● Business offer — Tender responses
The AI agent for tenders: monitoring, drafting, compliance
Responding to a tender takes days of work: going through the specifications, writing the technical submission, gathering the documents, meeting tight deadlines. For lack of time, many companies give up on contracts they could have won. Your AI agent takes on most of that work — detection, analysis, first draft, completeness checks. Hosted in France — on local inference or an isolated resource — your content library, your references and your prices stay under control. The decision remains yours.
Hosted in France
References & prices protected
GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment
Human oversight
Updated on
Deployed in two to four weeks
Tender assistant · hosted in France
New consultation on the buyer portal: energy retrofit of a school complex. Analyse the tender documents and tell me whether we are eligible.
Tender documents analysed. Works contract, single lot, response deadline: 18 days. Award criteria: price 40%, technical merit 50%, lead times 10%. Eligibility: your certified energy-efficiency references cover the subject; the required turnover is met. Documents to provide: 11 items, including the candidacy forms, the energy certification and the technical submission.
Completeness list ready — for approval.
⛓ Sourced · the consultation's tender documents + your reference library
Completeness list ready — for approval.
⛓ Sourced · the consultation's tender documents + your reference library
Prepare a first version of the technical submission.
First version written from your past responses on similar contracts: site methodology, human and material resources, environmental approach, schedule. 3 points to complete: the name of the site manager assigned, two quantified references less than five years old, and your price.
I am preparing the document for review — you decide and approve the submission.
✎ Action · submission ready for review — your team approves
I am preparing the document for review — you decide and approve the submission.
✎ Action · submission ready for review — your team approves
Local inference · no data outside the EU
Data hosted in France
Sovereign by designLocal inference or hosting in France
GDPR & AI Act: governed deploymentTraceability & human oversight
TurnkeyDesigned, installed and operated for you
Your team decidesThe agent assists, the human decides
✦ In brief
A Blue Lemon Agent agent dedicated to tenders detects the relevant consultations, analyses the specifications, writes a first version of the technical submission from your content library and checks that the file is complete. It lets you respond to more tenders, faster. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: your references, your methods and your prices are never exposed to a foreign service, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity. Live in two to four weeks. The go/no-go, the price and the final approval stay with your team — the agent assists, the human decides.
1–2 days → 30 min
first version of a technical submission (illustrative)
100%
hosted in France in the target architecture
0
transfer outside the EU in the target architecture
9
uses ready to deploy for your consultations
Illustrative reference points describing our offer — to be confirmed by a pilot on your own consultations. The real gains depend on how complex the contracts are and how rich your content library is.
The context
Why so many winnable contracts go unanswered
Relevant consultations are numerous, but each complete response costs days of work. For lack of time, many companies give up on contracts they could have won — and the data involved (references, methods, prices) is among the company's most strategic.
! The issue
The sales team or the bid management unit is caught between a volume of consultations beyond its capacity, and increasingly demanding files (analysis of the tender documents, technical submission, administrative papers, tight deadlines). Yet most consumer AI solutions amount to entrusting your response library, your references and your prices to a third party, often hosted outside Europe and subject to the Cloud Act.
✓ Our answer
AI is only of interest in responding to a tender if it is sovereign and confidential by design. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France, systematic human oversight, decisions reserved to your team: the time saved on monitoring and drafting is never paid for in lost confidentiality. The aim is not to decide for you whether to go for a contract, but to let you respond to more opportunities without degrading the quality.
The decisive point
Your references and your prices: a strategic asset to protect
Your content library, your references and your prices are a confidential asset. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them, consultation by consultation.
Local inference
The agent can run on a machine belonging to the company: no document and no price leaves the network, nothing passes through a cloud.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, a dedicated and isolated resource, hosted in France under French law — your data: processing and access within the European Union targeted by the architecture.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
Architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity for your references and your prices: our architecture stays out of the American hyperscalers' reach, even when hosted in Europe.
