Another war – another price adjustment?

Once again, the construction market in Poland is facing a shock caused by an extraordinary event. This time, it is the escalation in the Strait of Hormuz – within just a few days, oil prices are rising sharply again, followed by the prices of construction materials in Poland. The increases are affecting, in particular, asphalt, aggregates, steel, polystyrene, as well as transport. CEOs of the largest groups are openly speaking about declining turnover, claims against contracting authorities, and the need to participate in tenders with prices at the edge of profitability (WNP, 6 May 2026).

Over the last six years, we have already experienced two events that could be classified as extraordinary and unforeseeable, while also affecting the Polish economy: the Covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Only in relation to one of these events – in August 2022 – did the General Counsel to the Republic of Poland issue recommendations concerning the adjustment of remuneration under construction contracts.

The result – dozens of amendments to ongoing contracts and increases in contractual caps limiting remuneration adjustment.

As regards the Covid pandemic and its consequences, neither the General Counsel nor any other state authority has so far taken a position, leaving it to the courts to answer the question:

Was it an “extraordinary change in circumstances” within the meaning of Article 357¹ of the Civil Code?

Based on many years of advising clients from the construction market, and observing changes in the prices of materials and services in this sector, one conclusion seems inevitable: the effects of the pandemic and of the war in Ukraine were, to a large extent, comparable. The scale of price increases, as well as the accompanying decline in contract profitability, were – if not identical – at least very similar.

Covid-related price adjustment cases are pending before the courts. There are essentially no price adjustment cases relating to the war in Ukraine. The difference? The recommendations of the General Counsel.

The General Counsel expressly recognised the war in Ukraine as a circumstance justifying remuneration adjustment under Article 455(1)(4) of the Public Procurement Law and Article 357¹ of the Civil Code. The mechanism today is analogous: an armed conflict, sudden and unforeseeable fluctuations in commodity prices, and disruption of supply chains. From the perspective of the legal prerequisites, the difference is minor. The position of the General Counsel is not a source of law, but in practice it gives contracting authorities decision-making comfort and often serves as a “roadmap” for courts.

Without analogous recommendations, contractors will have to:

1. individually demonstrate the unforeseeability and scale of the price increases,
2. prove the actual impact of the conflict on the specific contract,
3. face the argument from contracting authorities that an oil shock “falls within contractual risk”.

Each subsequent “wave” of price increases caused by such sudden events requires separate and reliable evidence. Without a clear position from the General Counsel, success in court is possible, but more difficult.

The conclusion?

• Contractors should already be meticulously documenting the impact of the war in Iran on the costs of a specific project,
• while public contracting authorities should consider proactive price adjustment – because, as the General Counsel reminds us, refusing such adjustment does not necessarily mean acting “economically”.

while public contracting authorities should consider proactive price adjustment – because, as the General Counsel reminds us, refusing such adjustment does not necessarily mean acting “economically”.

Is there any other “legal logic” supporting the view that the war in Ukraine may be recognised as a basis for price adjustment, while the war in Iran — or the Covid pandemic — may not?