● B2B offer — Sales & public contracts

Tender 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. Hosted in France: the contracts you are targeting can be read nowhere else. The bid manager decides whether to respond.

Free audit (15 min) → See the prices

Hosted in France Bid strategy kept confidential GDPR & AI Act: governed deployment Human oversight

Updated on 07/09/2026

Deployed in a few weeks

Tender monitoring · hosted in France

Give me the position on the invitations published since yesterday.

Invitations kept against your stated criteria: subject matter, estimated value, geographical area and qualifications required.
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

The middle one — do we have the qualifications?

The tender rules require two qualifications, which I report exactly as written in the documents.
Matching them against your current authorisations is yours: it is a decision that commits your bid.
✎ Support · requirements reported, human decision

Local inference · no data outside the EU

Monitoring 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 bid manager decidesThe agent prepares, never rules

✦ In brief

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. It runs on local inference or is hosted in France: 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.

100%

hosted in France in the target architecture

transfer outside the EU in the target architecture

tender monitoring uses ready to deploy

decision taken without human approval

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.

The context

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 decisive point

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

The agent can run on a machine belonging to your organisation: your search criteria are passed to no third-party service.

Hosting in France

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

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 is strictly in support; 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.

For defence or security contracts, or those subject to reinforced trade secrecy, SecNumCloud and reinforced hosting are options depending on your requirements. A single architecture is designed to answer both the GDPR and extraterritorial exposure. Designed for deployment in line with the GDPR and the AI Act, after the processing, roles and context-specific risks have been assessed.

Demonstration

See the agent at work

4 real situations, taken from those that come up most often. Pick one: the exchange unfolds as it would in your organisation.

A scripted demonstration. These exchanges show how the agent behaves — its sources, its refusals, what it leaves to your teams. Nothing is sent from this page, no model is queried here, and the matters named are fictional. That is precisely what we promise your data.
The behaviours shown here — monitoring, automation rules, routing and reminders — are configured with you during deployment, from your tools, your rules and your thresholds.
The architecture points named in these exchanges — location, local execution, isolation, encryption, role-based access, logging — are not a guarantee attached to the demonstration: they are those of the architecture set out in your quotation, and verified before commissioning.

Tender monitoring · hosted in France

Four flags this morning on live tenders.
· A tender matching your business closes in 6 days and nobody has opened it. It was published on 21/07 under a title containing none of your keywords.
· 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 tender closing in 6 days — how did it slip through?

Because your monitoring searches your words, and the buyer uses theirs.
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.
What I do not say: that you should bid. Six days is short for a complete file, and the decision depends on 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 missed on title
⛓ Source · notice of 21/07, tender rules, your references, 47 tenders this quarter

How did you spot all that? And who do you tell?

I continuously watch the sources you have opened to me: published notices, your live contracts and their end dates, your certificates and their dates, and your bid files.
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 or an isolated resource hosted in France.
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

Are we eligible for this tender?

I will not say so, and I will give you something better: what I could check and what I could not.
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, I lack the elements: a certification I cannot find in your documents, and a technical capacity expressed as dedicated headcount — which only you know you can mobilise.
Why I do not conclude: "eligible" is an assessment the buyer will make. A tool that says "you are eligible" makes you submit a bid on a conviction it manufactured, and the rejection arrives three months later.
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 without elements
⛓ Source · tender rules art. 5, your certificates, your references

The certificate expiring on 31/08 — is that blocking?

It expires eleven days before the submission date, and that is the kind of detail that gets a complete bid rejected.
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 is missing, not the list of dates. 4-certificates_cross-referenced.pdf11 days apart · art. 6.2 quoted
⛓ Source · certificate of 31/08, rules art. 6.2, 4 company certificates

Our 2019 contract retendered — how long do we have?

Thirty-four days, and this one is not like the other thirty-three.
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 on the outcome I say nothing: there is no roll-over here, the buyer chooses.
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

Two tenders on the same need — do we bid on both?

That is a commercial decision, and I give you what makes it easier.
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

Do you cover everything that is published?