One isolated resource per company
No pooling of your responses: an environment strictly dedicated to your content library.
Encryption & controlled access
Encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access (RBAC), strong authentication and logging.
AI Act: governed deployment
An agent strictly in support; no submission approved 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.
- The encryption mechanisms in transit and at rest, their components and key management are those documented for the architecture chosen.
- 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 the most sensitive contracts and data, SecNumCloud and HDS 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.
Tender assistant · hosted in France
Four flags this morning, and the first has four days left.
· Three documents required by the tender rules are not in the current file. Submission in four days. One of the three needs a signature that is not yours.
· A certification cited in eleven bids expired in January. Two of those files are still under evaluation.
· A team member presented in six bids left the company eight months ago. Their CV is still attached.
· Thirty-four paragraphs reused from earlier bids contain a lead-time commitment your operational data no longer shows. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf3 missing documents · 4 days
⛓ Source · tender rules, current file, 41 earlier bids, certification register
· Three documents required by the tender rules are not in the current file. Submission in four days. One of the three needs a signature that is not yours.
· A certification cited in eleven bids expired in January. Two of those files are still under evaluation.
· A team member presented in six bids left the company eight months ago. Their CV is still attached.
· Thirty-four paragraphs reused from earlier bids contain a lead-time commitment your operational data no longer shows. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf3 missing documents · 4 days
⛓ Source · tender rules, current file, 41 earlier bids, certification register
The 34 reused paragraphs with a lead time that no longer holds?
It is this trade's central trap: a copied sentence is a promise carried into a different context.
What I record: 34 paragraphs taken from earlier bids announce a response time. Your operational data for the last twelve months gives a longer time on the scope concerned.
What I measured so the decision is a short one: the response time actually achieved over twelve months, scope by scope — mean, median, and the ninth decile, which is the one a buyer will judge you on the day a penalty arises. All three are set out with the call-outs behind them.
What I have written: the 34 paragraphs rewritten under all three cases, committed figure included. You need only pick one.
What I leave to your decision, and why: the time you want to commit to is a commercial and operational decision, not an update — it binds operations for three years. Meanwhile, the 34 paragraphs are marked in plain sight, the written commitment on one side and the measurement on the other; none goes into a file until it is settled.
Why it is worse than a brochure error: a technical bid becomes contractual. The sentence written to win becomes the sentence you are judged on for three years, and whoever performs it is not whoever wrote it.
What I supply: for each, the source file, its date, and the current measurement with its source. 34-paragraphs_1-commitment.pdfWritten to win · judged for three years
⛓ Source · 41 earlier bids, 12 months of operational data
What I record: 34 paragraphs taken from earlier bids announce a response time. Your operational data for the last twelve months gives a longer time on the scope concerned.
What I measured so the decision is a short one: the response time actually achieved over twelve months, scope by scope — mean, median, and the ninth decile, which is the one a buyer will judge you on the day a penalty arises. All three are set out with the call-outs behind them.
What I have written: the 34 paragraphs rewritten under all three cases, committed figure included. You need only pick one.
What I leave to your decision, and why: the time you want to commit to is a commercial and operational decision, not an update — it binds operations for three years. Meanwhile, the 34 paragraphs are marked in plain sight, the written commitment on one side and the measurement on the other; none goes into a file until it is settled.
Why it is worse than a brochure error: a technical bid becomes contractual. The sentence written to win becomes the sentence you are judged on for three years, and whoever performs it is not whoever wrote it.
What I supply: for each, the source file, its date, and the current measurement with its source. 34-paragraphs_1-commitment.pdfWritten to win · judged for three years
⛓ Source · 41 earlier bids, 12 months of operational data
How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?
I watch, continuously, what you have opened to me: the live tender rules, the file in preparation, your earlier bids, your certification register and your operational data.
