1. The subject of the order is the delivery of systems utilizing ML/LLM/AI algorithms for optimizing hospital processes and organizing the work of medical and non-medical personnel, namely:
1) AI Databases,
2) AI Module for the telephone exchange.
A detailed description of the subject of the order is specified in the OPZ (Appendix 1 to the SWZ) and in the draft contract (Appendix 2 to the SWZ).
REASON FOR NOT DIVIDING INTO PARTS
The contracting authority has opted not to divide the order into parts, as the specificity of the subject of the order requires ensuring full compatibility and technological coherence of the delivered elements of infrastructure and software. Dividing the order into parts could result in excessive technical difficulties at the integration stage of the delivered equipment and software and a risk of a lack of proper coordination of actions from multiple contractors. Consequently, this could lead to inadequate execution of the order, delays, and additional costs on the part of the contracting authority.
The contracting authority has analyzed the possibility of dividing the order into parts, taking into account both the diversity of equipment and software, as well as the market availability of individual categories. The ordered equipment and software are closely dependent on each other concerning the execution of the subject of the order. Splitting deliveries and implementations between multiple contractors would necessitate coordinating many parallel technical procedures, receptions, and integration issues, which would generate increased organizational expenses and transfer the risk associated with the proper operation of the systems to the contracting authority.
The limited time frame for the execution of the order is of particular importance – all systems must be implemented by 31.05.2026 at the latest. Such a short, rigid deadline creates a risk that any delays on the part of the contractors or at the stage of the appeal procedure directly threaten the timely achievement of the order's objectives. In the case of dividing the order into parts, each would represent a separate subject of granting the order, potentially with a separate contractor and separate procedural course.
It must be emphasized that when granting the order in parts, there is a real risk of appeals being submitted to the National Appeal Chamber regarding individual parts, at different times, and with varying outcomes. Suspension of the procedure for even one of the key parts could significantly delay the conclusion of the contract for that part, thus preventing the completion of the entire environment within the required time frame. As a result, the contracting authority could find itself in a situation where part of the equipment or software is delivered on time but cannot be launched or used as intended due to the lack of other system components.
In addition, even in the absence of appeals to KIO, conducting several separate proceedings (concerning individual parts) carries the risk of inconsistent schedules for contract conclusion and deliveries by different contractors. Given such a short execution time, even slight delays on the part of one of the contractors can result in the inability to complete all work on time. This particularly applies to key infrastructure elements, whose later delivery would prevent timely achievement of the entire investment goals, despite the timely delivery of the remaining elements.
The contracting authority indicates that granting the entire order to one contractor will bring significant organizational benefits and allow for consistent oversight over the execution of the order. Carrying out all deliveries and implementations by one entity will enable a coherent process of planning, coordination, and receptions, as well as reduce the risk of delays resulting from inconsistent schedules for different parts of the order. This will facilitate resource planning on the part of the contracting authority and significantly reduce the administrative burden associated with handling the proceedings.
Organizational benefits also persist after the order’s execution – at the stage of operation and technical support. Providing service support by one contractor will enable a unified reporting system and shorten response time in case of malfunctions or irregularities. This will eliminate the risk of dispersal of responsibility among various contractors and contribute to more efficient maintenance of the entire systems.
Taking into account the above-mentioned technical, organizational, timing, and economic considerations, the contracting authority has concluded that not dividing the order into parts is a purposeful, justified solution, in accordance with the principle of effective, purposeful, and economical spending of public funds, and also necessary to ensure the execution of the order within the required timeframe.
LOT-0001
SZP/ZPZ/53/2026/KP
Delivery of systems utilizing ML/LLM/AI algorithms for optimizing hospital processes and the organization of work for medical and non-medical personnel.
1. The subject of the order is the delivery of systems utilizing ML/LLM/AI algorithms for optimizing hospital processes and organizing the work of medical and non-medical personnel, namely:
1) AI Databases,
2) AI Module for the telephone exchange.
A detailed description of the subject of the order is specified in the OPZ (Appendix 1 to the SWZ) and in the draft contract (Appendix 2 to the SWZ).
The proceedings are conducted in Polish.
LIST OF SUBJECT-SPECIFIC PROOF OF EVIDENCE
1. Contractors must submit the following statements and documents along with the offer:
1) Contractor's Statement on complying with the 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) principle - Appendix 9 to the SWZ,
2) Statement from the manufacturer confirming compliance with requirements (regarding AI server infrastructure - Servers mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 1 of the Description of the Subject of the Order), according to Appendix 12 to the SWZ,
3) Statement from the manufacturer confirming compliance with requirements (regarding the development server mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 2 of the Description of the Subject of the Order), according to Appendix 13 to the SWZ,
4) Statement from the manufacturer confirming compliance with requirements (regarding UPS mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 3 of the Description of the Subject of the Order), according to Appendix 14 to the SWZ,
5) Statement from the manufacturer confirming compliance with requirements (regarding the telephone exchange with built-in AI Module mentioned in Chapter VI sec. 1 of the Description of the Subject of the Order), according to Appendix 15 to the SWZ,
6) ISO 9001 certificate or equivalent for the servicing company (regarding AI server infrastructure - Servers mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 1 of the Description of the Subject of the Order),
7) ISO 9001 certificate or equivalent for the servicing company (regarding the development server mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 2 of the Description of the Subject of the Order),
8) ISO 27001 certificate or equivalent for the servicing company (regarding AI server infrastructure - Servers mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 1 of the Description of the Subject of the Order),
9) ISO 27001 certificate or equivalent for the servicing company (regarding the development server mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 2 of the Description of the Subject of the Order),
10) ISO 14001 certificate or equivalent for the manufacturer (regarding AI server infrastructure - Servers mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 1 of the Description of the Subject of the Order),
11) ISO 14001 certificate or equivalent for the manufacturer (regarding the development server mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 2 of the Description of the Subject of the Order),
12) CE declaration of conformity (regarding AI server infrastructure - Servers mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 1 of the Description of the Subject of the Order),
13) CE declaration of conformity (regarding the development server mentioned in Chapter IV sec. 1 point 2 of the Description of the Subject of the Order).
2. If the contractor has not submitted the specific means of proof indicated in paragraph 1 or the submitted specific means of proof are incomplete, the contracting authority will request their submission or supplementation within the period specified in the request unless despite the submission of the specific means of proof, the offer will be subject to rejection or there are grounds for annulment of the proceedings.