This article is a part of Poland Unpacked. Weekly intelligence for decision-makers
XYZ has obtained footage documenting concerns over smoke and carbon monoxide detectors handed out as part of a government program. Firefighters raise genuine doubts about the effectiveness of equipment intended to protect lives. We investigate the background of the tender and the cost of acquiring these devices.
Let’s get straight to the point: the detectors distributed by the fire service are raising doubts – even among the firefighters themselves. Questions are being asked about their effectiveness, particularly in detecting smoke. These are not merely opinions or speculation. Firefighters have been conducting their own tests and recording the results. The outcomes of these trials, to put it mildly, are far from convincing.
According to responses received, the State Fire Service (PSP) purchased a total of around 140,000 devices. The order was split into two categories: the larger portion, estimated at roughly 90,000 units, consists of standalone smoke detectors, while the remainder are carbon monoxide detectors.
Information available on the Fire Service Procurement Platform indicates that the order was worth approximately PLN 15 million (around EUR 3.3 million). Funding comes from the Ministry of Interior and Administration (MSWiA) budget, specifically from the Population Protection and Civil Defense Program (OLiOC) for 2025–2026. By the end of February, 56,800 standalone smoke and carbon monoxide detectors had been distributed. The project is overseen by the Headquarters of the State Fire Service. Most documents bear the signature and seal of Deputy Chief Paweł Frysztak.
The issue was first publicly flagged by former Chief of the State Fire Service, Brigadier General Andrzej Bartkowiak. On X (formerly Twitter), he wrote that he had received reports indicating that the detectors were not functioning as claimed by the manufacturer.
But is that really the case? Both the Ministry of Interior and Administration and the Headquarters of the State Fire Service deny any problems. And that is hardly surprising.
Disturbing footage: Do the detectors work or not?
Firefighters from several regions of the country have provided us with recordings of detector tests. To put it bluntly, the materials give reason to question the effectiveness of the devices. The footage shows, among other things, burning paper directly beneath the detectors. In one clip, the use of a specialized firefighter smoke spray is clearly shown, as well as a device designed to generate smoke.
In three cases, the detector does not respond at all. In one instance, it reacts with a significant delay – and only after a professional firefighting smoke generator is used, with the nozzle inserted directly into the detector. In another, the detector fails to respond even when enclosed in a plastic bag and exposed to the firefighter spray.
In yet another recording, a burning sheet of paper placed near the detector fails to trigger the alarm. Instead, a different detector suspended nearby begins to sound. Colloquially speaking, something here clearly does not add up. If these are smoke detectors intended to warn people installing them in homes and apartments of imminent danger, watching this footage is alarming.
We showed the materials to firefighters who regularly promote, distribute, and install detectors in hundreds of homes across Poland. Their reactions speak for themselves. The identities of our sources have been changed – they are active-duty personnel and are officially prohibited from commenting critically on the equipment they distribute.
“It looks like junk, not fit for purpose. This is going to cause a mess,” said a firefighter from Pomerania in northern Poland.
“The worst junk on the market,” commented another from Podlasie in eastern Poland.
“We’ll have to apologize”
There are more recordings. They circulate in firefighter groups and messaging apps and are widely discussed within the community. Particularly alarming is footage from one municipal fire station. It shows a firefighter placing a detector in a plastic bag and applying firefighter smoke spray. The detector does not respond.
We cannot publish these materials. The authors categorically refused consent – their voices are audible, interiors of stations are visible, and the personnel fear being identified. These are, however, experienced firefighters with many years of service, so-called “prevention officers” – personnel responsible for fire prevention and public education.
The recordings are in the editorial office’s possession. The firefighters have already distributed hundreds of these devices. When the issue began to attract attention, they conducted their own tests. The results were unconvincing. The materials we have suggest a harsher assessment: the results were disastrous.
In one clip, a confused firefighter is heard saying, “I guess we’ll have to apologize to the general.” This refers to Andrzej Bartkowiak, who faced a wave of online abuse after publicly expressing doubts about the detectors distributed by the State Fire Service.
