However, the expression 'at least 3 years', which respondent 2 used in her response, can indicate, even if only slightly, a different understanding of the expression, as referring to three years even if they are not full (i.e., part of 2022, all of 2023, and 11 months of 2024), provided that the required number of hours is met.
- These words do not accept the municipality's position regarding the interpretation of the threshold conditions (and the criteria), but the very existence of two possible interpretations of the language of the prerequisites, even if one is considerably preferable to the other (as stated), makes it difficult to view the municipality's choice of one of them as a flagrant illegality that goes to the root of the matter, and overrides the interests protected by the claim of delay. Thus, the normative aspect does not justify ignoring the delay in filing the petition.
This is the case with regard to the prerequisites, and even more so with regard to the criteria (since in each of the years the scope of the facts of respondent No. 2 was considerably greater than the quality index of 3,000 hours).
- In this regard, the Petitioner is obligated to rule that "when the language of the tender suffers from two possible interpretations, weight must be given to the interpretive position of the tenders committee [High Court of Justice 4587/18 Knesset Broadcasting Channel in a Tax Appeal v. The Council for Cable Broadcasting and Satellite Broadcasting sitting as a tenders committee for the selection of the license holder for broadcasting on the Knesset Channel, in accordance with the Knesset Channel Broadcasting Law, 5764-2003, paragraph 34 of the judgment of Judge Y. Amit [Nevo] (July 19, 2018); AAA 3597/20 The Four Islands of Prayer in a Tax Appeal v. State of Israel - Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Energy and Water Authority, para. 22 [Nevo] (August 19, 2020)]."
Moreover: "Among the possible interpretations, priority should be given to an interpretation that upholds the bids of the tender participants and expands the circle of participants, rather than an interpretation that disqualifies them" (Civil Appeal 4605/99 Elisra Electronic Systems in a Tax Appeal v. Israel Airports Authority in a Tax Appeal [Nevo] (1999); Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 7514/21 Shamaor Israel Security Center in Tax Appeal v. State of Israel - Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services [Nevo] (2022)). This approach is also appropriate, with the necessary changes, for the interpretation of standards (Administrative Petition (Center) 14725-07-22 I. P. E. Electricity and Control in Tax Appeal v. Kfar Saba Municipality et al . [Nevo] (2022), para. 45).
- In light of this, I found that the petition should be dismissed due to the delay in filing it.
However, the petition is based on an unequivocal formulation of the terms of the tender, and this should be reflected in the costs ruling. For this reason, there is no order for expenses in the matter of respondent 1, which is the arranger of the tender.