Others in Elta testified otherwise. Zaguri, the head of the procurement administration at Elta and the person in charge of Shkedi, testified that there is no difficulty in the fact that Kinyan applies for quotes even before an exemption from a tender is granted, and that if it is decided later on that a tender should be issued, they will act to publish a tender, even if the buyer had previously acted to receive bids from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Zagori explained that they acted in this context on the basis of legal advice from ELTA's legal advisor (p. 2201, paras. 11 - p. 2202, paras. 3-4, where he also mentioned the name of the legal advisor to the defense's request). Knitork also testified that there was no impediment to requesting price quotes prior to the request for exemption from a tender, and that the receipt of price quotes in this state of affairs was also intended for the purpose of estimating costs (p. 360, paras. 2-21, p. 376, paras. 1-30).
Either way, even if there is a flaw in the conduct of things, this does not change it. This does not teach us that the Anemone Task Force that was issued prior to bringing the matter to the Exemption Committee – and in respect of which the parties reached a coordination arrangement and submitted coordinated proposals – was a competition on the face of it. This was not the case with the evidence according to which, through the issuance of the Combat Equipment, Knitwerk sought to clarify the feasibility of alternatives for procurement and to examine whether the price of the engagement was optimal. In any event, such alleged defects do not justify or legitimize the coordination of price quotes (and in this regard, what was said in paragraph 339 above in relation to Baltimore and the case law cited therein is beautiful).
- Another argument raised by Wei and Harel in their summaries is that Connecticut concealed details from the exemption committee, including that it did not present to it the full reasoning that the project issued to a single supplier (P/11), that it did not disclose the value of the servers that located the servers in Al-Trade, and that it did not mention this in the request for exemption from a tender (P/14) and in the order release form (P/50). This is despite the fact that Knitwerk testified that it was Shahar who informed him that he (Shahar) was involved in locating the servers and that the project was about to be issued with a purchase request (p. 415, paras. 23-28, p. 416, paras. 8-13). According to the claim, Knitwerk concealed material details in order to create a false representation of competition and imaginary cost savings, and that his conduct also supports the claim that the Anemone Fleet was a fictitious pricing (e.g., para. 376 of Harel's summaries; arguments of counsel for Way, p. 6396, paras. 20-21; testimony of Vered 6397, paras. 12-14; testimony of Knitürk, p. 416, paras. 14-28, where he confirmed that he did not state in P/50 that the inventory was located by Wei, But he clarified that he referred to reasoning; Harel also referred to the fact that two fields in the exemption application were not filled in (paragraph 377 of Harel's summaries); The defense also referred to the testimonies regarding the manner in which the reasons of the exemption committee were formulated, including the testimony of Shkedi, p. 1869, paras. 8-16, who denied that he had told Knitürk what to record in the committee's reasoning in the decision of the exemption committee, and to the testimony of Knitürk, p. 423, s. 29-p. 424, s. 10, that he wrote the reasons in the exemption decision (v/14); It was also argued that the reasons stated in the exemption decision (N/14 (second page)) – the absence of an Israeli manufacturer and the existence of competition – do not reflect the real situation: granting an exemption due to a single supplier (e.g., paragraph 377 of Harel's summaries); All of these – so it is claimed – are sufficient to testify that the pricing was fictitious).
These arguments should not be accepted.