Tender for PLN 5 billion amid chaos of appeals. Will the state pay compensation?

The largest railway tender in Poland’s history, regarding the modernization of the Białystok-Ełk section as part of Rail Baltica, was bogged down in a series of appeals and court disputes. The outcome of the case may have consequences not only for contractors, but also for public finances and the strategic investment schedule for Poland and the region.

Three results and no final

The tender procedure conducted by PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe has remained unstable for months. In November 2025, the offer of the Mirbud-Torpol consortium was selected as the most advantageous. However, this decision was successfully challenged by Budimex, which pointed to the previous environmental fine imposed on Mirbud.

The National Appeals Chamber agreed with this argument and ordered the rejection of the offer. PKP PLK then selected the Budimex-PORR consortium as the winner, but this choice was invalidated after another appeal – this time by Track Tec Construction.

As a result, in the third attempt, the consortium of Track Tec Construction, Unibep, Intop and Pomorskie Przedsiębiorstwo Mechaniczno-Torowe was selected. This choice was also contested – among others. by Mirbud. This means that the case has been brought back to the National Appeals Chamber and the final decision is still open.

The Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment does not change Mirbud’s situation

The key element of the dispute remains the environmental fine imposed on Mirbud in 2022. Although its value was relatively small (PLN 15,000), its legal significance turned out to be fundamental.

The Supreme Administrative Court overturned the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court and referred the case for reconsideration, indicating, among other things, the need to determine whether Mirbud was the proper addressee of the environmental decision. At the same time, the Supreme Administrative Court did not overturn the administrative decision imposing the penalty itself.

This distinction is crucial. The final decision of the Inspector General for Environmental Protection, upholding the penalty, is still in legal circulation. This means that – in accordance with Art. 109 section 1 point 2 letter c Public procurement law – the condition for excluding the contractor from the tender remains in force.

In practice, this means that even if an administrative court questions the validity of the penalty in the future, the ordering party is currently bound by the applicable administrative decision. There is no legal basis to ignore it.

Public procurement law leaves no room for interpretation

From the point of view of tender procedures, the situation is clear. The Ordering Party cannot rely on potential future court decisions or its own interpretation of the dispute. What matters is the current legal status.

If there is a final administrative decision to violate environmental regulations and impose a fine, the contractor is subject to exclusion. Until this decision is legally repealed, it remains in force.

This is why suggestions that appeared in the media about a possible “return to the game” of Mirbud after the Supreme Administrative Court’s verdict are considered premature.

Time versus procedures

There is time pressure on the situation. The Rail Baltica investment is co-financed by EU funds, which must be spent within a specific time frame.

Waiting for many years of court proceedings – including re-examination of the case by the Provincial Administrative Court and then a potential next cassation appeal – could threaten the implementation of the project.

For this reason, public procurement practice is clear: court proceedings do not stop the signing of contracts. Ordering parties, acting in the public interest and under deadline pressure, usually continue the procedure and conclude contracts.

Risk of compensation

However, this operating model poses significant financial risk. If in the future the court finds that one of the contractors has been unjustly excluded or omitted, it will not be possible to withdraw the already concluded contract. In such a situation, the only way is compensation, which is paid by the State Treasury.

In the context of the tender in question, the scale of potential claims may be significant. The difference between Mirbud’s offer and the currently selected proposal is approximately PLN 700 million. This is an argument often raised by the company, which points to the economic interest of the state.

On the other hand, the contracting authority must take into account not only the price, but also compliance with regulations and the legal security of the procedure.

A multidimensional dispute

The current situation shows that the tender for Rail Baltica has become one of the most complicated infrastructure proceedings in Poland. There are different orders here:

• KIO procedures and appeals between contractors

• court proceedings regarding administrative decisions

• deadline pressure resulting from EU funding

• financial risk for the state budget

Additionally, in the background there are allegations regarding the so-called self-cleaning of other contractors or procedural doubts, which further complicates the picture of the whole matter.

What’s next?

The coming weeks will be crucial. The National Chamber of Appeal will again consider appeals regarding the selection of the consortium of Track Tec Construction, Unibep, Intop and Pomorskie Przedsiębiorstwo Mechaniczno-Torowe. At the same time, court decisions in cases initiated by Mirbud and Budimex are expected in June.

Regardless of their outcome, one thing seems certain: the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment does not in itself change Mirbud’s current legal situation in the tender. As long as the administrative decision on the environmental penalty remains in force, the exclusion condition applies.

This means that the fight for a contract worth over PLN 5 billion continues – but without a real possibility of the return of one of the original favorites, at least at this stage.

We asked both PKP PLK and Mirbud SA to comment on the ongoing tender procedure. We are waiting for answers.