Bulk mail truck transportation, contract, local · Arizona

EVO Transportation and Energy Services

Phoenix, AZ · ~99 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
2.0
Avg TCR
4.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

EVO Transportation and Energy Services runs at 44% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Bulk mail truck transportation, contract, local workplace, earning a grade A.

EVO Transportation and Energy Services: 2.0 TCR = 44% of Bulk mail truck transportation, contract, local BLS 4.5 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

EVO Transportation and Energy Services safety composite

EVO Transportation and Energy Services scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 86% of same-industry peers) and weakest on fatalities (safer than 51%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

B

76/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 1.97 per 100 workers

Safer than 84% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 86% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

TCR Δ

−3.9

2023→2024

EVO Transportation and Energy Services injury rate improved

EVO Transportation and Energy Services's TCR fell 3.9 from 3.9 in 2023 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2023 at 3.9 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2023=3.9 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 484110 · Phoenix, AZ AT/BELOW-IND · SMALL

Grade A · TCR 2.0 · 44% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #11/36
  • PHOTO Mid-East Truck & Tra…
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 4 inj
  • SIZE ~99 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Mid-East Truck & Tractor Service, Inc. OHIO (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · Arizona employers → · Look up another →

EVO Transportation and Energy Services in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows EVO Transportation and Energy Services averages 2.0 TCR (44% of the Bulk mail truck transportation, contract, local BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

EVO Transportation and Energy Services TCR series: 2023=3.9 · 2024=0 · BLS 4.5

Where EVO Transportation and Energy Services falls in its industry

2,784 Bulk mail truck transportation establishments

Safer than 84% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 4.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Arizona alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #11 safest of 36 Bulk mail truck transportation employers in Arizona.

EVO Transportation and Energy Services (99 employees, TCR 2.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 47 employees and a TCR of 4.7 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0200400600800 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate EVO Transportation and Energy Services
EVO Transportation and Energy Services (99 employees, TCR 2.0) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 47 employees and a TCR of 4.7

EVO Transportation and Energy Services has more employees than the Bulk mail truck transportation, contract median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 4.7. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2024 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 3.9 0.0 4 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

484110 · AZ · Phoenix

2,784 Bulk mail truck transportation, contract, local employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,594 rated employers in Arizona with headcount on file · 2,630 employers in Phoenix, AZ · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Mid-East Truck & Tractor Service, Inc. OHIO 2.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR Knight Transportation - Arizona Ports 2.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR LBA Logistics LLC 2.0 TCR
NAICS-TCR JFM Logistics Management, Inc. 2.0 TCR
STATE-SIZE Fulton Homes 99 FTE
STATE-SIZE Diversified Builder Supply, Inc. 99 FTE
STATE-SIZE OEG, INC. - ARIZONA 99 FTE
STATE-SIZE Rural Electric 99 FTE
CITY-NEAR Maricopa County 15,504 FTE
CITY-NEAR Phoenix Children's Hospital 7,575 FTE
CITY-NEAR All Company 6,261 FTE
CITY-NEAR 6403-64030500 6,153 FTE
NAT-TCR Richland Care Center 2.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Alatrade Foods Inc - Albertville 2.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Amherst Insulation & Firestop Service, Inc. 2.0 TCR
NAT-TCR Baytown 10086 2.0 TCR
NAT-SIZE Elgin Die Mold 99 FTE
NAT-SIZE Allen Health and Rehabilitation 99 FTE
NAT-SIZE Architectural Division 8, Inc., San Antonio 99 FTE
NAT-SIZE Zeigler Racine Honda 99 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2024, 2023. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.