Jerusalem Court Rejects Via Nova Petition in Highway 6 North Tender Dispute
The Jerusalem District Court dismissed Via Nova's petition against Shapir's victory in the Highway 6 North tender, ruling that an overly optimistic revenue forecast invalidated the runner-up's financial model.
A financial bid that could have yielded hundreds of millions of shekels more to the state failed to reach the final evaluation stage in the massive tender for sections 8 and 9 of the Cross-Israel Highway (Highway 6 North). This was ruled by the District Court in Jerusalem, which dismissed a petition filed by the Via Nova consortium—comprising Minrav, Milgam, and France’s Egis—against the victory of Shapir Civil and Marine Engineering and its partners.
At the heart of the legal dispute was the methodology for calculating future toll revenues from the highway. Via Nova projected revenues of approximately 20.94 billion shekels, compared to the state's baseline forecast of roughly 12.05 billion shekels, marking a 74% divergence. Under the tender's oversight mechanism, if a bidder's revenue projection exceeds the state's forecast by more than 15%, the financial model must be evaluated based on the state's forecast plus 15%, rather than the bidder's independent projections.
Financial Model Fails Threshold Requirements
For Via Nova, this adjustment drastically reduced their calculated revenue model from nearly 21 billion shekels down to roughly 13.86 billion shekels. Following this adjustment, the consortium's financial model failed to meet the rigorous tender requirements. The average debt service coverage ratio dropped from 1.15 to 1.04 against a minimum threshold of 1.01, while the expected return on equity turned negative.
Consequently, the financial model received a score of 48.03 points, falling short of the 60-point threshold required to advance to the final stage of the tender. Court data indicated that while Via Nova's nominal price proposal stood at approximately 2.019 billion shekels compared to Shapir's 1.336 billion shekels—a theoretical difference of some 683 million shekels in the state's favor—the bid was never opened or reviewed in the final round due to the preliminary screening failure.
Court Upholds Tender Rules and Dismisses Petition
Via Nova argued in its petition that the tender committee misapplied the revenue adjustment mechanism and that alternate interpretations should apply. Judge Ilan Sela rejected these arguments, ruling that the committee acted strictly in accordance with pre-established rules designed to ensure uniform and equitable evaluation. The court emphasized that judicial intervention in professional administrative tenders is strictly limited, and courts will not act as a supreme tender committee to second-guess expert determinations.
Furthermore, the court noted that Via Nova delayed filing its legal challenge. Although notified of the financial model failure on July 16, 2026, the consortium waited until October 14 to petition the court. During this interim period, the concession agreement with Shapir was signed on September 16, and the winning group incurred substantial expenses on planning, consultants, and suppliers.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition and ordered Via Nova to pay 75,000 shekels in legal costs to the state, alongside another 75,000 shekels to Shapir and its partners. The ruling underscores a core challenge in infrastructure concessions: an ostensibly higher financial offer to the state can collapse if overly optimistic revenue projections undermine the viability of the underlying financial model.
