From what was brought it appears that the 2010 tender revolved around the purchase of the 'heads' of the storage system (p. 580, s. 32 - p. 581, s. 6, this component was referred to in the proceeding as the 'brain' of the system). This is in addition to the installation, maintenance, warranty and purchase of a number of shelves (N/56, pp. 9-10, 25; Koren, p. 582, paras. 5-29). In the tender documents, it was determined that this is a project at a "fixed cost" (Clause 5, N/56). Oshri testified that the intention is that the bidder must give one price for the project as a whole, meaning that the bid price must include the rules of cost components, including the costs of equipment, software, labor and deliveries (p. 4566, s. 19 - p. 4567, s. 3). Koren speculated that the intention might have been that Mapi would have the possibility of purchasing extensions at the same prices in the future (p. 583, s. 20 - p. 584, s. 6). In any event, it was not claimed or any concrete basis was laid for the fact that the tender documents and the engagement by virtue thereof included any undertaking on the part of Mapi for future procurement by the winner (in paragraph 353 of the Wee summaries there is no explicit claim as aforesaid or the reference supports such a claim; it was also not claimed or presented that there is any connection between the prices of the bids in the Mapi tender and the additions of discs from 2011 to the prices of the 2010 tender).
Oshri testified that it was important to him that she would win the 2010 tender. Oshri explained that in addition to winning a deal in a considerable amount – about $200,000 – he saw in the transaction the potential to give the lender an advantage in all matters relating to the supply of extensions that will be required by the Mapi in the future (p. 4567, s. 4 - p. 4568, s. 13; with all that is said about the scope of the transaction, see also: P/214, paras. 563-564 and the NetApp proposal in the scope of N/347). Oshri was very involved in Wee's moves in the 2010 tender. Oshri was active in formulating Wee's bid for the 2010 tender, formulated Wee's SOW and gave instructions to Shachar and another Wei salesperson regarding Wee's bid (N/348, N/350, N/351, N/349; see also NetApp's proposal, N/347, on which Oshri would have written). Oshri also testified that he met with Koren after Wei won the 2010 tender in order to demonstrate seriousness on Wee's part and to give a managerial commitment to the project (p. 4573, s. 21 - p. 4574, s. 7).