Commercial building construction general contractors · Minnesota

Minneapolis Office

Minneapolis, MN · ~149 workers · 9 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

A
Excellent Safety Record
0.8
Avg TCR
2.9
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Minneapolis Office runs at 29% of its industry's injury rate - far safer than the typical Commercial building construction general contractors workplace, earning a grade A.

Minneapolis Office: 0.8 TCR = 29% of Commercial building construction general contractors BLS 2.9 · 9y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Minneapolis Office safety composite

Minneapolis Office scores strongest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 82% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 41%), 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

60/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
B 0.85 per 100 workers

Safer than 82% of industry peers

DART rate
D 0.64 per 100 workers

Safer than 41% 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%).

Rising injury rate

Minneapolis Office: 0.0 → 0.6 TCR

Peak year 2018 @ 2.3 TCR · DART/TCR 0.75× in 2024

Minneapolis Office's TCR rose 0.6 from 0.0 in 2016 to 0.6 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2018 at 2.3 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.75× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 236220 · Minneapolis, MN AT/BELOW-IND · MID

Grade A · TCR 0.8 · 29% of ind

  • DART 0.6 DART
  • RANK #7/130
  • PHOTO Hoeft Builders, Inc.
  • BOOK 9y book
  • INJ 11 inj
  • SIZE ~149 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Hoeft Builders, Inc. (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Minneapolis Office in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Minneapolis Office averages 0.8 TCR (29% of the Commercial building construction general contractors BLS benchmark).

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

Minneapolis Office TCR series: 2016=0 · 2017=0.9 · 2018=2.3 · 2019=1.5 · 2020=0.7 · 2021=0.9 · 2022=0 · 2023=0.7 · 2024=0.6 · BLS 2.9

Where Minneapolis Office falls in its industry

4,692 Commercial building constructi establishments

Safer than 82% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Minnesota alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #7 safest of 130 Commercial building constructi employers in Minnesota.

Minneapolis Office (149 employees, TCR 0.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 employees and a TCR of 2.3 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 02468 Average employees Total Case Rate Minneapolis Office
Minneapolis Office (149 employees, TCR 0.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 employees and a TCR of 2.3

Minneapolis Office has more employees than the Commercial building construction general median and a lower injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.3. 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 0.6 0.6 1 0 0
2023 0.7 0.7 1 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2021 0.9 0.9 1 0 0
2020 0.7 0.3 2 0 0
2019 1.5 1.5 2 0 0
2018 2.3 0.8 3 0 0
2017 0.9 0.0 1 0 0
2016 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

236220 · MN · Minneapolis

4,692 Commercial building construction general contractors employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 15,828 rated employers in Minnesota with headcount on file · 1,321 employers in Minneapolis, MN · 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 Hoeft Builders, Inc. 0.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Killian Group 0.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Su-Mo Builders, Inc. 0.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Gettler-Ryan Inc. 0.8 TCR
STATE-SIZE RJM Construction LLC 149 FTE
STATE-SIZE Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 149 FTE
STATE-SIZE Minnesota Thermofoil Plant 149 FTE
STATE-SIZE Nonin Medical Headquarters 149 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Minnesota Twin Cities 22,522 FTE
CITY-NEAR MN950 MN TELECOMMUTER 12,021 FTE
CITY-NEAR 0501 - City Center 8,459 FTE
CITY-NEAR Hennepin County Medical Center 7,030 FTE
NAT-TCR Kevin Ryman, Inc. 0.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Tomahawk Operations - Kaphaem Facility 0.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Adamson 0.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Czarnowski-Austell 0.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Austin & El Paso CSC and Hospitals 149 FTE
NAT-SIZE Trader Joe's 0607 Princeton 149 FTE
NAT-SIZE Trombley Service Center 149 FTE
NAT-SIZE Mountain View Care Center 149 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, 2022, 2021, 2020, 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.