Administrative Petition (Nazareth) 67954-12-25 Bnei Adel Gabali Criminal Appeal Murder and Development Company – Nazareth Ltd. v. Gilboa Regional Council

Judgment

Prior to a petition against the decision of the Tenders Committee of Respondent 1 of 12.11.2025, to select Respondents 2 and 3 as winners of the tender a framework for the execution of development works and public infrastructures.

Background:

1. The petition concerns a tender published by Respondent 1 – the Gilboa Regional Council (hereinafter – the Council), for the execution of development works and public infrastructures within the framework of community expansions and industrial and employment zones within the council's boundaries (hereinafter – the tender).
2. The tender was divided into two chapters, each of which required different conditions from the participants in the tender. The matter of the petition is in chapter 1 of the tender.
3. In accordance with the terms of the tender, in relation to each chapter of the tender, up to two winners will be chosen. The proposals will be ranked according to criteria that include a price component (up to 70 points), a recommendation component (up to 15 points) and an interview with the bidders (up to 15 points).  This is a framework tender, which, in accordance with its provisions, if the Council wishes to carry out specific works in the framework of it, it will contact the two winners selected in the invitation to receive proposals and hold an additional competitive process between them.  The engagement period according to the tender is three years long, with an option to extend up to two additional years.
4. The deadline for submitting bids was set for 04.09.2025, and on the same day the tender box was opened. Nine bids were submitted for Chapter 1 of the tender, including the proposals of the Petitioner – Bnei Adel Gabali Company for Earthworks and Development of Nazareth in a Tax Appeal (hereinafter – the Petitioner), of Respondent 2 – Ron Earthworks Initiation and Development M.A. in a Tax Appeal (hereinafter – Ron Works) and of Respondent 3 – Mei HaEmek 2000 in a Tax Appeal (hereinafter – Mei HaEmek).
5. At the meeting of the tenders committee on October 20, 2025, the committee determined that a professional team consisting of the council's CEO, the council's treasurer and the council's engineer will conduct interviews with the bidders (hereinafter – the professional team). The committee also determined that the council employee who serves as the secretary of the tenders committee, Ms. Orly Yaakov (hereinafter –   Yaakov), will conduct interviews with two of the list of recommenders that each participant in the tender added.  It should be noted that at the same meeting, the tenders committee approved the recommendation of the family appellant to disqualify one of the proposals submitted due to its failure to meet the prerequisites.
6. On October 23, 2025, the professional team conducted interviews with the bidders' representatives and scored each of the proposals. In addition, Ms. Yaakov held talks with two recommenders in relation to each bidder in the tender, who were asked to rate the bidder according to the parameters set in the tender.
7. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The results of the examination of the proposals by weighting the price component were summarized in the letter of the family appellant of the tenders committee to the committee dated November 9, 2025.  As detailed therein, in relation to Chapter 1 of the tender, Ron Works received the highest score (99.03 points), followed by the Valley Water Proposal (95.56 points).  The Petitioner's proposal came in third place (94.43 points).

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)

8. On November 12, 2025, the tenders committee decided to recommend Ron Works and Mei HaEmek's bids as winners in Chapter 1 of the tender, as their proposals received the highest score. It should be noted that at the same meeting, the committee also decided to reject an objection submitted by another participant against the disqualification of her bid due to non-compliance with the tender's prerequisites.
9. On November 13, 2025, the Petitioner was sent a notice regarding the results of the tender, according to which her bid did not win. On the same day, the Petitioner contacted the Council and asked to receive a copy of the minutes of the tenders committee.  On November 19, 2025, the minutes were sent to the Petitioner, together with copies of the winning proposals.  Subsequently, on the same day, the Petitioner requested to receive a copy of the legal advisor's opinion mentioned in the minutes of the tenders committee.  It was sent to her the next day, on November 20, 2025.  On the same day, the Petitioner again approached the tenders committee and asked for the minutes of the professional team, which was sent to her on November 23, 2025.
10. On December 14, 2025, the Petitioner contacted the Council in a letter, this time through her counsel, claiming that she had not received all the documents relating to the tender, including any documentation and details regarding the manner in which the score was determined in the recommendations component and in the score of the professional staff. In the letter, it was noted that the Petitioner intends to attack the decision of the tenders committee with regard to the components of the points that were given, and that ISBB was required to immediately delay the engagement with the winners.
11. In a reply letter dated December 14, 2025, counsel for the Council noted that all the documents requested by the Petitioner had previously been provided to her, while rejecting her claims. Attached to this letter were documents relating to the tender, some of which had already been provided to the Petitioner in the past, as well as other documents.  The letter further stated that the contracts with the winners were signed and that the Petitioner's tender guarantee was sent to her by mail.
12. On December 24, 2025, the petition before me was filed, in which the Petitioner seeks to order the cancellation of the decision of the tenders committee regarding the winning of the Ron Works and Mei HaEmek bids in the tender, and the resumption of the discussion of the proposals before the tenders committee for the purpose of declaring the Petitioner's proposal as the winner together with another winner.
13. Simultaneously with the petition, the Petitioner filed a request for an interim order prohibiting the Respondent from contracting with any of the winners or assigning them to perform works by virtue of the tender until the petition is decided. In my decision of January 14, 2026, after the submission of the respondents' responses, I ordered the issuance of an interim order prohibiting the council's engagement with Ron Works for the execution of projects in the framework of the tender until the petition is decided.

Copied from Nevo