Routing follows the deadline: a missing document goes to the bid lead, every day until submission — the only flag I repeat; an expired certification to whoever holds it and to the bid lead, together; a team member no longer here to the bid lead, immediately; a commitment contradicted by your data to operations and sales, together — one knows the measurement, the other the stake.
With a chase: daily inside seven days of submission, weekly otherwise. Then a summary per tender: by criterion and by document, never by writer.
What this morning has already given you: three missing documents identified four days out and not the night before submission, 34 paragraphs stopped before going out with a commitment your data no longer supports — each with its source file, its date and the current measurement alongside —, an expired certification pulled out of eleven bids, two of them still under review, and a team member's CV withdrawn from six technical submissions.
From tomorrow: a compliant bid, and three years of delivery on commitments operations can actually meet — that is the difference between winning a contract and paying for it. The call on the lead time is yours, and I hand it back in minutes: the written commitment on one side, the measurement on the other, the source dated, and you decide paragraph by paragraph. Submission and signature are not prohibitions, they are mandates: you grant them for a named tender, with its deadline, and you withdraw them on a word. Your prices, your references and your submissions never leave the company — I open what you open to me, and every look-up is logged.
The next step is ready: the three documents are listed with who has to sign them, and the 34 paragraphs await your call. Settle them today and the file is complete 72 hours before submission.
✎ Framework · no undocumented claim, no submission, no signature
Routing follows the deadline: a missing document goes to the bid lead, every day until submission — the only flag I repeat; an expired certification to whoever holds it and to the bid lead, together; a team member no longer here to the bid lead, immediately; a commitment contradicted by your data to operations and sales, together — one knows the measurement, the other the stake.
With a chase: daily inside seven days of submission, weekly otherwise. Then a summary per tender: by criterion and by document, never by writer.
What this morning has already given you: three missing documents identified four days out and not the night before submission, 34 paragraphs stopped before going out with a commitment your data no longer supports — each with its source file, its date and the current measurement alongside —, an expired certification pulled out of eleven bids, two of them still under review, and a team member's CV withdrawn from six technical submissions.
From tomorrow: a compliant bid, and three years of delivery on commitments operations can actually meet — that is the difference between winning a contract and paying for it. The call on the lead time is yours, and I hand it back in minutes: the written commitment on one side, the measurement on the other, the source dated, and you decide paragraph by paragraph. Submission and signature are not prohibitions, they are mandates: you grant them for a named tender, with its deadline, and you withdraw them on a word. Your prices, your references and your submissions never leave the company — I open what you open to me, and every look-up is logged.
The next step is ready: the three documents are listed with who has to sign them, and the 34 paragraphs await your call. Settle them today and the file is complete 72 hours before submission.
✎ Framework · no undocumented claim, no submission, no signature
For a "quality of organisation" criterion, what do you write?
What you can produce if asked, and nothing else.
What I write: the resources assigned with their numbers, the organisation described with the internal document that sets it and its date, lead times with the measurement behind them, and references with the contract, year and value.
What I never write: "our company is recognised for", "we take pride in", "unrivalled responsiveness". Those sentences are not false: they are nothing. They commit to nothing, they cannot be verified, and a buyer scoring a criterion can award them no points.
What it changes in length: my bids are shorter. On the last file: 31 pages instead of 48, with each of the 14 criteria addressed with its evidence.
And a reference to a missing document I deal with before it goes out: every "see appendix" I write matches a document present in the file. I blocked four such references on the last bid; for three of them I found the document and attached it, and the fourth exists nowhere and is flagged as such.
What I flag when I can write nothing: I say so. On this file, two of fourteen criteria have no documented element behind them — and for each, I give you the one document it would take to close it. 14-criteria_2-without-evidence.pdf31 pages instead of 48
⛓ Source · tender rules, 14 criteria, dated internal documents
What I write: the resources assigned with their numbers, the organisation described with the internal document that sets it and its date, lead times with the measurement behind them, and references with the contract, year and value.
