓ Source · 61 tenders, 4 unlocked by a 3rd chase, 6 suppliers gone silent
Can you ask for an effort on price?
Yes, as soon as you give me the frame — and it goes out under a buyer's name, with a reason. That is what separates it from automated pressure.
What it takes to write: the gap targeted, what justifies it — a volume, a term commitment, an observed market price — and the time allowed to reply. Without those three, a discount request is pressure with nobody behind it, and that is exactly what damages a supplier relationship over time.
What I then send: a request argued, signed by a buyer, with a reasonable deadline — and I stop at the first reply, whatever it is.
The leverage you are after, I get another way — and it holds better: I base the request on your own figures — the volume you placed with them over twelve months, the gap between their price and the median of the offers received on the same line items, 7% across the 22 tenders they appear in, and the payment terms you honour. The request is already written with that figure in it; all it lacks is your signature. What I leave out of the letter, and it is not delicacy: one bidder's price passed on to another. Prices are given to you within a consultation; circulating them aligns the offers instead of setting them against each other, and costs you the honesty of every later tender.
What I flag along the way: one supplier appears in 22 consultations and wins 22 times. I conclude nothing — they may genuinely be the best, or they may be consulted alongside competitors who cannot respond. It is the one figure nobody looks at. price-request_3-elements.pdfThe 3 elements of the frame · what never circulates · the 22 out of 22
⛓ Source · request signed with reason and deadline, 22 consultations won out of 22
What it takes to write: the gap targeted, what justifies it — a volume, a term commitment, an observed market price — and the time allowed to reply. Without those three, a discount request is pressure with nobody behind it, and that is exactly what damages a supplier relationship over time.
What I then send: a request argued, signed by a buyer, with a reasonable deadline — and I stop at the first reply, whatever it is.
The leverage you are after, I get another way — and it holds better: I base the request on your own figures — the volume you placed with them over twelve months, the gap between their price and the median of the offers received on the same line items, 7% across the 22 tenders they appear in, and the payment terms you honour. The request is already written with that figure in it; all it lacks is your signature. What I leave out of the letter, and it is not delicacy: one bidder's price passed on to another. Prices are given to you within a consultation; circulating them aligns the offers instead of setting them against each other, and costs you the honesty of every later tender.
What I flag along the way: one supplier appears in 22 consultations and wins 22 times. I conclude nothing — they may genuinely be the best, or they may be consulted alongside competitors who cannot respond. It is the one figure nobody looks at. price-request_3-elements.pdfThe 3 elements of the frame · what never circulates · the 22 out of 22
⛓ Source · request signed with reason and deadline, 22 consultations won out of 22
What do you keep?
What describes the consultations — and the cost of your silence, which falls entirely on those who replied.
What is kept: the requests sent and to whom, the replies received and their date, the exact scope of each quote, the chasers issued, the consultations closed with no reply to the unsuccessful, and the scope gaps noted.
Why the exact scope is the item that counts: on the live consultation, the cheapest quote did not cover the same thing as the other two. A comparison table would have hidden it — it is a table's function to make disappear whatever does not fit its columns.
What I remind you of every week: 41 consultations closed with no reply going to the unsuccessful suppliers. They priced the work, sometimes over several days. The cost of your silence falls entirely on them, and it is paid at the next round: a supplier left without a reply replies more slowly next time.
What I set without you having to ask: the chasing rhythm. Nine chasers in six weeks to a supplier with eleven employees is the rhythm of a two-thousand-person group. After two chasers, no reply is a reply — a third has never produced anything.
What I do not keep: no rating of a supplier. Dated facts, not a judgement. what-you-keep_purchasing.pdf6 items kept · no supplier rating
⛓ Source · 41 consultations with no reply to the unsuccessful, 9 chasers in six weeks
What is kept: the requests sent and to whom, the replies received and their date, the exact scope of each quote, the chasers issued, the consultations closed with no reply to the unsuccessful, and the scope gaps noted.
Why the exact scope is the item that counts: on the live consultation, the cheapest quote did not cover the same thing as the other two. A comparison table would have hidden it — it is a table's function to make disappear whatever does not fit its columns.
What I remind you of every week: 41 consultations closed with no reply going to the unsuccessful suppliers. They priced the work, sometimes over several days. The cost of your silence falls entirely on them, and it is paid at the next round: a supplier left without a reply replies more slowly next time.
What I set without you having to ask: the chasing rhythm. Nine chasers in six weeks to a supplier with eleven employees is the rhythm of a two-thousand-person group. After two chasers, no reply is a reply — a third has never produced anything.
What I do not keep: no rating of a supplier. Dated facts, not a judgement. what-you-keep_purchasing.pdf6 items kept · no supplier rating
⛓ Source · 41 consultations with no reply to the unsuccessful, 9 chasers in six weeks
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 15-minute conversation is for. Book the free audit →
Use cases
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, several stages of the purchasing cycle. All these uses work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 504 € excl. VAT / month
Preparing the enquiries
Writes the enquiry from your template and proposes the recipients from your records.
Chasing the missing quotes
Tracks the replies and prepares the chasers according to the deadlines you have set.
Item-by-item comparison
Brings the offers onto a common basis and flags the items that are not comparable.
Controls and safeguards
These 3 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Record validations, conflicts of interest, criteria and decisions
What the agent must be connected to
This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.
Link enquiry, order, goods receipt and invoice without double entry
Need to go further?
These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.
