Indeed, from Peretz's testimony, as well as from documents from real time, it emerged that Peretz had criticism of the procurement proceedings, that he preferred to draw up framework agreements – i.e., agreements with a certain supplier for the purchase of products made by IBM at a fixed discount – and that he believed that framework agreements would benefit a civil appeal over bids; that sometimes the project officials expected the procurement personnel to approve the engagement as a "rubber stamp" (p. 1711, and that sometimes due to the prior conduct between the supplier and the project, the intensity of the competition was not optimal, etc. (in relation to his preference for framework agreements – p. 1565, s. 30 – p. 1566, paras. 1-4; and that without a framework agreement the ability of the procurement to influence pricing is limited, p. 1559, paras. 14-15; p. 1682, paras. 18-25; therefore he tried to involve the procurement from the beginning of the process in order to bring optimal savings to IAI, p. 1561, s. 10-11, p. 1567, s. 11-14; Peretz also testified that he expressed this position to his superiors many times, p. 1591, paras. 4-6, p. 1599, paras. 21-23; that he complained about the procurement and pricing processes at Elta, p. 1638, s. 19 - p. 1639, s. 5; p. 1640, paras. 8-23; See also the additional evidence attached to the motion dated April 10, 2024; Decision of June 24, 2024).
At the same time, this was Peretz's internal position within the procurement system of civil appeals and in relation to the manner in which civil appeal is conducted and in his view the best way. He did not express it to the suppliers (p. 1591, paras. 1-4). As noted, this position is not the concern of the suppliers (ibid.). In his testimony, Peretz made it very clear that the request for quotations, even after one of the suppliers had acted with the people of the project, was not a competition on the face of it (p. 1689, paras. 2-14). As he testified even when the supplier acted with the project and carried out the characterization, it is not a competition for the sake of appearance, in his words: "Always as soon as we go out for pricing, we can have surprises, for example, one of the suppliers decides to commit suicide or decides to do everything to take our eyes off another supplier. You gave 50 percent, I give you 52 percent" and emphasized that the pricing he made was not superficial (p. 1688, paras. 4-8, paras. 24; Peretz's statement that he will incentivize suppliers to submit competitive bids, p. 1575, paras. 15-25, p. 1576, paras. 4-7; Peretz testimony that he turned to pricing with other suppliers in order to improve the bids, even though there were usually no surprises regarding the winning, p. 1699, paras. 9-16; See also N/137, from which it emerges, along with Peretz's preference for framework agreements, that it is possible and possible to bid and receive price quotes even if the competition is more limited). For a detailed reference to Peretz's general position regarding the procurement proceedings, see below in paragraph 603 onwards in the framework of the hearing of the tenth indictment.