Who’s right? Firefighters… vs. firefighters
The issue raises serious concerns. After all, it concerns the lives and health of citizens. Even more so, given that it is still unclear how and to whom the detectors are meant to be distributed.
We contacted fire stations in four provinces. In some, we were told that the detectors had “already run out.” In others – such as Suwałki in north-eastern Poland – we were informed that the devices had indeed arrived, but “to a different unit,” and that “no decision has yet been made on who will distribute them and how.” At the largest municipal fire station in Poland – the Warsaw headquarters – we were told that the detectors had been available, but “they’ve all been taken,” and our contact advised purchasing them from a retail chain instead.
This raises further questions, as it suggests that detectors reached individual stations at different times. Meanwhile, according to the contract, the supplier was supposed to deliver the devices within seven days of signing.
What we have, then, is a dispute – largely firefighters versus firefighters. And the consequences of this conflict could fall on citizens, especially when considering the footage in the editorial office’s possession, including those described above, which genuinely cast doubt on the effectiveness of the devices.
The company behind the detectors… and breathalyzers
Part of the detectors was supplied to the State Fire Service by the company Aisko. According to information provided to us, the firm delivered 65,000 devices: 50,000 carbon monoxide detectors and 15,000 smoke detectors. As co-owner Kamil Jackowicz emphasized in a statement, the company fulfilled only part of the overall order.
“Aisko has been operating in the home safety systems market since 1999 and is currently the largest specialized distributor of premium standalone smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in Poland. We are the general, authorized distributor of the Kidde brand in Poland,” the company said in a statement.
At the same time, all indications suggest that these are precisely the detectors at the center of the controversy.
“A sufficient number of devices has been secured”
Interestingly, when calling the company, the automated switchboard first provides information about breathalyzers. While Aisko has previously supplied detectors to various institutions and fire stations, those orders were measured in the hundreds of units. The current contract, however, covered tens of thousands of devices.
“We have an extensive logistical infrastructure, multiple warehouse facilities, and a continuous turnover of goods due to wide market distribution. Kidde products are widely available through major sales channels in Poland – both professional and retail – Including Leroy Merlin, Castorama, Media Expert, Media Markt, RTV Euro AGD, Eltrox, and X-kom. Delivering volumes on the order of tens of thousands of units does not pose an organizational or operational challenge for us. On the day the tender was awarded, we had quantities matching the contracted volume and completed deliveries according to the timelines specified in the agreement,” the company emphasized.
What about certifications? “Harmonized European standard”
The key question is whether the detectors at the center of the controversy hold the proper certifications. In Poland, fire safety device certification is handled by the Research and Development Centre for Fire Protection (CNBOP-PIB) – a state research institute under the Fire Service, based in Józefów. But in this case, did CNBOP-PIB certify the detectors supplied to the State Fire Service? Not necessarily.
“For standalone smoke detectors, the harmonized European standard EN 14604:2005/AC:2008 applies. This means that certification occurs at the EU level, and products can be tested and certified by any notified body within the EU – it does not have to be CNBOP-PIB. Specifying a single certifying body in the tender documentation, without allowing for equivalence, could violate principles of competition and equal treatment of contractors under Public Procurement Law. The contracting authority therefore acted in accordance with applicable regulations. CNBOP-PIB is one of many notified bodies in the EU. Other authorized entities include TÜV Rheinland, the British Standards Institution, and VdS,” the company explained.
Ministry confirms: Detectors certified by German body
The same is confirmed by the Ministry of Interior and Administration. According to the Ministry, the certified standalone Kidde smoke detectors supplied by Aisko meet the requirements of EN 14604:2005/AC:2008 and carry a declaration of performance consistency, issued based on certification conducted by the notified body TÜV Rheinland.
“The detectors issued to users possess the required certificates, declarations, and markings,” the Ministry emphasized.
For carbon monoxide detectors, the manufacturer obtained national certificates of performance consistency from CNBOP-PIB, accredited as body no. AC 063. For smoke detectors, manufacturers used foreign notified bodies – specifically TÜV Rheinland InterCert Kft.
The tender raises concerns: “Something smells like sulfur”
We showed the tender specifications to former CBA (Central Anti-Corruption Bureau) officials. The review was lengthy. Their conclusions are extensive and unequivocal.
