The defendants tried to build on the testimony of Peretz, who, as stated, was the head of the server and communications procurement department at Maman, i.e., a procurement man, and to find support for her claim that the competition was ostensibly. I cannot accept these arguments.
Peretz clearly testified that the process ended only when an order was issued, that prior to that there was no commitment or promise to the supplier, because he had told the suppliers time and time again, and that even the conduct of the supplier and previous work with the project, for example to characterize the project, is nothing but marketing efforts that do not guarantee that he will win the project. Peretz testified that he did not commit to any supplier, "There are no promises and I have told the suppliers dozens of times, if not in every engagement, only when there is an order that is signed, it is over" (p. 1593, paras. 4-10; See also p. 1586, s. 15 - p. 1587, s. 2). As for the supplier's work with the project, he clarified: "The projects start their activity before the procurement and they build a relationship of trust with the suppliers [between] whether it's Bynet, whether it's Harel and then when it arrives, the pricing [stage] comes a lot of times when the marketers who have invested efforts come, we'll call it marketing efforts, I would always tell them guys, as far as you're concerned, it' s marketing efforts that you've killed an architectural engineer and you've characterized and everything. In the end, it comes to the procurement if there is a large gap between the prices and the procurement committee decides on another supplier, this is another supplier, it is a risk that you take in the framework of the loan relationship" (p. 1607, paras. 14-21, underline added; He further emphasized that even in the case referred to, even though Harel invested in the project, from the moment they went out for pricing, if one of the suppliers had given a better price, he would have accepted the order, p. 1608, paras. 1-2).