Abstract

This article looks at the case law regarding appeals filed in connection with selected premises of rejecting an offer, as described in Article 89 paragraph 1 of the Public Procurement Law. The author concentrates on premises that have no established interpretation in the case law, or those that are subject to controversies caused by amendments in the PPL from 2016. The article discusses the rejection of a tender due to its non-compliance with the PPL, in the context of the ordering authority’s demand to provide the names of subcontractors. It describes issues connected with the obligation to conduct proceedings in an electronic form, and sets out the consequences of rejecting a tender due to the expiry of the tender validity, as well as some solutions to existing dispute-related problems, as suggested in the newly drafted PPL. The article also delves into the problem of a security deposit in the form of a bank guarantee or insurance guarantee being established by contractors who are jointly applying for the contract. In light of the case law regarding these issues, the author draws up theses regarding the importance of correct legislation and the opinions expressed by the Supreme Court.