The Trial Court's Judgment
- After the respondents submitted answers to the appellant's request for an interim order, a hearing was held on February 26, 2025, in which arguments were heard on the merits of the petition. On February 27, 2025, the judgment of the trial court (Judge K. Vardi) was rendered, in which the appellant's petition was rejected.
- Beginning, The trial court addressed, In his judgment, To the appellant's arguments regarding the score given to her proposal on the basis of the recommendation of Mr. Sharabi of the Fatah Municipality-Hope, and the appellant's conduct in this context. The court noted that in its position, The appellant acted improperly in that it caused Mr. Sharabi to turn to the consultant and the representatives of the tenders committee, In order to convince them to change the score given to her. The court rejected the appellant's argument that it was a conversation initiated by Mr. Sharabi, As an innocent claim. The trial court also accepted the counsel's factual version, According to which Mr. Sharabi was not misled about-Yadav, Rather, he fully understood the scoring system and chose to give the appellant a score of 18 From 20 of his own free will and-At his discretion. Against this background, The court ruled that there was no defect in the tenders committee's decision not to amend the quality component score given to the appellant following the conversation with Mr. Sharabi, And not to ignore the recommendation of the Fatah Municipality-Hope. The trial court further criticized the appellant's good faith by not disclosing, In her petition, Because the Fatah Municipality-Tikva filed a lawsuit against her, This can teach us why the Fatah Municipality's recommendation-Hope, About the Appellant, was not in the maximum score.
The court further ruled, Because it is doubtful whether it was necessary to hold the second round of recommendations in relation to the appellant and the respondent 3, Following the conversation with Mr. Sharabi. However,, It was determined that the decision to hold the second round of recommendations is a decision made in accordance with the powers of the tenders committee as defined in the tender booklet, And that in any case, no damage was caused by the implementation of the second round of recommendations, since it was not able to change the results of the tender.
- As for the appellant's claim that the tenders committee dissolved its discretion and relied entirely on the consultant - The trial court ruled that although there was room for improvement in the conduct of the tenders committee, which made a large part of its decisions in telephone conversations and without documentation, The very fact that the tenders committee adopted the consultant's reasoned and detailed opinion in the framework of the discussion it held on the day 6.1.2025, This does not mean that the committee dissolved its discretion and served as-"Rubber Seal". Also, The court noted that from the affidavits of the consultant and the representative of the tenders committee, And the words of the advisor in the hearing, It appears that another discussion of the tenders committee took place on the day 20.1.2025, In this framework, the committee was updated on the second round of recommendations, So if the tenders committee were of the opinion that there was no place for it to exist, It was in her power to ignore the consequences (Asher, As you may recall, In any case, it did not affect her choice of the respondent 3 As a Category Winner 1).
The court further noted, in the aforesaid context, that the appellant's claim that there was a defect in the conduct of the second round of recommendations, contradicts its claim that the tenders committee should have corrected the grade given to it in the quality component following the conversation between Mr. Sharabi and the consultant or should have taken into account only the answers given in the framework of the second round of recommendations for the purpose of scoring in the quality component. In any event, the trial court held, the matter of scoring a proposal is one of the matters that lie at the hard core and at the core of the tenders committee's discretion, and as a rule, there is no room for the court's intervention in this context.
- Finally, The trial court also rejected the argument that there was room to disqualify the respondents' proposals 5-3, When the letter of guarantee attached to them does not match the updated letter of guarantee that was attached to the clarification document 5. Home The court ruled that given that on the same day, two e-mails were sent to the bidders in the tender"30 on behalf of the tender organizers, which pretend to be identical, and each of them was attached with a file of dozens of pages with all the clarification documents published on-by the tenders committee up to that point, It must be assumed that the respondents 5-3 They did not know about the required change in the letter of guarantee, so they acted in good faith when they attached bank guarantees that matched the original wording of the letter of guarantee to their proposals.. This, Especially when in the mail"To the second, It was not mentioned that an additional clarification document was attached to it, In any case, it does not state that the clarification document that was attached to it, Including a change in such a material subject as the wording of the bank guarantee.
Against this background, the court ruled that there was no need to determine whether the defect in the letters of guarantee that were attached to the proposals of respondents 3-5 is a technical defect of the kind that does not justify the disqualification of a proposal, in accordance with the precedent established in the case Peony of the Forest. This, since The circumstances of the case at hand are similar to the circumstances of the judgment inAppeal Petition/Administrative Claim 5408/12 Lightning 555 In Tax Appeal v.' Magalcom Computer Communications Ltd."From, IsrSC 66(1) 407 (2013) (hereinafter: The Barak Matter 555). In this judgment it was held, In the opinion of the majority, that where there was a defect in the manner of publication of the change in the letter of guarantee that should be attached to the proposals., Thus, it cannot be assumed that the matter was brought to the attention of the proposers, The submission of a letter of guarantee should not be considered in accordance with the wording that preceded the change, As a defect in the guarantee.