Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction · New York

Mecc. Contracting Inc

Brooklyn, NY · ~142 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
1.3
Avg TCR
2.8
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Mecc. Contracting Inc runs at 46% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction workplace, earning a grade A.

Mecc. Contracting Inc: 1.3 TCR = 46% of Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction BLS 2.8 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Mecc. Contracting Inc safety composite

Mecc. Contracting Inc scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 81% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 40%), 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).

C

59/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 1.28 per 100 workers

Safer than 81% of industry peers

DART rate
D 1.78 per 100 workers

Safer than 40% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 52% 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%).

Mecc. Contracting Inc held a steady TCR band

Mecc. Contracting Inc's TCR held near 0.1 from 1.7 in 2016 to 1.8 in 2023. Peak filing year was 2019 at 2.6 TCR. In 2023, DART was 1.39× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=1.7 · 2017=0.0 · 2018=0.0 · 2019=2.6 · 2021=0.7 · 2022=2.2 · 2023=1.8

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 237110 · Brooklyn, NY AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 1.3 · 46% of ind

  • DART 1.8 DART
  • RANK #25/71
  • PHOTO Allsouth Constructor…
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 14 inj
  • SIZE ~142 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Allsouth Constructors, Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Mecc. Contracting Inc in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Mecc. Contracting Inc averages 1.3 TCR (46% of the Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction BLS benchmark).

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

Mecc. Contracting Inc TCR series: 2016=1.7 · 2017=0 · 2018=0 · 2019=2.6 · 2021=0.7 · 2022=2.2 · 2023=1.8 · BLS 2.8

Where Mecc. Contracting Inc falls in its industry

1,614 Utility line (i.e., sewer, wat establishments

Safer than 81% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 3.0.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New York alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #25 safest of 71 Utility line (i.e., sewer, wat employers in New York.

Mecc. Contracting Inc (142 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 54 employees and a TCR of 3.0 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 0100200300400500 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate Mecc. Contracting Inc
Mecc. Contracting Inc (142 employees, TCR 1.3) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 54 employees and a TCR of 3.0

Mecc. Contracting Inc has more employees than the Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), const median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 3.0. 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
2023 1.8 1.8 3 0 0
2022 2.2 2.2 5 0 0
2021 0.7 0.7 1 0 0
2019 2.6 2.6 4 0 0
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2016 1.7 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

237110 · NY · Brooklyn

1,614 Utility line (i.e., sewer, water), construction employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 21,008 rated employers in New York with headcount on file · 941 employers in Brooklyn, NY · 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 Allsouth Constructors, Inc. 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Tortorigi Construction 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Rodriguez Construction and Underground 1.3 TCR
NAICS-TCR Ultraflote LLC 1.3 TCR
STATE-SIZE Frank Lill & Son, Inc. 142 FTE
STATE-SIZE Otis Elevator Company-Manhattan North 142 FTE
STATE-SIZE Barilla America, NY Inc. 142 FTE
STATE-SIZE Scotia, NY 142 FTE
CITY-NEAR EDI - Brooklyn 946 9,270 FTE
CITY-NEAR S & A Unified Home Care, Inc. 7,782 FTE
CITY-NEAR Maimonides Medical Center 6,641 FTE
CITY-NEAR NYU Langone Hospital - Brooklyn 5,690 FTE
NAT-TCR Mallard Creek Polymers LLC - Research 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Hancock Physician Network 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR Action Graphics Inc 1.3 TCR
NAT-TCR ASRC Builders LLC 1.3 TCR
NAT-SIZE Howard Building Corporation Main 142 FTE
NAT-SIZE Howell Electric 142 FTE
NAT-SIZE Nestle Districution Center 142 FTE
NAT-SIZE Gulf Shore Care Center 142 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: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.