● Business offer — Sales & proposals

Sales proposals: your catalogue, the client's need

A proposal that repeats the previous one word for word shows immediately. A proposal written from scratch takes a day. Your agent builds the structure from your catalogue, picks up the elements of the need the client expressed and adapts the parts that need adapting — leaving visible those that call for your judgement. Hosted in France: your commercial terms stay confidential. The salesperson decides the scope, the price and the commitment.

Free audit (15 min) → See the prices

Hosted in France Commercial terms protected GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment Human oversight

Updated on 07/09/2026

Deployed in a few weeks

Proposals · hosted in France

Prepare the proposal for this client from the notes of our meeting.

Proposal composed in your template: context taken from the meeting notes, scope built from your catalogue, standard terms applied.
The needs the client expressed are reproduced in their own words, not reworded into a sales pitch.
Three points call for your decision: they are flagged at the top.
✎ Action · proposal to decide on, nothing sent

What are those three points?

An ambiguous scope in the meeting notes, a discount that would fall outside your standard schedule, and a lead time requested that is shorter than the one you usually quote.
These are commitments: I set them out rather than deciding in your place.
✎ Support · commitments set out, commercial decision

Local inference · no data outside the EU

Proposals 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 salesperson decidesThe agent prepares, never rules

✦ In brief

A Blue Lemon Agent proposal agent composes your documents in your template, builds the scope from your catalogue and reproduces the need the client expressed in their own words. It flags at the top the points that call for a decision — ambiguous scope, off-schedule discount, tight lead time — instead of settling them. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your commercial terms stay confidential, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.

100%

hosted in France in the target architecture

transfer outside the EU in the target architecture

sales uses ready to deploy

decision taken without human approval

Reference points describing our offer, not results measured at a client. The scale of the gain, given your volume of proposals, is confirmed by a pilot.

The context

What does an AI agent bring to your sales proposals?

The long part of a proposal is building it: structure, scope, terms. The tailoring, meanwhile, comes down to a few paragraphs — the ones that make the difference.

! The issue

A convincing proposal reproduces the need in the client's own words and rests on a solid scope. The building — structure, catalogue, terms — is repeatable; the tailoring is not. The agent takes on the first and prepares the second, reproducing what the client said without turning it into a sales pitch.

✓ Our answer

The salesperson receives an already built document and clearly identified decision points: ambiguous scope, off-schedule discount, tight lead time. Those three are commitments, and they are not automated. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: your commercial terms and your clients' needs are known to no third party.

The decisive point

Your commercial terms and the needs your clients express: sovereignty & compliance

Your commercial terms and the needs your clients entrust to you are strategic 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 commercial term or client need leaves the network.

Hosting in France

Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource hosted in France, under French law — your catalogue and your proposals: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.

Reduced extraterritorial exposure

For your commercial terms and the needs your clients express, 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 whatsoever: an environment strictly dedicated to your company and its catalogue.

Decision points flagged at the top

Ambiguous scope, off-schedule discount and tight lead time are set out before anything is sent; encryption, role-based access (RBAC) and logging of every proposal prepared.

AI Act: governed deployment

An agent strictly in support; no discount granted and no commitment made 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 proposals covered by a confidentiality agreement or relating to a strategic contract, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting options are available 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.

Proposals · hosted in France

Four flags this morning on your proposals.
· Forty-one name a client outright. No permission can be found for any of them.
· "Up to 30% gain" appears in twenty-three proposals. The figure comes from a single project, in 2023.
· Nine proposals name a person who was not assigned to the project.
· Two still carry the previous client's name. They went out. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf41 references without permission · the same figure 23 times
⛓ Source · 340 proposals, content library, permissions register

Surely a client reference can be quoted freely?

