National Appeals Chamber | In Principle

Sometimes, before opening the bids, the contracting authority already knows the amount it will allocate for both the basic contract and the optional contract. How should it indicate these amounts for finalising the procedure? When can the procedure be cancelled under Art. 255(3) of the Public Procurement Law if the contract provides for the right of an option? In a recent ruling, the National Appeal Chamber answered these and other questions.

Public procurement is subject to the general principle of openness. Sometimes, this conflicts with the interests of contractors, who can protect their companies’ valuable information and knowhow by designating it as a trade secret. But this is not an automatic process, as it requires contractors to make a credible showing of the rationale for protecting the information. In a recent ruling, the National Appeal Chamber clarified the conditions for correctly reserving trade secrets.

The Polish Public Procurement Law does not specify an upper limit for contractual penalties. However, if the penalties are out of line with the realities of the contract, the contractor can seek review by the National Appeal Chamber. In a recent ruling, the chamber cut the penalties to 30% of the contractor’s gross fee.

As the host of the procedure, in the contract documentation the contracting authority should specify the formal and technical requirements for a bid bond. In some procurement procedures, the contracting authority requires contractors to submit a bid bond with a validity extending beyond the bid validity period. In a recently issued ruling, the National Appeal Chamber opined on whether such provisions of the terms of reference are permissible, or are invalid by virtue of law (case no. KIO 3482/21).

A contractor is obliged to calculate the bid price fairly and factor in everything that follows from the terms of reference, including typical risks associated with contract performance, so that the bid is realistic and allows for proper performance of the contract. If the bid price appears abnormally low or is otherwise questionable, the contractor must explain it in detail.

The purpose for stating the projected execution costs in the rules for a contest is for contestants to be aware of the contracting authority’s financial capabilities. Contestants should take this value into account when preparing their entries, or their entry will not be considered by the contest jury, the National Appeal Chamber held in its ruling of 10 January 2022 (KIO 3624/21).

When filling in the European Single Procurement Document (ESPD) form, contractors must answer the question whether they have committed grave professional misconduct while performing previous contracts. This question is closely correlated with the condition for exclusion under Art. 109(1)(5) of the Public Procurement Law, which specifies that this concerns violations that are serious and self-caused. Therefore, a contractor does not necessarily have to mention any and all delays or complications that occurred during the performance of previous contracts. In this context, an interesting ruling was issued by the National Appeal Chamber on 4 June 2021 (KIO 1087/21) indicating how this question from the ESPD form should be interpreted.

Sometimes typos occur when preparing bid documents, and can be corrected by the contracting authority if the contractor provides the required clarification. But not all mistakes can be cured, especially those concerning the bid price, as they directly affect the contractor’s position in the ranking. An example of such a mistake is when a price is given in figures and then restated differently in words. The National Appeal Chamber explained in its ruling of 1 June 2021 (case no. KIO 1040/21) why such a mistake cannot be corrected.

When preparing contract documents, the contracting authority must decide the amount of the performance bond it will demand. As a rule, this security should amount to 5% of the total bid price or the value of the contracting authority’s liability. But when can this threshold be exceeded, and to what maximum value? This and other questions were answered in the ruling of the National Appeal Chamber of 21 October 2020 (KIO 1381/20).

A two-stage competitive dialogue often extends the procurement procedure to many months. During that time, as a result of various circumstances, changes in the parties to a consortium may occur, often beyond the contractors’ control. In this situation, will the remaining contractors still be entitled to submit a bid, or should they be excluded from the procedure? In its ruling of 22 January 2021 (case no. KIO 3357/20), the National Appeal Chamber held that to avoid negative consequences for contractors, two key conditions must be met.

When establishing the conditions for participating in a contract award procedure, contracting authorities often face the dilemma of how to reflect the specific subject matter of the procurement without infringing the principle of proportionality. This task is even harder when the procurement involves specialised medical equipment, where improper servicing could put patients’ life or health at risk. Do such circumstances justify limiting the number of bidders seeking a contract? Yes, the National Appeal Chamber held in its ruling of 29 January 2021 (case no. KIO 3489/20).

Trade secrets are a sensitive aspect of public procurement proceedings. They limit the principle of openness of proceedings, but protect sensitive information about the contractor’s business. When granting or denying a request to keep certain information secret, the contracting authority should carefully assess the contractor’s arguments, to prevent abuse of this institution. Despite entry into force of the new Public Procurement Law, this issue is still alive, as evidenced by the recently published ruling of the National Appeal Chamber of 29 March 2021 (case no. KIO 720/21).