No, and that is the most important question anyone can put to me.
What I cover: the sources you have opened to me — four publication platforms and two buyer feeds.
What I do not cover, and I say so: 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 says nothing about what nobody saw, and that is precisely what is missing.
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 blind spots named
✎ Framework · coverage 20/23 on the known — the unknown stays unknown

What do you keep out of all this?

What allows the monitoring to be retraced, and nothing that judges a decision not to bid.
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 only honest measure of what the monitoring returns, and it is uncomfortable: this quarter, 6 flagged tenders expired without the file being opened.
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% will not be opened, and it is in the rules — which nobody will have read — that the criterion suiting you was to be found.
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

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 the bidding cycle. All these uses work in support, subject to your approval.

Included in your agent The 3 capabilities essential to this promise are included, at no extra cost.

From 454 € excl. VAT / month

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.

Controls and safeguards These 3 controls are built into the agent: they frame what it does, whatever plan you pick. They are not chosen and are not added to your order.

Human validation, exceptions and escalation Status, safe closure and audit trail Record validations, conflicts of interest, criteria and decisions

What the agent must be connected to This connection is required for the agent to work. It concerns your information system and is scoped during the audit.

Link enquiry, order, goods receipt and invoice without double entry

Need to go further?

These agents handle a different business process, with their own owner and their own price. They are added to this one.

Tender responses

To build the bid itself, a dedicated agent assembles the documents.

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

General monitoring

For competitors and regulations, a dedicated monitoring agent completes the picture.

Watch agent (competitors, press, regulation) from 479 € excl. VAT / month Monitoring →

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 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.

Going through the publication platforms

Today · done by hand

Selection already filtered

Sorting the relevant invitations

Today · done by hand

Criteria applied

Picking up the deadlines

Today · done by hand

Deadline flagged

Indicative figures, not contractual, to be confirmed by a pilot on your number of sources and how detailed your criteria are. The decision to bid for an invitation, and the assessment of the qualifications required, belong to the bid manager.

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 tender monitoring agent (sources, criteria, alerts), installed and operated for you.

Agility

Setup + controlled subscription

3,360 € ^{excl. VAT} setup

then 454 € ^{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

644 € ^{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

6,555 € ^{excl. VAT} setup

then 654 € ^{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 business development

The contracts you target stay secretLocal inference or an isolated resource hosted in France; your search criteria are passed to no third party and are used to train no model.

Data in France, under French lawThe contracts you watch and your bid strategy: minimisation and location in France, architecture designed to reduce exposure to extraterritorial legislation, location alone not being enough to guarantee immunity.

The bid manager keeps the decisionThe agent produces qualified alerts, which can be checked and altered; no approval is automated.

Human oversight & traceabilityOn your number of sources and how detailed your criteria are: systematic logging and tracking, in line 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

What sources does the agent watch?

The ones you choose at the design stage — publication platforms, buyers' portals, sector sources. The agent keeps to them and does not change the scope by itself.

Does the agent decide whether we should bid?

No. It brings up the invitations that meet your criteria, with the deadline and the documents. The decision to bid commits your resources and your deadlines: it is yours.

How do I know why an invitation was set aside?

Every exclusion is grounded in the criterion that caused it. That way you can adjust your criteria if they turn out to be too restrictive, rather than finding a gap after the fact.

Does the agent check our qualifications?

It reports the qualifications required exactly as they appear in the tender rules. Matching them against your current authorisations remains a human judgement, because it bears on whether your bid is admissible.

Are our monitoring criteria confidential?

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. What you are looking for does not leave your premises.

How long does it take to deploy this agent?

A few weeks as a rule, depending on the number of sources to connect and how detailed your criteria are, after a free audit then a phase of design, integration and testing.

Related use cases

Other agents for business development

Tender responses →Assembling the bid Sales proposals →Outside public procurement Monitoring →Competitors and regulations

Let's talk

Let's size up the potential in your tender monitoring

15 minutes to frame your sources and your criteria — hosted in France, supervised, with no commitment.

Free audit (15 min) → Write to us