No, and it is the most widespread practice in this whole trade.
What I record: 41 proposals name a client — sometimes with their logo, often with a description of their business. For none of them can I find a written agreement. The reference was carried over from the previous proposal, which had carried it over from the one before.
Why nobody worries: because it almost never causes an incident. Almost — and when it does, the incident is of a particular kind: it does not come from the client named, it comes from their competitor, who finds at your end something they should not have read.
What I do: I check for a written, dated agreement for every reference quoted. No agreement: the reference goes, replaced by a description with no name — "a 200-employee distributor in sector X".
What that produced: of the 41, 17 agreements existed and had never been matched to the proposals; 24 did not exist. Of those 24, 9 clients gave their agreement when asked.
What I also flag: agreements more than three years old. An agreement given for a brochure is not an agreement for a proposal, and the company named has sometimes changed hands. 41-references_17-agreements-found.pdfThe reference was carried over from the previous proposal
⛓ Source · 41 references quoted, 17 agreements found, 9 obtained on request

How do you work, and where do you hand over?

I assemble the proposal from what is already written and verified, and I block anything that commits without evidence.
What I do: I draw on the validated library, adapt to the need the client expressed, carry for each assertion its source and date, and leave visible what a human must write.
Routing follows who can settle it: a reference with no agreement is blocked before sending; a result figure without its context is removed and flagged to whoever produced it; a person's name is checked with whoever assigns teams; a remnant of a previous proposal is blocked, wherever it sits.
With a monthly summary: references quoted and the state of their agreements, result figures and their origin, lead-time commitments carried over unchecked, and the age of the library's content.

What that gives you on this batch: 41 references set straight, of which 17 agreements found again and 9 obtained simply by asking; a 2023 figure removed from 23 proposals; and 2 documents carrying another client's name blocked before sending.
What you gain from tomorrow: a proposal assembled from your catalogue and your validated library, every assertion dated and sourced. The salesperson settles scope, price and commitment in minutes, on a complete document, instead of spending the day on it.
Whatever falls outside the grid, I hand back costed: an off-scale discount, a tight lead time, an ambiguous scope. I carry the gap, its amount and the closest precedent at the top of the document. You decide, I write it.
And your terms stay yours: catalogue, prices and client needs on an isolated resource in France, access by role, logged, withdrawn with a single word. The next step is ready: fifteen minutes to frame your template and your three best-selling offers.
✎ Framework · no price or lead time · no invented argument · nothing sent

"Up to 30% gain" is a real figure, though.

It is true in one precise place, and it became false by travelling.
What I record: the figure appears in 23 proposals. Tracing back: it comes from a 2023 project, at a client in a particular sector, on a narrow scope — and there it was accurate, measured, documented.
What happened next: it was carried over without the sector, without the scope, without the date. The "up to" served as a precaution — and "up to 30%" reads as "around 30%" to everybody except whoever wrote it.
Why it is worse than an exaggeration: that figure sits in a contractual or pre-contractual document. A client who achieves 4% can legitimately reopen the discussion about what they were shown.
What I do: a result figure enters a proposal only with its origin: "measured at a client in sector X in 2023, on scope Y". Without those three elements, it does not go through.
What that gave: of the 23, 4 figures could be documented and stayed, with their context. 19 disappeared — and proposals were signed at the same rate. The figure was not what convinced anybody. 23-proposals_19-figures-removed.pdf"Up to 30%" reads as "around 30%" to everybody but its author
⛓ Source · 23 proposals, 4 documented figures, 19 removed

And the nine proposals naming somebody?

They promise a person, and a promised person is a commitment nobody tracks.
What I record: 9 proposals name a consultant — background, experience, sometimes a photograph. Of the 9, 6 people were not assigned to the project when it was sent, and 2 had left the company.
Why it gets carried over without thinking: the person's profile is in the library, it is well written, and it reassures. Nobody asks whether they will be there — it is not yet a question at the time of drafting.
What it produces at signature: the client expects that person. Two of the nine engagements began with an explanation about the consultant being somebody else.
What I do: a consultant's name enters a proposal only after their assignment is confirmed, by whoever decides assignments. Without confirmation, the proposal describes the profile without naming — "a consultant with more than ten years on this type of project".
What I also check: that the person is still on your payroll. It is the simplest check, and it was the one missing. 9-proposals_2-people-gone.pdfA promised person is a commitment nobody tracks
⛓ Source · 9 named proposals, 6 unassigned, 2 no longer with the company

Two proposals went out with the previous client's name?

