The preliminary operations for acceptance (POA) concentrate a significant part of the tensions between project owners, project managers, and construction companies. The regulatory framework, particularly Article 41 of the CCAG-Travaux 2021, sets deadlines and a precise procedure for this phase. The question remains whether field practices truly follow this framework.
Contractual deadlines for POA: what CCAG-Travaux 2021 actually imposes
In public contracts that refer to it, the CCAG-Travaux 2021 establishes a strict timeline. The project manager has 20 days after the notice of completion from the contractor to carry out the preliminary operations. The project owner then has 30 days from the minutes to notify their acceptance decision.
This sequence appears clear on paper. In practice, it assumes that the notice of completion is issued on a specific date and that the project manager is available within the allotted window. Field feedback varies on this point: some sites see the POA postponed due to a lack of coordination, with the contractor finding it difficult to contest the schedule shift.
The issue is not only procedural. A delay in the POA pushes back the acceptance decision, thus delaying the commencement of legal guarantees and the payment of the balance. Integrating these deadlines into the contractual planning, rather than treating them as a mere end-of-site formality, remains an underutilized lever, as detailed in this practical guide on Avis de Travaux regarding the optimization of POA.
Acceptance lot by lot: a strategy to isolate responsibilities
The acceptance of the site can be pronounced company by company, and not necessarily in a single global operation. This possibility changes the game in terms of managing reservations.
During a global acceptance, a reservation noted on a work can be vaguely attributed to several lots. The plumber contests the responsibility for a waterproofing defect that the tiler believes is related to the installation, and the dispute becomes stuck. Accepting lot by lot allows for clear identification of the responsible party for each reservation.
This approach also has an effect on the cash flow of companies. Each lot accepted without reservation releases the corresponding market balance, without waiting for the entire site to be completed. For the project owner, it is a more targeted means of pressure: only the failing lot has its payment suspended.
Limits of partial acceptance
Lot by lot acceptance is not suitable for all projects. In a work where interactions between trades are numerous (an equipped kitchen that depends on electricity, plumbing, and carpentry simultaneously), isolating responsibilities remains delicate. The available data does not allow for a conclusion that one method is systematically superior to the other.
Formalization of the lifting of reservations: the trap of oral acknowledgment
A reservation made during the POA has legal value only if it is included in a written report. This principle, widely accepted, faces a reality: the lifting of reservations is still often done informally.
The classic scenario is as follows. The company returns to correct the defect, the project manager visually confirms the correction, and everyone leaves. No document formalizes the acceptance of the correction. A few weeks later, the project owner contests the quality of the correction, and the absence of a written acknowledgment keeps the file legally open.
To avoid this scenario, the lifting of each reservation should be subject to a report signed by the parties, no matter how brief. The elements to be included are:
- The precise reference of the initial reservation (number, location in the work, concerned lot)
- The date of the verification visit and the identity of the present individuals
- The explicit mention of the acceptance or refusal of the correction, with reasons in case of refusal
This formality adds time to the procedure, but it cuts short any subsequent disputes.
Perfect completion guarantee and post-acceptance reservations: two distinct regimes
A common confusion is to think that an acceptance without reservation ends all possibility of claims. This is not the case. Defects that appear after acceptance fall under the perfect completion guarantee if they are notified in writing within one year following acceptance.
The distinction is as follows:
- Apparent defects not reported during acceptance are deemed accepted by the project owner. The transfer of risk is established
- Disorders that manifest after acceptance (gradual infiltration, cracks appearing over the months) can still be reported during the first year
- Beyond this year, only the two-year and ten-year guarantees cover damages, depending on their nature
For the project owner, the stakes of the POA are therefore twofold. It is about identifying visible defects at the time of the visit, but also anticipating disorders that may evolve. A minor defect not reserved can become a structural damage once the building is in use.
Written notification within one year
The perfect completion guarantee requires written notification. A phone call or an email exchange without acknowledgment of receipt does not always constitute sufficient proof. In contrast, a registered letter or a bailiff’s report fixes the date and content of the notification in an opposable manner.
The documentary rigor applied to the POA should continue throughout the entire first year post-acceptance. The initial report, dated photos, and formalized exchanges constitute a coherent file in case of dispute. Without this continuity, the project owner finds themselves in a position of weak proof against a company that contests the existence or prior nature of the disorder.
