The facts that have been proven in relation to the Oranim project omit the basis for claims that Wei's win was guaranteed or that there was no feasibility of competition. Moreover, on the general level, it is clear that there is a possibility of competition even where one of the suppliers has done some kind of preliminary work with the project. Even then, there may be competition and it is possible that another supplier will submit a bid and win (see also Shohat's testimony that there was no difficulty in submitting a bid within a short time in response to the specifications sent in Balam Oranim, p. 6814, paras. 1-4, p. 6860, paras. 1-14) and that the arrangements between the suppliers could have harmed competition.
- The claims of competition for the sake of appearance - Wei and Harel sought to build in their summaries from various statements made by Shekanevsky and Peretz, people from Maman, and from the criticism they raised regarding the procurement process at Balam Oranim and to find support for the claim that the pricing in Balam Oranim was purely for appearance. This included reference to the criticism raised by Shekanevsky in real time that the project did not share with Maman already in the early stages of the proceeding, and that the project worked with one of the suppliers (Harel) even before Maman entered the picture, and that in these circumstances it was a process that was "conducted in an improper manner" (P/126, para. 2, see also N/29 where Shekanevsky noted, prior to the publication of the Balam, Because in the procurement file there are only offers from Harel and there is no single supplier form). Wei and Harel referred, inter alia, to what Shkanevsky said in his interrogation with the Authority, according to which where the project characterizes the requirements together with one of the suppliers and advances with him even before the issuance of the procurement demand, "Maman procurement becomes an order typist" without any impact on the business or technological aspect (p. 1004, paras. 15-20, where the matter was presented to Schnevsky). They also referred to what Peretz wrote, after Shaknevsky informed him that Schweitzer of EMET announced that he could not participate because he had not received special prices for the civil appeal from IBM. Peretz then wrote to Leshem that in light of EMET's position, he believes that it is not possible to conduct "real competition between the various IBM resellers" and that it is essential that a civil appeal reach a framework agreement with IBM resellers (P/82; At the same time, Peretz tried to incentivize Wischnitzer to submit a price quote, stating that "there may be surprises", P/194).
- These arguments are also unacceptable, and they do not testify that the Oranim Brigade was a mere competition for appearances. In the framework of the tenth indictment, Balam Galactica, we were asked to make similar claims. We saw that Peretz had criticism of the procurement procedures in a civil appeal, and that in certain circumstances – due to the late involvement of Maman or when an IBM configuration was chosen – he estimated that the pricing process would be less effective. At the same time, we saw that this was an internal assessment, which was not of interest to the suppliers, and that when a pricing was made, it was conducted with the intention of maintaining true pricing, in an attempt to exhaust the advantages of the competition, even if it was not a perfect competition, and in order to obtain optimal bids and not in order to receive fictitious and coordinated bids (see the discussion at paragraphs 603-618 and at paragraphs 592-599 above). What is stated there is appropriate for our matter.
This is also the picture that emerged from the testimonies of Shkanevsky and Peretz in relation to the Oranim Police Department.