What I never write: "our company is recognised for", "we take pride in", "unrivalled responsiveness". Those sentences are not false: they are nothing. They commit to nothing, they cannot be verified, and a buyer scoring a criterion can award them no points.
What it changes in length: my bids are shorter. On the last file: 31 pages instead of 48, with each of the 14 criteria addressed with its evidence.
And a reference to a missing document I deal with before it goes out: every "see appendix" I write matches a document present in the file. I blocked four such references on the last bid; for three of them I found the document and attached it, and the fourth exists nowhere and is flagged as such.
What I flag when I can write nothing: I say so. On this file, two of fourteen criteria have no documented element behind them — and for each, I give you the one document it would take to close it. 14-criteria_2-without-evidence.pdf31 pages instead of 48
⛓ Source · tender rules, 14 criteria, dated internal documents
The team member who left the company?
Their CV is attached to six bids, and it is the kind of error that costs a contract already won.
What I record: a person presented as a team member in six files has not been on your headcount for eight months. Two of those contracts are being performed.
What that means, and I stop there: the team announced is not the team present. Depending on what each contract provides, it may have no consequence, or some. I do not interpret it — I cite the clause of each contract's terms that deals with a change of personnel, and leave you to read it.
What I do on the four unawarded files: I block the CV. No bid goes out with the CV of somebody who is no longer there, and it is this arrangement's only automatic block.
What I prepared for the replacement, without choosing it: the three people on your headcount whose qualifications cover those announced, each with an up-to-date CV and the exact gap against the profile described in the bid — years of experience, certifications, comparable references. A named team member in a bid is a commitment: choosing the person belongs to whoever bids, and it carries their signature. You name one, and the CV is in place across the four files in ten minutes.
What I also propose: that attached CVs be linked to the headcount, rather than copied into each file. Six copies are today living lives of their own. 1-person_6-files.pdfThe arrangement's only automatic block
⛓ Source · headcount, 6 bids, contract terms of the 2 live contracts
What I record: a person presented as a team member in six files has not been on your headcount for eight months. Two of those contracts are being performed.
What that means, and I stop there: the team announced is not the team present. Depending on what each contract provides, it may have no consequence, or some. I do not interpret it — I cite the clause of each contract's terms that deals with a change of personnel, and leave you to read it.
What I do on the four unawarded files: I block the CV. No bid goes out with the CV of somebody who is no longer there, and it is this arrangement's only automatic block.
What I prepared for the replacement, without choosing it: the three people on your headcount whose qualifications cover those announced, each with an up-to-date CV and the exact gap against the profile described in the bid — years of experience, certifications, comparable references. A named team member in a bid is a commitment: choosing the person belongs to whoever bids, and it carries their signature. You name one, and the CV is in place across the four files in ten minutes.
What I also propose: that attached CVs be linked to the headcount, rather than copied into each file. Six copies are today living lives of their own. 1-person_6-files.pdfThe arrangement's only automatic block
⛓ Source · headcount, 6 bids, contract terms of the 2 live contracts
We have just received a 180-page tender pack. Where do we start?
The specification analysis is done, and the first thing I hand back is the only question that decides everything: are you bidding?
What the specification analysis pulled out of the 180 pages: 64 requirements split into mandatory and desirable, the award criteria with their weightings — price 40 %, technical value 45 %, lead time 15 % —, the list of 14 documents to supply with the article of the rules that demands each, the permitted variants, and the 9 requirements I call decisive because a single one unmet excludes the bid.
Eligibility and completeness, in that order: eligibility first, because it settles in ten minutes and saves three weeks of work. Of the 9 decisive requirements, you meet 8. The ninth calls for a qualification you do not hold — but article 4.2 of the rules permits a temporary consortium, and you bid as a consortium twice in 2025. So eligibility is reachable, one decision away: finding the partner before the deadline.
