1. What the case law says
The case law on technical submissions has hardened steadily since 2010, when the highest administrative court was already rewarding a submission that was not stereotyped, arriving in 2024 at an unequivocal position: a generic submission is a ground for rejection, not merely for a poor mark.
| Decision | Principal holding | What it means for the assessor | Warning sign |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paris, 5 January 2024 | A submission "too general and insufficiently precise and specific" led to the tender being set aside; the contractor's experience was not enough | A buyer may legitimately reject a generic submission even from a well-regarded contractor | A submission with no reference to the project or the site justifies rejection |
| Marseille, 13 June 2025 | Failure to meet the requirements set for the submission made the tender irregular and annulled the procedure | Failing the formal and methodological requirements is an irregularity, not merely a poor mark | Required headings not addressed mean nil on that sub-criterion |
| Nantes, 5 February 2021 | A method statement "not well supported, giving no impression of great investment" scored nil on the sub-criterion | The quality of the effort is itself a criterion; a brief, unsupported submission can score nil | A very short submission with no detail makes a nil mark defensible |
| Bordeaux, 24 May 2018 | The absence of a detailed description, where the instructions required one, made the tender irregular | The instructions can impose a level of detail, and failing it is an irregularity | Format and heading requirements have to be followed to the letter |
| Marseille, 7 November 2016 | Environmental headings not addressed scored nil and the tender was eliminated | Missing a sub-criterion means an automatic nil on it | A checklist of the sub-criteria before submission is compulsory |
| Lyon, 30 April 2015 | A submission that merely presented the company, without saying how its resources suited this contract, scored poorly | Resources have to be tied explicitly to the contract, not to the company in general | "Our experienced team", with no detail, scores poorly |
| Highest court, 8 February 2010 | A method statement that was "not stereotyped", with provisions specific to the project, was recognised as technical merit | The court rewards statements containing provisions specific to the scheme | A submission referring to the site, the phasing and the constraints scores better |
| Highest court, 4 March 2011 | The absence of the required technical submission made the tender irregular | The submission is a compulsory document once the instructions require it | A missing or non-compliant submission means exclusion |
| European court, 20 September 2018 | A stated minimum technical mark was upheld; the directives do not prohibit minimum thresholds | A buyer may set an eliminating technical threshold if it is stated in the instructions | A technical score below the stated threshold means exclusion, however low the price |
| Poitiers, 6 October 2023 | Exceeding the page limit was not penalised, because legibility was unaffected | A formal overrun can be tolerated where the instructions provide no explicit sanction | Always state in the instructions that an overrun is an irregularity |
| Montreuil, 28 July 2023 | Exceeding the page limit by 30 % justified rejection, the limit set in the instructions serving an identifiable purpose | An overrun is sanctionable where it is significant and the limit serves a purpose | A marginal overrun is not the same thing as a 30 % one |
The two most recent decisions are also the most severe. They signal an underlying trend: the administrative courts now treat the requirement that a submission be specific as a substantive obligation, not a marking preference. For the economist drafting the report, every technical mark has to be justified by an explicit sentence showing that the assessment rested on the content of the submission, not on the contractor's reputation.
2. Why generic submissions persist
The tension between time pressure and the demand for tailoring explains why generic submissions survive. A mid-sized masonry contractor may answer 20 to 30 tenders a year, with production staff who are not professional writers.
Copying an old submission: an immediate time saving, but the headings do not match the current instructions, and the buyer spots it in seconds by comparing the two.
The brochure submission: a presentation of the company, its key figures and its certifications, with no link to the project at all. That document invariably scores low, sometimes fatally.
Not having read the specification: the writer has not read it, and it shows, because the submission never mentions the specific constraints of the project.
Answering a sub-criterion nobody asked for: the contractor develops at length an aspect that is not a sub-criterion in the instructions, at the expense of the ones that actually carry marks.
