“What a gem of a competition!” wrote Monika Arczyńska on her social media profile, commenting on the competition announced a few days ago to develop an architectural concept for the Tax Administration Chamber building in Łódź, located at 25 Poznańska Street in Łęczyca. What’s the problem?
The subject of the competition, announced on July 31, 2026, is the development of an architectural concept for the reconstruction, expansion, and addition of stories to the existing buildings, along with site development, for the needs of the Tax Administration Chamber in Łódź.
The plot in Łęczyca covered by the competition currently contains a utility building in very poor technical condition, as well as a detached residential building from the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, listed in the Municipal Register of Historic Monuments, which was damaged by fire several years ago. The fire destroyed the entire attic and part of the roof structure, while the remaining parts were flooded with water.
© Google Maps
Competition proposals should include the creation of jobs for 45 people, a service area, a room for individual consultations, restrooms, and staff facilities, as well as a utility and technical area. The planned total cost of the work based on the competition entry is 11,235,400 PLN gross, of which 346,400 PLN gross, or just over 3 percent, represents the cost of preparing the design documentation, including the transfer of copyright to the competition entry and design documentation, as well as the cost of author supervision.
The entries will be evaluated by a three-member jury chaired by architect Piotr Podsadny, consisting of: Paweł Retkiewicz (Department of Logistics and Public Procurement at the Tax Administration Chamber in Łódź) and Przemysław Głowacki (Department of Information Security and Protection, Cybersecurity, and Compliance at the Tax Administration Chamber in Łódź). The deadline for submitting entries is August 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., meaning architects have less than a month to prepare and submit their concepts; the prize for the winning proposal will be an invitation to negotiate under a single-source procurement procedure to provide services based on the selected competition entry.
The Two Sides of Architectural Competitions
The topic of architectural competitions constantly resurfaces in professional discussions—on the one hand, there are voices highlighting the advantages of this method for selecting the best proposal; on the other, attention is drawn to the conditions for participation in this procedure, which are not always favorable. Sometimes, contracting authorities decide against organizing a competition, citing a lack of time to carry it out; while at the other extreme, there are examples of well-organized, two-stage competitions that permanently transform the built environment and set new standards for the architecture around us. Competitions require countless hours of work and enormous financial investments from the participating firms, which often do not pay off, even if a prize or honorable mention is won.
In December 2025, the Warsaw Branch of the Association of Polish Architects, together with the Mazovian Regional Chamber of Architects, established a Public Procurement Market Monitoring Team to identify projects that are not, but should be subject to a competitive bidding process, and to inform contracting authorities of their obligations under public procurement law.
We hope that these initiatives, combined with a well-managed information campaign, will increase the number of contracts for design work based on quality criteria
— wrote members of the SARP Regional Branch in the May issue of A&B.
And it seems that these are precisely the two issues at stake— reliable information and quality criteria. One of the values of the competition is the expert evaluation of submitted entries based on their appropriate response to the competition brief—the best possible in terms of architecture, spatial design, and functionality and usability. The problem arises when the competition rules explicitly state that functional and practical solutions will be evaluated in the same way as the cost of preparing the design documentation —accounting for 0 to 40 percent of the total score. Architectural and aesthetic qualities, structural and material solutions, and the innovative nature of the proposal—from 0 to 10 percent. Is it really possible to achieve a high-quality solution this way?
Minimum Price, Maximum Effort
We discuss the aforementioned “competition quirk” and the “cardinal sins” of competitions in Poland with Monika Arczyńska, an architect at the A2P2 studio, which also organizes competitions.
Ola Kloc: There are virtually no prizes in the competition, the deadline for submitting entries is less than a month, and one of the main scoring criteria is the cost of preparing the documentation—are these the “deadly sins” of competitions in Poland? In your opinion, what drives such decisions by the organizers?
Monika Arczyńska: There are various groups of clients who differ in their approach to organizing competitions and working with contractors. A lot depends on their experience and who advises them.
The first group consists of local government contracting authorities—such as investment departments—who are very aware of the challenges they face and how the design services market works. They have gone through public procurement procedures many times before and understand the risks involved. Their “mistakes” often stem from past experiences, mainly from tenders where price was the dominant criterion. In their view, a contractor will either not lift a finger beyond the absolute minimum required by the contract or will make design errors that they will be unwilling to correct. It’s hardly surprising— if someone offers the lowest price, they’re counting every man-hour. This group of clients usually wants to protect themselves thoroughly because they don’t feel they can find a partner through a competition who will be willing to cooperate and be flexible. As a result, asymmetrical contracts are proposed, in which all the benefits and safeguards are on the client’s side, while the architect is squeezed for every last drop.
The second group consists of institutions—including cultural ones—that are planning a major investment spanning several years, while acknowledging their lack of experience in organizing competitions. However, they know what they want, so they seek a competition operator they can trust and who will provide them with the appropriate support. Such clients are looking for quality and someone who can “see the project through.” Of course, they include various safeguards in the competition terms, but they know that the project must be properly priced. They also listen to arguments regarding the composition of the competition jury. In our competitions—and I believe this sets us apart from others—we always strive, especially for this group of clients, to select a jury composed not only of well-known, experienced, and talented architects, but also those with strong communication skills, which will allow them to work effectively with the client. I feel that this combination leads to the best competitions, resulting in the best projects.
Ola Kloc: And in this case?
Monika Arczyńska: There are also cases, like this one, where someone didn’t call early enough—whether to SARP or to us—and didn’t seek advice. Even if the institution wants to organize the competition on its own, we often provide free advice on the next steps, because we believe it’s very important to educate people on how a competition works and what conditions need to be met.
It also seems to me that this client, like many others, operates based on outdated myths about competitions. They may think—and I believe this stems not from ill will but from the repetition of various misconceptions—that architects participate in competitions because they love to design and the competition gives them that opportunity. We need to make clients aware that times have changed, that competition entries aren’t created by students working after hours or by groups of friends gathered around a kitchen table.
Clients completely underestimate the value of a competition design concept, as well as the effort and time required to prepare it, and they give only one month to submit the entry. This deadline is unlikely to stem from the need to spend funds by the end of the year (which often happens and affects schedules). Although this competition concerns a building with a small floor area, that doesn’t mean it will require any less work than a massive structure.
Ola Kloc: Raising awareness is one thing, but how do we change this approach systemically?
Monika Arczyńska: Not everything can be done in Poland due to our public procurement laws. However, we can divide competitions into two stages. Although this is often a self-perpetuating cycle—it happens that even though the competition rules clearly state that the first stage requires only the absolute minimum scope—to avoid wasting architects’ man-hours—visualizations and floor plans are still submitted for the competition that are indistinguishable between the first and second stages. Architects also contribute to this problem.
Ola Kloc: The cost of preparing the documentation in this case cannot exceed 3.18 percent of the estimated project value—what percentage do you think should be the standard?
Monika Arczyńska: When it comes to building design, this is specified by regulation. Costs are often underestimated, though this isn’t always the fault of the clients. It may stem from the budget they have available at a given time or the process of applying for external funding. In such situations, we also look for solutions—we propose phasing the project or postponing part of the work. Often, however, these are purely political decisions.
We also discussed architectural competitions with Monika Arczyńska during the 2026 Polish Architecture Congress, an event for which Architektura&Biznes served as a media partner. We encourage you to listen to the conversation:
We asked why the deadline for submitting entries was so short, why a cash prize was not awarded, and about expectations regarding the competition—in which cheaper proposals will have a better chance—were directed to the spokesperson for the Tax Administration Chamber in Łódź; as of the publication of this article, we had not received a response.