File completeness, next: the 14 documents are listed, 11 are in the file, 3 are missing — and one of the three depends on a third party, so it must be requested today. Completeness is checked on three points per document: present, legible, and consistent with the others — a turnover figure that differs between two documents in the same file shows, and it shows to the buyer too.
The figure that does not flatter me: across the 19 files this year, I declared completeness reached on 18; the buyer judged one incomplete — a certificate supplied in a version predating the imposed template. I was checking presence, not the form's version. What I did with it: completeness now compares each document to the template attached to the rules where there is one. Across the next 7 files: no rejections.
⛓ Source · 180 pages, 64 requirements, 9 decisive of which 8 met, 11 documents of 14, 1 rejection over 19 files
What the specification analysis pulled out of the 180 pages: 64 requirements split into mandatory and desirable, the award criteria with their weightings — price 40 %, technical value 45 %, lead time 15 % —, the list of 14 documents to supply with the article of the rules that demands each, the permitted variants, and the 9 requirements I call decisive because a single one unmet excludes the bid.
Eligibility and completeness, in that order: eligibility first, because it settles in ten minutes and saves three weeks of work. Of the 9 decisive requirements, you meet 8. The ninth calls for a qualification you do not hold — but article 4.2 of the rules permits a temporary consortium, and you bid as a consortium twice in 2025. So eligibility is reachable, one decision away: finding the partner before the deadline.
File completeness, next: the 14 documents are listed, 11 are in the file, 3 are missing — and one of the three depends on a third party, so it must be requested today. Completeness is checked on three points per document: present, legible, and consistent with the others — a turnover figure that differs between two documents in the same file shows, and it shows to the buyer too.
The figure that does not flatter me: across the 19 files this year, I declared completeness reached on 18; the buyer judged one incomplete — a certificate supplied in a version predating the imposed template. I was checking presence, not the form's version. What I did with it: completeness now compares each document to the template attached to the rules where there is one. Across the next 7 files: no rejections.
⛓ Source · 180 pages, 64 requirements, 9 decisive of which 8 met, 11 documents of 14, 1 rejection over 19 files
And for the writing, do we go back to the same copy-and-paste?
No: a library of reusable content, where every paragraph carries its evidence and its expiry date. And I hold the deadlines of every live tender in one place.
The library of reusable content: 312 paragraphs drawn from your previous submissions, sorted by standard requirement — methodology, people, equipment, references, quality approach, environment. Every reusable item carries three attributes: the dated internal document that supports it, the contract where it has already been used, and the date at which its figures fall due for rechecking.
What those three attributes prevent, and it is this trade's trap: the 34 paragraphs that state a response time are marked “to be rechecked” since your operational data moved. They no longer leave the library without the current measurement shown beside them. Reusable content with no recheck date is a promise that ages without warning.
Deadline tracking, across the 6 live tenders: for each, the submission deadline, the intermediate milestones that come before it — the deadline for questions to the buyer, the date of the mandatory site visit, the validity date of the certificates required — and the days remaining on each milestone. Two deadlines fall in the same week, and one of the two requires a site visit with a single available slot: that is the one that governs your week, not the one whose submission is closest.
What deadline tracking has already prevented: over the year, 3 question deadlines would have passed — and a question not asked in time is never recovered, whereas a missing document can be found.
⛓ Source · 312 dated reusable items, 34 marked for rechecking, 6 tenders tracked, 3 question deadlines saved
The library of reusable content: 312 paragraphs drawn from your previous submissions, sorted by standard requirement — methodology, people, equipment, references, quality approach, environment. Every reusable item carries three attributes: the dated internal document that supports it, the contract where it has already been used, and the date at which its figures fall due for rechecking.
What those three attributes prevent, and it is this trade's trap: the 34 paragraphs that state a response time are marked “to be rechecked” since your operational data moved. They no longer leave the library without the current measurement shown beside them. Reusable content with no recheck date is a promise that ages without warning.
