We build Agents. You build the Future.
● B2B offer — Sales & public contractsTender monitoring: your criteria, watched continuously
The invitations to tender that suit you are published every day, on platforms nobody has time to go through daily. Your agent watches the sources you have chosen, keeps those that fall within your criteria — subject matter, value, area, qualifications required — and alerts you with the deadline and the link to the tender documents. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With the 100% Sovereign package, the contracts you are targeting can be read nowhere else. The bid manager decides whether to respond.
Updated on
Fictional simulation — not a client result
For each: the buyer, the closing date and the link to the tender documents.
Publications outside the criteria are set aside, with the criterion that excludes them.
🔗 Sourced · direct link to each set of documents
Matching them against your current authorisations is yours: it is a decision that commits your bid.
✎ Support · requirements reported, human decision
For an organisation established outside the European Union, the law of its own country applies; at its request, we put equivalent safeguards in place (human review before any action, a log of the criteria, information for the people concerned).
A Blue Lemon Agent tender monitoring agent watches the sources you choose, keeps the invitations that fall within your stated criteria — subject matter, value, area, qualifications — and alerts you with the buyer, the deadline and the link to the documents. It sets the rest aside, stating the criterion that excludes them. Data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option. With the 100% Sovereign package, the contracts you are targeting and your bid strategy stay with you, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.
These figures describe our offer, not results measured at a client. How large the gain is on your number of sources and how detailed your criteria are is confirmed by a pilot.
Indicative estimate, to be confirmed by a pilot on your real files (general terms of sale, article 4).
One package, one agent
A tender monitoring agent (sources, criteria, alerts), installed and operated for you.
Setup + controlled subscription
- Installation, configuration and training for your teams
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, a dedicated and isolated resource
All inclusive, no setup fee
- Setup included (installation, configuration, training)
- Operation, human oversight, updates and support
- Hosting in France, managed end to end
On site, you own it
- Hardware installed on your premises (you own it)
- French / European AI models run locally
- Secure remote maintenance (Pro support included)
What does the agent actually do?
One agent, several moments in the bidding cycle, with links to neighbouring agents. The agent carries out by itself what you authorise it to do; you decide what it does on its own and what it submits to you.
Watching the sources
Goes continuously through the publication platforms you have chosen.
Filtering on your criteria
Keeps subject matter, value, area and qualifications in line with what you have stated.
Alerts with the deadline
Flags the closing date and the link to the tender documents.
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.
Tender responses
To build the bid itself, a dedicated agent assembles the documents.
Tender response agent (drafting) from 354 € excl. VAT / month Tender responses →General monitoring
For competitors and regulations, a dedicated monitoring agent completes the picture.
Watch agent (competitors, press, regulation) from 249 € excl. VAT / month Monitoring →In 30 minutes we identify the most relevant agent — without oversizing the project.
See the agent at work
4 everyday 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.
The company in this demonstration
Fictional companyArdelis Conseil — fictional advisory services firm, selling almost entirely through public procurement
- Sector
- Advisory services to public bodies — adapted procedures and formal tenders, bid files built on the firm's references and a technical memorandum that follows the criteria of the tender regulations
- Headcount
- 68 employees, including a bids manager who decides whether to answer and assembles the files, an administrator who keeps the certificates, and the account managers who bring the references; management is alerted as soon as a notice appears on a contract the firm holds
- Who it serves
- Public buyers — 11 current public clients whose buyer profiles remain to be connected to the watch — and neighbouring buyers who sometimes publish the same requirement ten days apart, at two different bodies
- Order of magnitude
- 47 tenders flagged over the quarter, 9 bids submitted and 32 set aside after reading; 23 tenders submitted over the last twelve months; a submission turns on the hour — 11/09 at 12:00 for the current tender
- Tools already in place
- Four publication platforms and two buyer feeds opened to the watch, the contracts in force and their end dates, the firm's 4 certificates with their dates, the bid files submitted since 2022 and the minutes of contract review meetings — the agent reads and dates, it submits nothing
- Who decides
- The bids manager decides whether to answer, and receives every submission deadline with its exact time; the administrator is alerted immediately when a certificate expires before a submission, and signs the renewal request, which binds the firm; the account manager and management are alerted as soon as a notice appears on a contract the firm holds; the eligibility conclusion belongs to the firm, condition by condition
- The improvement points
- 19 of the quarter's 47 tenders carried none of the firm's 12 keywords in their title, and surfaced through the content of the tender regulations; measured coverage is 20 out of the 23 tenders submitted over these twelve months, and the buyer profiles of the 11 public clients remain to be connected; 6 flagged tenders expired before the file was opened, and the reminder moves to 4 hours as soon as fewer than five days remain; one certificate falls due 11 days before the 11/09 submission, and 3 others before 31 December
Ardelis Conseil sells almost everything through public procurement, and most of what is won is decided before a word is written: seeing the notice in time, reading the tender regulations rather than the title, and keeping certificates valid against the submission dates. The agent watches four platforms and two buyer feeds, flags and dates, takes the regulations' conditions one by one and gives the evidence for those it has checked — on the current tender, five of the nine are already proven, document in hand. The eligibility conclusion and the decision to answer belong to the bids manager, and the agent hands them over in minutes rather than days; no relevance score is produced, because a score skips the reading, and it is the reading that wins a contract. The exchanges that follow cover one morning watch: a tender six days from closing found through its regulations, a contract held since 2019 put out to tender again, a certificate to renew, and two neighbouring buyers on the same requirement.
