The Petitioner argues that the defect should be regarded as its "reservation" of the terms of the tender, and therefore in accordance with the provision of clause 20.3 of the tender, the tenders committee was entitled to ignore the "reservation", instead of disqualifying the Petitioner's proposal.
The Petitioner argues that the Tenders Committee's determination that the defect occurred in the Petitioner's financial proposal and therefore is a material defect is erroneous, because the defect occurred in the business plan which is part of the first envelope opened by the tenders committee, and because not every defect in the financial proposal is necessarily a material defect.
The Petitioner argues that the defect in its proposal has no practical implication, because in any event, whether the defect was corrected or not, the Ministry of Transport should have paid the Petitioner the same amount stated in the financial proposal.
Finally, the Petitioner argues that the economic efficiency requires that the proposal be amended, since its proposal is significantly cheaper than Egged's.
- The Ministry of Transportation's Claims
The Ministry of Transport argues that the Petitioner's proposal actually had three flaws. First, contrary to the provisions of the tender, the Petitioner included the amount of royalties in the expenses section of the business plan. Second, contrary to the provisions of the tender, the Petitioner did not include the royalties in the Tender Clause of the Business Plan. and third, in complete contravention of the provision of clause 1.7 of Appendix 16 of the tender, the amount of royalties that the Petitioner stated in its financial proposal was higher than the amount recorded in the Tender Tender clause in the business plan.
The Ministry of Transport argues that despite the fact that it accepts the claim that this is a mistake in good faith, it cannot be corrected because the correction of the defect does not arise from the proposal itself, but rather requires the submission of a new proposal. In support of this argument, the Ministry of Transport refers to the Petitioner's response of June 6, 2023 (Appendix 17 to the Petition), in which the Petitioner requests to submit to the tenders committee an "amended proforma report" (paragraph 7 of the response).