Tender Monitoring: Key Differences Between France and International Markets

Tender monitoring has become a strategic lever for companies operating in the energy, infrastructure, mobility, and environmental sectors. However, the realities of tender monitoring differ profoundly depending on whether the focus is on France or on international markets.

Contrary to a widespread assumption, there is no universal solution capable of providing a fully exhaustive view of public procurement markets country by country at a global scale. Differences in language, administrative structures, levels of decentralization, regulatory frameworks, and sheer data volume make such an objective virtually impossible to achieve.

This article provides a pragmatic analysis of the fundamental differences between tender monitoring in France and international tender monitoring, with the objective of helping companies make informed strategic choices and structure a realistic, efficient monitoring approach aligned with their operational capabilities.

‍

1. Tender Monitoring: A Major Difference in Data Volume Between France and International Markets

‍

The first key difference between France and international markets lies in the volume and dispersion of information.

In France, tender monitoring relies on a relatively structured ecosystem. Although complex, this ecosystem remains understandable and navigable. It is based on national platforms, regional platforms, contracting authority buyer profiles, standardized regulatory publications, and relatively homogeneous administrative documents.

At the international level, the situation is fundamentally different. Implementing an exhaustive tender monitoring system would require, for each country, tracking multiple national platforms, regional or municipal portals, distinct legal frameworks, multiple languages, and administrative systems that are often highly decentralized.

Moreover, tender monitoring does not only concern published procurement notices. A comprehensive monitoring strategy also includes contract award notices, decisions issued by local or regional authorities, administrative authorizations, and early indicators that signal the future emergence of public projects.

At an international scale, the volume of data to be collected, interpreted, and maintained quickly becomes immense. As a result, it is unrealistic to claim that all administrative layers in all countries can be monitored in depth using a single, generalized solution.

Beyond the geographical dimension, the differences between France and international markets also lie in the tender monitoring methodology. Many companies attempt to apply the same practices internationally as they do in France, relying on manual tender monitoring or filters based solely on CPV codes. However, as explained in our article “Manual tender monitoring versus automated monitoring: real gains, limits and trade-offs”, this approach quickly reaches its limits as soon as the number of sources increases, languages multiply and publications become more heterogeneous. Similarly, relying exclusively on CPV codes, as detailed in “CPV codes: how to use them to effectively identify relevant tenders”, can lead to missed opportunities, particularly when contracting authorities use approximate classifications or apply different coding practices from one country to another. This is especially true for tenders related to digital services, web platforms and website development, where a single project may be classified under several different codes or descriptions. In this context, only a structured monitoring approach—combining semantic analysis, source aggregation and domain expertise—makes it possible to reliably identify relevant tenders, both in France and internationally.

‍

2. Why Ultra-Granular Tender Monitoring Must Rely on Country-Specific Local Solutions

‍

For companies seeking a very detailed and exhaustive tender monitoring approach in a specific country, the most effective option remains the use of a local, country-specific monitoring solution, operating in the local language and designed for the national procurement ecosystem.

For example, a company aiming to comprehensively cover Germany would face significant limitations if relying solely on an international monitoring platform. Capturing all German public tenders, including highly localized municipal contracts, through a generalist international solution is not realistic.

Local national platforms are inherently designed to offer greater granularity, deeper understanding of the regulatory framework, more comprehensive coverage of local contracting authorities, and more accurate interpretation of documents in the original language. This logic applies to all countries without exception.

When a market is strategic and a company aims to develop a long-term presence in a specific country, relying on a local tender monitoring solution is often unavoidable. International platforms cannot reach the same level of precision in every country because such depth cannot be replicated globally at scale.

This reasoning is even more relevant for highly territorialized sectors such as sorting centers, non-hazardous waste and composting facilities or recycling activities These tenders are by nature extremely local: they are often issued by municipalities, inter-municipal authorities or waste management syndicates, and published on regional platforms or on the contracting authorities’ own buyer profiles. In this type of case, a general international tender monitoring approach is of limited relevance, as it does not provide the level of granularity required. To effectively identify these opportunities, it is far more relevant to rely on a national tender monitoring platform capable of covering all French sources, centralizing local and regional publications, and offering exhaustive visibility on these proximity-based markets. These are precisely the types of sectors where deep national coverage makes a decisive difference.

