Abstract

The study addresses issues related to the possibility of using a substitute (“third party”) on the contracting authority’s side in the process of awarding and executing a public contract - referring to the preparatory stage, the stage of conducting the procurement procedure and the stage of performing the public task - all in connection with the Supreme Court’s ruling of 29 February 2024 (II CSKP 1243/22). It discusses the essence of substitution, with a possible distinction between direct and indirect substitution (highlighting the legal differences between these institutions), the legal nature of the substitution agreement and the legitimacy of using the institution of direct substitution in public procurement.