This company, its figures and the exchanges that follow were invented for the demonstration. They illustrate a common situation; they describe no real client.
Fictional simulation — not a client result
· A tender matching your business closes in 6 days, and I am surfacing it in time. It was published on 21/07 under a title containing none of your keywords: it was its tender rules that brought it out, not its title.
· A contract you have held since 2019 has been retendered, with a notice published yesterday. The incumbent has no priority.
· A tender you are bidding on requires a certificate expiring on 31/08, before the submission date.
· Two different tenders cover the same need, at two neighbouring buyers, ten days apart. morning-watch_4-flags.pdf4 flags · 1 incumbent contract
⛓ Source · published notices, live contracts, company certificates, bid files
The published title: "support services for the transformation of practices". None of your twelve keywords appears in it.
What surfaced it: not the title — the content of the tender rules, where the need described matches three of your references, and the activity code declared by the buyer, which is the one on which you have already won two contracts.
The decision to bid is yours, and I hand it to you in minutes. Six days is short for a complete file — so I have taken the lead on everything that can be prepared; what is left to weigh is your workload, your available references and what you know of the buyer.
What I provide so you can decide fast: the exact deadline with the time, the list of required documents, those you have and those missing, and the three of your references that match.
And one useful fact: across the 47 tenders I flagged this quarter, 19 contained none of your keywords in their title. 19-of-47_without-your-keywords.pdf12 keywords · 19 tenders found through their content
⛓ Source · notice of 21/07, tender rules, your references, 47 tenders this quarter
Routing follows the irreversible: an approaching submission date goes to the bid manager, with the exact time — a noon deadline is not a same-day deadline; a retendered incumbent contract to the account salesperson and to management, as soon as it is published; a certificate expiring before a submission to administration, immediately; two tenders on one need to the bid manager.
With a chase: 24 h under 10 days to submission, 4 h under 3 days, 7 days on the rest. Then a monthly summary: by source and by reason for not bidding, never by salesperson.
What that is worth in figures, over the quarter: 47 tenders flagged, 19 of which none of your twelve keywords would have surfaced — nearly two in five, found through the content of the tender rules and the buyer's activity code, not through the title. This morning it is a six-day opportunity caught, a contract held since 2019 seen the day after publication, a certificate expiring before the submission, and two neighbouring buyers on one need — enough to build a single bid for both.
Add a source and it enters the watch the same day: the access is opened by you, logged, withdrawn on a word, and your criteria and your bidding strategy do not leave the company — local inference with the 100% Sovereign package; with the Agility and Serenity packages, data hosted in France, AI model called at its publisher except with the Sovereign model option.
The decision to bid belongs to the bid manager, and I hand it over in minutes rather than days: the deadline with the time, the list of required documents, those you have and those missing, the references that match, and the exclusion reason for everything I set aside. Give me your sources, and tomorrow morning the shortlist is already made.
✎ Proposal · sources and chases to be configured — you set the thresholds
Fictional simulation — not a client result
The tender rules set nine conditions. I took them one by one.
