How President Roman’s colleague commissioned the renovation of an important road

The entrepreneur whose company URBIT J. Michalik won the tender to carry out the project accuses the Karkonosze County authorities of sluggishness, errors in the documentation and a lack of cooperation.

The head of the county is Krzysztof Wiśniewski, a colleague of Bolesławiec President Piotr Roman from the Association of Polish Municipalities of the Nysa Euroregion. It was with Krzysztof Wiśniewski that Ewa Lijewska found employment as county secretary; she had previously worked for Piotr Roman as director of BOK–MCC.

This summer, a conflict erupted between the entrepreneur and the county office in Jelenia Góra. Jacek Kostrzewa, a representative of URBIT, accuses the office of delays and a lack of cooperation. The county office responds that the contractor is not following the schedule and faces a penalty.

“What schedule, if the county head rejects a previously approved traffic-management plan?!” asks Jacek Kostrzewa. “We had to start everything from scratch. Nothing here makes sense! There are masses of errors in the design and specifications, while the county head is making demands for more than PLN 52 million. This project is funded by taxpayers’ money, not the county head’s. The investors are the residents—the taxpayers. The county head is only the contracting authority,” Kostrzewa adds.

What is happening with the renovation?

According to the contractor, everything began immediately after the contract was signed in December 2024. Despite the formal handover of the construction site, the start of the work was repeatedly delayed—first because approval of the traffic-management plan was pending, and later because of objections to the materials and technology being used.

“We waited for months for approval of the traffic-management plan and the materials. This made it impossible to order materials, arrange transport and organize the work,” says Jacek Kostrzewa.

The county office rejects these allegations. In a letter dated June 18, 2025, officials state that the work was not started according to the schedule and call on the company to act urgently, threatening contractual penalties.

Problems with documentation and supervision

At the beginning of July, the contractor commissioned independent soil tests. The results showed that the actual conditions on the section in Marczyce differed significantly from those described in the tender documentation. According to the company, the soil is unsuitable for work using the technology specified in the design.

“Based on these tests, we were forced to suspend the work and officially recorded this in the construction log. We cannot continue working in conditions that differ from the contracting authority’s assurances,” Kostrzewa explains.

That is not all. The contractor also has doubts about the composition of the team of inspectors supervising the project. According to URBIT, some of them have links to companies that bid in the same tender, which, in the entrepreneur’s view, may raise concerns about the impartiality of the supervision. “The county head selected two inspectors who are employed by companies competing with us. Those companies entered the tender and did not beat us, which causes ongoing conflicts on their part because they claim we took work away from them in their own area,” says Jacek Kostrzewa.

URBIT: “We previously completed projects without any problems”

URBIT emphasizes that in previous years it completed several major road projects—on time and without objections. “A month ago, we handed over the county road from Cieplice to Podgórzyn. Our deadline was December this year, but we finished much earlier so as not to cause traffic jams in the city, and everything went smoothly. The inspector was an independent person, however. The county head’s illogical decisions will result in a million-zloty compensation payment from taxpayers’ money. Until now, everything had proceeded smoothly, but now we have delays and legal uncertainties. These are not conditions in which a project can be carried out properly,” says Kostrzewa.

What next for the project?

In a letter dated July 21, the contractor called on the contracting authority to “cooperate”—that is, to remove defects in the documentation or prepare the site so that it complies with the design. URBIT stated that if no action was taken within seven days, it reserved the right to withdraw from the contract due to the contracting authority’s fault.

The county office responds to the entrepreneur’s allegations

We sent an inquiry to the head of Karkonosze County. The response was sent by Ewa Gadzialska from the Secretariat of the Karkonosze County Board:

In response to your questions concerning the implementation of the project entitled “Renovation of the county road (former provincial road 366) from km 0+000 to km 3+974 and from km 7+505 to km 24+176, with a total length of 19,505 [m] (excluding the section from km 13+500 to km 14+640)”—Stage I, from km 10+640 to km 12+010, Topolowa Street in Marczyce—I kindly inform you that Karkonosze County is not in dispute with the contractor. Karkonosze County intends to carry out the project in accordance with the design and under the conditions specified in the open tender procedure, based on contract no. 201/2024 of December 10, 2024, concluded with the contractor.

Answers to the questions:

1. The complete temporary traffic-management plan, together with the necessary opinions, was submitted by the contractor for approval in April of this year. The approval procedure is a technical and material action and is not subject to the deadlines set out in the provisions of the Act of June 14, 1960, the Code of Administrative Procedure (Journal of Laws of 2024, item 572, as amended).

2. The basis for rejecting the traffic-management plan submitted for consideration is § 8(2)(3), in conjunction with § 8(6)(1), of the Regulation of the Minister of Infrastructure of September 23, 2003, on detailed conditions for traffic management on roads and the supervision of such management (Journal of Laws 2017, item 784).

The task of the road-traffic management authority is to ensure the safety of all road users, make effective use of public roads and take into account the needs of local communities.

In the assessment of the road-traffic management authority, the proposed design solutions would greatly complicate vehicle traffic in Podgórzyn Municipality, where the county road—the former DW 366—is a transit route carrying traffic between Piechowice and Kowary. In addition, a detour for other works being carried out in the municipality has already been designed along this road. At the same time, the construction technology and geometric parameters of the road in question make it possible to carry out the renovation without completely closing the road, using instead a one-sided closure and alternating traffic.

3. In conducting the tender procedure to select a supervision inspector, Karkonosze County applies only the provisions of the Public Procurement Law and therefore does not interfere in matters concerning the potential employment of contractors by third-party entities.

In public procurement, the concept of a conflict of interest includes at least any situation in which members of the contracting institution’s staff, or service providers handling procurement on behalf of the contracting institution, who participate in conducting a procurement procedure or may influence its outcome have, directly or indirectly, a financial, economic or other personal interest that could be perceived as threatening their impartiality and independence in connection with the procurement procedure. In this case, there was no conflict of interest.

4. Material submissions were made to the supervision inspectors several times. Due to doubts concerning the materials, the contractor was instructed to seek the designer’s opinion. After the first verification, the submissions were signed by a person holding road and bridge construction qualifications. However, after multiple verifications, the submissions were ultimately signed, with comments, by the Inspector Coordinator.

5. Karkonosze County reviewed the letter submitted by the contractor. The contents of the letter were discussed during the construction meeting on July 28, 2025, with the participation of representatives of the contractor, the contracting authority, the designer, the County Geologist and the Supervision Inspector. The conclusions presented by the contractor in the letter raised doubts on the part of the contracting authority because they contained errors and had been prepared by a person without the appropriate geological qualifications.

6. Karkonosze County formally called on the contractor to immediately resume the work in accordance with the scope and the design documentation.

7. Under the contract with the contractor, there are currently no grounds for imposing contractual penalties on the contractor.

8. Meetings were held at the initiative of both the contracting authority and the contractor to develop further cooperation.

9. There is a risk of losing the funding. If the project deadlines are threatened, Karkonosze County will make every effort to maintain the funding.

10. Karkonosze County seeks to continue the project and remains in constant contact with the contractor. Nevertheless, the County is obliged to carry out the project in accordance with the applicable law, that is, in accordance with the construction design and the conditions specified in the open tender procedure, based on contract no. 201/2024 of December 10, 2024, concluded with the contractor.

Meanwhile, road 366 remains partly impassable, and drivers must use alternating traffic. If the conflict is not resolved, the matter may go to court. Residents of the region will have to wait even longer for a passable and safe road.