First, the contracting authority waived any detailed requirements regarding the economic, financial, technical, or professional capacity of bidders. This means that even a newly formed entity, with no experience or logistical infrastructure, could submit an offer to supply 200,000 devices.
Second, the authority did not require a bid bond. This deprives it of a basic safeguard against frivolous offers or bidders evading contract performance after winning – a real risk when no capacity requirements are imposed.
Third, the contracting authority waived the requirement for performance security. In the event of a failure to deliver – and with such a large volume, this scenario is plausible – the authority lacks a fast mechanism to enforce claims.
Another concern relates to the delivery deadline. From a legal standpoint, the seven-day delivery window may violate Article 16 of the Public Procurement Law, which mandates procedures ensuring fair competition. Such a short timeframe favors only those entities that already have the physical goods in stock in Poland at the time of bidding, while excluding manufacturers and distributors who need standard time for import and distribution.
Combined with the absence of technical capacity requirements and the extremely short delivery period, the contracting authority exposes itself to a situation where a single bidder – unchecked for resources – wins the entire tender solely on the basis of the lowest price, and then cannot deliver 200,000 devices within a week, potentially paralyzing the entire process.
One of our sources summed it up succinctly, with a bitter smile: “Something smells like sulfur.”
Contract signed, detectors are being distributed
The Headquarters of the State Fire Service confirmed that the detectors are being distributed to individuals, with volunteer fire brigades also involved in the process.
The devices are reaching those most in need – people who are dependent, elderly, very old, or with disabilities, as well as socially excluded individuals. These are people unable to purchase or install detectors themselves to safeguard their homes.
Additionally, the detectors are being handed out to schoolchildren and teenagers during educational programs focused on fire safety.
Expert's perspective
Gen. Andrzej Bartkowiak: “Out of foolishness, equipment that fails was purchased”
I do not understand the wave of criticism directed at me when I publicly raised doubts about this issue. But let’s set that aside – history will judge who was right. I am one of the initiators of the program to distribute and install detectors through firefighters, which is why I felt compelled to speak about the concerns that the personnel themselves voiced to me.
A negative climate has developed around this issue. Something is clearly wrong, and it requires clarification. Additional detectors are being tested by firefighters and – as I hear – the results are poor. It is not, as Minister Szczepański claimed in the Sejm, that one detector out of 200 failed due to an instruction error, while the rest functioned correctly. The information reaching me paints a very different picture.
In some units, the devices are not being distributed at all. In others, firefighters test them themselves, and those that do not work simply do not reach the public. This is a matter of human life. These detectors do not activate even when specialized smoke spray – a tool specifically designed for testing – is used. And yet the alarm does not sound. In such a case, the question must be asked directly: what is wrong?
If there are doubts, if recordings exist, firefighters should not have been left to handle the problem alone. I could not ignore it and pretend nothing was happening. Out of haste and lack of reflection, equipment was purchased that – clearly – fails. That is all, and it is a lot.
It cannot be that problems must remain unsaid simply because the topic is inconvenient.
Why was certification not carried out by the Research and Development Centre for Fire Protection (CNBOP-PIB), but by an external body in another country? Must price always be the only criterion? Are funds more important than safety?
I believe this tender was the result of haste and a lack of competence – not ill will. All the more reason to investigate this matter thoroughly today.
Key Takeaways
- Even firefighters themselves have raised concerns about the detectors. As former Chief of the State Fire Service, Andrzej Bartkowiak, explains, he has received reports that in some parts of the country, personnel refuse to distribute the devices to residents, considering them to fall short of basic safety standards.
- It is impossible to ignore the problems with smoke detectors distributed by the fire service. Footage recorded by the firefighters themselves shows that the devices struggle to function properly. This is evident both when using “home” methods, such as burning paper, and during tests with professional firefighter smoke sprays.
- Questions are also raised about the pace of the tender, how it was conducted, and the choice of contractors. There is a broader issue of whether devices of this kind should have been certified by a national body – in this case, under the State Fire Service – rather than by foreign entities.