Deadline tracking, across the 6 live tenders: for each, the submission deadline, the intermediate milestones that come before it — the deadline for questions to the buyer, the date of the mandatory site visit, the validity date of the certificates required — and the days remaining on each milestone. Two deadlines fall in the same week, and one of the two requires a site visit with a single available slot: that is the one that governs your week, not the one whose submission is closest.
What deadline tracking has already prevented: over the year, 3 question deadlines would have passed — and a question not asked in time is never recovered, whereas a missing document can be found.
⛓ Source · 312 dated reusable items, 34 marked for rechecking, 6 tenders tracked, 3 question deadlines saved
The three missing documents?
They are required by the rules, and one of them does not depend on you.
What I record, citing the tender rules clause by clause: three required documents are not in the file. Submission in four days.
The difficulty is not the same for all three: two are documents you hold. The third needs a certificate from a third party, and a third party has its own turnaround — that is the one to request today, not in three days.
What I supply: for each, the clause requiring it, quoted, the form required, and who must produce it.
What I do not say: that the bid would be irregular without them. I quote what the rules say; the consequences of a missing document belong to the buyer and to the law, not to me.
What I do every day until submission: I repeat the three. It is the only flag I repeat daily — a missing document cannot be recovered after the deadline, and it is this trade's only defect that admits no recovery. 3-documents_1-third-party.pdfThe one depending on a third party is requested today
⛓ Source · tender rules, current file
What I record, citing the tender rules clause by clause: three required documents are not in the file. Submission in four days.
The difficulty is not the same for all three: two are documents you hold. The third needs a certificate from a third party, and a third party has its own turnaround — that is the one to request today, not in three days.
What I supply: for each, the clause requiring it, quoted, the form required, and who must produce it.
What I do not say: that the bid would be irregular without them. I quote what the rules say; the consequences of a missing document belong to the buyer and to the law, not to me.
What I do every day until submission: I repeat the three. It is the only flag I repeat daily — a missing document cannot be recovered after the deadline, and it is this trade's only defect that admits no recovery. 3-documents_1-third-party.pdfThe one depending on a third party is requested today
⛓ Source · tender rules, current file
And the certification expired in eleven responses?
It expired in January, and two of the eleven files are still under evaluation.
What I record: a certification cited in eleven bids carries a validity date ending 31/01/2026 according to your register. Nine files are closed, two are being evaluated by the buyer.
What I assembled so the decision can be taken today: the two tenders concerned, the exact place in the bid where the certification is cited, the clause that required it — it was required in one and optional in the other —, the state of the renewal with its expected date, and both letters to the buyer, drafted, one per tender.
What is left to decide, and it is a decision: whether to tell the buyer. It binds the company in a live procedure, it is taken knowing the rules and the timetable, and it carries a name. The letter goes out within the minute that follows.
What I do on future files: I remove it from responses and flag that, rather than replacing it silently.
What I propose: that certifications be dated in a single register and read from it, rather than copied into bids. Eleven copies have outlived their original. 1-certification_11-copies.pdf9 files closed · 2 under evaluation
⛓ Source · certification register, 11 bids, rules of the 2 tenders
What I record: a certification cited in eleven bids carries a validity date ending 31/01/2026 according to your register. Nine files are closed, two are being evaluated by the buyer.
What I assembled so the decision can be taken today: the two tenders concerned, the exact place in the bid where the certification is cited, the clause that required it — it was required in one and optional in the other —, the state of the renewal with its expected date, and both letters to the buyer, drafted, one per tender.
What is left to decide, and it is a decision: whether to tell the buyer. It binds the company in a live procedure, it is taken knowing the rules and the timetable, and it carries a name. The letter goes out within the minute that follows.
What I do on future files: I remove it from responses and flag that, rather than replacing it silently.
What I propose: that certifications be dated in a single register and read from it, rather than copied into bids. Eleven copies have outlived their original. 1-certification_11-copies.pdf9 files closed · 2 under evaluation
⛓ Source · certification register, 11 bids, rules of the 2 tenders
Can you submit the file on the platform?
