The head of a local authority, with the approval of the local council members, decided not to accept the recommendation of the tender committee to contract with a transportation provider that offered the cheapest bid.
The Court accepted the petition and held that the head of a local authority and the local council decisions are to be annulled due to defects and the cheapest bid in the tender should be the winning bid. The tender committee is a professional body which role is to recommend the best bid, with the rule being that the bid that benefits the local council and the public interest is the cheapest one. The head of the authority may not accept the recommendation and even may decide to enter into a contract with another bidder among those whose bids were examined by the tender committee, with the approval of the local council. In this case, the head of the authority decided not to enter into a contract with the cheapest bidder and reasoned it with the fact that the bidder is known to him as person with a long-standing experience in this profession with recommendations that makes a living of this occupation for 30 years. Despite the prohibition to negotiate with bidders before determining the winner of the tender, the bidder agreed to the local authority’s request to compare its bid with the cheapest one. The reasoning for the selection of the bidder is not reasonable as the services of the cheapest bidder was found impeccable and mere acquaintance between the head of the authority and a bidder is not a justified reason to violate the principle of equality between bidders, as other bidders make a living from this occupation to the same extent. Therefore, both the head of the of local authority and the council decision, approving it, do not meet the obligation of equality between bidders and do not meet the authority's obligation to act even-handed between the bidders and therefore the authority's decision must be revoked and the cheapest offer declared as the winner in the tender.