The bid form requires the price to be entered twice: once in figures and once in words. It sounds like a safeguard – in practice it is one of the most common sources of disputes before the National Appeals Chamber (KIO). The contractor gets a digit wrong, and the contracting authority faces the question of whether it has before it an error to be corrected or a bid to be rejected. The answer can be costly either way: unjustified rejection means an upheld appeal, unjustified correction means an allegation of conducting negotiations after the opening of bids.

Below we show how to resolve such a case and where the line runs between an error and an irremediable mistake.

A case from practice

Works, basic procedure. In the table of the bid form, the contractor entered:

net price (in figures): PLN 1,478,000.00
VAT amount 23%: PLN 402,040.00
gross value (in figures): PLN 2,150,040.00

and below the table:

net in words: one million seven hundred and forty-eight thousand zlotys
gross in words: two million one hundred and fifty thousand and forty zlotys

First reflex: we have two net prices – PLN 1,478,000 and PLN 1,748,000 – that is, two declarations of intent. Second reflex: surely, in the event of a discrepancy, the amount in words prevails. Both are wrong. The calculation decides.

Let us check:

1,748,000 × 23% = 402,040 – exactly the VAT amount from the form
1,748,000 + 402,040 = 2,150,040 – exactly the gross amount in figures and in words
2,150,040 ÷ 1.23 = 1,748,000

and for the outlying value:

1,478,000 × 23% = 339,940 – matches nothing
1,478,000 + 402,040 = 1,880,040 – matches nothing

The form itself imposed the operation (gross = net + VAT) and the tax rate. Four entries form a consistent set, one falls outside it. The mistake is a transposition of digits – 47 instead of 74. There is one and only one way to correct it: the net price is PLN 1,748,000.00, the gross price remains unchanged.

There is no statutory priority of the amount in words

This assumption persists in practice and it is worth refuting it clearly. The Public Procurement Law (PPL) does not contain any conflict rule for the amount in figures and the amount in words. The previous Act of 2004 did contain such a rule – for a lump-sum price, the amount in words had priority – but that provision was repealed. KIO pointed out that its removal does not, however, mean that a bid with a price discrepancy is automatically disqualified from the possibility of correction (judgment of 24 January 2018, KIO 75/18).

The “words before figures” rule comes from the law on bills of exchange and is a special provision – it cannot be transferred to tender bids.

What decides, therefore, is not the form of the entry, but the interpretation of the declaration of intent made on the basis of the entire content of the bid (Article 65 of the Civil Code (CC) in conjunction with Article 8(1) PPL). In the case described, the amount in words turned out to be correct not because it is in words, but because it is confirmed by the VAT amount and the gross amount. If it were the amount in words that fell outside the set, it would be the one to be corrected.

Clerical or arithmetical error?

Article 223(2) PPL distinguishes three categories. The Chamber draws the line between point 1 and point 2 simply: a clerical error concerns spelling, an arithmetical error concerns mathematical operations (judgment of 30 May 2022, KIO 1289/22).

In our case, the entry itself is admittedly a “typing” slip, but both the detection of the mistake and the determination of the only correct value are made by an arithmetical operation on data from the bid. The basis will therefore be Article 223(2)(2) PPL, alternatively invoking point 1. In practice, it is worth indicating both in the notification – the effect is identical, and the risk of an allegation of incorrect classification decreases.

Importantly: errors under points 1 and 2 are corrected ex officio and without the contractor’s consent. The consent procedure under Article 223(3) PPL concerns only the so-called other error under point 3 (judgment of 8 February 2022, KIO 185/22).

What KIO case law says

Judgment of 28 October 2022, KIO 2689/22 – the closest case. In the event of a discrepancy between the net and gross value, the Chamber held that since the gross amount and the VAT amount had been calculated correctly, it was precisely these values that should form the basis of the calculations, and the net amount was subject to correction. This reverses the intuitive direction “net is the base, gross is calculated”. The Chamber emphasised that this was not a mistake in the calculation of the price, but an error capable of correction.

Judgment of 24 February 2023, KIO 382/23 – a direct discrepancy between figures and words. The contractor entered PLN 345 00.00 in figures with the amount in words “three hundred and forty-five thousand”. The Chamber held that it was obvious that the error lay in the amount in figures, relying on the consistency of the entries in two forms, the logic of where the space was placed and the unrealistic nature of the lower amount. A very important additional thesis: the assessment of whether there is an obvious error cannot depend on rules imposed in the terms of reference (SWZ), especially where their application leads to conclusions contrary to logic and life experience.

