Contractual penalties and the correct completion of the European Single Procurement Document

29 November 2022 | Knowledge, News

The Public Procurement Office has published a legal opinion outlining the rules for the correct completion of the European Single Procurement Document (ESPD) with regard to the grounds for exclusion from the procedure due to non-performance or improper performance of a contract. The Office stated that economic operators are not obliged to inform the contracting authority of every contractual penalty imposed on them in the past. So which penalties must be mentioned in the ESPD, and which may be omitted?

Contractual penalties – how they relate to bidding for public contracts

Economic operators interested in participating in tenders must demonstrate that there are no grounds for their exclusion from a public procurement procedure.

Such grounds are either mandatory, i.e. statutory (the contracting authority has no control over their application in the procedure), or optional, i.e. depending on the discretion of the contracting authority.

The opinion of the Public Procurement Office refers to one of the optional grounds for exclusion, whereby the bid of an economic operator is to be rejected from the procedure if the economic operator “has failed to perform or has improperly performed, to a significant degree or extent, or has been improperly performing for a long period of time, any material obligation arising from a previous public procurement or concession contract, which led to termination of or withdrawal from the contract, to compensation, substitute performance or the exercise of rights under a statutory warranty for defects”. The Office considered whether this provision also covered contractual penalties and if so, in what situations an economic operation should disclose in the ESPD the fact that such penalties have been charged on it.

Disclosure of contractual penalties – compensatory penalties only

The Office confirmed that the compensation referred to above also includes contractual penalties accrued in the past as a result of the non-performance or improper performance of a public contract or concession. However, it emphasised that such penalties may have different functions, not only compensatory.

In the Office’s view, in the ESPD, economic operators should disclose compensatory penalties only, i.e. those intended to compensate for damage caused by the economic operator’s breach of contractual obligations.

How to complete the European Single Procurement Document without risking exclusion

The opinion of the Public Procurement Office raises many questions. Its practical application will require economic operators to analyse each case in which contractual penalties have been charged by the contracting authority and assess whether these penalties were compensatory.

The matter is all the more complicated as in many cases these penalties are a surrogate for compensation, even though their amount may be unrelated to the actual extent of the damage suffered by the contracting authority. However, the Office has not identified any criteria for distinguishing a compensatory contractual penalty from other contractual penalties.

How we help with the bidding process in a public procurement procedure

  • Assist with the completion of tender documents, including the ESPD,
  • Assist in the self-cleaning procedure,
  • Represent economic operators before the National Appeal Chamber (KIO) in case of bid rejection and exclusion.

Any questions? Contact the authors:

dr Jakub Krysa

Michał Waraksa


See also

Withdrawal from and termination of a contract – latest recommendations of the State Treasury Solicitors’ Office

Latest Knowledge

NIS2 and the National Cybersecurity System Act in transport: what you need to do before October 2026

The amended Act on the National Cybersecurity System (UKSC) has been in force since 3 April 2026. For transport sector undertakings, this means a specific compliance timeline, including an obligation to register with the National Cybersecurity System (KSC) registry by 3 October 2026. Failure to do so may result in substantial financial penalties, coupled with the risk of personal liability for senior management. Not every undertaking, however, automatically falls within the scope of the new regime. Read on to find out whether your organisation is affected and what you need to do before the deadline for preparation.

Family foundations: the government has done the maths and presented the bill

Three years. That’s how long we’ve been waiting for what the Council of Ministers had seen in the data from the outset – and has now disclosed in its review of the Family Foundation Act. The document not only diagnoses the problems, but also previews substantial changes to rules that founders and their advisers treated as settled and stable. And therein lies a problem that goes far beyond tax matters. If the rules of the game are changed while the game is being played, there can be neither planning stability nor trust in the law. It is no coincidence that one of the greatest concerns among entrepreneurs considering setting up a foundation is not the level of taxation, but the stability of the legal framework – which today is once again being called into question.

What the new swiss franc act means for banks

We now have a new Act on Special Measures for the Adjudication of Cases Concerning Loan Agreements Denominated in or Indexed to the Swiss Franc. The provisions come into force 14 days after publication. So now is a good time to look at what lies ahead and what banks should be doing today.

New draft Pay Transparency Act – what has changed since December 2025?

A second version of the draft act on strengthening the application of the right to equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women has now been published. It refines procedures and deadlines and introduces a new supervisory body. We have already discussed the changes affecting the recruitment stage and the three pillars of the forthcoming pay transparency framework, noting that Poland will miss the EU transposition deadline of 7 June 2026. Now, we take a closer look at the further changes, new developments and risks that have emerged in the latest, April version of the draft.

Payment Services Regulation (PSR) – between consumer protection and due diligence

The draft Payment Services Regulation (PSR) is one of the most significant elements of the reform of the EU legal framework for payment services. Its principal aim is to enhance the security of cashless transactions and to reduce the scale of financial fraud, in particular that arising from the growth of digital channels. At the same time, the new rules are intended to introduce a liability model that will not result in risk being transferred entirely to financial institutions, whilst retaining an important role for independent due diligence on the part of the user.

Energy deregulation – key changes for businesses and energy consumers

The President has now signed the Energy Deregulation Act (UDER92). The new provisions cover both the relationships between energy undertakings and consumers, and matters relating to investment, district heating, and the administrative obligations of energy market participants. The Act introduces changes in the areas of billing, communication with consumers, grid connection, and the operations of undertakings in the energy and district heating sectors. We set out the key points to note.

Banking sector overview | Banking today and tomorrow | July 2026

Under the draft legislation, banks will be required to offer existing borrowers a switch from WIBOR-based to POLSTR-based interest rates, a mechanism intended to speed up the voluntary transition of financial instruments to the new benchmark. The banking sector has responded positively to the proposal, according to Tadeusz Białek, President of the Polish Bank Association.

“Withdraw from contract here” – what next for the new button in online shops, on trading platforms and in mobile apps?

From 19 June, national legislation was to require businesses in the European Union entering into distance contracts with consumers via an online interface to provide consumers with the option to withdraw from the contract via a dedicated function/button. However, due to Poland’s delay in transposing Directive 2023/2673, which requires the use of such a button, this obligation has been postponed in our country. We look at what remote contract withdrawal entails and which transactions the new feature will apply to.

Municipal master plans – new deadline, same old challenges

On 11 June 2026, the President signed into law a bill extending the deadline for municipalities to adopt their master plans (plany ogólne). The key deadline for adopting master plans was moved from 30 June to 31 August 2026. We examine the reasons behind this change and consider what the absence of a master plan might mean for potential investors and their future projects.