The defendant also described a scenario in which this is a high-cost project and the district commander is interested in the project and decides to promote it through the IPS Commission (pp. 523-524).
- After the approval of a project, the contractor arrives on a tour in which the construction officer and the unit manager or his deputy also participate (pp. 523-524). If the contractor does not carry out the project independently, he gives the defendant the details of the subcontractor. The defendant testified that he himself is in more contact with the main contractor (p. 524). The TAL officer keeps a project management log, and upon completion of the work he sends the diary together with the confirmation of the execution of the work. The defendant and the TAL officer professionally check whether the work was carried out in accordance with the requirements, on the basis of an account and invoice received from the execution contractor (p. 525).
In parallel with maintaining a project diary, the construction department performs audits two or three times a year according to the project audit procedure (p. 526).
Cross-examination (transcript of January 23, 2023, February 20, 2023)
- The defendant denied that there were cases in which he brought the subcontractor to the main contractor to carry out the work. After he was reminded that he testified that there were such cases, he replied that there was one case in the case of Reuven Gonen, in the Petah Tikva Detention Center (transcript of January 23, 2023, p. 541).
The defendant denied that he had set the price of work for the contractors in some of the projects (p. 542).
Aaron Goldblatt (Transcript of November 4, 2024)
Main Inquiry
- Goldblatt, a retired Lt. Colonel in the IPS, retired from the IPS about ten years after his testimony. In his last position, he served as head of the Construction Department (the witness did not serve in the position during the period relevant to the indictment). The defendant was professionally subordinate to the Construction Department under his leadership (p. 662).
- The witness explained in general that the IPS tender book includes fixed prices for thousands of items divided into various professions such as electricity, air conditioning, plumbing, and more. From this, a bill of quantities is built for the project, which also includes the quantity of each item in the project. When an item is required that does not appear in the tender book, a price quote is required for it. In such a case, a contractor gives a price quote, plus a profit of 12 percent (pp. 664-665).
- In the words of the witness: "[The] commissioning body, this unit, is called [the] Arkady, the supervisor is responsible, of course he would consult with us if necessary" (p. 666). The witness was not involved in approving the defendant's projects (p. 666).
Cross-examination
- The witness confirmed that his position as a sub-colonel was very senior and busy. He relied on his men in the field, but he was always himself in the field, especially in large projects (micro management) (p. 667). At the same time, the witness did not examine every bill of quantities, and therefore did not know whether there were discrepancies between the recorded quantities and the actual execution. When asked whether it was possible that the bill of quantities was written 40 meters and in practice there were 35 meters, he replied: "Unequivocally" (p. 667).
- Yuri Rabinovich replaced him in his position and served as head of the construction department in the position during the period relevant to the indictment. The witness does not know what was the level of Rabinovich's involvement during the period relevant to the indictment, whether more micro management or macro management (p. 667).
Yaron Isaac (Transcript of 4.11.2024)