Conflicts of interest in public procurement: when bidders risk exclusion

A bidder usually learns about a conflict of interest at the worst possible moment: when an exclusion notice arrives or an inspection challenges an awarded contract. On 1 July 2026, the Public Procurement Office issued general methodological guidance No. 3/2026, explaining which connections are conflicts, which are not and how contracting authorities should respond. Bidders should understand it too.

What is a conflict of interest and who is covered?

Act No. 343/2015 Z. z. on Public Procurement requires contracting authorities to prevent conflicts capable of distorting competition or equal treatment. It defines a conflict as follows.

Unofficial English translation:

A conflict of interest includes, in particular, a situation where an interested person capable of influencing the outcome or conduct of procurement has a direct or indirect financial, economic or other personal interest that may be considered to compromise their impartiality and independence in connection with the procurement.

— § 23(2) of Act No. 343/2015 Z. z.

An interested person is anyone involved in preparing or conducting procurement for the authority, including external advisers, and anyone with decision-making powers, such as a director signing with the successful bidder (§ 23(4)). An important detail for bidders: the guidance examines links not only to the bidder but also to subcontractors and others whose capacity the bid relies on.

Which connections the Office treats as conflicts

Guidance No. 3/2026 lists common situations: an interested person is close to someone on the bidder’s side, acts on both sides, works in the same legal entity as an employee or statutory body member, or is a former employee of the bidder with continuing employment-related obligations. Personal contacts whose nature, intensity or duration may distort competition are also covered, including social media contacts and the time elapsed.

The Act also specifies what is not a conflict: former employment ending more than three years ago with no continuing interest, general or passive social media interaction and ordinary social relationships (§ 23(3)). The guidance adds that being neighbours, membership in a large interest association or sharing a registered-office address does not alone create a conflict without further indicators.

When exclusion is possible and the sequence of measures

Measures should first address the authority internally: removing the interested person from preparation or evaluation, changing duties, not appointing them to the committee, declarations or additional checks of bid evaluation. A bidder may be excluded only where the conflict cannot be removed by other effective measures (§ 40(6)(f) of Act No. 343/2015 Z. z.). If the conflict concerns a subcontractor, the authority first requests replacement (§ 41(2)).

Prior involvement has a separate regime. If a bidder or connected person helped prepare procurement, typically a designer whose work forms part of the tender documents, the authority must neutralise the advantage by disclosing exchanged information and allowing sufficient time for bids (§ 25). Exclusion is again the last resort: the bidder must first receive five working days to demonstrate that its involvement did not distort competition (§ 40(7)).

Disclosure and mitigation: assessing the effect

The guidance rests on two steps: disclose the conflict and address it. An undisclosed connection that is not a conflict should not constitute a finding affecting the procurement outcome. For a real conflict without measures, impact depends on the circumstances: unusual evaluation results, whether lowest price was the sole criterion, tailored participation conditions and, as supporting factors, a longer-than-minimum submission period or a higher number of bids.

The strategy for bidders is clear: disclose connections and explain why they cannot influence the result, for example by proving former employment obligations ended or proposing that the person not sit on the committee. A disclosed and managed connection is far easier to defend than one inspectors discover themselves.

How we can help

If the authority asks you to explain connections or excludes you, we prepare responses and objections and provide dispute representation. Our external legal department can check bids and connections before submission. We put formal participation requirements in order, including entry in the list of economic operators, explained in our guide, before the committee checks them. We also help if the authority fails to issue a reference after performance. Reviewing a bid before submission is easier than explaining connections after exclusion.