Public procurement lawyer in Paris: challenge the rejection of a bid and obtain payment.

The rejection letter is not a mere formality. The buyer must notify its decision without delay to each rejected candidate or tenderer (Article R. 2181-1 of the Public Procurement Code). In a formal procedure, this notification states the reasons for the rejection; when it is sent after the award, it also gives the name of the successful bidder, the reasons that led to the choice of its bid and the date from which the buyer may sign (Article R. 2181-3 of the Public Procurement Code).

In an adapted procedure, the company obtains the reasons for the rejection on request, within fifteen days of its receipt; if its bid was not inappropriate, irregular or unacceptable, the buyer also communicates the characteristics and advantages of the successful bid and the name of the successful bidder (Article R. 2181-2 of the Public Procurement Code). In a formal procedure, the tenderer whose bid was not rejected on one of these grounds obtains, within the same period, the characteristics and advantages of the successful bid (Article R. 2181-4 of the Public Procurement Code).

A failure to provide information does not by itself lead to annulment. In a road works case, the Council of State held that late information, fifteen months after the call-for-tenders committee made its choice, was not in itself a breach, and that the reasons provided during the proceedings, sufficiently early before the order, deprived the ground of any effect; the company's application was dismissed (CE, 27 September 2024, No. 490697). The firm therefore first checks what is missing, then the time remaining to obtain it and make use of it.

The pre-contractual urgent application must be brought before the contract is concluded (Article L. 551-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice). No fixed period runs from the rejection letter: the limit is signature. In a formal procedure, however, the buyer may sign eleven days after the rejection notice is sent, sixteen days if it was not sent electronically (Article R. 2182-1 of the Public Procurement Code), except for a contract awarded to the only operator that took part or a contract based on a framework agreement (Article R. 2182-2 of the Public Procurement Code). For a contract awarded in an adapted procedure, this minimum period does not apply and signature may be quicker.

Referring the matter to the administrative court is not enough to protect the company if the buyer is unaware of it. The person bringing the action must notify the contracting authority, the notification being deemed made on receipt (Article R. 551-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice). From the moment the matter is referred, the contract may not be signed until the judge's decision is notified (Article L. 551-4 of the Code of Administrative Justice).

The Council of State has clarified that the suspension runs from receipt of a fax or an email sent to the competent department, even outside opening hours. A local authority that had signed on the very morning of such a communication was ordered to pay a penalty of €10,000 (CE, 27 May 2020, No. 435982). The firm therefore prepares the application and its notification together, for sending on the same day.

The judge may order the buyer to comply with its obligations, suspend the performance of any decision relating to the award, annul those decisions and strike out irregular clauses or requirements intended to appear in the contract (Article L. 551-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice). The judge rules in principle within twenty days and may not rule before the sixteenth day following the sending of the award decision, reduced to the eleventh day where it is sent electronically to all operators (Article R. 551-5 of the Code of Administrative Justice).

Annulment generally applies to the procedure from the stage at which the breach arose. In the Colas France case, the Council of State annulled the rejection of the bid and the procedure at the bid analysis stage, ordering the buyer to resume it at that stage if it intended to proceed (CE, 9 October 2026, No. 514694). In the Experis case, the procedure was annulled from the examination of applications, with an obligation to exclude the competitor in a conflict of interest (CE, 3 April 2026, No. 510005).

The judge does not award the contract to the applicant company and grants no compensation in this context. Only a company that had an interest in concluding the contract and is likely to be harmed by the breach may bring the action (Article L. 551-10 of the Code of Administrative Justice). The firm therefore formulates claims limited to what the judge can order, and reserves the question of damages for another procedure.

An abnormally low bid is one whose price is manifestly underestimated and likely to jeopardise proper performance of the contract (Article L. 2152-5 of the Public Procurement Code). Before rejecting it, the buyer must require clarifications and justifications (Article L. 2152-6 of the Public Procurement Code). The justifications may relate to the method of performance, technical solutions, exceptionally favourable conditions or the originality of the bid (Article R. 2152-3 of the Public Procurement Code).

The defence is prepared from the request for justification. In the Colas France case, the buyer relied mainly on comparison with the other bids, without producing the basis of its estimated bills of quantities, whereas the company had broken down the prices queried and produced quotes: the Council of State held the rejection to be vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and annulled the procedure at the bid analysis stage (CE, 9 October 2026, No. 514694).

The opposite outcome is also possible. In the Eurofins case, prices three to four times lower than those of the same company a few years earlier were justified only by a pooling of collection rounds held to be ineffective; the Council of State upheld the rejection of the bid and dismissed the company's application, recalling that the urgent applications judge reviews only for manifest error (CE, 23 December 2025, No. 507574). The firm helps the company to reply point by point, with quantified and verifiable price breakdowns.

No, not as such. The buyer may define its scoring method for each of the published criteria. The judge in pre-contractual urgent proceedings does not rule on the assessment of the value of a bid or on the respective merits of the bids, which rules out a simple discussion of the scores obtained (CE, 24 November 2023, No. 473674).

