Photo: Maksimsokolov (CC BY-SA 4.0)
During her hearing before the Senate’s Cultural Affairs Committee, Laurence des Cars explained that the security work "requires considerable time for analysis and diagnostics". These works are indeed "subject to the ’complex and slow’ procedures of public procurement".
The slowness of these procedures, which is said to justify the delays at the museum — an explanation endorsed by the Minister of Culture — is nothing but a joke...
An excellent comment on the article recently published by Le Figaro on this matter, which notes, among other things, that "The Louvre committed an administrative offence" by failing to renew the authorisation for the few (ineffective, as we have seen) cameras placed on its façades, deserves to be quoted [1]:
"Public procurement is the same as private procurement. There is simply a requirement for prior publicity for one month for large contracts. But anyone who has set foot in a company knows that a contract worth several million euros is not awarded at the snap of a finger. The reality is that the Louvre’s management neglected for four years to initiate the contracts that would have allowed the museum to be equipped with security systems worthy of the name, even though it houses works worth tens of billions of euros on the art market. And the Louvre’s procurement department is incompetent. All they had to do was conclude framework agreements in advance and then place an order as soon as they were given the green light and the funds. Or even invoke the urgency that would justify awarding contracts without prior competition. Having a treasure worth tens of billions of euros protected less well than a neighbourhood jeweller’s would have allowed them to do so. In short, nothing justifies this failure: four years without even deciding to initiate the essential contracts when they have more than enough budget to do so is negligence so serious that it justifies dismissing those responsible."
So, is the alleged slowness of these procedures due to that minimum one month of publicity? We understand that, when it comes to public procurement, it is essential to have a large number of bids for maximum competition. What can take time is defining the requirements, via a solid specification, which takes even longer when the contract is complex — but this is a constraint known to both the private and public sectors.
If public procurement took so much time, we would like to know why the three projects of the President of the Republic — which we have contested in our columns since they were launched — were able to move so quickly.
Take, for example, the stained glass windows of Notre-Dame. The online tender notice was published on 11 April 2024, bids were to be submitted by 24 May 2024, the selection of the shortlist was set for 4 November 2024, the winner was chosen on 18 December 2024, and the contract was awarded on 25 January 2025. Nine months in total, and even then, the ministry took its time, not because of mandatory procedures, but because it was an artistic competition that was, moreover, highly controversial.
For the additional study on the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry to England — which involves determining how to transport it over a long distance without damaging it, no small feat — the call for tenders was published on 4 August 2025, and the winner was to be chosen in October, a mere three months later. The study is due in January, and the tapestry is set to leave for London in June, so it goes without saying that the contract for its transport will not take any less time!
Finally, let us return to the Louvre with "Nouvelle Renaissance", a project so dear to Emmanuel Macron’s heart, like the previous two. This time, it is a massive project involving the entire Louvre, including architectural work to create: a new main entrance — with all the necessary facilities (reception, cloakroom, catering, etc.) — exhibition halls, and a room dedicated to the Mona Lisa.
This project is being carried out at such speed that the specifications were rushed in two months (see our article). The consultation file for the architectural competition was posted online on 27 June 2025, and the winner will be chosen in January 2026. The process will therefore take about six to seven months before the contract is awarded.
For projects harmful to heritage but supported by the President of the Republic, there is apparently no problem in moving quickly — sometimes too quickly.
On the other hand, when it comes to the security of the Louvre — "an absolute urgency", to borrow the words of the museum’s president —there is all the time in the world.
The figures, indeed, are telling. At the end of the 2000s, between 2006 and 2008, €47.9 million (payment commitment) was allocated to security, the equivalent of around €62 million today, accounting for inflation. That is €20 million per year. Between 2018 and 2024 — seven years, including three years and four months under Laurence des Cars’ presidency — this amount rose to €39.4 million, or €5.6 million per year, which can be rounded up to €6 million (there has been inflation over these seven years), almost four times less than at the end of the 2000s. And this covers all security for the works, including fire protection. Assuming the amount remained constant between the final years of Jean-Luc Martinez’s presidency and those of Laurence des Cars (in reality, it seems to have decreased), barely €20 million was spent in three years, which can be increased to €24 million since she took over at the Louvre, only part of which was dedicated to security against theft.
Let us recall that this is not even a question of funding: since taking the helm of the Louvre, she has benefited, in addition to the regular budgets, from €312 million paid between 2022 and 2024 [2]
As the Director General of Heritage, Jean-François Hébert, rightly said yesterday before the Senate (see this article in Le Figaro): "The multitude of investment projects launched simultaneously (by the Louvre) may have overshadowed the priority nature of the measures to be implemented in this particular area of asset security." If even her oversight body is abandoning Laurence des Cars... But never mind: it’s the fault of public procurement!