The state and the authorities
Mar 31, 2026
Responsibility of public bodies as employers of work:
The safety and exposure regulations in practice. The state, local authorities, and government companies are also subject to the same obligations – and the responsibility is not dispersed
By: Itzick Simon
One of the common mistakes in the market is the assumption that in public projects, responsibility is "dispersed" between a tenderer, inspector, contractor, management company, accountant, external consultant, or implementation arm. In practice, when the public body is the client of the work, the obligations imposed by regulations on the client of the work also apply to it.
This means that a government office, local authority, government company, municipal corporation or other public body cannot be satisfied with publishing a tender, selecting a contractor and transferring the matter to the field. If they serve as work orderers, they must comply with the requirements of the regulations like any other entrepreneur: not approving a start without a safety plan, without an agreement to allocate resources for the implementation of the plan and without appointing a safety controller.
In this sense, the regulations do not create one regime for private entrepreneurs and another regime for public bodies, but rather create one binding standard for the client.
Why is this especially critical in public bodies?
In public bodies, there is often a built-in gap between who is officially defined as the one ordering the work and who actually manages the tender, execution, supervision, budget, or documentation. This is precisely where the greatest risk arises:
Responsibilities are distributed among departments and units.
Safety decisions depend on procurement mechanisms, budget, and approvals.
There is a tendency to assume that the contractor is "responsible for safety," while the new regulations impose direct obligations on the client as well.
Transferring responsibility to an integrated entity or a management company does not eliminate the obligation of the person commissioning the work himself.
Therefore, in practice, the question is not only who performs the work, but whether the public body has built a mechanism that allows it to meet its obligations as a contractor.
On a practical level, public bodies need to prepare on at least four levels:
First , internal governance: determine who the approving body is, who is responsible for signing the work commencement approval, who checks that a safety plan is in place, and who verifies that the required resources have been allocated.
Second , tender and contract documents: Update specifications, tender documents, performance agreements, and appendices to include the resource allocation mechanism, reporting obligations, stoppage mechanisms, and the obligation to provide the required positions.
Third , appointment and control: ensure the actual appointment of a qualified safety controller, and build an immediate replacement mechanism in the event that he ceases to serve in the position.
Fourth , documentation and auditability: Ensure that there is an ability to show, retrospectively and in real time, that decisions were made, approval was given legally, and documents were preserved as required. Without this, even a large public body may be seen in an investigation or lawsuit as having acted without real control over the threshold conditions.
What should public bodies do now?
In practice, many public bodies are faced with a gap between their organizational structure and the new regulatory requirements. The gap does not stem from a lack of awareness, but rather from organizational complexity and the need to coordinate between many entities, which sometimes do not operate under a single managerial responsibility.
Because of this, public bodies, including government ministries, local authorities, hospitals, and government companies, are seeking professional guidance to examine their preparedness.
The Itzik Simon Insurance Agency accompanies many public bodies in this field, including the Ministry of Finance, Inbal - the government insurance company, medical centers and other public bodies, and assists in formulating a responsibility structure, adapting work and control mechanisms, and implementing the requirements of the regulations in practice.
In many cases, a focused examination of organizational conduct makes it possible to identify gaps at an early stage, and to adapt the management structure, contracts, and insurance to the created reality.
Preparation in public bodies – need for professional guidance
The table below summarizes the typical failure points in public bodies acting as work commissioners, and shows the relationship between the organizational structure and the risks derived from it. It highlights how fragmentation of authority, process dependency, and complex work mechanisms may impair the ability to meet regulatory requirements and manage the project in practice.
Structural gaps and their implications in public bodies as employers of work
Responsibility of the person commissioning work in public bodies – practical implementation and implications according to safety regulations
The regulations do not distinguish between a private entrepreneur and a public body. They set a uniform standard for the work commissioner, who is assessed according to his ability to ensure actual control over the threshold conditions, risk management, and control mechanisms.
In public projects, organizational complexity does not ease responsibility – it sharpens it. Multiple factors, fragmentation of authority, and dependence on budget and procurement mechanisms do not constitute protection, and sometimes even create increased exposure when no single responsible factor is defined, no clear decision-making mechanism exists, and continuous documentation of control and approval cannot be shown.
In this reality, responsibility is not dispersed among departments, contractors, or integrated entities. It converges on a single test point: can the client show that the threshold conditions were actually met, that the decisions were made with authority, and that an effective mechanism was put in place to manage safety risks?
The practical meaning is that proper preparation does not end with updating documents, but requires adapting the management structure, contracts, and control to the operational reality. Only a combination of contractual arrangements, organizational mechanisms, and the ability to prove in practice will allow the public body to meet the requirements of the regulations – and reduce legal and insurance exposure in the event of an event.
מסמכים
