It should be noted that the appellant, which submitted proposals in relation to the following two categories:"30, Came in second place in relation to the category 1, With a score of 98 (80 In the price component and-18 In the Quality Component); and fourth place in relation to the category 2, With a score of 83.52 (65.52 In the price component and-18 In the Quality Component).
For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that none of the bidders made a bid in relation to category 3.
- On January 6, 2025, the tenders committee convened for the purpose of holding a discussion on the proposals that were submitted. In the framework of this discussion, the tenders committee decided to adopt the consultant's recommendations, with their reasons, both with regard to the receipt of the letters of guarantee that were attached to the proposals of respondents 3-5, and with regard to the selection of respondent 3 as the winner of category 1 and the selection of respondent 4 as the winner of category 2.
- According to the appellant, even before the tenders committee convened on January 6, 2025, rumors were stolen from her ears that there was a problem with her proposal, and that respondent 3 was expected to be declared the winner of category 1. Following the receipt of this information, on January 7, 2025, the Appellant's Deputy Director-General, Mr. Liyod Cohen (hereinafter: Cohen), contacted the Counsel in order to clarify the meaning of the aforementioned rumors. According to Mr. Cohen, in the course of the conversation that took place between the two, the consultant informed him that the person in charge of the signage in the Petah Tikva Municipality, Mr. Itzik Sharabi (hereinafter: Mr. Sharabi), whom the appellant had registered in her bid in the tender as a recommender, had given the appellant a score that was not maximum (18 out of 20). Against this background, in this conversation, the Counsel informed Mr. Cohen that the Appellant had not won the tender in relation to the two categories.
In continuation of the above, In a meeting that took place on the day 8.1.2025 At the Fatah Municipality Offices-Hope, In their presence, Among other things, of Mr. Cohen on behalf of the Appellant and of Mr. Sharabi on behalf of the Municipality of Fatah-Hope, Mr. Cohen shared with representatives of the Fatah Municipality-Hope in the content of his conversation from the day 7.1.2025 With the consultant. According to the appellant, Hearing this, Mr. Sharabi called the consultant, and complained to him that the latter had misled him as to how to score in the quality component, claimed that his intention was to give the appellant the maximum score, and demanded that the Attorney General amend his opinion accordingly. However,, According to the appellant, The Counsel rejected Mr. Sharabi's aforesaid demand.
- Subsequently, on January 9, 2025, the Municipality and the Development Company decided to contact two additional local authorities, in order to obtain an opinion on the Appellant and Respondent 3, in relation to Category 1. The local authorities to which the municipality and the development company approached gave the maximum score to both the appellant and respondent 3. Therefore, there was no contact with them to change the identity of the winner in relation to category 1 - respondent 3. Against this background, on January 15, 2025, the Municipality and the Development Company notified the Appellant that it had not won Category 2; And on January 20, 2025, the Municipality and the Development Company informed the Appellant, in a telephone conversation, that she had not won in relation to Category 1.
- In light of the above, on February 10, 2025, the Appellant filed an administrative petition with the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court , sitting as the Court for Administrative Affairs, in which it petitioned to disqualify the proposals of Respondents 3-5, in view of the defect that occurred, according to it, in the guarantee attached to their proposals; and to be declared the winner in both category 1 and category 2, since after the disqualification of the proposals of respondents 3-5, the appellant received the highest score in both of the aforementioned categories. Alternatively, the appellant petitioned that it be declared a winner in category 1 only. This is because, in its view, there was a flaw in the conduct of the tenders committee, which dissolved from its discretion and relied entirely on the consultant's opinion;Because there was a flaw in the conduct of the tenders committee that held a second round of examination in relation to Category 1 without any documentation; And because, according to her, in relation to Category 1, only the recommendations given by the local authorities to which the tenders committee approached on January 9, 2025, should be taken into account, and accordingly, the appellant should be regarded as the one who received the highest score in this category.
It should be noted that alongside the filing of the administrative petition, the appellant filed, on February 11, 2025, a request for an interim order, according to which the municipality and the development company will refrain from entering into agreements in accordance with the tender, and the implementation of these agreements will be frozen to the extent that they have already been signed, pending a decision on the petition. Subsequently, on the same day (February 11, 2024), the decision of the trial court (Judge K' Vardi), in which the court set a hearing on the interim order and, as far as possible, the petition itself, for February 26, 2025. The court further ruled in its decision, that: "Considering the upcoming hearing date, And so that an almost impossible act will not be created., Until another decision is made, they will not be established/The winners of the tender will install new advertising facilities in the field".