3. Model outlines by trade
| Package | Section 1 | Section 2 | Section 3 | Section 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concrete frame | Understanding the project: site particularities, ground, neighbours, geotechnical constraints | Method: the sequence for foundations, walls and floors, and handling the interfaces with the services packages | Staff: the site manager named with a CV, numbers per phase, the intervention programme | Environment and safety: concrete and steel waste, the pouring plan, noise and dust measures |
| Roof structure and covering | Understanding: the type of structure, site constraints, the interface with the waterproofing | Method: the sequence for the structure, placing the elements, the order of assembly, bracing | Resources: crane or platform with confirmed availability, the erection team, qualifications | Environment: removing timber offcuts, weather protection during erection, protective equipment |
| Aluminium joinery | Understanding: the type of joinery, the aesthetic constraints, the thermal performance required | Method: fabrication lead times, installation tolerances, the junction with the façade and the frame | Resources: the installation team, certified fabrication lead times, the system product data | Air and water tightness: the test protocol and the treatment of thermal bridges |
| Electrical | Understanding: the nature of the services, operating constraints in an occupied building, the interfaces | Method: cabling phased by floor, coordination with the drylining for conduits, commissioning tests | Resources: qualified electricians with their authorisations, test equipment, the commissioning programme | Electrical safety: the prevention plan, authorisations, isolations during the works |
| Mechanical services | Understanding: the system chosen, acoustic constraints, the energy standard applicable | Method: installing the plant, the ductwork, hydraulic balancing, commissioning and setting to work | Resources: certified technicians, refrigerant handling where relevant, flow and pressure measuring equipment | Performance: the commissioning protocol, flow tests, consumption measured against the performance target |
| Refurbishment masonry | Understanding: the nature of the existing masonry, the defects identified, whether the building is occupied | Method specific to refurbishment: propping, selective strip-out, the render renewal protocol, pointing mortars | Resources: references on comparable heritage work, an experienced site manager | Environment: dust control including asbestos where present, wash water, protecting neighbours |
These are starting points, not templates to copy. Each section has to be adapted to the specific requirements of the instructions and the specification for the contract in hand. The golden rule, confirmed by the case law: every section must contain an explicit reference to the project, the site or a constraint in the tender package, failing which it is treated as generic.
4. The wordings that make the difference
The difference between a submission marked 14 out of 20 and one marked 18 often comes down to precise wordings showing that the contractor has actually read the package and thought about this project.
Weak wordings to avoid
"Our experienced team": with no named site manager, no CV and no comparable reference, this is a warning sign.
"We will meet the contract period": with no programme, no critical path and no milestones, this is worthless.
"We have the necessary equipment": with no list and no confirmed availability, this is generic.
"Optimal quality, maximum responsiveness": unmeasurable promises, which assessors ignore.
Strong wordings to use
Staff, quantified: "The dedicated team comprises one site manager with twelve years of frame experience and a named comparable reference, three masons across the structural phase, and a contracts manager for part of his time. A technician can be mobilised within 48 hours for unforeseen situations."
Method tied to the project: "The concrete wall to the north stair core, shown on page 12 of the specification, will be poured in three lifts of 1,5 m to respect the maximum formwork pressure. We allow five days before striking, at an estimated average site temperature of 15 °C in March and April."
A measurable environmental commitment: "We segregate the concrete waste, taken to a facility four kilometres away, and the steel, taken to a local merchant. The target is 85 % of waste recovered, with monthly reporting to the design team. An environmental manager is appointed from commencement."
A programme with milestones: "The programme annexed shows site establishment at day nil, foundations starting at day 15, ground floor walls complete at day 45, first floor slab complete at day 70 and the frame handed over at day 90. The critical path runs through the walls, with the striking period included."
