The bidders were required to submit their bids in two separate envelopes, one that includes all the bid documents except for the financial proposal, and the other that includes the financial proposal (clause 25 of the tender provisions). The business plan was supposed to be submitted in the framework of the first envelope, and indeed this is how the Petitioner acted. In the terms of the tender, it was determined that at the time of the examination of the proposals, the first envelope will first be opened and a score will be given to the proposal in terms of quality, then the financial proposal envelope will be opened, to which a score will also be awarded, and finally, after weighting the bid's score in terms of quality and the financial aspect, the final weighted grade of each proposal and proposal will be determined. In clause 28.2 of the tender provisions, it was determined that the weight of the financial proposal in the overall score will be 52 out of 100 points, and that the quality of the proposal will be given a weight of 48 points, according to the following division – 18 points for the past experience of the bidder, 16 points for its operational proposal, 9 points for the business plan, and 5 points for a parameter related to the "collection control rate".
In the framework of the tender, the proposals of the Petitioner and of Respondents 2-7 were submitted. The bidders' business plans, which were included in the first envelope they submitted, were examined by an "economic subcommittee" appointed for this purpose by the tenders committee. In the examination of the Economic Subcommittee (the minutes of the Subcommittee were attached as Appendix 11 to the Petition), it became clear that in its business plan, the Petitioner stated in the framework of the clause entitled "The Petitioner" in the sum of NIS 40.27 million, and that in the section entitled "Other Expenses and Management Fees", the Petitioner stated a very high sum of NIS 144.5 million over 10 years, without providing any explanation for the high sum. At this stage of the examination of the tender documents, the second envelope that included the financial proposal had not yet been opened, and therefore the subcommittee did not know how to explain the meaning of the high sum mentioned by the bidder in the expenses section. As such, and in accordance with the rules of the tender, the excessive amount was reduced by half a point from the grade received by the Petitioner in respect of the business proposal. After these things, the Petitioner's financial envelope was opened, and it turned out that the Petitioner had offered to pay the Ministry of Transport royalties in the amount of NIS 144 million. When this figure was revealed, the following facts became clear. First, it turned out that in complete contravention of the provision of clause 1.7 of Appendix 16, the amount of the royalties that the Petitioner stated in the business plan was much lower than the amount of royalties that it stated in the financial proposal. and second, it became clear that contrary to the instructions in the aforesaid clause 1.7, the Petitioner apparently included the amount of royalties in its business plan under the component of "Other Expenses and Management Fees", and not under the component of "Required Profit and Required Profit" (Tenders Committee Minutes of May 24, 2023 - Appendix 12 to the Petition). As such, the committee decided: "To stop the continuation of the tender process... Until the significance of the submission of the proposal as proposed by the appellant's family is examined." Subsequently, on May 28, 2023, the tenders committee decided that: