The defense also referred to the email message sent by Shachar, on behalf of Wee, at the same time as the submission of Wee's coordinated bid (P/7). Shachar noted, among other things, that this was a price quote for the list of items for the project, in the sense of a "grocery list", and nothing more, since Value was not required to characterize the project from a technological point of view, and its and ELTA's system engineers did not meet. Shachar further suggested that a meeting be held in order to examine alternative technologies, including the use of virtual servers that would reduce costs (P/7, and see Shahar's testimony that Knitürk did not invite him to the meeting, pp. 3328, 2-4; Knitürk testified that at a certain point a meeting was held in which the project answered the questions raised by the suppliers, and that during it Wei and EMET tried to move in the direction of virtualization, p. 445, s. 22-p. 446, S. 11; Support for the testimony of Kinturk regarding the meeting arise from N/6, correspondence dated January 3, 2010). In any case, the fact that Wee's offer to examine an alternative technology was not accepted, or that the project sought to proceed on the basis of the technological configuration it formulated (and not on the basis of any other configuration), does not indicate that the pricing of the Baltimore submarine was not a true pricing or to justify coordination. The project and ELTA Procurement asked to receive real offers from suppliers in response to the chosen technological configuration. Wee was entitled to submit an independent proposal to the best of its ability. As much as Shahar wanted to compete, he could have submitted an uncoordinated real price or a cheap offer. Either way, Wei was not allowed to coordinate bids in a way that Shahar himself had approved, which was intended to ensure Harel's win and also prevent price competition.
Another claim raised by Harel is that the acquisition of ELTA misled EMET and allowed it to submit a well-founded offer DELL Although the project decided to purchase equipment made by IBM, while hiding the aforementioned from EMAT, in order to create unreal, competition with equipment DELL, after valuation and triple C, they retired and refrained from submitting additional bids (for example, paragraphs 327 and 340 of Harel's summaries). These arguments are also of no use to the defendants. We saw above that KinTurk testified that despite the project's preference for IBM-made equipment, the project was willing to consider at certain stages a proposal for manufactured equipment as well DELL If there are significant price differences (see paragraph 314 supra, and also p. 437, paras. 1-2). In any event, and this is the main thing, the alleged conduct towards EMET or the alleged unfairness towards it does not attest to the fact that the pricing in Baltimore was prima facie, or to legitimize the submission of coordinated bids by Wie, Harel and Triple C, all of IBM's suppliers.