Must a certificate submitted in a tender be issued by an accredited certification body? This is one of the most common allegations raised against competitors’ bids. The answer depends on the legal basis on which the contracting authority requires the certificate and on the literal wording of the procurement documents. We explain when accreditation of the certification body follows directly from the Public Procurement Law (PPL), and when solely from the will of the contracting authority.

Certification and accreditation – two different concepts

Certification is an assessment carried out by an independent body as to whether an organisation or product meets the requirements of a specific standard; it ends with the issue of a certificate. Accreditation is a confirmation by the national accreditation body – in Poland, the Polish Centre for Accreditation – that the certification body itself is competent and impartial. Accreditation is granted within a specific scope: a body accredited for certification according to ISO 9001 is not thereby accredited for ISO 22000.

Both certification of management systems and applying for accreditation are voluntary, and generally applicable law does not prohibit the use of certificates issued by non-accredited bodies. In some areas, accreditation cannot be obtained at all – in its judgment of 21 March 2022 (KIO 641/22), the Chamber referred to the position of the PCA, according to which it is not possible to obtain accreditation for certification according to HACCP requirements. Whether a certificate is sufficient in a procedure is therefore determined by the provisions of the PPL and the content of the procurement documents.

This should not be confused with the certification of contractors for public procurement under the Act of 5 August 2025, which we discuss in a separate article in the Knowledge Base.

When accreditation of the certification body follows from the law

A certificate as an object-related evidentiary means (Article 105 PPL). The contracting authority may require a certificate issued by a conformity assessment body or a test report from tests carried out by that body. The Act defines it as a body that performs conformity assessment activities, including calibration, testing, certification and inspection, accredited in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 (Article 105(2) PPL). Accreditation is therefore part of the statutory definition – a document issued by a body without accreditation is not a certificate within the meaning of Article 105 PPL, regardless of what it is called. During verification, it must also be established whether the accreditation covers the given standard or type of assessment and whether it was valid on the date the certificate was issued.

At the same time, the contracting authority accepts certificates issued by other equivalent conformity assessment bodies (Article 105(3) PPL), and if the contractor, through no fault of its own, has no access to the certificate or no possibility of obtaining it within the relevant time limit – also other appropriate object-related evidentiary means, in particular the manufacturer’s technical documentation (Article 105(4) PPL). The Chamber treats these provisions as mandatory (judgments of 24 August 2022, KIO 2063/22, and of 10 April 2026, KIO 735/26).

A certificate as a subject-related evidentiary means (§ 9 of the regulation). To confirm compliance with quality management or environmental management standards (Article 116(1) PPL), the contracting authority may require certificates from an independent body referred to in § 9(1)(12) and (13) of the regulation on subject-related evidentiary means. These provisions refer to systems certified by accredited bodies. Instead, the contractor may submit equivalent documents issued by bodies from other EEA states (§ 9(5)), and where, for reasons beyond its control, it has no access to them – other subject-related evidentiary means, provided that it demonstrates that the measures applied comply with the required standards (§ 9(6)).

When accreditation of the certification body is not required

Outside these cases, the contracting authority may require other object-related evidentiary means if they are necessary to conduct the procedure (Article 106(1) PPL) – e.g. a certificate from an independent body without accreditation or a certificate under a private scheme. The required documents must be proportionate to and linked to the subject matter of the contract (Article 106(2) PPL), and the contracting authority accepts equivalent documents (Article 106(3) PPL).

The significance of this distinction is illustrated by the judgment of 25 November 2024 (KIO 4043/24) concerning a delivery of servers. The contracting authority required an EPEAT environmental certificate or an equivalent document as a means under Article 106 PPL. The Chamber indicated that Article 105(4) PPL applies only to certificates of conformity assessment bodies, and found sufficient a manufacturer’s declaration confirming the required features of the equipment, since the procurement documents did not exclude it. It also emphasised that at the bid evaluation stage the contracting authority cannot extend requirements that it did not describe.

The scope of the required accreditation is determined by the content of the terms of reference (SWZ)

The Chamber assesses certificates through the prism of the literal wording of the procurement documents. In case KIO 641/22 (patient catering), the condition required a certificate from an independent accredited body. The contractor submitted a HACCP certificate from a body belonging to a holding accredited by a British accreditation body in the scope of, among others, ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 45001, but not HACCP or ISO 22000. The Chamber dismissed the appeal: the contracting authority required an accredited body but did not require the accreditation to cover the HACCP scope.

Similarly, in its judgment of 25 February 2025 (KIO 323/25), the Chamber found that the requirement that a “certified auditor” hold a certificate from an accredited body did not follow from the procurement documents, and that the appellant’s position was an impermissible over-interpretation of them. It pointed out that before the bid submission deadline no one had requested clarification of this term.

The conclusion is clear: if the contracting authority expects the accreditation of the certification body to cover a specific scope, it must indicate this expressly. After the bid submission deadline, neither the contracting authority nor competitors can effectively demand compliance with requirements that the procurement documents did not provide for.

Can the contracting authority waive the accreditation requirement?

Accreditation is required by law in two situations: when the contracting authority requires a certificate under Article 105 PPL and when it requires a certificate under § 9(1)(12) or (13) of the regulation. In other cases, the accreditation requirement is determined by the content of the procurement documents.

We have not found a ruling of the Chamber that would directly decide on the admissibility of waiving the accreditation requirement in the course of the procedure. On the basis of the provisions, however, it should be assumed that such an amendment is not in itself contrary to the Act if the contracting authority requires the document under Article 106 PPL and meets the requirements of necessity, proportionality and acceptance of equivalent documents. The situation is different when the contracting authority – while waiving accreditation – still relies on Article 105 PPL or § 9(1)(12) or (13) of the regulation, because there accreditation follows from the very wording of the provision. A contractor who disagrees with such an amendment may lodge an appeal against the content of the procurement documents within the time limit under Article 515(2) PPL.

Practical conclusions

• Contracting authority: indicate the legal basis of the requirement – Article 105, Article 106 PPL or § 9 of the regulation. It determines whether accreditation follows from the law or solely from the SWZ;
• Contracting authority: if accreditation matters to you, state it expressly – together with its scope (standard, type of assessment) and a justification based on the needs of the contract;
• Contracting authority: when waiving accreditation, specify the requirements – what features the independent body must have and which documents you will accept as equivalent;
• Contractor: check whether the accreditation of the certification body covers the relevant scope – in the register of the PCA or of the foreign accreditation body: whether it concerns the relevant standard and whether it was valid on the date the certificate was issued;
• Contractor: raise doubts before the bid submission deadline – by means of a request for clarification of the SWZ or an appeal. After the opening of bids, the Chamber assesses documents solely according to the literal wording of the SWZ.

The above material is for information and educational purposes only – it does not constitute legal advice or an opinion on a specific case. 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) and Regulation of the Minister of Development, Labour and Technology of 23 December 2020 on subject-related evidentiary means and other documents or statements which the contracting authority may require from the contractor (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 2415, as amended).

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