Shekanevsky clearly testified that due to the fact that the project proceeded to begin with no involvement of Maman, he tried to conduct an optimal pricing procedure: "to bring in more suppliers" "and to create more aggressive competition" "in order to try to reach savings or a cheaper solution" and "to improve the terms of the transaction" (p. 918, para. 20 - p. 919, para. 3, there, with specific reference to online pricing, an underline was added). From his testimony it was clear that the civil appeal sought to hold a true contest and not a contest for appearances. Even if the fact that the project did not involve Maman at the outset created a difficulty in his eyes and made the pricing option more limited or less optimal compared to the state of things that would have been if Maman had entered the picture earlier, Shaknevsky clarified that despite this, "we are still trying in every possible way to create competition between the suppliers", True Competition (p. 1009, paras. 17-18, underline added, See also: p. 1007, paras. 3-4, s. 15, p. 1008, paras. 8-9, s. 15, where he also explained the phrase "order typist" on which the defense tried to hang; See also p. 1016, para. 13, where he testified with respect to N/82 that the more suppliers there are, the more chances of competition).
These words of Shkanevsky in his testimony must be accepted. The various arguments raised by the defense, including Wee, do not detract from the credibility of these statements of Shkanevsky (this is the case with regard to the allegations that in January 2019 he worked as a therapist in a "subconscious" without obtaining approval from IAI, N/84, which do not relate to the matter and which Shaknevsky explained satisfactorily in his testimony, pp. 1001-1002; this is the case with respect to N/217, an email correspondence that is not related to the Oranim Communications Unit, from which Wei sought to conclude that Shkanevsky knew about the practice of receiving false offers as part of an ostensible competition; even though the correspondence is not includes a reference or response by Shkanevsky; Even though the facts relating to it have not been clarified; and she did not even refer in her summaries to the fact that this rule was presented to Skanevsky in his testimony; Even in the testimony of Shkanevsky at p. 1047, to which Wee referred, does not show that he held a contest for the sake of appearance or support it; The same is true of the arguments of V. at paras. 281 and 287 of the summaries, which do not relate to the fact that Shkanevsky made a pricing in order to obtain true offers).