We have seen that from all the evidence, it clearly emerges that this is a matter of planning to coordinate the price proposals, the value and Triple C will be asked to submit to the financier, and that later on Shachar even actually submitted the bid in accordance with the arrangement and as requested.
We are now dealing with the claim that Zeiger did not understand the matter in this way and that he was not aware of the coordination.
As stated above, one explanation given is that when Zeiger received the emails from Gilad, he thought that they were price estimates, that is, Gilad's estimates in relation to the prices that competitors could offer for a civil appeal for the contents of the equipment in the MPR(X) aircraft.
In his testimony, Zeiger raised the explanation as if he understood the e-mails that Gilad sent him with the prices of Wii and Triple C and the price quotes as referring to estimates in relation to the price that the competitors could offer for a civil appeal in Balam (e.g., p. 5371, paras. 15-17). However, he immediately added that it had no meaning at all, "it doesn't matter in the slightest," since because of the agreement of the Comptroller General, Harel's win was guaranteed (p. 5371, s. 20 - p. 5372, s. 2). In response to the court's subsequent questions, it suddenly asserted that under these circumstances, IBM would not give a price quote to any of the other suppliers at all – not a better offer than Harel's offer and not an offer at all – and would not sell them the contents of the equipment "unequivocally not" (p. 5372, paras. 13-22). This argument stands in clear contradiction to what Zeiger said in other places, as well as to other evidence (e.g., P/220, paras. 264-268; and see also Shahar's testimony, p. 3033, paras. 21-3034, para. 2). Moreover, to the extent that other suppliers could not receive an offer from IBM and could not submit a bid for civil appeal – as Zeiger has now claimed – the basis has been dropped from Zeiger's explanation that these are estimates in relation to other bids. If there is no possibility that others will submit proposals, what is the point of estimating bid prices (which are not possible) and how did Zeiger understand the correspondence as relating to evaluations (in relation to offers that are not possible)? When asked by the court about the difficulty that arises from this version, he did not have any real answers (p. 5372, s. 23 - p. 5374, s. 21, and see the attempt to divert the answers to the other explanation, p. 5373, s. 22).