And see the identical instruction In section 22(f) 30Municipalities Regulations (Tenders), תשמ"ח-1987.
- The case law recognized that it is possible to accept a single proposal, insofar as it meets all the conditions of the tender and in the absence of a concern of harm to the principles of competition, but there is no obligation to do so (see, for example, the Administrative Petition (Beer Sheva Administrative) 27286-01-18 Brothers Fathi Construction Company inTax Appeal v. Al-Qasum Regional Council [Nevo] (March 18, 2018)).
- In this case, the determination of the tenders committee, on the basis of the opinion, was that there were flaws in the competition model and in the manner of pricing the bids in the tender, defects that violated the principle of equality between the bidders and prevented the committee from having a real ability to compare the various proposals in a substantive and transparent manner. In this situation, when the pricing model itself is flawed and comparison between the bidders is not possible, the factual basis required to activate the exception and receive a single bid is denied, since the committee cannot determine that the single bid is the best or most suitable proposal in accordance with the tender rules. It can even be said that in these circumstances, the committee does not have the opportunity to examine the proposal "on its merits" in a real way, in comparison with the estimate and the appropriate price.
- Therefore, it was not necessary to accept the Petitioner's proposal, even though it was the "only", there is no need to continue the discussion on this issue.
- I will further note that the determination in the opinion that the Petitioner's proposal was "the only one that complied with the provisions of the tender" is not sufficiently clear. It should be recalled that in paragraph 8 of the opinion it is written as follows: "After I examined, as aforesaid, the bidders' proposals and the documents..., and after we have carried out a re-examination ... We found that each of the bids had defects, which from a legal point of view lead to the conclusion that none of the participants in the tender, with the exception of the bidder A.G., does not meet the terms of the tender [A.G. - i.e., the Petitioner]."
- It is not specified whether the Petitioner's proposal was the only proposal that met the threshold conditions such as the existence of a service contractor's license, a minimum financial turnover, the submission of a guarantee in accordance with the provisions of the original tender, i.e., that all the other bids were disqualified because they did not meet such threshold conditions; Perhaps the intention was that the Petitioner's proposal was the only proposal "that meets the terms of the tender" because it was the only proposal that was set at a price calculated according to the proper interpretation of the pricing issue. It should be recalled that the issue of pricing is the reason for the cancellation of the original tender, It was determined that the pricing clause was not clear enough and there were contradictions between the provisions of the tender regarding this subject.
- In other words, it is not clear to me what was meant by the fact that all the bids did not meet the terms of the tender, with the exception of the Petitioner's proposal. There is no need to discuss this question, since in the judgment in the previous petition the parties reached an agreement that the committee would reconsider only the petitioner's proposal on its merits, and the agreement was given the force of a judgment. However, this has implications regarding the scope and nature of the inquiry that should have been made, and the aforesaid constitutes an additional layer in my conclusion that the decision that is the subject of the present petition should not be interfered with.
- Similarly, it will also be clarified that the subject of the judgment in this petition is not the question of whether the original tender should have been cancelled or not, but only the question of whether the Petitioner's proposal should have been accepted. In fact, no petition was filed attacking the decision to cancel the tender. Both the Petitioner's previous petition and the Applicant's previous petition were petitions in which documents were requested, and each one ended as it ended - without the courts being asked to examine the question of the reasonableness of the decision to cancel the previous tender. Therefore, any possible argument regarding the cancellation decision is silenced and cannot be raised again at this stage, after so much time has passed since the original tender was canceled.
Summary of the conclusions regarding the non-acceptance of the Petitioner's proposal -
- In light of the above, I did not find it necessary to intervene in the decision not to accept the Petitioner's proposal.
Request to join -
- Since I have found that the petition should be rejected, and since the Applicant has clarified that she wishes to join the petition in order to support the Respondent's position regarding the rejection of the petition, it seems that there is no point in adding it, and there is no need to continue the discussion on this issue.
Conclusion -
- In light of all of the above, the petition should be dismissed.
- In view of the rejection of the petition on its merits, there is no reason to leave in place the temporary order that was issued regarding the delay of the new tender proceedings (Tender 06/2025). and the temporary order will be revoked as of November 19, 2025 at 11:00.
- I have considered the Respondent's conduct with regard to the transfer of the documents, which is the basis of the present petition, and I have not found that the Petitioner should be obligated to pay the Respondent's expenses.
Granted today, November 15, 2025, in the absence of the parties.