Responsibility of the work orderer
Mar 31, 2026
The Project Owner’s Responsibility: From Indirect Involvement to the Center of Accountability
By: Itzick Simon
For the first time, the project owner—who in most cases is the developer—is no longer a party operating outside the execution sphere, but rather one of the central actors bearing responsibility for safety on the construction site.
The regulations do not settle for imposing general obligations; they establish explicit conditions under which work cannot commence without meeting requirements that directly involve the project owner.
The implication is that this responsibility is not theoretical—it is a prerequisite for activating the project.
The job seeker as the gatekeeper
The regulations define the project owner (the client) as the gatekeeper of the project.
They may not approve the commencement of work unless the following conditions are actually met:
A safety plan tailored to the project is in place
Resources for its implementation have been allocated במסגרת the agreement
A qualified safety controller has been appointed
The required reports have been submitted
The starting point of the project depends on their decision—and accordingly, so does the responsibility.
Resource allocation is not a separate component, but a direct derivative of the safety plan. This means that the resources required to implement the plan must be clearly defined and anchored in the agreement, in a way that enables its practical execution.
Limitations on Transferring the Project Owner’s Responsibility
The structure of engagements and the obligations set out in the regulations make it clear that the project owner cannot be detached from the duties imposed upon them. Roles can be distributed, tasks can be assigned, and execution and control mechanisms can be defined—but the underlying legal obligations cannot be transferred away.
The gap between delegating operational responsibility and retaining legal responsibility is substantial, and is not always adequately reflected in the agreements themselves.
This raises the question: whether—and to what extent—the project owner’s obligations can be transferred to another party.
Not in a way that removes him from the circle of responsibility.
The regulations impose direct obligations on the client as a condition for approving the commencement of work, including: the existence of a safety plan, determining the resources for its implementation in an agreement with the construction operator, and appointing a safety controller. In addition, if the safety controller has ceased to serve in his position and has not yet been replaced, the obligations applicable to the safety controller apply to the client himself until a replacement is appointed. In other words, even if the developer uses consultants, project managers, management companies or other professional entities, his regulatory responsibility does not "disappear."
In practical words:
You can get help, you can contact a professional, you can assign execution and control tasks, but you cannot assume that the legal obligation itself has been passed on.
The reason for this is practical: there is a tendency in the market to think that if the developer has appointed a management company, supervisor, consultant, or a subordinate, he has "closed the corner." The regulations are not structured that way. They are structured so that the person commissioning the work is the gatekeeper, not a spectator from the stands.
This meaning takes on added significance when it comes to public bodies that act as job recruiters.
Can the person commissioning the work transfer his duties to another party?
Practical illustration: The safety controller
This principle is particularly clearly expressed in the safety controller mechanism.
If the safety controller ceases to serve in his position and no replacement is appointed, the obligations applicable to him apply to the client himself until another is appointed. This provision is not merely technical, but expresses a fundamental principle: the control mechanism cannot be left without a clear address.
This means that even when the person commissioning the work, i.e. the entrepreneur, uses professional help, the regulatory responsibility does not disappear and does not “go down to the field.”
Real-time response obligation
The regulations do not only deal with the project opening phase, but also with ongoing conduct.
In the event that an unacceptable risk is reported, the work orderer must confirm in writing, within 48 hours, that a response has been provided, and forward the confirmation to the construction operation.
This is a duty to act in real time, not in retrospect. This means that the person commissioning the work is required to be part of the actual decision-making mechanism, and not just a person who approves documents.
Broader exposure to responsibility
The entry of the work orderer, in practice the entrepreneur, into the center of the control mechanism is not just an operational change, but a fundamental change in the risk map.
When responsibility is anchored in law, documented in documents, and examined in real time, it may also be expressed in other areas:
Liability
Criminal exposure in appropriate cases, in accordance with the provisions of the law
Implications for the insurance structure and the manner in which claims are examined
This is not just a formal expansion, but a change in the way in which the responsibility of the work commissioner is examined in the event of an incident.
The managerial significance
The project owner is not required to personally carry out all actions and may rely on consultants, project managers, or management companies. However, responsibility for the actual fulfillment of the requirements remains with them and cannot be transferred—even when execution is entrusted to another party.
In other words, it is not enough to appoint a professional, not enough to define provisions in an agreement, and not enough to assume the system is functioning. What is required is a management framework that ensures compliance with threshold conditions, oversees the implementation of control mechanisms, responds to risks in real time, and documents decision-making.
In one line: The project owner is no longer merely a supporting party, but one of the central actors bearing responsibility for safety in the project in practice. Alongside this expansion of responsibility, the regulations also sharpen the responsibility of the construction executor as the party managing the actual work on site.
מסמכים