· Five are verifiable in your documents: minimum turnover, headcount, current insurance, tax and social compliance certificate, absence from a debarment list. All five are met, and I give the document for each.
· Two depend on interpretation: "similar references less than three years old". You have three close references; "similar" is defined nowhere in the rules. That is a judgement, and it is the buyer's.
· Two call for an item that is not in the documents you opened to me: a certification, and a technical capacity expressed as dedicated headcount — which only you know you can mobilise. Open me the certification folder and the first moves to "met" the same day; for the second, give me the number and I will write it in the wording of the rules.
Why I hand you the call rather than make it: "eligible" is an assessment the buyer will make. A tool that asserts it makes you submit a bid on a conviction it manufactured; you will submit on nine traced conditions, five of them already proven document in hand.
What it saves you: the five verified conditions no longer need checking. Four remain, and you know which. 9-conditions_5-verified.pdf5 verified · 2 interpretive · 2 to complete
⛓ Source · tender rules art. 5, your certificates, your references
The dates: certificate valid until 31/08, submission on 11/09 at 12.00. Eleven days apart.
What the rules say: certificates must be "valid at the date of submission of tenders" — article 6.2, which I quote because not all tender rules require it the same way.
What that means: the current certificate will not serve. A new one is needed, and obtaining it takes two to fifteen days depending on the body.
What I also looked at: your other certificates. Three more expire before 31 December, one of them on 14/09 — just after this submission, but before two other live tenders.
What I have prepared for the renewal: the request is filled in — issuing body, number of the previous certificate, period applied for, supporting documents carried over from the file —, and the two fields I do not hold are highlighted at the top. It is signed by the company, because a certificate request commits it: two minutes, and the two-to-fifteen-day wait starts today rather than next week.
What I propose: a calendar of your certificates cross-referenced with your submission deadlines — it is that cross-reference that wins files, and I keep it up to date on my own. 4-certificates_cross-referenced.pdf11 days apart · art. 6.2 quoted
⛓ Source · certificate of 31/08, rules art. 6.2, 4 company certificates
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What I record: notice published yesterday, submission on 11/09. Your current contract ends on 31/10.
What makes it different from an ordinary tender: you are the incumbent. That gives you no priority — and it gives you something more useful: you know what the buyer lived through for four years.
What I assembled, and this is the real contribution: your 4 years of delivery — volumes achieved, incidents and how they were resolved, out-of-scope requests accepted, and the two review meetings where the buyer expressed an expectation that was not in the contract.
The tender rules take up one of those two expectations, almost word for word, at technical criterion no. 3. That is the sign the need has evolved, and you heard it eighteen months ago.
What I have already written of the technical submission: the outline follows the tender criteria in their order and their weighting, and every paragraph is backed by an item from your four years of delivery — volumes achieved, incidents resolved, out-of-scope requests accepted, and the March 2024 review meeting where the buyer voiced the expectation now taken up by technical criterion no. 3. What is yours is the commercial argument and the signature — and the outcome belongs to the buyer: there is no roll-over here — what I do weighs on the technical score, not on their choice.
And one last flag: the scope has changed. Two lots become a single lot, which alters who can bid. incumbent-contract_4-years-of-delivery.pdf1 expectation taken up at criterion no. 3 · 2 lots → 1
⛓ Source · notice of 07/08, 2019 contract, review minutes, tender rules
What I record: two neighbouring buyers, the same need described in very close terms, notices published ten days apart, submissions on 04/09 and 18/09.
What makes them different: the volumes announced range from one to three, the award criteria weight price differently — 40% against 60% — and one requires an on-site presence the other does not.
What makes them close: eleven of fifteen documents are identical, and the technical submission answers the same need.
What that means concretely: bidding on both does not cost twice one bid. I estimate it at one and a half, reusing the eleven common documents.
What is missing to say which is more winnable, and I give it to you: a 60% price weighting favours the cheapest — so I went back through the eight comparable tenders you have submitted since 2022: on those weighted at 60%, your price placed you second or better four times out of five; on those at 40%, your technical score placed you first two times out of three. The decision to bid is signed — it is a commercial one —, and it is taken on this table: the fifteen documents showing what is common, and the two award grids side by side. 2-tenders_11-common-documents.pdf15 documents · 11 common · 2 grids compared
⛓ Source · 2 sets of tender rules, award grids, document lists
Fictional simulation — not a client result
What I cover: the sources you have opened to me — four publication platforms and two buyer feeds.
