Background
Herzliya Development Company Ltd. issued a January 2026 tender for pipe-jacking and pumping works in the Kiryat Shחקים project, the first in a sequence of tenders supporting a planned residential and commercial development. Ofek–Atarim 10 Ltd. competed against Avrahami Yoav & Sons Ltd. and another bidder. After Avrahami was selected, Ofek sought its disqualification on two grounds: that Avrahami lacked the required professional experience because pipes used in a prior Mekorot project allegedly measured 152.4 centimeters rather than the required 155 centimeters, and that Avrahami’s extension of its bid guarantee did not satisfy the tender requirements.
The tender committee temporarily froze the award, reconsidered Ofek’s objections, and—relying on engineering opinions and legal advice—left Avrahami’s award in place. Ofek then sued in the Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court and sought an interim injunction barring implementation of the award. Although an ex parte temporary order initially froze the award, the District Court dissolved it after an inter partes hearing. The court found that the evidence did not establish likely disqualification, that the guarantee problem arose from the tender issuer’s conduct, and that the public interest favored allowing the infrastructure project to proceed.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Khaled Kabub denied leave to appeal without requesting responses from the respondents. The Supreme Court emphasized that trial courts have broad discretion over interim relief and that appellate intervention is reserved for exceptional cases. It found the District Court’s detailed decision consistent with that demanding standard and with the public interest.
On the merits, the Court held that Ofek had not, at this preliminary stage, shown a strong claim. Avrahami had proactively extended its guarantee before being asked to do so, and the mismatch in the extension date resulted from the tender issuer’s conduct. Nor did the present record sufficiently establish that Avrahami lacked the required pipe-work experience. The tender committee had responsibly frozen the award, reconsidered the objections, and relied on professional materials and legal advice; the court’s role was to review the reasonableness and seriousness of that process, not substitute its judgment for the committee’s.
The balance of convenience also favored Avrahami because delay threatened a public project and related contractual commitments, while Ofek’s potential injury was financial and could be compensated if it ultimately prevailed. The Court separately rejected Ofek’s request to introduce an additional transcript because Ofek admitted that the evidence had been available before it sought interim relief in the District Court. The Court also denied the ex parte injunction request, while leaving Ofek free to seek admission of the evidence in the continuing principal action. No costs were awarded because no response had been requested.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts will rarely disturb a trial court’s reasoned ruling on interim relief, particularly after an inter partes hearing.
- A correctable bid-guarantee discrepancy attributable to the tender issuer did not, on this preliminary record, establish that the winning bidder had to be disqualified.
- Courts review whether a tender committee acted reasonably and conducted a serious process; they do not replace the committee’s professional judgment with their own.
- Evidence already available during the lower-court proceedings generally cannot be added on interlocutory appeal as an opportunity to improve the record.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of stopping performance of a public-works tender while a challenge remains pending. Even potentially significant objections concerning threshold experience and bid guarantees may not support an injunction where the evidentiary record is incomplete, the tender committee has undertaken a documented professional review, and delay would impede a major public project.
The ruling is preliminary and does not resolve Ofek’s underlying claims. Those issues remain for full adjudication in the District Court, and Ofek may seek monetary relief if it ultimately proves that the tender award was unlawful.