Vered described in his testimony that the project and the procurement are two systems whose considerations are different, "the project is more interesting than the issue of schedules and availability" (p. 6391, paras. 9-19), the project examines the technological, technical aspects (p. 6395, paras. 21-22), while the procurement is "entrusted with the financial aspect" (ibid.). Against this background, he described that there are constantly "quarrels ... between the projects and the procurement" (p. 6395, paras. 24-25; Elsewhere, he referred to "a contradiction or disagreement between the technical elements or the project that is committed to the schedules and the procurement person who wants to expand the search", p. 6390, paras. 1-3; P. 6398, paras. 8-9, where he referred to the "clash" between the project's needs and the procurement needs, see also p. 6390, paras. 13-14; See also the description of the tension between the project personnel and the procurement man in Koffler's testimony, p. 6594, paras. 3-13).
In view of the above, Vered testified that even where the project has issued a single supplier's approval, the procurement is entitled not to accept it, that is, not to be satisfied with it, and the procurement company must have the independence to conduct its own tests, contact various suppliers, request price quotes, and return to the project with new findings, no matter how new they may be (p. 6395, paras. 18-25). Vered reiterated in his testimony that even when the project approved a single supplier form for procurement, "there is independence to act and take more actions" (ibid.), "to contact and inquire with other suppliers" (p. 6395, para. 16); Because even if the hardware engineer in the project conducted tests and reported this to the buyer, the buyer "is also entitled to turn himself in" "he has freedom in this matter", since the considerations of the procurement are different (p. 6391, paras. 3-10);The procurement is sovereign to do its own tests" even when the project assesses that these tests will not be useful (p. 6400, paras. 17-19, originally there was a mistake that could be ethical in the word "sovereign"). Vered noted that although the approval of a single supplier is usually obtained as is, "the procurement [the] authority still has the authority to conduct its examination and come up with other findings", for example, to locate alternatives for the procurement of equipment that the project has not been able to identify, and in such a case "it is likely that there will not be a single supplier" (p. 6396, paras. 11-19; and to the extent that following a request for price quotes, a cheaper offer is received from another party that will lead to savings and meet the schedules, "This is good", p. 6409, paras. 6-10). Vered's testimony was reliable and should be accepted. The testimony fits in with the general picture that emerged from the testimonies regarding the relationship between the project and procurement (and Wee's argument, for example, in para. 437 of its summaries, should be rejected, as if Vered's words contradict what he said earlier in the testimony; since these previous statements did not relate to the possibility of the procurement to conduct examinations and pricing in order to examine alternatives in order to examine whether there is room not to accept the project's position regarding a single supplier and then raise a flag).