Yes, and it is the trade's most ordinary and most destructive defect.
What I record: 2 proposals sent contained another client's name — one in a section heading, the other in the file's properties, invisible on screen but readable in two clicks.
What it tells the recipient: two things, and the second is worse. That the proposal is a template — which they already assumed and forgive. And that their own name will travel the same way.
What I check before any sending: the body of the document, headers and footers, section headings, the file properties, the file name itself, and the appendices. Properties and file name are the two that escape even a careful read.
What it found over three months: 31 documents carrying a client name foreign to the engagement, 22 of them only in the properties.
What I do with the document, and it is more than a correction: I block the sending and I flag it, by name. Correcting silently would hand a clean document back to somebody who has not read it — and a remnant of a previous proposal almost always signals that the content, too, was reused unread. Of the 31 documents blocked, 9 also carried a scope that was not the client's. 31-documents_22-in-the-properties.pdfThey learn that their own name will travel the same way
⛓ Source · 31 documents carrying a foreign name, 22 in the properties

How do you know the library is still accurate?

I do not, and that is why I publish its age.
What I record: the content library holds 180 reusable blocks. The median age is two years and four months. The oldest still in use is six years old — it describes a method that has since changed.
Why nobody revises them: a library block never announces itself. It does not break, it appears in no alert, and it goes on being inserted as long as it matches the heading being looked for.
What I do: each block carries its last validation date and by whom. Beyond eighteen months, I flag it to its author before inserting it, without blocking — an old block is not wrong, it is simply unverified.
What that produced: 34 blocks reviewed in two months, 6 of which described an offer that no longer exists in that form. They were still being sent.
What I also flag: blocks unused for eighteen months — 41 of 180. It is not an accuracy problem, but a 180-block library where a quarter is never used is a library people search badly. 180-blocks_34-reviewed-6-obsolete.pdfA library block never announces itself
⛓ Source · 180 blocks, median age 2 years 4 months, 34 reviewed, 41 never used

Can you write the argument against a competitor?

Yes — comparative advertising is lawful in France, and I write it holding the conditions that make it defensible.
What the Consumer Code requires of a comparison (art. L122-1 and following): that it not be misleading, that it concern goods or services meeting the same needs, and that it compare objectively one or more essential, relevant, verifiable and representative features.
So what I write: a comparison feature by feature, each backed by a dated public source — the competitor's own documentation, a published price list, an official specification — and the source is cited in the proposal, not kept aside.
What I block, and it is not timidity: a statement about a competitor I cannot source. "Their support is less responsive", "they subcontract": these are unverifiable claims, so outside the conditions — and disparagement turns against whoever writes it, including when it is true.
What I do instead when the source is missing: I replace it with what you can prove about yourself — a contractual lead time, a written on-call commitment, a certification in force. It is shorter, and it survives a reading by their lawyer. lawful-comparison_conditions.pdfThe 3 conditions · what gets written · what stays blocked for want of a source
⛓ Source · art. L122-1 ff. of the French Consumer Code, source cited in the proposal

What do you keep?

Where every sentence comes from — and the library's age, the figure nobody looks at.
What is kept: the proposals sent and the version of the blocks used, the source and date of every quantified claim, the permissions to name a client with their date and reach, the comparisons and their public sources, and the age of every block in the library.
Why the library's age: your 180 reusable blocks have a median age of two years. I do not know whether they are still accurate — and that is precisely why I publish their age rather than pretending. A two-year-old block describing a lead time is the exact mechanism that carried "up to 30 % savings" into 23 proposals, when the figure came from a single project.
What it has already prevented: 2 proposals going out with another client's name — the most ordinary and most destructive defect of the trade —, 41 proposals naming a client with no traceable permission, and 9 proposals promising a named individual, which nobody then follows.
What I do not keep: nothing about clients who did not sign, beyond the proposal itself. what-you-keep_proposals.pdf5 items kept · the library age, published
⛓ Source · 180 blocks with median age 2 years, 23 proposals with a travelling figure, 2 stray names

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 moments in building a proposal. 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 489 € excl. VAT / month

Composition from the catalogue

Builds the scope from your offers and your standard terms.

