Parts missing?
 

Just got my Fuji Gran Tourer serviced and upgraded to a new BB and VO crankset. Is the connection between the BB and crank supposed to be open like this? Looks like something is missing.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...dcb50abd4.jpeg

maybe a bit more "outboard" than many, but if your mechanic matched the spindle taper to the crank arms, then the important distance is between the cranks at the pedal ends and the chainstays: you want both sides to be equally "outboard" and so balanced when you pedal. You can just eyeball those distances but also very easy to measure with any ruler or tape if you have doubts, and if within a mm (or two) for both sides it's acceptable to most of us.
If there was a screw-up and you have the wrong (too wide) spindle length or the wrong type (could be symmetrical when you need asymmetry) then get your money back and find a better mechanic!

Also: how's the chainline with this crank and BB? Did mech-o at least get the driveside right?

No, that looks perfectly normal for a new cartridge bottom bracket. If it were the old cup and cone bottom bracket, that space would look more filled in.

That seems excessive, but it only shows 1 angle. Is there any way to get some pictures from top-down showing the crank arms in relation to the chainstay? The way it is now, it may work, but seems less than ideal. Hard to know more w/out more images.

Seems like the crank may be set out pretty far on this side. 118 is a pretty wide BB.
(It is difficult to guess the correct BB width for a new crank without trial and error. This may be an example of error)
The BB itself looks OK. Ideally there wouldn't be threads sticking out, but I've had that happen on old bikes and reusing the lock ring is a good way to cover that up.
Sheldon Brown

I had a similar experience. Likely OK.

What is the distance from the inside edge of the crank arm to the chainstay? Ideally the same on both sides, but your chainline and shifting, as well as parts availability and cost, may mean some compromise is to be expected.

The OP probably just means that the prominently visible red seal on the bearing makes it look as if there should be some kind of cover between it and the outer surface of the cartridge (i.e., the concern has nothing to do with chain line or anything else)..

To address the question in the opening post: no, there's nothing missing.

118mm is what VO suggests for their double plateaus. It does seem pretty wide.

I wouldn't think to look at that particularly, i would be more focused on my chain line, where the straight line aligns with my rear cassette/freewheel lands. In the past I would play with the location; when I was stronger I would push my chain line towards the outside where the cogs I used the most would be.

about a cm or two?
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2c6896d8c.jpeg

ah very good point!

chainline seems decent to me. Bike’s been performing well. My most used combo are the small chainring with the middle gears of the freewheel (like 2-4) so I guess that’s pretty good.

thanks! Chainline seems good. It’s at its straightest in my most used gears (small or large front, middle rear). With this new gearing I tend to put it in the third or fourth freewheel cogs and switch between small and large chainring depending on incline, load, and speed.

thanks!