Judgment of 24 January 2022, KIO 16/22 – a working definition of an arithmetical error. The course of the mathematical operation must be traceable, the mistake must be identifiable on the basis of the rules of that operation and correctable in only one way, leaving no doubt, with the contracting authority relying on data contained in the bid. Where any element of the operation is missing, the error loses its obviousness.

Judgment of 13 July 2023, KIO 1880/23 – neither the number of errors nor their significance is an obstacle to correction; correcting an arithmetical error may even have a significant impact on the amount of the price offered. The scale of the difference does not therefore in itself block the correction.

Where the error ends

Judgment of 1 June 2021, KIO 1040/21 – the most important procedural warning for contracting authorities. The contractor entered PLN 1,550,000.00 and in words “one million seven hundred and ninety-nine thousand”. The contracting authority requested it to indicate which price was binding. The Chamber held that the content of the bid did not provide data allowing the error to be identified or the correct price to be established, and the contractor – already knowing the competitors’ prices – was not explaining the bid, but choosing the price. The result: infringement of Article 218(1) and Article 16 PPL, rejection of the bid under Article 226(1)(3) PPL. Both the request for explanations and the subsequent correction of the error were unauthorised.

Judgments of 7 February 2023, KIO 184/23 and of 30 March 2023, KIO 738/23 – where there are many possible variants of correction, and establishing the correct value would require supplementing the bid with content not originally contained in it, correction is inadmissible. In the first case, the Chamber held that the contracting authority had in fact conducted negotiations aimed at changing the bid prices.

The difference is therefore clear. A discrepancy is remediable when the remaining content of the bid points to one result. It is irremediable when the bid contains two equivalent, unverifiable prices – in which case the contractor has de facto submitted an alternative bid.

Instructions for the contracting authority

1. Do the maths. Check whether the data in the bid (unit prices, VAT amount, gross amount, cost estimate, table of aggregated elements, form on the platform) add up to one consistent result. This is the only criterion that is truly decisive.

2. Never ask the contractor which price is binding. This is the scenario from KIO 1040/21. If you address a question under Article 223(1) PPL, formulate it as a request to confirm the established state of affairs, not to make a choice.

3. Correct ex officio, indicating the legal basis and the full calculation in the format “is / should be / why this is the only possible way”.

4. Do not forget the arithmetical consequences of the correction – Article 223(2)(2) PPL expressly requires them. In our example there are no consequences, because a secondary value is being corrected.

5. Notify without delay and record the action in the procedure record. The time limit for an appeal runs from the day the information is provided – subsequent correspondence with the contractor does not shift it (KIO 185/22).

The contractor’s perspective

If it is your bid that contains the discrepancy, adopt two principles.

First – do not declare which price you “choose”. The explanation should indicate what in the content of the bid shows the correct value (calculation, VAT amount, cost estimate), and not amount to a declaration of intent made after the opening of bids.

Second – if the contracting authority corrects the error in a way you disagree with, the time limit for an appeal runs from the notification of the correction, not from the selection of the most advantageous bid. Waiting for the contracting authority to change its position is acting at your own risk.

Systemic advice: stop requiring two entries

Most of these disputes arise from a requirement that has no statutory basis. In electronic procedures, the price is in any case entered in figures in the form on the platform. Dropping the “in words” field – or clearly stating in the SWZ that the bid price is the gross value given in figures in the form on the platform – eliminates the problem at its source.

If, however, the “in words” field remains, it is worth remembering the thesis from KIO 382/23: an SWZ clause resolving the conflict does not release the contracting authority from assessing whether there is an obvious error. An automatic rule written into the specification will not replace an analysis of the content of the bid.

Summary

A discrepancy between the price given in figures and in words does not determine anything. It is not the submission of two bids and is not an automatic ground for rejection. One question decides: can one result, leaving no doubt, be derived from the content of the bid itself? If so – the contracting authority is obliged to correct the error ex officio. If not – it may not rescue the bid with a question that gives the contractor the choice of price after the opening of bids.

Do you need an assessment of a specific bid or a draft notification of the correction of an error? Contact our team.

The above material is for information and educational purposes only – it does not constitute legal advice or an opinion on a specific case. The numerical example is purely illustrative, and assessment of a specific factual situation requires individual analysis. Legal status: Act of 11 September 2019 – Public Procurement Law (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2026, item 793).

Dominik Styczyński – attorney-at-law (radca prawny), public procurement law expert representing contractors and contracting authorities before the National Appeals Chamber (KIO)