Prof. Doron Israeli, the external consultant who accompanied the tender, presented his opinion to the members of the tenders committee on the matter, in a discussion held on March 19, 2024. According to him, in order for Ness Fair Value to skew the valuation of a particular asset, it must influence a number of different parameters, including making an individual request to Moody's in order to adjust the credit figure to the entire market, approving the change by the company's professional committee, and more, while the price quote is exposed to the public and to the Authority's audit. According to him, in the aforementioned state of affairs, the valuation bias would not be worthwhile for the company in terms of cost-benefit, and that it is a risk with a low probability of realization.
On August 29, 2024, the committee again approached Ness Pierre Value with a request for clarification and supplementation of data regarding the scope of Danel's business relationships
To the parent company... On September 9, 2024, Ness Pierre Value responded to the committee's request... These data support the determination that there is no economic dependence between the parent company and Danel or a particular institutional body, and that the potential for conflict of interest is low...
In light of the above, the Committee is of the opinion that Ness Fair Value's business relations with the institutional entities do not give rise to a real concern of a conflict of interest..."
Further to the above, the tenders committee decided that Ness's proposal would not be disqualified.
- On January 22, 2025, after the financial proposals of the two companies were examined, after they were given a grade, and after the score of the financial proposal (20%) was weighed together with the grades given earlier for the quality of the bidder (20%) and the quality of the model offered by each bidder (60%), the tenders committee declared Ness's proposal as the winner of the tender. The final weighted score received by the Petitioner was 84.435, while that of Ness was 91.002. The main difference between the scores of the proposals stemmed from the score of 11.793 received by the Petitioner's financial offer (a financial offer of ILS 9,980,000), as opposed to the score received by the Miracle Offer, which was 20.00 (a financial offer of ILS 5,858,000, which was about 42% cheaper than the Petitioner's proposal). Further to the decision of the tenders committee, the minutes of the tenders committee and a miracle proposal were forwarded to the Petitioner, at its request .
- On June 8, 2025, the Petitioner contacted the Respondent demanding that Ness's proposal be disqualified (Appendix 18 to the Petition). In her application, the Petitioner argued that Ness's proposal should be disqualified due to a conflict of interest stemming from the fact that: "There can be no real dispute that Ness Fair Value... and its shareholders have extensive business relationships with the institutional bodies" (paragraph 4 of the application). The Petitioner also claimed that Ness violated the provisions of the tender regarding the sub-suppliers and their dependence, inter alia, on the fact that Moody's was "deeply involved", according to the claim, "in the development of the model and in fact provides Ness Fair Value with the most substantial products of the model" (paragraph 28 of the application).
On July 2, 2025, the tenders committee discussed the petitioner's request, and rejected it (Appendices 15-16 to the reply).