The minutes of the hearing meeting were attached to the decision, i.e., that from the perspective of the tenders committee, the reasons for not accepting the Petitioner's proposal are detailed in the minutes of the hearing.
- Copied from NevoOn August 17, 2025 , the head of the council approved the recommendation of the tenders committee.
- On August 19, 2025 , a letter was prepared on behalf of the head of the council, stating that the tenders committee had decided not to accept the Petitioner's proposal. The letter detailed that during the hearing the tenders committee examined the Respondent's past experience regarding the services provided by the Petitioner, and it was found that there is solid evidence of the Petitioner's failure to meet the standards required to carry out the works that are the subject of the tender. It was stated that although the Petitioner has been providing the Respondent with cleaning services continuously for many years, Many complaints were received regarding the level of cleanliness, and the tenders committee is of the opinion that this indicates a difficulty in the quality of the service provided. It was further stated that the Petitioner did not fulfill its obligations in a thorough, proper and professional manner, and there is a concern that the Petitioner will not be able to meet the tender requirement and the required quality of service, after examining the execution of the works "in the field", and when the tenders committee is obligated to examine the conduct in previous engagements, especially when it comes to a vital and ongoing service (hereinafter: the "Rejection Letter").
- It is not clear when the rejection letter was sent to the Petitioner, but on August 21, 2025, the Petitioner contacted the Respondent with a request to expedite the decision regarding her proposal, since according to the existing contract with her, she is supposed to stop providing the service on August 31, 2025. At that time, the rejection letter was brought to the Petitioner's attention, on August 23, 2025 (and afterwards, the minutes of the hearing and the decision of the tenders committee were also forwarded to her).
The current petition -
- The Petitioner filed the present petition against the decision of the tenders committee and the letter of rejection.
- The Applicant (Mag 58, whose bid in the original tender was rejected), submitted a request to join as a Respondent.
Summary of the Petitioner's arguments -
- The Petitioner argues that the Respondent should have accepted her proposal.
- Initially, it was argued that the respondent acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings of the original tender and also after the judgment in the previous petition. Regarding the original tender proceeding, the Respondent concealed from the Petitioner the essential fact that its proposal was the only valid proposal submitted, and it learned about the aforesaid only after it was forced to submit the previous petition and received the opinion for its review. Regarding the proceedings after the judgment in the previous petition - the Respondent did not deliver to the Petitioner in time the minutes of the hearing meeting, the decision of the tenders committee and the letter of rejection, and they were transferred only after the Petitioner's request to expedite the processing. It was further argued that it appears from the documents that the tenders committee's decision was not reasoned, and that the reasons appearing in the rejection letter were "invented retroactively" only a few days later.
- On the merits of the decision, it was argued that there was no reason to reject the bid and that the Respondent acted in bad faith with the aim of thwarting the Petitioner's winning of the original tender.
- First, it was argued that the demand for the documents was unfounded, and the Respondent even used threatening language against the Petitioner that if she did not cooperate and did not hand over all the documents, her proposal would be rejected due to "non-cooperation". The Petitioner emphasizes that it cooperated fully and produced all the documents that were required, despite the fact that these requirements exceeded the authority given to the tenders committee in the judgment in the previous petition.
- Second, it was argued that the main reason provided by the respondent for rejecting the offer was "poor quality of service and negative previous experience", but that this was a "suppressed claim" that was raised in bad faith. The issue of quality of service was not mentioned at all in the first decision of the tenders committee of July 1, 2025, in which it was decided to cancel the original tender, nor in the legal opinion that was the basis of that decision. Had these arguments been true, the Respondent should have raised them at the first stage, but the arguments arose only at this late stage, after the Respondent did not find any other flaw in the Petitioner's proposal - in order to find justification for a decision that had already been made in advance to disqualify the Petitioner's proposal for irrelevant considerations.
- Third, the Petitioner argues that the tenders committee should have only examined the proposal on its merits and the "recircular" hearing was supposed to focus only on the details and components of the proposal itself, and therefore - the tenders committee violated the judgment in the previous petition and exceeded its authority when it chose to rely on considerations external to the proposal, such as previous experience and quality of service.
