Apprenticeship centres (CFA): subcontracting apprentice training — agreements, UFA and responsibilities

A CFA (apprenticeship training centre) does not have to do everything itself. The French Labour Code lets it entrust all or part of the teaching to an educational establishment, a training organisation or even a company — the agreement regime of Article L. 6232-1, of which the UFA is the most structured form. But beware: delegating the teaching delegates neither the responsibility nor the quality compliance. Here is how to build the arrangement properly.

What Article L. 6232-1 allows

The provision is remarkably flexible: an apprenticeship training centre may conclude an agreement with educational establishments, training organisations or companies “under which the latter provide all or part of the teaching normally delivered” by the centre, and make teaching or accommodation facilities available.

The counterpart is just as clear: CFAs “retain pedagogical and administrative responsibility for the teaching delivered”. In other words, whatever the arrangement, it is the CFA that answers for the teaching progression, apprentice follow-up, and relations with employers and funders. The partner delivers; the CFA steers and assumes. It is the same logic as classic training subcontracting, transposed to apprenticeship.

The UFA: the institutionalised form of partnership

When the partnership with an educational establishment is long-term, the natural framework is the apprenticeship training unit (UFA — unité de formation par apprentissage), provided for by Article L. 6233-1 of the Labour Code: the CFA’s teaching is delivered in a unit created within the partner establishment, on the basis of an agreement.

Articles R. 6233-1 and R. 6233-2 frame that agreement: it is concluded for at least the duration of the training cycle and organises, among other things, apprentice recruitment, numbers and the teaching resources deployed. In practice, the UFA is the standard arrangement for vocational high schools or colleges that “carry” apprenticeship programmes backed by a CFA.

Alongside the UFA, the “simple” agreement of Article L. 6232-1 remains suited to more targeted delegations: a technical module entrusted to a specialised organisation, a technical facility provided by a company, a general subject taught by a neighbouring establishment.

Qualiopi: who must be certified in the arrangement?

The principle is clear for the CFA: to receive apprenticeship funding, it must be certified for the “apprenticeship training” category of actions — that is the point of its Qualiopi certification, including the CFA-specific indicators of the framework.

For the partner under an agreement, no provision explicitly requires separate certification where the CFA remains the holder of the contracts and funding. The sector’s prevailing reading treats the partner as a subcontractor: its quality is checked at the CFA’s level, through indicator 27 — criteria-based selection, a written agreement, evaluation of the services. Caution, though: if the partner carries courses and funding in its own name, it falls back into the ordinary rules and owes its own certification. For an atypical set-up, ask your certification body before the audit rather than during it.

Note, finally, that the August 2026 reform of the framework (33 indicators, applicable from 1 November 2026) strengthens the traceability of subcontractors’ compliance in contracts: your L. 6232-1 and UFA agreements will need to spell out the quality requirements explicitly.

Steering quality at the partner’s end: what the auditor looks at

Concretely, a CFA that delegates teaching must be able to show:

• selection: why this partner (trainers’ skills, technical facilities, past results);
• the agreement: scope of the teaching, hours, resources, apprentice follow-up arrangements, quality obligations, articulation with the apprenticeship standards;
• pedagogical follow-up: progression, attendance, a completed apprentice logbook, escalation of difficulties — the retained pedagogical responsibility must be visible in practice;
• partner evaluation: periodic reviews, surveys of apprentices and employers, corrective actions.

Research on apprenticeships confirms that quality is decided in the concrete organisation of the pathway: the study by Fuller and Unwin published in 2003 in the Journal of Education and Work (see the study) shows that “expansive” environments (genuine access to structured training, variety of situations, recognised learner status) produce markedly richer learning than “restrictive” ones. On the outsourcing side, Gainey and Klaas (2003, Journal of Management — see the study) establish that satisfaction with outsourced training rests first on the relationship and the contract — trust, communication, specified expectations — more than on content alone. Two findings that describe exactly the job of a delegating CFA: organising the pathway and steering the relationship.

What the agreement must organise, point by point

Whether it is a simple L. 6232-1 agreement or a UFA agreement, the essential sections are the same:

• scope: diplomas or titles concerned, teaching entrusted, hours, training locations;
• resources: trainers deployed (with qualifications), technical facilities, equipment, teaching resources;
• apprentice follow-up: attendance, apprentice logbook, articulation with employers, handling of contract terminations;
• quality: commitment to comply with the national framework, CFA access to evidence, arrangements for periodic evaluation of the partner;
• financial flows: split of the funding levels, invoicing schedule, treatment of absences and broken apprenticeship contracts;
• duration and exit: at least the training cycle for a UFA, termination conditions and pedagogical continuity for apprentices mid-cycle.

An agreement covering these six blocks gives the CFA, almost mechanically, the evidence expected at audit.

The classic mistakes of a delegating CFA

• Delegation-abandonment: agreement signed, then no follow-up at all — the “retained” pedagogical responsibility becomes a fiction, and audits sanction it.
• An agreement silent on quality: without a clause giving access to evidence (attendance sheets, evaluations, trainers’ qualifications), the CFA cannot feed its own audit.
• Confusing UFA and joint contracting: in a UFA, the CFA remains solely responsible; in co-traitance (joint contracting), each organisation carries its own obligations.
• Forgetting the minimum duration: a UFA agreement aligned on the school year when the cycle lasts two or three years.
• Letting the partner re-delegate: an uncontrolled cascade is as dangerous in apprenticeship as anywhere else — see our article on cascade subcontracting.

Take action

Before signing your next L. 6232-1 or UFA agreement, check that it covers the selection–follow-up–evaluation trio expected under indicator 27: the complete Qualiopi certification guide sums up the expectations, CFA indicators included. The Complete Kit Certif provides the contractualisation and trainer evaluation frameworks to adapt to your arrangement.