Stock management agent (alerts, restocking)
Restocking needs are detected upstream: they trigger the sourcing round this agent runs.
Stock management agent (alerts, restocking) from 474 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →Purchasing & supply steering agent
Once the sourcing round is done, purchasing policy and spend tracking are steered by a separate agent.
Purchasing & supply steering agent from 474 € excl. VAT / month Discover the agent →
Does your need fall outside this?
Book the free audit →
Build your agent
In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
The gain
How much competitive tendering can a team sustain?
By preparing the enquiries and bringing the offers onto a common basis, comparison becomes systematic rather than exceptional. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Preparing an enquiry
Chasing the suppliers
Comparing the offers received
Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your volume of enquiries. Sending the enquiries and choosing the supplier belong to the buyer. Items that are not comparable are flagged, never lined up as a matter of course.
How it works
The stages of your AI agent project
1
Audit & scoping
15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.
2
Quote or direct sign-up
A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.
3
Design
We design the agent and its guardrails.
4
Integration & testing
We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.
5
Rollout
Going live and training your team.
6
Operation
Continuous supervision and improvement.
Pricing
One package, one agent
A purchasing agent (enquiries, chasers, comparisons), installed and operated for you.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
4,630 € excl. VAT setup
then 504 € excl. VAT/month — you invest at installation and pay a reduced subscription. Ideal for keeping the cost under control over time.
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
The simplest
Serenity
All inclusive, no setup fee
764 € excl. VAT /month
all inclusive, immediate start. No upfront investment: a single subscription. Ideal for starting quickly and simply.
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Sovereign hosting in France, managed end to end
100% Sovereign
On site, you own it
7,965 € excl. VAT setup
then 704 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 1,058 € (one-off purchase, in addition) — a sovereign computer installed on your premises, maintained remotely. Models run locally, your data returned at the end of the contract. 36-month commitment.
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
Not included in the packages: AI consumption (model tokens), re-invoiced at real cost with no margin, and tracked in real time in your client area. Maintenance and supervision subscription for an initial term of 12 months for the Agility package, 24 months for the Serenity package and 36 months for the 100% Sovereign package, renewable; support levels (SLA 72 h / 24 h / 4 h) optional. Bespoke development, additional integrations or exceptional volumes are quoted separately. Support Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Prices exclude VAT.
AI model:
none of the AI models offered currently carries a fixed surcharge. When the selected model carries a cost, that cost is shown when you choose it, before you order, and re-invoiced at the cost incurred, with no mark-up; usage is billed at the publisher's price. Publishers' prices are published in US dollars: the amount re-invoiced is the amount in euros actually borne by Blue Lemon Agent on the publisher's invoice, at that invoice's exchange rate, with no commission or mark-up.
Included components and additional components Components included in the base offer: the Blue Lemon Agent software foundation, the AI models listed in the order journey, the standard channels (Microsoft Teams, Slack, WhatsApp Business, email, website chat, calendars, Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace, file storage, market VoIP telephony, professional social-media pages and accounts, Google Business Profile), hosting in France for the package chosen, backups, supervision, updates and support. If adapting the AI agent to your constraints, your needs or your requests requires other paid components — a third-party publisher's software licence, paid API access to one of your applications, hosting of health data, for which French law requires an HDS-certified host (art. L. 1111-8 of the French Public Health Code), SecNumCloud-qualified hosting, a speech synthesis service, particular hardware —, they are offered to you as an option or on quotation and re-invoiced at the cost incurred; nothing is committed without your written agreement. Where the artificial intelligence model you choose entails an additional cost, that cost is shown to you before you order and re-invoiced to you at the cost incurred, with no margin.
What to expect
Go-live
2 to 3 weeks
Agent designed, channels connected, team trained.
Steady state
4 to 7 weeks
After a few weeks of real use, once the agent's behaviour matches what you expect.
Indicative estimate, adjusted to the options you keep. It is not a delivery commitment.
Our commitment
Four guarantees that matter to your purchasing
Your negotiated terms stay confidentialLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no purchasing terms and no supplier offer entrusted to a third party, no data used to train a model.
Data in France, under French lawYour purchasing terms and your suppliers' offers: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
The buyer keeps the decisionThe agent produces prepared enquiries and comparisons that can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.
Human oversight & traceabilityOn your volume of enquiries: systematic logging and tracking, in line with the AI Act.
Going further
Related resources
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent send the enquiries?
No. It prepares the text and proposes the recipients; sending remains your act. An enquiry commits your company towards suppliers: it does not go out without approval.
Can the comparison be checked?
Yes. Every line refers back to the offer it came from. You can therefore check a figure without going back through all the documents.
What does the agent do with offers covering different scopes?
It flags the items that are not comparable instead of lining them up. A comparison that sets different scopes side by side distorts the decision more surely than having no comparison at all.
Does the agent recommend a supplier?
No. It sets the offers side by side; the choice takes in things it does not know — the relationship, the quality history, the supply strategy. It belongs to the buyer.
Are our purchasing terms protected?
Yes. The agent is hosted in France, on local inference or an isolated resource, with the deployment objective of processing and access operated within the European Union and an architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Your terms are not used to train a third-party model.
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
A few weeks as a rule, depending on your supplier records and your approval chains, after a free audit then a phase of design, integration and testing.
Related use cases
Other agents for purchasing and finance
Let's talk
Let's size up the potential in your purchasing
15 minutes to frame your enquiries and your deadlines — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.