What still sits outside my sources today, and I name it: tenders published on the buyer profile of an authority using none of those four platforms; contracts awarded without publicity where the value allows; tenders relayed by a private client on their own portal.
What that represents, as far as I can estimate: I compared my flags with the 23 tenders you bid on over twelve months. Three of them came from none of my sources — you learned of them from a client, from a peer, and from a direct email.
What that says: my coverage is 20 of 23 on what you saw. It measures what you saw; what nobody saw escapes any measure — and that is exactly what the proposal below goes after.
What I propose: adding the buyer profiles of your eleven current public clients — that is where the tenders that concern you most sit, and general publication does not always relay them. coverage_20-of-23.pdf6 sources · 3 areas outside scope named
✎ Framework · coverage 20/23 on the known — and the sources to open to widen it
What is kept: the notice flagged, the source and the publication date, the conditions checked and those not checked, the deadlines, and what was decided — bid, declined, or missed.
The last category matters: I keep the tenders missed, that is, flagged and not opened before the date. It is the figure I publish about myself, and it is the only honest measure of what the monitoring returns: this quarter, 6 flagged tenders expired before the file was opened, against 9 bids submitted and 32 declined after reading. The fix is ready: chase at 4 hours from five days before submission instead of three, and a second reminder escalated to management.
What is not kept: no relevance score per tender, no bid rate per salesperson, no probability of winning.
Why "no relevance score": a score makes people skip the reading. A tender scored 40% stops being opened, and it is in the rules that the criterion suiting you was to be found. So I give you the reading, not the score.
What the monthly summary contains: tenders flagged and what followed, reasons for not bidding, coverage by source, and certificate expiry dates. what-is-kept.pdf5 items kept · 3 never produced
✎ Framework · retention periods to be set by the company
Your case is not here? That is exactly what a 30-minute conversation is for. Discuss your project →
The stages of your AI agent project
Audit & scoping
30 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.
What does an AI agent bring to your tender monitoring?
The useful invitations drown in the volume published. Bringing them up each morning, filtered on your criteria, turns a chore into an advantage.
! The issue
Bidding for a contract first means seeing it in time: the closing periods are short and an invitation spotted too late is an invitation lost. The agent watches your sources continuously, applies your criteria — subject matter, value, area, qualifications — and brings up each morning what deserves your attention, with the deadline and the documents to back it up.
✓ Our answer
You set the criteria, the agent applies them relentlessly and gives its reasons for every exclusion. The invitations kept arrive with their deadline and the link to the documents; those set aside come with the criterion that excludes them, so you can adjust. Local inference or an isolated resource hosted in France: the contracts you are targeting tell no third party anything about your strategy.
The contracts you watch and your bid strategy: sovereignty & compliance
The contracts you watch reveal your commercial ambitions. Here is how the architecture of our agents protects them.
Local inference
With the 100% Sovereign package, the agent runs on a machine belonging to your organisation: your search criteria are passed to no third-party service.
Hosting in France
Otherwise, with the Agility and Serenity packages, a dedicated, isolated resource hosted in France, under French law: data hosted in France; the AI model is called at its publisher, except with the Sovereign model option.
Reduced extraterritorial exposure
For the contracts you watch and your bid strategy, 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 monitoring criteria.
Criteria and exclusions recorded
You define the sources and the criteria; every invitation set aside comes with the reason, and every alert is logged.
AI Act: governed deployment
The agent carries out what you have authorised; no decision to bid is taken on your behalf; 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 events logged, their content, their retention period and who may access them are defined for the deployment chosen.
How many opportunities can a team stop missing?
By watching your sources continuously and filtering on your criteria, detection comes down to a short daily read. How large the gain is depends on your volume and remains to be confirmed by a pilot.
Four guarantees that matter to your business development
Related resources
Your questions, our answers
What sources does the agent watch?
Does the agent decide whether we should bid?
How do I know why an invitation was set aside?
Does the agent check our qualifications?
Are our monitoring criteria confidential?
How long does it take to deploy this agent?
Other agents for business development
Let's size up the potential in your tender monitoring
30 minutes to frame your sources and your criteria — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.