When a project falls behind schedule, the contracting authority and supplier often extend the deadline through a contract amendment. In August 2026, however, the Czech Office for the Protection of Competition (ÚOHS) issued a final decision upholding a fine against a ministry that twice extended the delivery deadline for the e-Turista information system without a new procurement procedure. The ministry relied on unforeseen circumstances. The authority rejected that justification. The decision matters both to contracting authorities and to Slovak companies supplying the Czech public sector.
Two amendments and a fine for the ministry
On 26 July 2024, the Czech Ministry for Regional Development launched an open procedure to create e-Turista, a central register of accommodation establishments and guests. On the same day, the government submitted an amendment to Act No. 159/1999 Sb. governing business in tourism, on which the system depended. The original delivery date of 15 December 2024 was linked to funding under the National Recovery Plan.
Two suppliers warned in requests for clarification that the deadline was unrealistic. Objections also pointed out that the legislative amendment had not yet passed its first reading. The ministry moved the deadline to 31 March 2025 and signed the contract for work on 15 November 2024. An amendment in February 2025 extended the deadline to 31 May 2025, and an amendment in May 2025 extended it to 31 July 2025.
By a decision of 11 June 2026, ÚOHS fined the ministry CZK 122,000 for two administrative offences. The authority’s Chair upheld the fine by decision No. ÚOHS-29673/2026/161 of 18 August 2026. The first offence concerned the contract amendments. The second occurred during the tender. When the ministry extended the delivery deadline by three and a half months during the tender period, it extended the deadline for bids by only 11 days. For a change capable of widening the pool of potential participants, Czech law requires the period following dispatch of the change to be at least as long as the entire original period, in this case 31 days (§ 99(2)).
When an extension is a substantial modification
Act No. 134/2016 Sb. on Public Procurement prohibits a contracting authority from allowing a substantial modification of a public contract without a new procurement procedure (§ 222(1)). A modification is substantial, among other cases, if it would have allowed other suppliers to participate or could have affected the choice of supplier had it formed part of the original procurement conditions (§ 222(3)(a)). ÚOHS concluded that this was precisely the effect of extending the deadline. A later deadline could have attracted more suppliers, and neither of the two firms that had requested more time ultimately submitted a bid. Referring to an earlier decision, the authority did not regard even a two-month extension as negligible.
The ministry could not rely on other exceptions either. The contract reserved a change of deadline only if signing was delayed by the tender procedure, particularly review proceedings, rather than parliamentary delays (§ 100(1)). The authority ruled out the small-modifications exception under § 222(4) because the modification’s value must be expressed in money, which cannot be done for a mere deadline extension without a financial change.
The parliamentary delay was not unforeseeable
Original statutory wording:
Za podstatnou změnu závazku ze smlouvy na veřejnou zakázku se nepovažuje změna, jejíž potřeba vznikla v důsledku okolností, které zadavatel jednající s náležitou péčí nemohl předvídat, a která nemění celkovou povahu veřejné zakázky.
Unofficial translation: A modification whose need arose from circumstances that a contracting authority acting with due care could not foresee, and which does not alter the overall nature of the public contract, is not considered a substantial modification of the public contract.
Referring to case law, ÚOHS treats as unforeseeable circumstances of an objective nature that the contracting authority could not have anticipated even with reasonably careful procurement preparation. It did not consider the legislative delay to meet that test.
The contract depended from the outset on an amendment submitted on the day the tender was launched. As an experienced sponsor of legislation, the ministry had to know that it did not control the legislative process and that delays of several months were not unusual for government bills. During the tender period, it was not even clear when the first reading would take place. Suppliers expressly and repeatedly flagged the risk. The need for amendments therefore arose, in the authority’s view, from procurement conditions that failed to account for known risks.
The funding argument also failed. The Chair stated that a deadline imposed by a funding provider may justify requiring a particular implementation period, but cannot excuse a procurement condition that is disproportionate or objectively impossible to meet. The authority also indicated options the contracting authority had available. It could have set a flexible deadline changing under predetermined conditions, for example according to negotiations with the funding provider, or linked deadlines to objective future events.
The case yields several practical rules for contracting authorities and suppliers:
- A deadline dependent on an event beyond the authority’s control, such as legislation, a permit or a funding decision, should be tied to that event in the procurement documents or its modification reserved in advance under unambiguous conditions.
- Suppliers’ warnings in clarification requests and objections may later prove that the risk was foreseeable.
- If an authority changes the performance deadline during the tender period, Czech procurement law requires an appropriate extension of the bid deadline where the nature of the change requires it. If the change can widen the pool of potential participants, the period after dispatch of the change must be at least as long as the entire original period (§ 99(2)).
- Before signing an amendment, a supplier should know which statutory exception supports it, even though the contracting authority was the party fined in this case.
Comparison with Slovakia’s § 18
Slovak Public Procurement Act No. 343/2015 Z. z. permits a contract modification without a new procurement procedure on a similar ground. The need must arise from circumstances that the contracting authority could not have foreseen despite exercising due care, and the modification must not change the contract’s nature (§ 18(1)(c)). A modification is also substantial where changed conditions would have allowed other economic operators to participate or another bid to be accepted in the original procedure (§ 18(2)(b)). The equivalent of a reserved Czech modification is a change under clear, precise and unambiguous conditions already contained in the original contract (§ 18(1)(a)).
Slovak and Czech law differ in the maximum permitted price increase. For a contracting authority in Slovakia, neither a modification due to unforeseen circumstances nor additional performance may increase the value by more than 50% of the original contract value, with that limit applying to each modification separately. Successive modifications must not be used to circumvent the statutory procedures (§ 18(5)). In Czechia, the price increase for the same two types of modification must not exceed 30% of the original obligation’s value. The value of works, services or supplies not carried out because of these modifications is deducted, and the price increases from all modifications under § 222(5) and (6) are added together (§ 222(9)).
Where the contract contains price adjustment rules, those rules must also be taken into account when calculating the limit (§ 18(6) of the Slovak Act and § 222(9) of the Czech Act).
The Slovak Public Procurement Office also imposes fines for unlawful contract modifications (§ 182(1)(e)). The Czech decision does not establish how the Slovak authority would assess the same case. The wording of the two exceptions is nevertheless very similar.
How we can help
We set schedules, acceptance procedures and change rules for IT projects in an implementation agreement and for construction in a construction contract. We help Slovak companies intending to supply in Czechia over the longer term establish a Czech branch. Patrik Tulinský is registered with both the Slovak and Czech Bar Associations. We can therefore assess the contract and its amendments under both countries’ laws without you needing to travel to Czechia.
This article provides general legal information as at 26 October 2026. It does not constitute legal services or advice on your specific matter. Laws change and the details of your situation may differ. Check the appropriate course of action or contact us before making a decision.
