At the end of the day, Koren explained in his testimony that it is possible that when they decided to go out for the tender in September 2011 – even though it was the value that supplied the 'brain' by virtue of the 2010 tender – they did not believe that there was sufficient justification for requesting an exemption from a tender. Therefore, they decided to issue a tender from the Israel Land Authority, and Koren turned to NetApp to get the names of its authorized suppliers. In the Mapi tender, they approached the same suppliers in order to get the best price and that this is what guided him. Afterwards, Wei won the Mapi tender, and then when Mapi was required in 2012 to expand the shelves, it is possible that things looked different in terms of their scope, and apparently this is what led him to request an exemption from a tender in 2012. He further added that apparently the consideration of the overall liability that guided him in the exemption application was not in his mind at the stage of the decision to issue a tender in 2011 (p. 590, paras. 6-18). In any event, and as we also saw above, it clearly emerges from Koren's testimony that in the Mapi tender, Mapi asked to receive genuine bids in order to receive the best price for the shelves, and that the claims regarding a fictitious tender, for the minutes alone, have no basis.
As stated above, the decision to grant an exemption from a tender in 2012 was based on the fact that the purchase of the additional shelves at that time constituted a continuation of the engagement that was made following the Mapi tender and not on the reasoning of a single supplier (see paragraph 813 above). The evidence and Koren's testimony raise a question mark as to whether it was possible to act with an exemption from such a tender as early as September 2011 and the Mapi tender passed, even though the logic of the reasoning for the exemption ostensibly applies to the Mapi tender as well (ibid., as well as Koren's testimony, p. 590, paras. 6-18; these words are true even if at a certain point in Koren's testimony, in view of the aforesaid mistake and the distance of time, Koren noted that it is possible that he made a mistake in his judgment in going to the Mapi tender and that it is possible that even then it would have been possible to act with an exemption; No basis was laid for the matter to be considered or that this is what someone in the Mapi thought in real time before the launch of the Mapi tender, in which case all those involved should be presumed to remember the 2010 tender).