I was under the impression that the tenders committee gave its consideration to the purposes of the guarantee – ensuring the seriousness of the proposal, maintaining the integrity of the tender process and deterring participants from improper conduct – but on the other hand, it also examined the principles of fairness and proportionality and refrained from imposing a sanction that deviates from what is required for the realization of these purposes. In all its considerations, the Authority took into account both the gap between the proposal submitted by the Petitioner and the value of the rights in the lot (although the responsibility for the gap lies with the Petitioner) and the delay in sending the reply to the Petitioner's application. These considerations do indeed justify a certain reduction in the forfeiture rate, exactly as the tenders committee decided, on two different occasions in the case of the Petitioner in question: the first time after the gap between the area of the lot and the scope of the rights became clear and due to the delay in responding to the Petitioner's request by 50%, and the second time following the Petitioner's repeated request, the forfeiture was reduced "in light of the exceptional circumstances" to a total of NIS 400,000.
- The reasons for the tenders committee's decision indicate that it exercised its administrative discretion in an appropriate manner, while examining all the relevant data, including the nature of the violation, its intensity, the damage caused to the authority, the Petitioner's relative share in the creation of the damage and the implications of the decision on the principles of equality and fairness in the tender. I also got the impression that the tenders committee's considerations were favorable to the petitioner out of a desire to be lenient with her, but at the same time they preserved the basic principles of Regulation 16B(b)4 The Tenders Duty Regulations.
If so, I find that the tenders committee's decision to forfeit only a partial amount, which stands at about 25% of the guarantee, reflects a proper balance between the public interest in maintaining the proper conduct of the proceedings and safeguarding the rights of the participants, and fulfills the purpose of the guarantee to the extent Adequate And fair. Therefore, no ground arose for the court's intervention in the tenders committee's decision.
- I did not find any substance in the other arguments of the Petitioner, and they are rejected.
- In the end, the petition is rejected.
In view of the result I have reached, taking into account the existence of one hearing and since written arguments were submitted, I charge the Petitioner with the following fees-Respondents' power of NIS 20,000.