Two grounds remain useful. First, a scoring method is irregular if the elements taken into account have no connection with the criteria, or if the way those elements are combined deprives the criteria of their effect or neutralises their weighting. Second, the judge checks that the buyer has not distorted a bid by disregarding or manifestly altering its terms. The Council of State set out these rules in a case concerning self-service bicycles in Saint-Malo, where it annulled the order that had reconstructed the technical score of the excluded bidder, then dismissed its application: scores with decimals reflecting verbal assessments on a five-point scale did not, in themselves, make the method irregular (CE, 24 November 2023, No. 473674).

Criticism of a scoring therefore requires the grids, the weighting of the sub-criteria and the analysis report. The firm relies on this ground only where a precise discrepancy between the bid and its scoring can be demonstrated, with supporting documents, and where it may have harmed the company, even indirectly by favouring a competitor, which is what the judge in pre-contractual urgent proceedings looks for (CE, 23 December 2025, No. 507574).

The buyer rejects irregular, unacceptable or inappropriate bids (Article L. 2152-1 of the Public Procurement Code). A bid is irregular if it does not comply with the requirements of the consultation documents, in particular because it is incomplete, or if it breaches the applicable legislation (Article L. 2152-2 of the Public Procurement Code).

The rule has a useful exception. In a cleaning contract in Martinique, the judge in contractual urgent proceedings had refused to examine the irregularity of the successful bidder's bid on the ground that the applicant's bid was itself irregular. The Council of State overturned this reasoning: the irregularity of the excluded competitor's bid does not prevent it from relying on that of the successful bidder, in particular where it stems from an abnormally low price. It annulled the lot concerned, whose price was more than 60 % below the buyer's estimate (CE, 27 May 2020, No. 435982).

The firm therefore first checks the regularity of the company's bid, then that of the successful bid. Where both pose a difficulty, the irregularity of the successful bidder can still be invoked, alongside the other grounds that the judge in contractual urgent proceedings may penalise, such as a signature made during the suspension (Article L. 551-20 of the Code of Administrative Justice).

Once the contract has been concluded, the judge in contractual urgent proceedings may be seised (Article L. 551-13 of the Code of Administrative Justice). This route is not open to a company that has already brought a pre-contractual urgent application where the buyer respected the suspension and complied with the decision given (Article L. 551-14 of the Code of Administrative Justice). It must be brought no later than the thirty-first day following publication in the OJEU of an award notice or, for a contract based on a framework agreement or a dynamic purchasing system, notification of its conclusion; failing that, within six months from the day after conclusion (Article R. 551-7 of the Code of Administrative Justice).

The judge declares the contract null where the required publicity or publication in the OJEU was entirely absent, and in certain cases of premature signature that deprived the company of the pre-contractual urgent application and affected its chances (Article L. 551-18 of the Code of Administrative Justice). Where the contract was signed before the required period expired or during the suspension, the judge may also terminate it, shorten its term or impose a financial penalty (Article L. 551-20 of the Code of Administrative Justice).

The sanctions linked to premature signature presuppose that the suspension period applied; nullity for lack of required publicity does not depend on it (Article L. 551-18 of the Code of Administrative Justice). The Council of State dismissed an architect's action against a design-management contract concluded after a restricted contest, that contract not being subject to the period in Article R. 2182-1, even though the municipality had set itself a period that it did not observe (CE, 13 March 2025, No. 498701). The firm therefore first checks the applicable procedure.

Beyond the contractual urgent application, the excluded competitor may bring a full-jurisdiction action before the contract judge challenging the validity of the contract or of certain severable clauses, where appropriate combined with claims for damages. This action must be brought within two months of appropriate publicity measures, in particular a notice stating the conclusion of the contract and how it may be consulted (CE, 19 July 2023, No. 465308).

Without sufficient publicity, the action remains subject to a reasonable period from the time the contract became known. In the Seateam aviation case, the Council of State confirmed that an action brought almost five years after an award notice stating the subject of the contract and the parties was out of time, the court having applied a period of one year (CE, 19 July 2023, No. 465308). The company's application was dismissed.

The grounds are limited. Apart from defects of public policy, the excluded competitor may rely only on breaches of the award rules directly related to its exclusion. The Council of State nevertheless overturned a court that had dismissed, for a company whose bid was regular, the complaint based on the irregular performance periods in the successful bidder's bid: that breach was directly related to the exclusion (CE, 21 July 2022, No. 456472). The firm selects grounds with regard to that link.

Yes, where the irregularity of the procedure directly caused the loss. The judge first examines whether the candidate had no chance at all of winning the contract: in that case, no compensation is due. Otherwise, the candidate is entitled to reimbursement of the costs of preparing the bid. If the candidate had a serious chance of winning the contract, it is compensated for its loss of profit, which includes those costs, unless the buyer abandons the contract for a reason of general interest (CE, 2 December 2019, No. 423936).

The loss of profit must be certain. For a catering contract concluded for twelve months, renewable twice, the Council of State limited the compensation to the initial period, possible renewals not being certain; the award was reduced to 66,666.66 euros (CE, 2 December 2019, No. 423936).

