Major Public Procurement Reform in Poland for 2027 – an Overhaul of the KIO and the Appeal Procedure

On 2 June 2026, the Government Legislation Centre published a draft of a fundamental amendment to the Public Procurement Law and to the Act on Court Costs (draft UD 409). The reform was initiated by the President of the Public Procurement Office (UZP), Agnieszka Olszewska. Enactment is planned for the fourth quarter of 2026, with entry into force in 2027. The aim is to streamline procurement procedures, relieve the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO) and harmonise divergent case law. The changes will affect, among other things, the costs of disputes, the abnormally-low-price mechanism and the rules of communication with the Chamber.

Market practitioners have just gained a convenience in the form of the consolidated text of the Public Procurement Law announced on 27 May 2026 (Journal of Laws 2026, item 793). It is, however, only a starting point for the deep systemic modifications that the coming year will bring.

Deadline paralysis at the KIO forced the changes

According to the explanatory memorandum, the appeal system has become severely dysfunctional due to a rapidly rising caseload:

• the average time to forward an appeal to the President of the KIO has lengthened from about 4.4 days to as much as 15 days in 2025;
• the share of cases heard within the statutory 15-day deadline has fallen from about 78% in 2023 to just 11% in 2025.

The drafters attribute this state of affairs partly to the fact that appeal-fee rates have not changed since 2010 and — owing to inflation — have lost their function of disciplining contractors.

A sharp rise in appeal fees from 2027

The reform envisages a radical revaluation of filing-fee costs and new thresholds for the highest-value contracts. The draft sets upper limits for the maximum rates (the detailed amounts will be set by a separate regulation):

By comparison, the current maximum fee was PLN 20,000, regardless of the contract value.

To accommodate contractors, the draft simultaneously lowers the fee for a complaint to the court against a KIO ruling (from three times to twice the appeal fee), with an upper limit of PLN 150,000.

The end of the automatic “30%” rule for abnormally low prices

Revolutionary changes await the abnormally-low-price mechanism (Article 224 of the Public Procurement Law). The draft removes the obligation to automatically call on a contractor for explanations where its bid price is more than 30% below the average of the bids submitted, or below the estimated contract value increased by VAT.

The grounds for rejecting a bid will be clarified — one basis will be an assessment of the explanations that does not allow it to be accepted that the offered price makes performance of the contract possible in line with the requirements.

The allocation of the burden of proof before the KIO will also change fundamentally. In line with the general civil-law principle (Article 6 of the Civil Code), the burden of proving that a competing bid contains an abnormally low price will rest on the appellant. An exception will arise only where information affecting the bid price has been designated by the contractor as a trade secret, or constitutes other protected information — in which case the contractor will have to defend the realism of its price.

The fight for uniform case law: an opportunity or a threat to independence?

To eliminate interpretive divergences, the General Assembly of the KIO — convened by the President of the KIO where divergences in case law requiring resolution come to light, or at the request of the President of the UZP — will gain the power to adopt binding resolutions. These resolutions will be public and published on the UZP website.

The powers of the President of the UZP will also expand: they will be able to issue official legal explanations and guidelines for inspection bodies and contracting authorities. Although this is intended to unify the application of the law, some experts voice concern over whether such strong top-down mechanisms might adversely affect the adjudicative independence of individual KIO panels.

Streamlining procedures and full digitalisation

To speed up proceedings, the amendment will impose on contracting authorities an absolute duty to provide the President of the KIO with basic information about the case within 2 working days of receiving a copy of the appeal (without waiting for a request). Communication between the parties and the KIO will be restricted to one designated electronic delivery address and one e-mail address.

The role of the Public Procurement Court will also change: where it upholds a complaint, the court will be obliged to decide the merits of the case substantively, instead of — as has often happened — returning the case to the KIO for re-examination.

Summary

The planned reform aims to drastically curb the filing of so-called vexatious or tactical appeals, which have paralysed investment processes in Poland. For contractors, however, it means having to calculate procedural risk far more carefully — higher filing fees and a tougher burden of proof on abnormally low prices will mean that a contest before the KIO requires professional and flawless legal preparation.

Frequently asked questions

How much will an appeal fee before the KIO be after the reform? The draft introduces upper limits for the maximum rates — from PLN 12,000 (supplies and services below EU thresholds) to PLN 150,000 (works worth at least EUR 30 million). Until now the maximum fee was PLN 20,000 regardless of contract value.

When will the Public Procurement Law reform enter into force? Enactment is planned for the fourth quarter of 2026, with entry into force in 2027. The draft (UD 409) was published on 2 June 2026 and is at the legislative stage.

What will change for abnormally low prices? The automatic duty to call for explanations at a 30% deviation will disappear. The burden of proving that a competing bid is abnormally low will, as a rule, rest on the appellant — except where price-forming data has been designated a trade secret.

Will it be easier to win an appeal after the changes? Rather harder. Higher fees and shifting the burden of proof onto the appellant mean greater procedural risk. A successful appeal will require careful, professional legal preparation.