"Question: ... Why is there a need for quotes from several companies when it comes to equipment or service in an accounting contract, since the prices are fixed in the contract of the accountant, and the obligation of the aerospace industry anchored in the agreement is to buy it at a fixed price from you...
Answer: True, but IAI is constantly checking the market to see that the price is indeed the cheapest.
Question: But there is no point in examining whether she must buy from the supplier in the agreement in any case.
Answer: In principle, you are right, but there is always the feeling that they can buy the equipment from another supplier. And as evidenced by the Blueray project that we talked about yesterday, IAI ordered the equipment from a competitor, Mevi, and not from Harel as stipulated in the agreement... At IAI, they are simply taking advantage of the fact that they are not a pure government ministry, in order to go into the gray area, that is, to purchase equipment that is contracted through suppliers who are not under contract... If I, as a supplier, miss a big project because they found a cheaper supplier, I could lose up to 20% of sales that year and even more, about 25%, which is a big risk. I have to be focused, have a knife between my teeth, if you understand what I mean, constantly check what is happening with the competitors" (P/222, paras. 15-34, underline added).
In his testimony, Zeiger confirmed the aforesaid from his interrogation (e.g., p. 5602, paras. 5-19; and in response to the court's question, p. 5606, paras. 13-18, where he confirmed that as a salesman he was always under the fear that a civil appeal would purchase equipment under the Comptroller General's agreement from someone else and not from Harel; and see also p. 5609, paras. 20-23). At the same time, in his testimony, Zeiger tried to minimize the significance of the words and to qualify them. Thus, for example, Zeiger argued in his testimony that in practice Harel had no reason to fear competition, and that when it came to IBM products under the Comptroller General's agreement, the other suppliers did not in fact have a chance to sell to a civil appeal (p. 5607, paras. 12-25); that the Bluery project was in fact a one-time episode (p. 5609, paras. 11-13) and that the real competition they faced was against other manufacturers such as HP and Dell (p. 5612, paras. 13-18). However, these words in the testimony are inconsistent with the clear words that he said in his interrogation and that were brought above. They have no anchor or hint in the things quoted above from the message. The attempt to explain the change by saying that during the interrogation he was under pressure and not precise was not convincing (e.g., p. 5607, paras. 19-21). The same is true of the answers to the court's repeated questions on these matters (pp. 5611-5615). The testimony did not give a credible impression. It is clear that it was intended to serve Harel's position that she was not afraid of competition from the other suppliers - such as Wii and Triple C - and mitigated the claim that she had no interest in the privileged restrictive arrangement. However, if that were the case, it would have been expected that Zeiger would say these things in his announcement, while there he explicitly discussed the constant concern about the possibility that the civilian party would purchase the equipment not from Harel but from one of the other suppliers. Therefore, in this regard, preference should be given to Zeiger's words in the statement, which he initially confirmed in his testimony as well.