- Fourth, the Petitioner argues that the service it provides in accordance with the current engagement is a professional, high-quality service and in accordance with the provisions of the engagement, and that there is no basis for the claims regarding negative previous experience or poor quality of the services. It was also claimed that during the hearing, the only concrete claim raised regarding the quality of the service related to a single letter from one school principal, who requested the addition of a second cleaning worker. According to the Petitioner's manager, he clarified in real time that the Petitioner has already provided the maximum quota of employees as determined in the terms of the tender, and that the addition of an additional employee requires the allocation of a standard and appropriate budgeting by the Respondent, and therefore this letter does not indicate a "negative experience", and the Respondent "inflated" a specific event and turned it into a sweeping and unfounded reason for disqualification. In addition, during the hearing that took place, counsel for the Petitioner stated that he had up-to-date letters of recommendation from the principals of various schools in the Respondent's domain, praising the quality of the Petitioner's service and the claims regarding "negative previous experience" were unfounded and merely a cover for disqualifying the proposal for extraneous considerations.
- Fifth, the Petitioner argues that the terms of the tender themselves provide the Respondent with tools that enable it to supervise the quality of the service in real time and even to cancel the engagement in the event of a fundamental breach. The existence of these supervisory mechanisms obviates the need to disqualify the proposal in advance on the basis of concern for future service quality, and makes the committee's decision unreasonable and disproportionate.
- Therefore, the remedy sought by the Petitioner is to declare the Petitioner's proposal as the winning bid in the original tender, and the significance is the cancellation of the new tender.
Summary of the Respondent's arguments -
- The Respondent wishes to dismiss the petition, and emphasizes as a prelude to the argument the case law that the Court for Administrative Affairs does not replace the professional discretion of the tenders committee with its own discretion, and the scope of judicial review is limited to examining the correctness of the administrative proceeding, the reasonableness of the decision, the relevance of the considerations and the absence of a defect that goes to the root of the matter. The Petitioner, according to the Respondent, did not meet the burden of proving any defect that justifies judicial intervention.
- Regarding the cancellation of the original tender - it was argued that all of the Petitioner's arguments regarding the cancellation of the original tender and the publication of a new tender are silenced in light of the judgment in the previous petition, and that a "company estoppel" applies to them that prevents them from being raised again in the framework of the current petition. It was emphasized that in the previous petition as well, the decision to cancel the tender was not attacked, since it was a petition that concerned non-disclosure of documents, and therefore there was also a delay regarding the raising of arguments today regarding the same decision. Beyond the aforesaid, The Respondent claimed that its decision to cancel the original tender and publish the new tender was lawfully made, on the basis of the opinion, and stemmed from material defects that occurred in the original tender documents, as detailed in the opinion. The Respondent detailed the explanation regarding the error in the competition model, which misled most of the bidders and did not allow for an equal comparison between the participants (and see the details of the argument in the minutes of the hearing before me). The Respondent also claimed that changes were made in the new tender in order to correct the error.
- Regarding the decision not to accept the Petitioner's proposal, it was argued that the decision was made after a proper administrative process, reasonable, transparent and for practical considerations, with the main reason for rejecting the Petitioner's proposal being the quality of service and negative previous experience. It was claimed that the Petitioner had provided services to the Council for many years, and many complaints were received about the poor level of cleanliness, including feedback from the students and their parents, and an in-depth and thorough examination that was conducted prior to the decision being made. It was further claimed that the members of the committee, being representatives of the public and residents of the relevant localities, are familiar with what is happening in the educational institutions and the council, and the decision was made unanimously. It was emphasized that this is an essential service in educational institutions, which requires a high level of cleanliness that affects the health of students and staff, and an inadequate level of cleanliness may lead to the shutdown of educational institutions and harm the local authority's obligation to ensure proper sanitation conditions. Therefore, the Petitioner's argument against the Respondent's strict adherence to the quality of service is misplaced, since the purpose of the tender is to achieve an optimal balance between a high level of service, economic efficiency and the protection of the rights of the employees employed by the winner of the tender.
- The Respondent further argues that the hearing process for the Petitioner was proper and in accordance with the judgment in the previous petition, after the Petitioner was given the opportunity to voice her arguments, and when it was clear that the purpose of returning the hearing to the Tenders Committee was to discuss the Petitioner's proposal as a whole, and the agreement did not limit the examination to the economic aspect only, but spoke of examining a "proposal on its merits" in all its aspects. It was further emphasized that during the hearing, the Petitioner was presented in detail with the deficiencies in the quality of the service and the complaints received, it was given the opportunity to respond to the claims, it even presented documents on its behalf that attest to the good quality of the services it provided (such as letters of recommendation) - and the tenders committee took into account all the data prior to making the decision. In addition, during or shortly after the hearing, the Petitioner did not raise any procedural argument regarding the correctness of the hearing process, and the arguments arose only after the decision was made not to accept the proposal.
