In these circumstances, and given that the Petitioner's claim that the Authority ignored the lessons of the first tender is rejected, I did not find that the failure to disclose this proceeding constitutes a breach of the Authority's increased duty of disclosure.
- The Petitioner tried to build on the preliminary assessment conducted by the ILA prior to the marketing of the lot – the opinion of the appraiser, Mr. Gil Keidar, dated December 30, 2019 (Appendix 6 to the Petition). According to the valuation of the appraiser Keidar, the value of the lot is estimated at approximately NIS 7.8 million, without tax dispute, and includes development. Even if the development expenses are reduced in the amount of NIS 2,406,638 as determined by the Ministry of Construction and Housing, the result will be that the value of the plot is NIS 5,243,362 as of the end of 2019 (It is reasonable to assume that from then until the publication of the tender, the value of the lot increased, especially since in the latest assessment for the tender, the value of the lot was estimated at NIS 16.8 million – Appendix 13 to the Petition).
If so, this is not a damaged or worthless lot, as the Petitioner tries to equate with it in her arguments. We have seen that the Authority has laid out before the bidders in the tender all the facts required to formulate the proposal. It was the Petitioner who chose to compete for the purchase of the lot in the framework of the tender and it was she who formulated her proposal according to all her professional considerations. Ultimately, it found out that its offer was significantly higher than the value of the rights in the lot. This circumstantial system indicates a mistake in the profitability of the transaction that occurred to the Petitioner, but not a failure that stemmed from deception or a breach of the ILA's duty of disclosure.
- As stated, on March 1, 2023, the tenders committee approved the Petitioner's winning of the tender. In accordance with the terms of the tender, the Petitioner was required to pay the full payments by May 30, 2023.
However, on May 1, 2023 The Petitioner approached the tenders committee and asked to "cancel the tender" and to return the amounts of the bank guarantee to her that she deposited which was confiscated by the Authority immediately upon the announcement of the award (Appendix 16 to the petition). On May 14, 2023, the Tenders Committee rejected the Petitioner's request and determined that if the Petitioner does not meet its obligations by May 30, 2023, the Committee will view this as a retraction of the proposal with all that this entails, including with regard to the forfeiture of the guarantee.
- on March 20, 2024, after the Petitioner failed to meet its obligations on time, and accordingly To Section 16B(b)(4) to the Tenders Duty Regulations, 5753-1993 (hereinafter – Tenders Duty Regulations), the tenders committee decided to forfeit the sum of NIS 844,000, constituting 50% of the guarantee (Appendix 26 to the Petition). The tenders committee explained its decision as follows: "Both because the scope of construction permitted in the plan is significantly lower than the area of the lot... and due to the passage of time from the date of filing the application until the issuance of this decision." Subsequently, in the Authority's decision of May 11, 2025 in the objection to the forfeiture of the guarantee filed by the Petitioner, the Authority reduced the total forfeiture to NIS 400,000. This decision was made "in light of the exceptional circumstances – the fact that the committee's decision (dated March 20, 2024 – A.S.) was sent to the winner about two years after her first application... Having considered the criteria set out in the case law and the arguments raised by the winner, and in light of all the circumstances ... The committee decides on the partial forfeiture of the guarantee in the sum of NIS 400,000..."
- Regulation 16B(b)4 Tenders Duty Regulations allows the Authority to forfeit a bank guarantee, when the bidder, after being selected as the winner of the tender, "did not act in accordance with the provisions set out in the tender, which are a prerequisite for the creation of the public entity's engagement with the winner of the tender". This provision is intended to ensure the seriousness of the bidder, by standing behind his proposal and doing everything necessary to realize it, when this requires meeting various conditions.
If so, the purpose of Regulation 16B(b)(4) is to enable the realization of the bidder's requirement for the existence of the tender embodied in the bank guarantee - Ensuring the seriousness of the proposal, fulfilling the winner's obligations and deterring bidders from violating the terms of the tender (AAA 10785/02 Y.B.T. in Tax Appeal v. Ministry of the Interior IsrSC 58(1) 897, 908 (2003); AAA 6242/09 holiday'Then a nursing company in a tax appeal v. the National Insurance Institute, paragraph 10 (Nevo 10.11.2009)).