Abstract

The issue of there being a time limit on being bound by a bid offer and the issue of bid security, their role and effects on public procurement proceedings are widely discussed and interpreted in many ways. Still, it must be admitted that the questions addressed to the Court of Justice by the referring court in the analysed case were based on false assumptions, namely with regard to the failure to specify the effects of not extending the time limit of being bound by a bid offer in the national law. A contrary assumption would have to be based on a thesis that is in conflict with the contractor’s intention – that the time limit for being bound by the contractor’s declaration of intent remains de facto beyond the contractor’s control. The extension of the time limit for being bound with a bid tender is through a declaration of intent, which significantly changes the content of the initial declaration – therefore, it may only be made by the offering party, unless stipulated otherwise by generally applicable laws. This approach does not seem to be justified, whether on the basis of detailed provisions of the Public Procurement Law or under the main principle of fair competition and equal treatment of contractors. Therefore, even though the interpretation guidelines provided by the Court of Justice seem correct and justified, unfortunately they still miss the point when compared to the Polish law regulations regarding the time limit for being bound by a bid offer.