- With regard to the tenders committee's requirement to present the documents - it was argued that this is a reasonable and required requirement from the provisions of the tender and the law, including in accordance with theLaw for Increasing Enforcement of Labor Laws, 5772-2011, which imposes responsibility on the service client to ensure that the rights of the contract employees are protected, and in accordance with Regulation 6A of the Tenders Duty Regulations, 5753-1993, which obligates the committee to ensure that the bidder meets the requirements for social payments and minimum wage. Therefore, This demand was intended to examine compliance with the provisions of the law and was not an "attempt to fail the Petitioner".
- The Respondent further sought to clarify that the decision of the tenders committee was reasoned, since the decision itself states that the reasons are included in the minutes of the hearing that was attached to the decision. Regarding the rejection letter - it was claimed that the decision of the tenders committee was in fact only a recommendation, on August 17, 2025, the head of the council accepted the recommendation, and two days later, on August 19, 2025, he sent the rejection letter. Thus, there is no basis for the Petitioner's claim that the reasons were "born" retroactively after the decision was made.
- In summary, it was argued that the decision of the tenders committee was made unanimously by all of its members, based on practical and professional considerations, it is within the realm of reasonableness, and the Petitioner did not meet the burden of proving that there was any defect in the administrative decision, let alone a material defect that justifies intervention.
The Applicant's application to join -
- Thus far, the details of the Petitioner's and the Respondent's arguments with respect to the Petitioner's proposal. We will now move on to the application submitted on behalf of the Applicant (Mag 58) to join the proceeding, as a required party, as one of the participants in the original tender (hereinafter: the "Request to Join").
- The Applicant's argument is that the acceptance of the petition and the declaration of the Petitioner as the winner would result in a direct and severe violation of her rights, and therefore the Petitioner should have added her as a Respondent to the Petition, in accordance with the obligation to attach to the petition all the parties who may be harmed by the court's decision, by virtue of Regulation 6 of the Administrative Courts Regulations (Proceedings), 5761-2000. It was argued that since the Applicant was not joined by the Petitioner, the Court must do so, in accordance with its authority in Regulation 6(b), which authorizes the Court to add as a respondent "any person who is liable to be harmed by the decision in the Petition". It was argued that the case law consistently determined that a participant in a tender that was not attached to the Petition constitutes a "required party", and failure to join him may lead to the rejection of the Petition. Finally, the Applicant argues that her inclusion in the proceeding is necessary not only in order to enable her to voice her arguments, but also for the purpose of protecting the public interest in the proper management of the tender process.
- The Applicant also claims that she did not receive any notice regarding the filing of the present petition, and in any case she was not provided with a copy of it, and that she learned of the petition only by chance, as part of a proactive search on legal information websites (and when her repeated requests to the Respondent for details about the proceeding were in vain).
- The Applicant also detailed that after the notice of the cancellation of the original tender, it also filed an administrative petition on its behalf (Administrative Petition 38133-07-25, [Nevo] hereinafter: "the Applicant's Petition"), in which it demanded to receive all the documents of the original tender from the Respondent. The Applicant's petition was clarified before my colleagues the Honorable Justice Bolos and the Honorable Justice Mandelbaum (during the summer recess), and ended with a judgment of August 17, 2025 ordering the deletion of this petition, after the Respondent provided the Applicant with all the relevant documents regarding the original tender, including the judgment in the Petitioner's previous petition. The Applicant claimed that it was only after the aforesaid documents were transferred to her that she became aware of the existence of the Petitioner's previous petition and of the judgment given therein.
- Materially, the Applicant claimed that it was interested in joining the proceeding in order to support the Respondent's position regarding the cancellation of the original tender and the publication of the new tender. The Applicant claimed that the terms of the original tender contained contradictions and ambiguities, as emerged from the opinion, in addition to defects regarding the manner of calculating the proposed compensation for work hours and the discount from the Respondent's estimate. These contradictions and defects justified the Respondent's decision and the original tender was lawfully canceled, in order to maintain transparency, equality and fair competition.
- The Applicant further claimed that after learning that following the judgment in the previous petition, the hearing returned to the tenders committee, she turned to the tenders committee and asked to reconsider her proposal as well, since according to her, there was no room to determine that only the Petitioner's proposal was the only proposal that met the tender's provisions. According to the Applicant, her bid also complied with the provisions of the tender, but her request to hold a rehearing of her proposal was also not accepted, and this is another reason to hold the new tender, i.e., to reject the petition.
00