Yes — I assemble and submit the complete file. The electronic signature stays attached to the person who binds the company, and that is the law's doing, not mine.
What I do alone as soon as you open it: I assemble the file item by item against the tender rules, upload it to the platform, check every required item is present and legible, and submit — including at 11.50 pm the night before closing, which no human should have to do.
The only two acts the law attaches to a person, and it attaches them for everyone: applying the electronic signature and ticking a sworn declaration. An electronic signature is attached to a personal certificate; a sworn declaration is an assertion made by a person about the company. Both bind somebody who has to be somebody — and that is exactly what gives the file I submit its value. I bring them down to one minute: the declaration arrives pre-filled from your current details and dated, the file signable in one action.
What I do so it is not a bottleneck: I prepare the file signable in one action, and I warn four days out — as this morning on the three missing items, one of which does not depend on you and must be requested from a third party.
What it changes: your submissions were going in on average four hours before closing. An item rejected at that point cannot be replaced. automatic-submission_personal-signature.pdfWhat the agent submits · the two personal acts · the four-day alert
⛓ Source · signature attached to a personal certificate, alert four days out
What I do alone as soon as you open it: I assemble the file item by item against the tender rules, upload it to the platform, check every required item is present and legible, and submit — including at 11.50 pm the night before closing, which no human should have to do.
The only two acts the law attaches to a person, and it attaches them for everyone: applying the electronic signature and ticking a sworn declaration. An electronic signature is attached to a personal certificate; a sworn declaration is an assertion made by a person about the company. Both bind somebody who has to be somebody — and that is exactly what gives the file I submit its value. I bring them down to one minute: the declaration arrives pre-filled from your current details and dated, the file signable in one action.
What I do so it is not a bottleneck: I prepare the file signable in one action, and I warn four days out — as this morning on the three missing items, one of which does not depend on you and must be requested from a third party.
What it changes: your submissions were going in on average four hours before closing. An item rejected at that point cannot be replaced. automatic-submission_personal-signature.pdfWhat the agent submits · the two personal acts · the four-day alert
⛓ Source · signature attached to a personal certificate, alert four days out
What do you keep from all this?
What was written, where it came from, and what it commits — it is the file you will open if the award is challenged.
What is kept: each paragraph and the dated document that grounds it, the quantified commitments with their source measurement, the items submitted and their submission timestamp, the personnel presented and the date their presence in the company was checked, and the certifications with their validity dates.
What it prevents, on cases already met: 34 paragraphs reused from earlier files carried a lead time that no longer held — a copied sentence is a promise carried into a different context. A person presented in six submissions had left the company. And a certification cited in eleven responses had expired in January, two of those files still under assessment.
Why the submission timestamp matters as much as the content: a challenge often bears on admissibility before it bears on the offer. The timestamped submission receipt is the first item you will be asked for, and the only one nobody can reconstruct afterwards.
What I do not keep: nothing measuring who drafted what or in how long. what-you-keep_tenders.pdf5 items kept · the submission receipt, irreplaceable
⛓ Source · 34 paragraphs with stale lead times, 1 departed person, 1 expired certification
What is kept: each paragraph and the dated document that grounds it, the quantified commitments with their source measurement, the items submitted and their submission timestamp, the personnel presented and the date their presence in the company was checked, and the certifications with their validity dates.
What it prevents, on cases already met: 34 paragraphs reused from earlier files carried a lead time that no longer held — a copied sentence is a promise carried into a different context. A person presented in six submissions had left the company. And a certification cited in eleven responses had expired in January, two of those files still under assessment.
Why the submission timestamp matters as much as the content: a challenge often bears on admissibility before it bears on the offer. The timestamped submission receipt is the first item you will be asked for, and the only one nobody can reconstruct afterwards.
