We discussed at length above that the coordination of price proposals, even when it is done at an initial stage and prior to the involvement of the procurement agencies, is invalid and amounts to an offense (see the discussion at paragraph 491 above, where a similar argument was discussed with respect to the appeal of Gendelman, the subject of the seventh indictment; see also paragraphs 340-342, as well as paragraph 469 above). What is said there is appropriate for our purposes. As stated there, the elements of the offense of the restrictive arrangement do not include a request for a price quote from the procurement, a restrictive arrangement is formulated even without a request for a price quote, coordination regarding the proposed price – even at the initial stage – is inherently prohibited. Such coordination falls within the scope of the absolute presumptions set forth in section 2(b) of the Competition Law, and in the absence of which it is not required to prove the potential for harm to competition.
Moreover, Gendelman's words do not mean that he "does not compete" with what the defense finds in them. As it appears from his testimony, Gendelman is not a procurement person, he does not negotiate with the suppliers and he is not the one who makes the decision regarding the engagement with one supplier or another. This does not lead to the conclusion that the proposals submitted to it are not part of the competitive process or that they have no potential to affect the competition and the engagement down the road. The evidence shows that the opposite is true. Proposals submitted at the initial stage can affect competition down the road, and it is clear that their coordination may harm it (see paragraph 342 above). Such proposals were even used more than once by the procurement entities when the matter was transferred to them, they constituted an anchor for the price of the engagement or for the purpose of negotiations, and in any case coordination is liable to determine an initial non-competitive price level (the two proposals in our case, P/101 and P/100, were even formulated as price proposals, detailing the terms of the engagement, and in a manner that even makes it possible to engage on the basis of them).