The National Council of the Order of Architects in France has issued a strong warning against proposed changes to architecture competition requirements, following announcements made by the Prime Minister at the Mayors' Fair on November 20, 2025. The council argues that raising the threshold for mandatory architecture competitions would pose a major risk to the quality of public buildings and undermine a system that has protected elected officials and ensured project transparency for decades.
The competition process, enshrined in French law since 1977 and incorporated into the Public Procurement Code, represents one of the most robust mechanisms for guaranteeing quality in public projects. Rather than being merely a procedural requirement, these competitions create a space for informed comparison where multiple teams propose complete projects that are evaluated anonymously by juries comprising professionals, experts, elected officials, and technical services.
"The architecture competition is not an option; it is a long-term investment in construction quality that benefits public spending. At a time when every dollar counts, weakening it would be a strategic mistake," said Christophe Millet, president of the National Council of the Order of Architects. Under the current system, project owners don't simply choose an intention or methodological note – they select a complete project with plans, sketches, spatial organization, territorial integration, and cost estimates, which is essential for responsible and controlled decision-making.
The proposed threshold increase is being presented as a way to simplify procedures for local communities, and while this intention may seem legitimate, the consequences would be contrary to the stated objective. The current competition system provides substantial legal protection, as it follows a highly regulated, transparent, and anonymous procedure that generates very few legal disputes. In contrast, adapted procedure contracts, while more flexible, are also more vulnerable to challenges, compensation claims, and risks of illegal conflicts of interest in certain cases.
Raising the threshold would mechanically increase the share of the most contested procedures, creating greater legal uncertainty for public entities. Without competitions, elected officials lose crucial control over projects, as they would be purchasing methodology rather than actual architectural plans. This means no blueprints, no sketches, and no graphic documents to guide decision-making. Officials cannot see what will be built, cannot compare different responses, and cannot anticipate real costs.
The competition system offers elected officials a comprehensive vision, better anticipation of global costs, and shared, well-argued project analysis. Project management typically represents an average of 2% of the total cost over an equipment's lifetime, making the quality of team selection crucial – something only competitions can properly objectify. The process also strengthens democratic debate through pluralistic and well-argued juries, creating moments of public debate, confrontation of viewpoints, and citizen appropriation of projects.
Currently, architecture competitions fall under service contracts legally and depend on European service thresholds, which are revised every two years. Two thresholds are currently in effect: €221,000 excluding tax for 2024-2025, and €216,000 excluding tax for 2026-2027. Above these amounts, formalized procedures apply and competitions are mandatory, while below them, communities can use adapted procedures. Creating a specific threshold would essentially create a new legal category not provided for by European law, presenting a real risk of censure by the Council of State.
While the architectural profession supports making public procurement more fluid, readable, and better supported, simplification cannot mean weakening what currently guarantees project quality, the role of architectural design in decision-making processes, legal security, equal access to markets, and proper use of public funds. The debate is legitimate, but the consequences of raising the threshold would be profound and lasting.
The council is calling on architects to mobilize their elected officials, emphasizing that while competitions are tools the profession masters, some officials are still discovering their benefits. Architects play a decisive role in explaining what competitions actually ensure, why they protect both officials and projects, how they secure public spending, and what a retreat from this procedure would imply. The organization stresses that together, the profession must defend an essential tool serving local communities and maintaining the quality of public architecture.
