Added to this are other statements made by Oshri and Shachar – which have already been cited above – according to which there was no certainty that Value would win the Anemone deal, because through the coordination, Shahar sought to increase the chances of Wei winning, and to "neutralize" the competition; and that the coordination is also intended to ensure that Levi will remain a sufficient profit in the transaction and in order for Elta not to require Levy to lower the price due to low offers it receives from its competitors (see paragraph 360 above). There was no real answer to these questions either.
- In their summaries, Wei and Harel emphasized the short time period set for receiving price quotes at Balam Anemonet. As stated above, Knitürk sent the request for quotations on June 7, 2010, and the request document indicated June 10, 2010 in the field designated for the last date for quotations (see paragraph 354 above). According to Wei and Harel, the short period of time of three days for submitting bids indicates that this is a non-serious request, that Kenitork himself did not see a realistic possibility of responding to it, and that it was a fictitious pricing for the sake of appearance only (e.g., paras. 430-431, 443 onwards of Wee's summaries, paras. 352, 372 of Harel's summaries; the defense also referred to the fact that in the form of reasoning of a single supplier, N/11, It was noted that the inventory detected in the Altrade will be retained for ELTA for 30 days only).
Some of the testimonies indicated that, as a rule, the procedures for requests for quotations were not conducted in a formal manner, because they were conducted without excessive care, and without binding significance to the date specified on the application (Naveh, p. 247, paras. 3-26, where he explained that this is a date that is automatically issued in the procurement systems, which is not a binding date, because he never looked at the date and that with regard to the date of submission of the bid he was in direct contact with the procurement personnel; p. 275, S. 15-20). In any event, a period of about three days, insofar as it was obligatory, was indeed predicted to be short. He can create a difficulty, especially if one wishes to locate such inventories abroad (for example, Vered's testimony, p. 6400, paras. 1-2, p. 6390, paras. 9-11, where he spoke of a period of several months that was required in the past to locate equipment abroad). In practice, Harel and Triple C submitted their proposals on June 14, 2010, so that they had a longer period of time than recorded (see paragraph 359 above). It seems that the period of time indicated sought to take into account the constraints of the project and its timetables (Vered, p. 6408, paras. 19-23, where he testified that it can be seen that Kenitork was nervous about this). It appears that Connecticut asked to receive quotes as soon as possible and to balance between the needs of the project and the procurement attempt to examine additional alternatives as stated above. Even if such a period of time projected on the chance that an alternative would be found, this does not lead to the conclusion that there was no feasibility of doing so, especially with regard to the receipt of competing offers from Alltrade (a possibility detailed above). Certainly, the period of time recorded does not lead to the conclusion that there was no room to go out in the Balam in order to examine the possibility of an alternative. As long as the time period was insufficient, Harel and Triple C could announce that they could not submit a bid or ask for additional time. Coordinating price quotes while falsely representing Elta is not a legitimate or permissible option.
- To summarize this point: we have seen above that the defense's arguments should be rejected on the basis of the approval of a single supplier issued by the project. On the legal level, the approval of a single supplier cannot justify or legitimize the coordination of price quotes that is at the heart of the absolute presumption set forth in section 2(b) of the Law. Beyond what is required, the defense's arguments ignore the tension that existed between the project and IAI's procurement bodies. As emerged from the evidence, on the general level, the approval of a single supplier by the project parties does not prevent the procurement from taking action to examine other engagement alternatives and ensure procurement at the optimal price, including by way of issuing a contract and requesting competitive price proposals. In the concrete case, this is how Knitork acted in the Anemone Strike, in order to obtain true offers, and the defense's arguments that this was a fictitious pricing for the sake of appearance must be rejected. In any case, coordinating the price quotes behind Elta's back, and without her knowledge, is unacceptable and consolidates all the elements of the offense.
The Defense Claims for Violation of the Tenders Laws and Defects in Connection with the Granting of an Exemption from a Tender
- We discussed above the conduct of the matter after the issuance of the Anemone Strike and after the submission of the coordinated bids to Elta, including the fact that later on an exemption from a tender was granted and an invitation was issued. Wei and Harel argued in their summaries that there were flaws in ELTA's conduct after the issuance of the Anemone Tender and in all that was stated in the proceedings for obtaining an exemption from a tender, in violation of the Tenders Law, and that the conduct in its entirety also supports the fact that the pricing in the Anemone Tender Tender was fictitious and prima facie.
- Similar arguments were also raised in relation to Baltimore, the subject of the fourth indictment, and were rejected (see above at paragraph 339). Here, too, the contractor is not allowed.
- Wei and Harel argued that the correct order of things that is required by law is that first an exemption from a tender must be obtained, and only then can it be issued with a tender and contact the suppliers with a request for price proposals, otherwise it will be required to retroactively legalize a violation of the tenders laws (for example, paragraph 450 of Wei summaries, paragraph 375 of Harel's summaries). It was argued that since this was not the case, it was an indication of competition on the surface.
In this context, reference was made to the testimony of Shkedi according to which contacting suppliers with a request for quotations before an exemption from a tender was granted is an improper procedure (P. 1867, S. 3-4, P. 1865, S. 2-7, P. 1885, S. 6-9; and see also Testimony there, p. 2121, S. 24-29, P. 2122, S. 18-26, P. 2123, S. 14-21; Testimony of Vered, p. 6393, S. 26 - P. 6394, S. 2).