What I do not keep: nothing measuring who drafted what or in how long. what-you-keep_tenders.pdf5 items kept · the submission receipt, irreplaceable
⛓ Source · 34 paragraphs with stale lead times, 1 departed person, 1 expired certification
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
The uses of AI throughout a tender response
Each use corresponds to an agent we deploy. All of them work in support, subject to your approval.
Included in your agent
The 7 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.
From 684 € excl. VAT / month
Monitoring & detecting consultations
Watching the contract platforms and detecting the tenders that match your criteria, public and private alike.
Analysing the specifications
Extracting the requirements, the award criteria and the list of documents to provide from the tender documents.
Eligibility & completeness of the file
Checking eligibility and building the completeness list: presence and consistency of the documents, alerts on gaps before submission.
Writing the technical submission
A first version of the technical submission from your content library — methodology, resources, references.
Reusable content library
Reusing and adapting your past responses: descriptions, references and standard elements that grow richer with each file.
Deadline tracking
Tracking the submission deadlines and alerting on the critical milestones of every live consultation.
Questions and answers on the consultation
Preparing requests for clarification to the buyer and answering the team's recurring questions about the contract.
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.
Human validation, exceptions and escalation
Status, safe closure and audit trail
Sources, access rights and handling of questions with no answer
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.
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 time can a team win back?
By automating monitoring, analysis of the tender documents and the first draft, a team can sharply cut the production time of a response — and respond to more consultations for the same effort, and so win more contracts.
First version of the technical submission
Analysing the specifications
Checking the completeness of the file
Qualitative, non-contractual comparison: the proportions shown illustrate the shift of the work towards review, they represent no measurement. Every output of the agent is reviewed and approved by a competent person.
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 agent, installed and operated for you
A tender response agent (monitoring, analysis of the specifications, drafting, completeness), designed around your content library. Prices exclude VAT — annual subscription, the time it takes for the gains to settle in.
Agility
Setup + controlled subscription
7,610 € excl. VAT setup
then 684 € 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
1,109 € 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
11,250 € excl. VAT setup
then 885 € excl. VAT/month · + hardware from 2,491 € (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 responses
Your references and your prices never leaveLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; no response entrusted to a foreign third party.
Data in France, under French lawDeployment objective: processing and access within the European Union for your references and your prices; architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
Your team keeps the decisionThe agent prepares and checks; the go/no-go, the price and the approval of the submission stay with you. The agent assists, the human decides.
Human oversight & traceabilityMonitoring, updates and logging frame the watching and detection of consultations, in line with the AI Act.
Frequently asked questions
Your questions, our answers
Does the agent respond to tenders entirely on its own?
No. It saves a considerable amount of time by detecting the consultations, analysing the specifications and writing a first version, but the strategy, the price and the final approval stay with your team. The agent prepares, you decide.
Does it handle public contracts?
Yes. It handles public and private tenders alike: analysis of the tender documents, identification of the award criteria, the list of documents to provide and completeness checks to limit rejections on formal grounds.
How does it avoid rejections on formal grounds?
It draws up the list of documents required, checks that the items are present and consistent, and flags gaps before submission. The final check stays with a manager.
Are my references and data protected?
Yes. Your content library, your references and your prices are 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, in compliance with the GDPR.
Does it integrate with my tools?
Yes. It connects to the contract monitoring platforms and to your document base, and draws on a knowledge base to reuse your content, without imposing a migration.
How does the agent become more relevant over time?
Its strength lies in its content library: descriptions, references, methodologies and standard response elements. It grows richer with every tender handled — the more you use it, the more consistent and sourced its responses are.
How long does it take to deploy the agent?
Two to four weeks as a rule, depending on how rich your content library is, after a free audit that identifies the use case with the best return, then a phase of design, integration and testing before going live.
Related use cases
Other agents for your sales teams
Let's talk
Let us estimate the potential on your next consultations
15 minutes to identify the use case with the best return — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.