Commodity inspection services · Michigan

Preferred Quality Services, Inc.

Grand Rapids, MI · ~132 workers · 7 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
3.8
Avg TCR
0.5
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Preferred Quality Services, Inc. runs at 750% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Commodity inspection services workplace, earning a grade F.

Preferred Quality Services, Inc.: 3.8 TCR = 750% of Commodity inspection services BLS 0.5 · 7y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Preferred Quality Services, Inc. safety composite

Preferred Quality Services, Inc. scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 50% of same-industry peers) and weakest on dart rate (safer than 6%), 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).

F

19/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 3.75 per 100 workers

Safer than 11% of industry peers

DART rate
F 3.43 per 100 workers

Safer than 6% 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%).

TCR Δ

−0.9

2018→2024

Preferred Quality Services, Inc. injury rate improved

Preferred Quality Services, Inc.'s TCR fell 0.9 from 4.4 in 2018 to 3.4 in 2024. Peak filing year was 2021 at 8.1 TCR. In 2024, DART was 0.91× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2018=4.4 · 2019=3.3 · 2020=5.0 · 2021=8.1 · 2022=2.0 · 2023=0.0 · 2024=3.4

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 541990 · Grand Rapids, MI ABOVE-IND · MID

Grade F · TCR 3.8 · 750% of ind

  • DART 3.4 DART
  • RANK #9/12
  • PHOTO Main
  • BOOK 7y book
  • INJ 26 inj
  • SIZE ~132 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Main (0.0 TCR gap)

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

Preferred Quality Services, Inc. in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows Preferred Quality Services, Inc. averages 3.8 TCR (750% of the Commodity inspection services BLS benchmark).

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

Preferred Quality Services, Inc. TCR series: 2018=4.4 · 2019=3.3 · 2020=5 · 2021=8.1 · 2022=2 · 2023=0 · 2024=3.4 · BLS 0.5

Where Preferred Quality Services, Inc. falls in its industry

123 Commodity inspection services establishments

Safer than 11% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 0.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Michigan alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #9 safest of 12 Commodity inspection services employers in Michigan.

Preferred Quality Services, Inc. (132 employees, TCR 3.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 152 employees and a TCR of 0.9 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 05001,0001,500 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate Preferred Quality Services, Inc.
Preferred Quality Services, Inc. (132 employees, TCR 3.8) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 152 employees and a TCR of 0.9

Preferred Quality Services, Inc. has fewer employees than the Commodity inspection services median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 0.9. 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 3.4 3.4 3 0 0
2023 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2022 2.0 0.0 2 0 0
2021 8.1 5.8 7 0 0
2020 5.0 3.8 4 0 0
2019 3.3 1.6 4 0 0
2018 4.4 4.4 6 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

541990 · MI · Grand Rapids

123 Commodity inspection services employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 16,393 rated employers in Michigan with headcount on file · 1,006 employers in Grand Rapids, MI · 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 Main 3.8 TCR
NAICS-TCR Elmwood Park 3.7 TCR
NAICS-TCR JR Simplot Company - Frontier Building 3.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR tkSCS Sterling Heights/Warren 3.5 TCR
STATE-SIZE Huron Valley Electric 132 FTE
STATE-SIZE Continental Dairy Facilities, LLC 132 FTE
STATE-SIZE Lear Corporation - Rochester Hills (EO) 132 FTE
STATE-SIZE Flexco Grand Rapids Main 132 FTE
CITY-NEAR SHHG-GR BUTTERWORTH CA 9,012 FTE
CITY-NEAR SH Butterworth Hospital 7,397 FTE
CITY-NEAR Mercy Health Saint Mary's Hospital-MH-MI 2,914 FTE
CITY-NEAR Steelcase - Grand Rapids / Kentwood 2,817 FTE
NAT-TCR Texana Tank Car & Mfg., LTD. 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Oakwood 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR Mustang Contracting Corp 3.8 TCR
NAT-TCR SH - Building C 3.8 TCR
NAT-SIZE Monks Construction 132 FTE
NAT-SIZE NAS 132 FTE
NAT-SIZE Murray Equipment, Inc 132 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dentech Incorporated 132 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. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.