On June 23, 2024, the Petitioner's counsel contacted the Respondent, and argued that the tender was null and void, inter alia, due to the manner in which it was published, as well as the Petitioner's failure to update its publication. On June 30, 2024, the municipality's attorney replied before it, rejecting the claims.
On July 9, 2024, the tenders committee convened and decided on the identity of the winners. Respondent No. 2 won most of the lines and therefore provided a performance guarantee and began to prepare for the provision of services for the 2020-2025 academic year.
On July 14, 2024, the Petitioner filed an administrative petition, along with an urgent request for an interim order, to halt the tender proceedings. In the hearing held on July 18, 2024 , counsel for the Petitioner accepted the court's recommendation not to stand on the request for an interim order, which was rejected.
- Hence the petition.
In the petition, the Petitioner claimed that there were material flaws in the tender, including that the timetable set in the tender was impossible, that the publication of the tender was flawed from what was done in daily newspapers that are not common - according to the Petitioner - in Ofakim, and that the preparation time allotted by the Municipality for the preparation of bids was short and unreasonable.
The Petitioner further claimed in her petition that the Municipality had violated "... Serious violation of the norms expected of an administrative authority. The Municipality was bound by strict norms in its relationship with the Petitioner... including the obligation to update it on the non-extension of the contract or the non-exercise of an option or the preparation of a new tender. These obligations were breached by the Municipality by concealing the cancellation and/or non-exercise of the option and/or the holding of a tender...".
The Petitioner further argued that in fact "...She was 'anesthetized' by the municipality."
The Petitioner argued that due to the manner in which the Municipality conducted, the right of the plaintiff was violated, in her opinion, regarding the non-extension of the period of engagement with it.