In order to submit her bid for the 2010 tender, Wei received a price quote fromNetApp (N/347). No infrastructure was laid for significant NetApp involvement beyond that (after Wee's win, Shahar Lanoy sent an email message, N/353, in which Shahar Lanoy wrote, "We won the mapping, thank you for forcing me to access"; Oshri testified that he did not know how to explain the matter. Oshri speculated, unknowingly, that perhaps Shachar le-khatḥila preferred not to approach it, and it was Noy who persuaded Shachar to submit a bid for the tender in view of its potential, p. 4569, paras. 5-16; In his testimony, Noy referred to the fact that sometimes he approached the supplier in order to submit an offer even when the same supplier believed that another supplier had an advantage with the customer, pp. 6154-6160; p. 6183, paras. 24-33, which gives rise to the possibility that Levy was not a priority in the first place, including on the part of Netap, in the 2010 tender; See also N/411, any offer by NetApp for Wei in connection with Mapi dated January 6, 2011, i.e., after Wee's win, the nature of which was not clarified, Noy, p. 6187, paras. 9-21).
Winning Wei – On December 7, 2010, P.I. Levy announced its winning of the 2010 tender (P/55, N/352, N/353; this was based on the decision of the Ministerial Tenders Committee; the Tenders Committee for Computer Equipment was called the Civil Youth Appeals Committee (Automatic Data Processing), see p. 5 to N/56, Adv. Kirshner, p. 6425, paras. 25-28, Koren, p. 551, paras. 9-13). As stated above, the picture in relation to the 2010 tender, its participants and the proposals they proposed was not presented in full. From what has been brought it appears that A.E.T. submitted a bid for the 2010 tender but lost due to the submission of an inappropriate guarantee (this is what Rubinstein testified, p. 3682, paras. 5-6, p. 3638, paras. 10-23; Rubinstein testified there that the loss hurt her and that against this background she intended to participate in the 2011 tender for the addition of shelves – the tender at the center of the indictment – in order to win it, but in the end, according to the claim, bids were coordinated in relation to the API tender).