Claims of violation of tender laws or defects in the competitive process – do not justify or qualify coordination
- Other claims raised by Wei and Harel were for ELTA's improper conduct and a violation of the tenders laws. Among other things, it was argued that Shkedi himself testified that a previous request for bids that was exempt from a tender was an improper procedure (p. 1867, paras. 3-4, ibid., in connection with another project; p. 1885, paras. 6-8; Zagori and Kanitork testified differently, p. 2201, paras. 11-15, p. 2202, paras. 3-4; Knitork also testified that the receipt of bids in such a situation was also intended to assist in estimating the costs, p. 360; 2-21, p. 376, S. 1-30). It was further claimed that the civil appeal exempted itself from the world of tender law in the Baltimore project without clarifying the reason for this; that it was Shkedi who recorded the reasons for the exemption committee's decision (p. 433, paras. 7-9) and that this was contrary to the procedures (although Zagori in his testimony, p. 2218, paras. 12-18 emphasized that the committee examines the reasons on their merits and that the identity of the impression is not important), because Shkedi did not know how to explain the reasons for the exemption, etc. From all of this, they sought to conclude that the pricing that was made at the beginning of the Baltimore attack was fictitious.
These arguments should not be accepted.
The defense's arguments regarding the defects in ELTA's conduct and the violation of the tenders laws seek to divert attention from the main point – the coordination of the proposals that was done at the outset. They seek to argue for flaws at the end of a road in order to legitimize the evil that began in its beginnings. This argument is unacceptable. The state of affairs that stood before ELTA at the time of the hearing of the request for exemption from a tender is worth and Triple C is not in the game. Wii and Triple C submitted expensive proposals from Harel's proposal (by virtue of an improper coordination arrangement that was made behind Elta's back and without Elta's knowledge). Beyond that, they didn't want to continue. EMET's proposal apparently became irrelevant at a certain point (in view of the project's preference for IBM products and after Harel reached more or less the same price level, Testimony of Kenitork, p. 454, paras. 5-8). After all this, the exemption committee decided to approve the engagement with Harel with an exemption from a tender.