Reproducing the client's need

Reproduces what the client expressed in their own words, without turning it into a sales pitch.

Flagging decisions for review

Flags ambiguous scope, discounts outside your price list and tight deadlines before anything is sent.

Controls and safeguards These 4 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.

Status, safe closure and audit trail Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer Prioritise opportunities on explicit criteria Personalise without breaching consent or prospecting rules

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.

Prepare the next action and write back to the CRM without loss

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.

Quote generation

For a simple quote from the catalogue, a dedicated agent is enough.

Simple quote generation agent from 548 € excl. VAT / month Quotes →

Tender responses

For formal tenders, a dedicated agent assembles the response file.

Tender response agent (drafting) from 684 € excl. VAT / month Tender responses →

CRM follow-up

After sending, a dedicated CRM agent keeps track of the deal.

Sales agent (meeting notes, follow-ups, CRM) from 592 € excl. VAT / month CRM →

Does your need fall outside this?

In 15 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.

Book the free audit → Build your agent

The gain

How much time can a salesperson give back to the relationship?

By taking on the building of the document, effort shifts to what wins the decision: the argument and the conversation. The scale of the gain depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.

Building the document

Today · done by hand

Document composed, to decide on

Reproducing the need expressed

Today · done by hand

Need taken from the meeting notes

Checking the applicable terms

Today · done by hand

Standard terms applied

Illustrative, non-contractual reference points, to be confirmed by a pilot on your volume of proposals. Scope, price and lead-time commitments belong to the salesperson: the agent sets them out, it never grants them.

How it works

The stages of your AI agent project

Audit & scoping

15 minutes to target the use case with the best return.

Quote or direct sign-up

A catalogue offer is bought online; a specific need gets a costed quote.

Design

We design the agent and its guardrails.

Integration & testing

We connect your tools to the agent, which is itself hosted in France.

Rollout

Going live and training your team.

Operation

Continuous supervision and improvement.

Pricing

One package, one agent

A proposal agent (catalogue, tailoring, decision points), installed and operated for you. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.

Agility

Setup + controlled subscription

4,630 € ^{excl. VAT} setup

then 489 € ^{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

Order →

The simplest Serenity

All inclusive, no setup fee

749 € ^{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

Order →

100% Sovereign

On site, you own it

7,965 € ^{excl. VAT} setup

then 689 € ^{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)

Order →

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.

See the full price list →

Estimate my gains in 1 minute →

Our commitment

Four guarantees that matter to your proposals

Your commercial terms stay confidentialLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no term or client need entrusted to a third party, and no proposal used to train a model.

Data in France, under French lawYour commercial terms and the needs your clients express: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.

The salesperson keeps the decisionThe agent produces structured proposals, verifiable and editable; no approval is automated.

Human oversight & traceabilityOn your volume of proposals: systematic logging and monitoring, compliant with the AI Act.

Going further

Related resources

AI agents for business →Our full offer Sovereign AI hosted in France →Our confidentiality commitment

Frequently asked questions

Your questions, our answers

Does the agent grant discounts?

No. It applies your standard terms and flags any situation that would fall outside them. A discount is a financial commitment: it belongs to the salesperson and their room for manoeuvre.

Does the agent reword the client's need?

It reproduces it in the client's own words rather than turning it into a sales pitch. A need rewritten to the seller's advantage is noticed immediately on reading.

Does the agent send the proposal?

No. It is composed and ready for your decisions; sending remains your act, as do the three points flagged at the top that call for your judgement.

Does it draw on our past proposals?

On your catalogue, your templates and your terms. The document base it draws on is defined with you during the design phase, taking care not to reproduce an earlier proposal mechanically.

Are our commercial 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 how rich your catalogue and templates are, after a free audit and then a phase of design, integration and testing.

Related use cases

Other agents for sales

Quote generation →Simple quotes Tender responses →Formal tenders CRM & sales follow-up →Tracking the deal

Let's talk

Let us estimate the potential across your proposals

15 minutes to scope your catalogue and your templates — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.

Free audit (15 min) → Write to us