National Appeals Chamber | In Principle

Go to content
Subscribe to newsletter
In principle newsletter subscription form

National Appeals Chamber

Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: The contracting authority must create equal conditions for all contractors
Fair competition and equal treatment of contractors are the main principles of awarding public contracts, and all actions taken by the contracting authority in preparing and conducting the procedure must comply with these principles. Nonetheless, procurement procedures often raise questions about how these principles should be applied in practice. Some doubts were recently dispelled by the National Appeal Chamber in its ruling of 15 October 2020 (case no. KIO 2104/20).
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: The contracting authority must create equal conditions for all contractors
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Proper calculation of the three-year exclusion period for breach of an earlier contract
An optional ground for exclusion from procurement proceedings, breach of an earlier public contract, is limited to three years after occurrence of the event that is basis for the exclusion. But a problem arising in practice is which event should be considered when calculating the three-year period. Termination of the contract by the contractor? Repudiation of the contract by the contracting authority? Or perhaps entry of a judgment for damages for breach of the earlier contract? The answer can be found in the ruling by the National Appeal Chamber of 26 August 2020 (case no. KIO 1781/20).
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Proper calculation of the three-year exclusion period for breach of an earlier contract
May a contractor whose offer is rejected appeal to the National Appeal Chamber?
A contractor filing an appeal must duly demonstrate that it has standing to appeal under Art. 179(1) of the Polish Public Procurement Law. There is an endless debate in the case law and the legal literature over which entities are entitled to file an appeal in a procedure for award of a public contract. The National Appeal Chamber spoke out in this dispute in its ruling of 23 October 2019 (case no. KIO 2031/19), responding to the question whether a contractor whose bid has been rejected still has a legal interest in filing an appeal.
May a contractor whose offer is rejected appeal to the National Appeal Chamber?
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Consequences of imprecise description of conditions for participation in contract award procedure
In the tender documentation, the contracting authority may require contractors to meet certain conditions for participation. These should be precise and duly described so the contractors can adequately demonstrate their fulfilment. But what if the contracting authority has not precisely defined a condition for participation in the procedure? In its ruling of 3 July 2020 (KIO 1001/20), the National Appeal Chamber held that the interpretation of the condition more favourable to the contractor should be applied.
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Consequences of imprecise description of conditions for participation in contract award procedure
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Submission of a bid bond by a consortium
Several contractors apply together for the award of a public contract. Can they submit a bid bond in the form of a bid bond guarantee that does not name all of the members of the consortium? This issue has been, and remains, the subject of debate in the legal literature and case law. Taking a position in this debate, in its ruling of 31 July 2020 (case no. KIO 1183/20), the National Appeal Chamber stressed that the decisive role is played by the wording of the guarantee itself, which must unequivocally specify the scope of liability of the guarantor (e.g. bank, insurance company, or corporate guarantor) in terms of which entities and subject matter are covered.
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Submission of a bid bond by a consortium
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Proper self-cleaning by contractors
The “self-cleaning” procedure set forth in Art. 24(8) of the Public Procurement Law allows a bidder to seek the award of a public contract despite the existence of grounds for exclusion. But what evidence of self-cleaning should a contractor present for the effort to be effective? In the recent ruling of 31 July 2020 (case no. KIO 1248/20), the National Appeal Chamber held that contractors are not only required to show the personnel, organisational and technical measures they have taken to remedy past irregularities, but must also show that these measures will prevent similar violations in the future.
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Proper self-cleaning by contractors
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: The contracting authority must not abuse a summons seeking clarification of an abnormally low price
Can a summons for clarification of an abnormally low price be used with the aim of obtaining information from the contractor to verify whether the tender complies with the terms of reference for the procurement? What duties must the contracting authority observe, and when can it summon a contractor to provide an explanation? These issues were addressed in a ruling by Poland’s National Appeal Chamber of 16 June 2020 (case nos. KIO 709/20 and 715/20). The chamber considered the specific purpose of the summons for clarification.
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: The contracting authority must not abuse a summons seeking clarification of an abnormally low price
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Does the contractor suffer the consequences of an error in the documentation by the contracting authority?
In procurements, minor errors often creep into the terms of reference or the forms for bids. Can these errors exert negative consequences on contractors? An important statement on this issue was made by the National Appeal Chamber (KIO) in its ruling of 13 March 2020 (KIO 423/20). The chamber stressed that if there are differences between the description of the subject of the contract and the offer form, the description of the subject matter will control, and contractors cannot be penalised for errors committed by the contracting authority in its own documentation.
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: Does the contractor suffer the consequences of an error in the documentation by the contracting authority?
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: A contractor does not have to submit documents issued by the contracting authority
The number of declarations and documents submitted by contractors during the contract award procedure forced the Parliament to introduce mechanisms to cut red tape. One of the key provisions in this aspect is Art. 26(6) of the Public Procurement Law, the purpose and practical application of which was explained by the National Appeal Chamber in its ruling of 13 March 2020 (KIO 439/20).
Tales from the National Appeal Chamber: A contractor does not have to submit documents issued by the contracting authority
National Appeals Chamber (KIO) stories: how the KIO was fooled with regard to an electronic signature
A December KIO ruling dealt with an IT aspect of the qualified electronic signature. A contractor had purchased an electronic signature from a trusted supplier, but despite this, the ESPD signed using the electronic signature was invalidated.
National Appeals Chamber (KIO) stories: how the KIO was fooled with regard to an electronic signature
The scope of authority of the representative of a foreign undertaking in a Polish branch
Can the scope of authority of the representative of a foreign undertaking in a Polish branch be limited in practice to comply with the principal’s expectations?
The scope of authority of the representative of a foreign undertaking in a Polish branch
First ruling on legal remedies by National Appeal Chamber since overhaul of Public Procurement Law
Poland’s National Appeal Chamber (KIO) issued an order on 5 September 2016 of great practical significance, applying new procurement rules on the permissibility of appeals by contractors interested in bidding for public contracts below the EU thresholds.
First ruling on legal remedies by National Appeal Chamber since overhaul of Public Procurement Law