Safety Incidents OSHA Severe Injury Reports · 2015–2025
5,189,992Inspections Most recent open 2026-07-18 Last loaded 2026-07-22

OSHA Inspection: THE BEST CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Planned inspection · Safety discipline

On , OSHA opened a planned safety inspection of THE BEST CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION in 1179 SAGAMORE AVENUE, PORTSMOUTH, NH 03801 (NAICS 238170). OSHA activity number 343450615.

What this inspection record means

OSHA opens inspections for many reasons — routine scheduling under a national or local emphasis program, an employee complaint or referral, or a follow-up after a reported injury. Opening or conducting an inspection is not itself an allegation or a finding that this employer broke any rule; any findings appear as the citations listed below, and citations can be contested, reduced, or withdrawn.

Watch The Best Construction Corporation — free Get an email when a new federal OSHA severe-injury report for The Best Construction Corporation is published. One employer, no account, unsubscribe in one click.
Site address
1179 SAGAMORE AVENUE
City
PORTSMOUTH
State
NH
ZIP
03801
Mailing
28 MT. VERNON STREET, LOWELL, MA 01854
Inspection type
Planned (H)
Scope
Partial (B)
Discipline
Safety
Advance notice
No
Union status
B
Opened
Closing conference
Case closed
Last modified
Data loaded
NAICS code
238170
Employees
5
Ownership type
A

13 citations on file for this inspection.

1903.19 C01

Other-than-serious 11 instances 3 exposed
Issued
Jan 31, 2019
Abate by
Feb 6, 2019
Penalty
Initial $319 · Current $319
29 CFR 1903.19(c)(1): Within 10 calendar days after the abatement date, the employer must certify to OSHA (the Agency) that each cited violation has been abated, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section:  a.    The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 1a, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.  b.The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 1b, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.   c.  The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 1c, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.  d.    The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 2, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.  e.  The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 3a, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.  f.  The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 3b, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.  g.   The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 4a, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.  h.  The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 4b, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.  i.  The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 5, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.  j.  The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 6b, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.  k. The employer did not furnish the abatement required for citations issued within 10 calendar days for Citation 1 Item 7, nor did they respond to the progress report letter sent January 16, 2019.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (O) $319

1926.20 B02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $2,772 · Current $2,772
29 CFR 1926.20(b)(2): The employer did not initiate and maintain programs which provided for frequent and regular inspections of the job site, materials and equipment to be made by a competent person(s):  Site- Employees were not protected from fall and struck by hazards where the employer did not provide for frequent and regular inspections of the jobsite to be conducted by a competent person.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2772

1926.451 F03

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.451(f)(3): Scaffolds and scaffold components were not inspected for visible defects by a competent person before each work shift, and after any occurrence which could affect a scaffold's structural integrity:  Site- Employees working from pump jack scaffolds were not protected from fall and scaffold collapse hazards where the employer did not provide for a competent person to inspect the scaffolds for defects prior to each work shift.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.451 F07

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.451(f)(7): Scaffolds were not erected, moved, dismantled, or altered, by trained and experienced employees under the supervision and direction of a competent person qualified in scaffold erection, moving, dismantling or alteration:; Such activities were not performed only by experienced and trained employees selected for such work by the competent person.  Site- Employees working from pump jack scaffolds were not protected from fall and scaffold collapse hazards where the employer did not provide for a competent person to erect the pump jack scaffolding at the site.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.100 A

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 3 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $2,772 · Current $2,772
29 CFR 1926.100(a): Employees working in areas where there was a possible danger of head injury from impact, or falling or flying objects, or from electrical shock and burns, were not protected by protective helmets:  Site- Employees working from the ground were not protected from over head struck by hazards where the employer did not require head protection to be worn.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2772

1926.451 B01

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880
29 CFR 1926.451(b)(1): Each platform on all working levels of scaffolds was not fully planked or decked between the front uprights and the guardrail supports as specified in paragraphs 1926.451(b)(1)(i)-(ii)  Site- An employee working from a pump jack scaffold was not protected from a fall hazard where the work platform and top rail supports were not adjusted to eliminate a gap between the back edge of the work platform and the top rail.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $3880

1926.451 G01

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.451(g)(1): Employees on scaffolds more than 10 feet (3.1 m) above a lower level were not protected from falling to that lower level by fall protection established in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)-(vii) of this section:  Site- Employees working from pump jack scaffolds were not protected from falls between approximately 13 and 18 feet where complete guard rail systems were not installed along each open side and platform end.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.451 C02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $2,772 · Current $2,772
29 CFR 1926.451(c)(2): Supported scaffold poles, legs, posts, frames,  or uprights did not bear on base plates, mud sills or other adequate firm foundation:  Site- Employees working from pump jack scaffolding were not protected from fall and scaffold collapse hazards where the poles for the pump jack scaffolding did not bear on base plates and mud sills.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2772

1926.452 J02

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.452(j)(2): Poles were not secured to the structure by rigid triangular bracing or equivalent at the bottom, top, and other points as necessary.  Site- Employees working from pump jack scaffolding were not protected from fall and scaffold collapse hazards where the poles for the pump jack scaffolding were not secured to the structure with triangular bracing at the bottom.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.451 E01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $2,772 · Current $2,772
29 CFR 1926.451(e)(1): When scaffold platforms were more than 2 feet (0.6 m) above or below a point of access, portable ladders, hook-on ladders, attachable ladders, stair towers (scaffold stairways/towers), stairway-type ladders (such as ladder stands), ramps, walkways, integral prefabricated scaffold access, or direct access from other scaffold, structure, personnel hoist, or similar surface was not used.    Site- An employee working from a pump jack scaffold was not protected from a fall hazard where the work platform was approximately 13 feet from the ground and a ladder was not provided to access the work platform.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2772

1926.454 A

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 2 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Nov 6, 2018
Penalty
Initial $2,772 · Current $2,772
29 CFR 1926.454(a): The employer did not have each employee who performed work while on a scaffold trained by a person qualified in the subject matter to recognize the hazards associated with the type of scaffold being used and to understand the procedures to control or minimize those hazards.  Site- Employees working from pump jack scaffolding were not protected from fall and scaffold collapse hazards where the employer did not provide scaffold training for each of the employees.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $2772

1926.503 A01

Serious Gravity 5 1 instance 5 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Nov 6, 2018
Penalty
Initial $0 · Current $0
29 CFR 1926.503(a)(1): The employer did not provide a training program for each employee potentially exposed to fall hazards to enable each employee to recognize the hazards of falling and the procedures to be followed in order to minimize these hazards:  Site- Each employee exposed to a fall hazard was not provided with fall protection training from the employer.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $0

1926.501 B13

Serious Gravity 10 1 instance 1 exposed
Issued
Oct 18, 2018
Abate by
Oct 24, 2018
Penalty
Initial $3,880 · Current $3,880
29 CFR 1926.501(b)(13): Each employee(s) engaged in residential construction activities 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above lower levels were not protected by guardrail systems, safety net system, or personal fall arrest system, nor were employee(s) provided with an alternative fall protection measure under another provision of paragraph 1926.501 (b):   Site- An employee working from a roof was not protected from a fall of approximately 14 feet where fall protection was not required by the employer.
Recent events (1)
  • — Z (S) $3880

View The Best Construction Corporation's full OSHA safety record →

This record is reproduced from the U.S. Department of Labor Open Data API (OSHA inspection dataset). The original IMIS detail view is available at OSHA's Establishment Search for activity number 343450615.

Look up any company's OSHA accident reports by company, or browse severe injury reports by year, state, and company.