5. The buyer's marking grid
| Sub-criterion | Typical weight | What scores high | What scores low | Nil where |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding of the brief | 20–25 % | The submission names the project, refers to the specification, identifies the site constraints | It presents the company with no link to the project and no reference to the package | The submission is generic with no mention of the project |
| Method | 25–35 % | A detailed sequence with phasing, interfaces, milestones and an explicit critical path | A vague method, "we will proceed in accordance with good practice", with no detail | No method at all, or an identifiable copy |
| Staff | 15–20 % | The site manager named with a CV and comparable references, numbers per phase, a site organisation chart | Resources presented globally with no allocation to the project | Resources unspecified, or qualifications shown to be inadequate |
| Plant | 10–15 % | Specific equipment listed with availability confirmed, no critical reliance on hire | A generic list with no specification and no proof of availability | Equipment absent from the list or manifestly unsuited |
| Programme | 10–15 % | A programme with the critical path, interface milestones, and a duration at or below the contract period | Too summary, with no milestones, or a non-compliant duration | No programme, or a duration exceeding the contract period |
| Waste and environment | 5–10 % | Recycling routes identified with quantified commitments and a named environmental manager | A generic plan with no measurable commitment, a copied sheet | The sub-criterion not addressed at all |
ℹ The golden rule for the assessor: justify every mark with an explicit sentence For every sub-criterion and every candidate, the report should carry at least one sentence justifying the mark. For example: "On method, Candidate B scores 17 out of 20 because the submission describes the pouring sequence for the concrete walls precisely, with striking periods and a reference to the site constraints set out on page 12 of the specification." That sentence need not be long; it must show that the assessor relied on the content of the submission rather than on its general presentation. Without it, the mark is open to challenge.
6. Formal requirements the instructions can impose
The instructions can impose formal constraints on the submission, and failing them can make the tender irregular where the instructions say so explicitly. The recent decisions have clarified the rules.
Page count: a significant overrun can justify rejection where the limit set in the instructions serves an identifiable purpose; 30 % has been held sanctionable. Conversely, a presentational overrun that the buyer cannot show harms legibility does not justify rejection. Stating in the instructions both the purpose of the limit and the sanction protects the buyer either way.
File format: hyperlinks to external content are generally not taken into account in the marking, and their content is not treated as part of the submission.
Compulsory headings: where the instructions impose a response framework, every heading has to be addressed. Missing one scores nil on the corresponding sub-criterion.
Annexes: CVs of the supervisory staff, the programme, the site layout plan, material data sheets. Where the instructions require them, their absence scores nil or makes the tender irregular.
7. What the economist checks in the submission
On the buyer's side the economist usually handles the financial part of the report, but can also contribute to the technical assessment on the economically significant points.
Consistency between the pricing schedule and the submission: if the submission allows three masons over 90 days on a frame package worth 280 000 €, check it against the schedule; a frame of that size normally calls for five or six. The inconsistency may signal an abnormally low tender, or simply an error of drafting.
Build-ups against the submission: when analysing a possibly abnormal tender, the submission is read alongside the build-up of rates to check that the resources declared are consistent with the prices offered.
Programme against the contract period: the programme in the submission has to respect the contract period. One showing a longer duration is an irregularity, since the tender does not meet the requirements of the contract.
In summary
The 2024 case law is clear: a generic submission can justify rejecting a tender outright, not merely marking it down. The four fatal errors are an unadapted copy, unmeasurable promises, required headings left unaddressed, and a method with no link to the project. The strong wordings name the site manager with a CV, quantify the staff per phase, tie the method to the specification, set out a programme with milestones, and quantify the environmental commitments. The model outline runs in four sections per package: understanding the project, method, resources, environment and safety. The marking grid weights understanding at 20 to 25 %, method at 25 to 35 %, staff at 15 to 20 %, plant at 10 to 15 %, programme at 10 to 15 % and environment at 5 to 10 %. Every mark has to be justified by an explicit sentence. An eliminating technical threshold is lawful where the instructions state it.
The nature of the figures quoted
The percentages and amounts quoted on this page are orders of magnitude for framing, not measurements. They illustrate mechanisms and proportions, and they substitute neither for a tender exercise nor for an estimate prepared on drawings.
Articles liés
Sources: Conseil d'État 8 February 2010 no. 314075 (Commune de La Rochelle) · Conseil d'État 4 March 2011 no. 344197 (Région Réunion) · Administrative Court of Appeal of Lyon 30 April 2015 no. 13LY03397 · Marseille 7 November 2016 no. 14MA03839 · Bordeaux 24 May 2018 no. 16BX01333 · Court of Justice of the European Union 20 September 2018 case C-546/16 (Montte SL) · Nantes 5 February 2021 no. 19NT04272 · Administrative Court of Montreuil 28 July 2023 no. 2308306 · Poitiers 6 October 2023 no. 2302509 · Paris 5 January 2024 no. 2328772 · Marseille 13 June 2025 no. 2505789. The decisions are available on Légifrance and on the Court of Justice website.