Carbon tools for construction sites:
two complementary roles in public procurement
In a public procurement process, the contracting authority defines the criteria, and the companies respond to them. Each stakeholder needs their own tool. This page explains how construction site carbon tools complement each other to structure a coherent tender package.
Two roles, two needs
In a public procurement process, the contracting authority (MOA) and the bidding companies intervene at different stages of the process, with distinct needs:
The project owner
- — Estimate the carbon footprint of the reference construction site
- — Formulate an objective criterion in the tender documents
- — Define the grading scale
- — Receive and compare candidates' assessments
- — Document the allocation decision
Candidate companies
- — Enter the data specific to their construction site
- — Calculate their construction site carbon footprint
- — Present the result in the expected format
- — Document the assumptions and factors used
- — Optimize their offering based on the carbon criterion
These two roles are not interchangeable. A project owner using a tool designed for candidates would lack the calibration and benchmarking functions. A company using a project owner tool would lack the input interfaces adapted to its operational data.
A complementary ecosystem
Several tools coexist today within the construction carbon ecosystem. Each addresses a specific need depending on the actor's position in the public procurement chain:
| Characteristic | Tools on the MOA side | Enterprise-side tools |
|---|---|---|
| User | Project owner, Project management assistance | Construction company, subcontractors |
| Main function | Preliminary assessment, criteria calibration, offer benchmarking | Data entry for the construction site, balance sheet calculation, reporting |
| Project phase | Programming, tender documents, bid analysis | Response to call for tenders, execution |
| Perimeter | Cross-sectional (all lots, all offers) | Specific to the candidate (their data, their scope) |
| Expected release | Calibrated DCE criteria, benchmark report | Carbon footprint assessment of the construction site, response document for the tender |
Efficarbone positions itself on the project owner's side. Other recognized tools—supported by professional construction federations—equip companies on the bidder's side. The two categories are not interchangeable: they are complementary.
How tools fit together in a market
In a public procurement process that incorporates a carbon construction criterion, the process naturally follows three stages:
This structure ensures that each stakeholder uses a tool suited to their role. The project owner does not replace companies in calculating their carbon footprint, and companies do not themselves calibrate the criterion they meet. It is this separation of roles that makes the construction site carbon criterion defensible in the event of legal action.
Frequently Asked Questions
The RE2020 allowances are national averages calibrated to simplify regulatory calculations. They do not reflect the actual conditions of the construction site: supply distance, energy mix, waste management. On a well-managed site, the actual measurement may be lower than the allowance.
Not necessarily. A construction site with distant suppliers or inadequate waste management can have emissions exceeding the target. Actual measurement is a factual observation, not an optimization. Its primary purpose is transparency and traceability.
Efficarbone is a tool designed for direct use by project owners and their project teams. The collection of site data (delivery notes, consumption) is integrated into the operational process. IRICE validates the results as a third party.
Structure your construction site carbon criterion
Efficarbone supports the project owner: preliminary baseline assessment, calibration of the DCE criterion, benchmarking of the offers received.