‍

‍

3. International Tender Monitoring: A Feasible but Necessarily Targeted Approach

‍

Conversely, it is entirely possible and often highly relevant to implement an international tender monitoring strategy, provided that its objectives and limitations are clearly understood.

Effective international monitoring typically focuses on tenders published by major public buyers, large utilities, national operators, reference national platforms, and international funding institutions. In this context, a solution capable of aggregating, for each country, the main national entry points and major public buyers can provide a coherent and strategic overview of significant opportunities.

This approach does not aim for local exhaustiveness. Instead, it focuses on identifying large-scale, high-impact tenders that are generally open to international competition and present genuine strategic value for foreign companies.

‍

‍

‍

4. International Tender Monitoring and Business Reality: The Ability to Respond

‍

One frequently underestimated aspect of international tender monitoring concerns the company’s actual ability to respond to the opportunities identified.

For instance, a French company identifying a highly localized tender in Hungary for roof refurbishment or photovoltaic installation on a municipal building is unlikely to be competitive. Such contracts are usually designed for local players, drafted in the local language, and characterized by strong territorial competition.

International tender monitoring becomes meaningful when companies are capable of positioning themselves on international tenders, large-scale projects, funding-backed contracts, or projects requiring highly specialized expertise. In these cases, competition is not limited to local actors, and international participation is both expected and viable.

It is precisely under these conditions that international tender monitoring delivers its highest value, enabling companies to identify projects where their expertise and positioning provide a real competitive advantage.

‍

5. France Versus International Markets: Maximum Depth Versus Global Coverage

‍

The fundamental difference between France and international markets therefore lies in the level of precision accessible to companies.

In France, companies can realistically access tenders of all sizes, monitor national, regional, and local procurement notices, analyze projects at an early stage, and participate in highly detailed and structured procurement procedures.

At the international level, monitoring generally provides access to the most visible and structurally significant tenders. This limitation is not problematic in practice, as foreign companies are rarely competitive or operationally positioned to respond to ultra-local tenders in every country. International monitoring is therefore inherently selective.

‍

6. The Central Role of Funding Institutions in International Tender Monitoring

‍

A critical component of international tender monitoring concerns projects financed by major international funding institutions. These tenders often represent the most accessible and strategically relevant opportunities for foreign companies.

Such projects are typically published on international platforms, open to international competition, standardized in structure, and drafted in commonly used working languages. For many companies, these tenders constitute the core value proposition of international monitoring strategies.

‍

7. Structuring a Tender Monitoring Strategy: France, International, or Both

‍

In practice, an effective monitoring strategy often relies on a dual-level approach.

This involves implementing a highly granular and in-depth monitoring system for France, combined with a targeted international monitoring strategy focused on major tenders and structurally significant projects.

To better understand the French framework, the article “How to use BOAMP to identify public procurement notices” provides a detailed explanation of the role of national platforms and their limitations. For international strategies, particularly in specific regions, the article “How to identify international energy tenders in Africa” offers a highly operational perspective.

This approach is particularly relevant for transversal sectors such as transport and mobility, water, sanitation and hydraulics, and environmental projects.

‍

Conclusion: A Differentiated France–International Approach Is Essential

‍

Tender monitoring cannot be approached in the same way in France and internationally. In France, it is both possible and strategically sound to conduct very deep analysis, covering tenders, calls for expressions of interest, calls for projects, contract awards, early-stage signals from local authorities, municipal council deliberations, state-level information, opinions issued by regional environmental authorities, regulatory agency notices, and building permits.

At the international level, exhaustive monitoring at all administrative layers is unrealistic. However, a targeted approach focused on major international tenders, large public buyers, and funding-backed projects is both feasible and highly effective.

It is precisely within this framework that a solution such as Deepbloo becomes particularly relevant. Deepbloo enables deep and comprehensive monitoring in France by aggregating all key public procurement and upstream information, while also offering strong international coverage, particularly in Europe and Africa, by consolidating major international tender platforms.

This dual approach allows companies to build a realistic, efficient tender monitoring strategy aligned with their operational capabilities and long-term development ambitions.

‍