The assessment of chances is concrete. In the Vert Marine case, a court had held that the company had no chance at all because of the lower value of its bid and its reservations about the project. The Council of State annulled that judgment: once the successful bidder's irregular bid was set aside, that of Vert Marine, whose regularity was not disputed, was the only one left (CE, 12 February 2026, No. 501708). The firm reconstructs the ranking and quantifies the margin from the company's accounts.

Yes. The buyer may exclude a candidate whose application creates a conflict of interest that cannot be remedied by other means. A conflict of interest exists where a person who takes part in the procedure, or may influence its outcome, has a financial, economic or personal interest likely to compromise their impartiality or independence (Article L. 2141-10 of the Public Procurement Code).

The Council of State applied this to a framework agreement for IT services. The managing director of the buyer's project-management support company was the spouse of the head of one of the tenderers. That company had visited the candidates' premises and read the bids. The judge found a conflict of interest, held that the failure to exclude was a breach likely to harm the competitor, annulled the procedure at the examination of applications and ordered the exclusion of the tenderer concerned (CE, 3 April 2026, No. 510005).

Other exclusions are possible, for example against a company that, during the previous three years, had to pay damages or was penalised by termination for a serious or persistent breach of its obligations in performing an earlier public procurement contract (Article L. 2141-7 of the Public Procurement Code). The firm examines these links from public documents and information obtained in the procedure, without speculation about individuals.

The period provided for in the contract may not exceed the regulatory period (Article L. 2192-10 of the Public Procurement Code), set at thirty days in principle (Article R. 2192-10 of the Public Procurement Code), at fifty days for public health establishments and at sixty days for certain public enterprises (Article R. 2192-11 of the Public Procurement Code). This period runs in principle from receipt of the payment request by the buyer or, depending on the contract, by the project manager (Article R. 2192-12 of the Public Procurement Code); for the balance of a works or design-management contract, it runs from receipt of the final general statement of account (Article R. 2192-16 of the Public Procurement Code), and it may be interrupted once if the request is incomplete or incorrect (Article R. 2192-27 of the Public Procurement Code).

From the day after the due date, the delay automatically triggers late-payment interest and gives entitlement to a fixed allowance for recovery costs (Article L. 2192-13 of the Public Procurement Code). The rate is that of the European Central Bank's most recent main refinancing operations, in force on the first day of the calendar half-year in which the interest began to run, plus eight percentage points (Article R. 2192-31 of the Public Procurement Code). Interest runs until the principal is paid (Article R. 2192-32 of the Public Procurement Code) and the fixed allowance is 40 euros (Article D. 2192-35 of the Public Procurement Code).

The firm calculates interest invoice by invoice.

The urgent applications judge may award an interim payment to the creditor, even without a claim on the merits, where the existence of the obligation is not seriously contestable; the judge may make payment subject to a guarantee (Article R. 541-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice). This route suits an accepted invoice, a settled balance or late-payment interest calculated on undisputed dates.

An application seeking payment of a sum of money is in principle admissible only after the administration has made a decision on a prior claim; the two-month time limit for challenge does not apply to measures taken to perform a contract (Article R. 421-1 of the Code of Administrative Justice). The prior claim must therefore be sent and quantified before any referral to the court on the merits.

In a works contract, the closing of accounts follows the provisions of the CCAG to which the contract refers. Under the 2014 CCAG Works, the Council of State held that a tacit general statement of account could not arise if the draft final statement had been sent only to the project owner, without transmission to the project manager; the company's appeal on a point of law was dismissed (CE, 25 June 2018, No. 417738). The firm checks the applicable version of the CCAG and the recipients of each communication before arguing that a receivable is established.

A direct subcontractor that has been accepted, and whose payment terms have been approved by the buyer, is paid directly by the buyer for the part of the contract it performs, and any waiver of this direct payment is deemed unwritten (Article L. 2193-11 of the Public Procurement Code). The direct payment threshold is set at 600 euros including all taxes, except for certain defence contracts (Article R. 2193-10 of the Public Procurement Code).

The choice of court is decisive. The Court of Cassation has held that "disputes relating to the direct payment to the subcontractor, by the delegated project owner, of the price of works carried out under a public works contract, which, not concerning the performance of a private-law agreement between the parties, require an assessment of the conditions in which a contract for the carrying out of public works was performed, fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative court" (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 25 April 2024, No. 22-22.912); it declared the judicial courts to lack jurisdiction over the subcontractor's claim.

The assignment of receivables follows a distinct rule. Notification of an assignment or pledge under a public contract is sent to the public accountant responsible for payment named in the contract (Article R. 2191-55 of the Public Procurement Code), in the form laid down by Article R. 313-17 of the Monetary and Financial Code (Code monétaire et financier). The Court of Cassation holds that the latter provision "applies only to assignments of receivables held against public-law legal entities" (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 8 December 2021, No. 20-16.152); as the assigned debtor was the main contractor, the assignment did not have to be notified to the accountant, and that company's appeal on a point of law was dismissed.