Computer systems integration analysis and design services · Colorado

NetScout Colorado Springs

Colorado Springs, CO · ~43 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

C
Average Safety Record
0.6
Avg TCR
0.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

NetScout Colorado Springs runs at 120% of its industry's injury rate - about level with the typical Computer systems integration analysis and design services workplace, earning a grade C.

NetScout Colorado Springs: 0.6 TCR = 120% of Computer systems integration analysis and design services BLS 0.5 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

NetScout Colorado Springs safety composite

NetScout Colorado Springs scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 70% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 34%), 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).

D

51/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 0.6 per 100 workers

Safer than 34% of industry peers

DART rate
C 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 70% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 50% 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%).

NetScout Colorado Springs held a steady TCR band

NetScout Colorado Springs's TCR held near 0.0 from 0.0 in 2019 to 0.0 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2020 at 3.0 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2019=0.0 · 2020=3.0 · 2022=0.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 541512 · Colorado Springs, CO ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade C · TCR 0.6 · 120% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #6/8
  • PHOTO Alabama Controls Inc
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~43 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Alabama Controls Inc (0.0 TCR gap)

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

NetScout Colorado Springs in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows NetScout Colorado Springs averages 0.6 TCR (120% of the Computer systems integration analysis and design services BLS benchmark).

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

NetScout Colorado Springs TCR series: 2019=0 · 2020=3 · 2022=0 · 2023=0 · 2024=0 · BLS 0.5

Where NetScout Colorado Springs falls in its industry

181 Computer systems integration a establishments

Safer than 34% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 0.3.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Colorado alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #6 safest of 8 Computer systems integration a employers in Colorado.

NetScout Colorado Springs (43 employees, TCR 0.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 292 employees and a TCR of 0.3 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 05001,0001,5002,000 012345 Average employees Total Case Rate NetScout Colorado Springs
NetScout Colorado Springs (43 employees, TCR 0.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 292 employees and a TCR of 0.3

NetScout Colorado Springs has fewer employees than the Computer systems integration analysis an median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 0.3. 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 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2020 3.0 3.0 1 0 0
2019 0.0 0.0 0 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

541512 · CO · Colorado Springs

181 Computer systems integration analysis and design services employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,007 rated employers in Colorado with headcount on file · 832 employers in Colorado Springs, CO · 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 Alabama Controls Inc 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Government Contracting Professional Services 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR By Light 0.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR HMNBM01 0.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Five Rivers Corporate Office 43 FTE
STATE-SIZE Silt Office 43 FTE
STATE-SIZE Grand Valley Power 43 FTE
STATE-SIZE Aspen View Homes Colorado Springs 43 FTE
CITY-NEAR University of Colorado Hospital Memorial Central 3,102 FTE
CITY-NEAR Amazon.com Services LLC - DEN4 2,948 FTE
CITY-NEAR Penrose Hospital 2,841 FTE
CITY-NEAR 05070001-050701 PENROSE HOSPITAL 2,391 FTE
NAT-TCR New Tex Trucking, LLC 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR LVC Window Blinds, Inc. 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Herzog Contracting Corp - HSR Constructors 0.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Midwest Automatic Fire Sprinkler Company 0.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE HyPro Inc. Berlin (GL) 43 FTE
NAT-SIZE Seabrook 43 FTE
NAT-SIZE Nu-Cast, Inc 43 FTE
NAT-SIZE Prestress of the Carolinas 43 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, 2020, 2019. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.