Based on the reasons set forth above, The trial court rejected the appellant's petition and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' expenses in the sum of 36,000 Q"VIII (12,000 Q"H to the Municipality and the Development Company; 12,000 Q"8 to the Respondent 3; and-12,000 Q"8 to the Respondent 4).
The appeal at hand
- On March 9, 2025, the appellant filed the appeal against the judgment of the trial court. In the framework of the appeal that she filed, the appellant reiterates, in essence, her arguments in her petition. Thus, the Appellant argues that both from the minutes of the tenders committee's discussion of January 6, 2025, and from the general conduct of the tenders committee, it can be seen that the latter was completely dismantled at its discretion, and in fact it was the consultant who managed the tender and made all the decisions in its framework. According to the appellant, this fact justifies the cancellation of all the decisions made by the tenders committee, including the decision to select respondents 3-4 as the winners of the tender, and consequently to declare it the winner of the tender.
The appellant further argues that the conduct of the second round of recommendations in relation to it and to respondent 3, which it claims was made by the consultant without informing or approving the tenders committee, contradicts the terms of the tender and its rules, such that it is capable of harming the integrity of the tender and the equality between the bidders in its framework. It should be noted that in this context, the appellant does not dispute the determination of the trial court that she should not have told Mr. Sharabi that she was told that the Petah Tikva Municipality had given her a score that was not maximum in the framework of her recommendation, since she should have assumed that this might motivate Mr. Sharabi to turn to the tenders committee on the matter. However, according to the appellant, the determination that the appellant exerted pressure on the consultant and the members of the tenders committee, through Mr. Sharabi, is misplaced, since it is based on the version of the municipality and the development company, which has no evidence to support it.