Matthias Surovcik
Your project brings together a client, an EPC contractor, specialist package contractors and several commissioning teams. Each company has capable people and established procedures. The programme is ambitious, and many activities must take place in parallel. The project therefore needs common rules, but it also needs a clear answer to a more difficult question: where does coordination end, and where does each employer’s own responsibility begin?
This distinction becomes critical when work from one company affects another. A shared isolation, a temporary supply or an early energisation can change the risk for several teams at once. If the project relies only on a general statement that the principal contractor is responsible, important duties may remain undefined.
Separate Employer Duties from Project Coordination
Section 8 of the German Occupational Safety and Health Act (ArbSchG) requires employers working at the same workplace to cooperate. They must coordinate measures where this is necessary and inform each other about hazards that may affect employees of another company. This obligation is important, but it does not merge several employers into one safety organisation.
Each employer remains responsible for organising the safety of its own employees and activities. The client can establish site rules. The EPC can coordinate work fronts and interfaces. A project safety coordinator can support communication between parties. These functions do not automatically select, instruct, supervise or authorise every contractor’s personnel.
Client acceptance of a contractor or its Electrical Safety Plan should therefore be understood correctly. Acceptance may confirm that the contractor’s proposed arrangements fit the project framework. It does not certify that every employer duty has been fulfilled, nor does it transfer responsibility for internal competence decisions to the client.
Map the Interfaces between Client, EPC and Contractors
An effective interface map begins with systems and activities, not company logos. It identifies who controls each installation, who performs work, who can grant access, and who accepts a change of state. It must also reflect the project phase. The party controlling an installation during construction may not be the party controlling it during commissioning or operation.
A Responsibility and Interface Matrix can make these boundaries visible. It should cover more than task ownership. For each important activity, it should state who initiates the work, who reviews the conditions, who authorises it, who performs it, who verifies completion and who must be informed.
Shared hazards deserve special attention. Work above another contractor, simultaneous testing, temporary power, exposed conductors, stored energy and changes to protective settings can affect people outside the team performing the task. The matrix should therefore connect technical control with communication and escalation.
The matrix does not replace each employer’s internal organisation. Its purpose is to connect those organisations at the points where they interact.
Control Shared Work, Isolation and Energisation
Isolation is a common source of false confidence. A project wide lockout and tagout procedure can provide a shared language, but it must also state who controls the isolation, how its effectiveness is verified, and how every affected employer protects its personnel. A lock or tag is only one element of the safe working state.
Temporary supplies require the same discipline. They may be installed quickly to support construction, then remain in use while the surrounding project changes. Ownership, inspection, modification and removal must remain clear throughout that period.
The handover of a work area should confirm its electrical condition and any restrictions. Before energisation, all affected parties need reliable information about the new state. The person responsible for the installation and the person responsible for the work perform distinct functions within the framework of VDE 0105-100. The project must identify how these functions are assigned and communicated in its own organisation.
Maintain Evidence across Organisational Boundaries
Not every legal required record needs to be held centrally. Contractors may retain detailed personnel files and internal assessments. The project still needs access to sufficient evidence to support coordination and release decisions. This may include approved personnel lists, authorisations, instruction status, isolation records, permits, test results and handover technical certificates; not personell files of staff in detail.
The evidence should survive changes in personnel and contractors. A decision that is understandable only to the people who attended one meeting is not a reliable project control. Deviations and open points should state the affected system, the temporary condition, the responsible owner, the deadline and the acceptance criterion.
Stop work decisions also need a defined route. The important issue is not only who may stop unsafe work. The project must know who evaluates the condition, who authorises resumption and how the decision reaches every affected employer.
A successful multi-contractor project does not hide responsibility inside a common plan. It creates common rules while preserving clear employer and organisational boundaries. The article on Electrical Safety Plans and VEFK / CRES requirements explains why acceptance of a plan does not transfer these duties.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is responsible for electrical safety on a multi contractor project in Germany?
Responsibility remains distributed between the employers and the functions that control the project and installation. Each employer organises the safety of its own personnel. The client or EPC contractor may coordinate shared hazards, access and project rules, while specific technical functions control installations, work releases or switching. A common project plan should connect these duties without suggesting that one party has silently taken over all responsibility.
Can a principal contractor take over the electrical duties of subcontractors?
Only defined tasks and authority can be transferred through a clear and effective arrangement. A general statement that the principal contractor is responsible for site safety does not automatically remove the employer duties of subcontractors. Any allocation must identify the scope, decision rights, information, competence and resources involved. The parties should also understand which duties remain within each organisation. Contract wording is important, but operational reality must support it.
How should electrical interfaces between contractors be managed?
The project should map systems, activities and changes of state rather than relying only on company names. For each important interface, it should be clear who controls the installation, who performs the work, who authorises access, who verifies the conditions, and who communicates changes. A responsibility and interface matrix can make this visible. Shared isolations, temporary supplies, testing, energisation and partial handovers deserve particular attention because one decision can affect several employers.
Who controls a shared electrical isolation?
The project must appoint a clearly defined control function for the isolation and state how other employers participate. The procedure should cover identification, securing, verification, personal protection measures, changes, handover and restoration. Each employer must still make sure that the arrangement protects its own personnel. Multiple locks or permits can support the process, but they do not compensate for unclear boundaries or uncertain authority.
What evidence should a client request from electrical contractors?
The client should request enough evidence to support coordination and release decisions, without assuming ownership of every personnel file. Useful evidence can include approved personnel lists, task based authorisations, instruction status, inspection results, isolation records, permits, switching records and handover certificates. The exact set should follow the project risks and contractual interfaces. Records should show the decision made and its basis, not merely that a template was completed.
Discuss Your Project
Describe the contractor structure, shared systems and responsibility interfaces that must be controlled. Discuss your project with TCS.
