Payment delays by public buyers: employers' organizations remind the State of its duty to set an example

While the Rietmann bill on late payments seeks to introduce extremely severe, even disproportionate, sanctions for late payments by companies, it is unacceptable that delays by public contracting authorities should worsen so significantly and not be subject to any control or sanction regime.

In a demanding economic climate, marked by ever-increasing pressure on corporate cash flow, payment delays by public buyers are reaching alarming levels. Among the approximately 120.000 public buyers, many entities are accumulating delays whose frequency, duration (far exceeding legal limits), and amounts directly jeopardize the cash flow and long-term viability of companies holding public contracts.

Illegal practices that continue, including in a covert manner.

Whether they stem from organizational problems, are acknowledged, or are concealed, delays in public payments are illegal. Companies holding public contracts strive to pay their own suppliers and service providers within the legal deadlines, under penalty of sanctions from the DGCCRF (French Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control), and to continue meeting all their obligations. Yet, they have no visibility into their cash flow. Delays in public payments pose a direct risk to employment, investment, and the economic vitality of local areas.

Beyond the delays officially acknowledged by public authorities, organizations denounce practices aimed at artificially delaying the start of payment deadlines, particularly through unjustified invoice rejections in invoicing systems, notably the Chorus Pro platform. These "hidden delays," which escape statistical detection, significantly worsen the cash flow situation of businesses.

A major inconsistency in public action

While public authorities are legitimately calling on companies to set an example in their business relationships, particularly in times of crisis, the signatory organizations remind us that this requirement must also apply to the public sphere.

Concrete measures to restore fairness

Faced with this situation, employers' organizations are putting forward several key proposals:

• Review the basis for calculating the ceiling of the fine set at 1% of global turnover for non-compliance with payment deadlines between companies, the use of which should be more regulated (in particular by being subject to validation by the general management of the DGCCRF);
• Establish a control mechanism and a sanction regime for late payments by contracting authorities and, in the meantime, make it mandatory for the Court of Auditors and regional audit chambers to publish an annual report on payment delays by public actors, in order to ensure transparency and monitoring;
• Allow the holder of a public contract to terminate it in the event of non-payment, after a formal notice has remained unsuccessful for 30 days, with reimbursement by the public buyer of the costs incurred and compensation for damages suffered;
• Systematize the payment of advances in public procurement at appropriate and significant levels, as permitted by existing law;
• Make the automatic payment of default interest owed to companies effective;
• Allowing companies to offset unpaid debts from contracting authorities with their tax debts.

The exemplary conduct of the State, a condition for economic confidence

These measures aim to provide concrete guarantees to companies, regardless of the nature of the public contracts concerned, and to restore a relationship of trust essential to the proper functioning of the economy.

The signatory organizations call on the Government to take immediate and ambitious action commensurate with the challenges. In a context where France faces major challenges in terms of competitiveness, transition, and sovereignty, the public authorities must set an example.

Illustrative image of the article via Depositphotos.com.