(Appeal Petition/Administrative Claim 1811/09 Asum v. Sdot Negev [published in Nevo] (January 6, 2010) at paragraph 23).
Further to these words, in the Assum case, a proposal submitted in one copy was not disqualified, even though according to the terms of the tender the bidder should have submitted in two copies, for the reason that the tenders committee had one binding copy of the proposal, which was submitted on time, and hence the correction of the defect could have been done without any amendment to the content of the proposal (paragraph 24 of the judgment). The court emphasized in the Assum case that in terms of contract law, the one copy of the proposal that was submitted owed to the bidder (Assum Company), and therefore the correction of the defect by ignoring the failure to submit the additional copy of the proposal did not give the bidder any advantage or room for maneuver (ibid., ibid.). In other words, and in the language of contract law, in the case of Assum, despite the defect, the capacity remained in the hands of the tender arranger, and hence the correction of the defect did not yield the bidder any advantage over the other bidders.
In the case of Peony Hahoresh the court established more concrete guidelines regarding the correction of defects, while discussing a defect in the guarantee, which is in fact a private case of a defect in the proposal. The court ruled that in certain cases it is possible to correct a defect in a bank guarantee that was attached to the tender, if the following cumulative conditions are met:
"(a) The mistake is learned from the guarantee itself;
(b) It is possible to determine the exact intention of the wrongdoer, using clear objective evidence, which is before the tenders committee on the date of opening the tenders box;
(c) On the face of it, it appears that the mistake, or its non-disclosure prior to the submission of the offer, originated in good faith and stemmed from the purely inadvertent and unintentional misconduct of the offeror, or of the guarantor bank;