In the main arguments she submitted, the Petitioner made additional arguments:
The Petitioner added that she had learned that Respondent No. 2 submitted her bid to participate in the tender after the Municipality approached her on the matter. As a result, the Petitioner contacted the Municipality demandingmore details. The Municipality replied that "in order to increase the competition and the circle of bidders, at times, not as a practice nor as a matter of routine, the Municipality updates the publication of the tender to parallel officials in other authorities or recommended suppliers/contractors who were not part of its tenders in the past. There is a possibility that this was done in this tender as well." According to the Petitioner, when the Municipality approached potential service providers, and on the other hand, did not contact the Petitioner on the matter, and did not inform her of the publication of a new tender, the Municipality breached its duty to treat it with equality and towards other potential participants who did not participate in the tender.
The Petitioner argued that the Municipality has no documentation of the decision not to exercise the option period and to extend the contract with the Petitioner, and that the absence of such documentation indicates the lack of sufficient infrastructure for making the decision to terminate the engagement with the Petitioner and to embark on a new tender, and that "... prevents the examination of the legality of the decision that was made, raises a serious suspicion that the decision was fundamentally flawed, and therefore, in the absence of the ability to criticize it, it is null and void or at least can be revoked."
In the main arguments, the Petitioner announced that since the declaratory law had already begun and the winner of the tender had begun to operate the transportation services, it did not insist on the full remedies requested in the petition, including the cancellation of the tender and the extension of the Municipality's engagement period with the Petitioner, and instead, petitioned to order the termination of the engagement period between the Municipality and Respondent No. 2 at the end of the current academic year. and the preparation of a new tender for the year 2020-2026 onwards.
- In its response to the petition, the Municipality argued, inter alia, that the petition should be dismissed out of hand, Due to considerable delay In submitting it, both because, in her estimation, the Petitioner was aware in real time,Tender Publications, its Terms, and the maximum prices set under it, and decided Consciously Don't make a bid, Out of the hope or belief that the municipality will find itself without bidders, and will conduct negotiations with it for an engagement without a tender, as occurred in the past, as detailed above; and because the Petitioner filed the petition 50 days after the date of publication of the tender, and 14 days after receiving the response of the Municipality's counsel to the petitioner's request.
The Municipality claimed that it had no obligation to update bidders, including parties to an existing engagement, prior to the publication of a new tender.