How Does Subcontractor Payment Documentation Violate PZP Regulations?

Question from Aneta, How Does Subcontractor Payment Documentation Violate PZP Regulations?

Answer from AI:

The condition in the contract requiring the main contractor to provide proof of payment to subcontractors before receiving their own payment may conflict with Poland’s Public Procurement Law (PZP) in several ways:

1. Contradiction with Payment Guarantee Mechanism (Article 143a PZP): The PZP introduces a payment guarantee (“zabezpieczenie zapłaty”) to ensure subcontractors are paid. This allows the contracting authority to pay subcontractors directly if the main contractor fails to do so. The contract’s condition, however, ties the main contractor’s payment to proof of subcontractor payment, potentially conflicting with the PZP’s direct payment provisions.

2. Restriction on Proof of Payment: The contract only accepts certified copies of transfers or written declarations, which may be more restrictive than what the PZP requires. This could create unnecessary barriers for the main contractor, conflicting with the PZP’s aim to ensure timely and smooth payments.

3. Potential Violation of Subcontractor Protection: The PZP is designed to protect subcontractors by ensuring timely payments. The contract’s condition might inadvertently complicate this process, possibly violating the spirit of subcontractor protection under the PZP.

4. Unfair Restriction on Cash Flow: The condition could impose an unfair restriction on the main contractor’s cash flow, conflicting with the PZP’s principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

In conclusion, the contract’s payment condition may impose additional requirements that conflict with the PZP’s framework, particularly regarding payment guarantees and subcontractor protection mechanisms. This could create legal inconsistencies and potential violations of public procurement laws.