Base facilities operation support services · Arizona

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground

Yuma, AZ · ~28 workers · 2 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

D
Poor Safety Record
4.6
Avg TCR
2.6
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground runs at 177% of its industry's injury rate - more dangerous than the typical Base facilities operation support services workplace, earning a grade D.

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground: 4.6 TCR = 177% of Base facilities operation support services BLS 2.6 · 2y Form 300A (see methodology below)

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground safety composite

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground scores strongest on dart rate (safer than 77% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 29%), 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 4.61 per 100 workers

Safer than 29% of industry peers

DART rate
B 0 per 100 workers

Safer than 77% 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

−9.2

2017→2018

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground injury rate improved

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground's TCR fell 9.2 from 9.2 in 2017 to 0.0 in 2018. Peak filing year was 2017 at 9.2 TCR. In 2018, DART was 0× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2017=9.2 · 2018=0.0

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 561210 · Yuma, AZ ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade D · TCR 4.6 · 177% of ind

  • DART 0.0 DART
  • RANK #12/18
  • PHOTO SODEXO AT HOBART & W…
  • BOOK 2y book
  • INJ 1 inj
  • SIZE ~28 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: SODEXO AT HOBART & WILLIAM SMITH COLLEGE (0.0 TCR gap)

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

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground in the TCR neighbourhood

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

TCR

What this shows The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground averages 4.6 TCR (177% of the Base facilities operation support services BLS benchmark).

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

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground TCR series: 2017=9.2 · 2018=0 · BLS 2.6

Where The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground falls in its industry

757 Base facilities operation supp establishments

Safer than 29% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.9.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to Arizona alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #12 safest of 18 Base facilities operation supp employers in Arizona.

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground (28 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 employees and a TCR of 2.9 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 0200400600 051015 Average employees Total Case Rate The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground
The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground (28 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 55 employees and a TCR of 2.9

The Logistics Company- Yuma Proving Ground has fewer employees than the Base facilities operation support servic median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.9. 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
2018 0.0 0.0 0 0 0
2017 9.2 0.0 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

561210 · AZ · Yuma

757 Base facilities operation support services employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 9,594 rated employers in Arizona with headcount on file · 274 employers in Yuma, 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 SODEXO AT HOBART & WILLIAM SMITH COLLEGE 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR 175 951 - GEO EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE-NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR 000001478 - VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM-EVS 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR GM Pontiac North CET 4.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE ABACA 28 FTE
STATE-SIZE Tatum 28 FTE
STATE-SIZE Tonopah 28 FTE
STATE-SIZE Cholla Livestock 28 FTE
CITY-NEAR Primetime Harvesting Inc 2,271 FTE
CITY-NEAR Foothill Packing- Arizona 2,175 FTE
CITY-NEAR Yuma Regional Medical Center 1,757 FTE
CITY-NEAR PGM PACKING INC 1,423 FTE
NAT-TCR CareServe Private Duty 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Atrium Post Acute Care of Menominee 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Marathon 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR # 1 Cochran Subaru of Butler County 4.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE Oahu Construction Operations 28 FTE
NAT-SIZE Dallas Hospice 28 FTE
NAT-SIZE Scranton Hospice 28 FTE
NAT-SIZE Rockwell Automation- Memphis TN (MTN) 28 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: 2018, 2017. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.