Find Nearby Plumbers In Colorado Springs, Colorado

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by poor communication, unreliability, and unprofessional behavior (walking out on clients, making excuses). Project completion is the most damaging dimension—multiple reviews document abandoned work, extreme delays (9 months for a 3-day job, 4 months with no completion), incomplete installations, and failure to deliver promised services despite advance payment. Pricing concerns emerge from clients paying substantial sums ($1,900+) for substandard or incomplete work. Experience/workmanship is consistently described as amateur, unprofessional, and requiring complete redo by other contractors. All six reviews are uniformly negative with specific, detailed complaints rather than vague criticism.

• CRITICAL: All 6 reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews present. This is not a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of severe customer dissatisfaction.
• Multiple reviews describe identical problematic behaviors: incomplete work, non-communication, taking payment without delivery, and disappearing mid-project. This consistency suggests systemic operational failures rather than isolated incidents.
• Review from 2022-08-21 describes advanced payment followed by abandonment—a serious red flag for potential fraud or financial mismanagement.
• Review from 2023-04-11 explicitly warns that the contractor may attempt to manipulate or discredit negative reviews, suggesting awareness of reputation damage and potential bad-faith response patterns.
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (4 of 6 from 2021-2023), but the most recent review (2024-06-12) confirms the pattern continues, indicating no improvement over time.
• One review (2021-08-15) notes the contractor was not even hired, suggesting a pattern of poor initial impressions and lack of credibility.

This score should be treated with extreme caution because it is based on only 6 reviews, all uniformly negative with no counterbalancing positive feedback. However, the consistency of specific complaints across independent reviews (incomplete work, abandonment, poor communication, substandard quality) and the presence of detailed, verifiable claims (specific timelines, payment amounts, unfinished work) suggests the negative pattern is genuine rather than anomalous. This contractor should not be hired without extraordinary additional verification.

These reviews are for a plumbing supply store (George T Sanders Company / R N R Supply), not a contractor or plumber service provider. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate contractor/plumber performance on dimensions including punctuality, project completion, workmanship quality, and pricing for services rendered. Supply store reviews address inventory, customer service in a retail context, and product availability—fundamentally different from evaluating a tradesperson's service delivery. No scoreable data exists for any of the four required dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for a plumbing supply store, not a contractor/plumber service provider. WW Score cannot be calculated.
• Review dates range from 2017–2019 (4–7 years old). No recent data available.
• No evidence of project completion, pricing transparency, professional service delivery, or technical workmanship in a contracting context.

This WW Score cannot be calculated because the reviews do not evaluate a plumber or contractor service provider; they evaluate a plumbing supply retail business, which falls outside the scope of this scoring engine.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 4 reviews are available, all from 2016–2020 (oldest is 7+ years old). While professionalism and experience are consistently praised across all reviews, project completion is never explicitly mentioned in any review—only inspection/scope work is described. Pricing is mentioned in only one review. The review pool is too small and too old to produce a trustworthy overall score.

• All 4 reviews are older than 3 years; most are 7+ years old (2016–2017). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While not necessarily fake, the complete absence of any critical detail or minor complaints is atypical and limits confidence.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions. Reviews describe inspection/scope work only; no evidence of full project completion, timeliness, or callback follow-through.
• Sample size is very small (n=4). Statistically insufficient to produce a reliable composite score.
• Pricing mentioned in only 1 review; cannot establish pricing pattern or fairness with confidence.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=4), extreme age of data (7+ years), and complete absence of project completion evidence. Any score derived would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

All three reviews describe severe failures across multiple dimensions. Professionalism issues include lack of written estimates, inconsistent communication, refusal to honor agreements, and threatening behavior. Pricing concerns involve demands for down payments without transparency and disputes over scope coverage. Project completion is critically deficient—one review reports zero items completed despite $17,000 paid, another describes the contractor walking off the job, and a third involved immediate cancellation due to red flags. The single mention of experience quality references botched work requiring remediation by other contractors. This contractor exhibits patterns of non-completion, poor communication, financial disputes, and unprofessional conduct.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are uniformly negative (1-star ratings) with serious allegations including non-completion of work, refusal to honor refund agreements, threatening behavior, and potential fraud. This is not a mixed portfolio—it represents consistent failure across all dimensions.
• Two reviews are from 2016-2017 (6-8 years old); recency is limited but severity of allegations (litigation, $17,000+ loss, zero completion) suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Review 2 explicitly mentions forced litigation and written agreement breach; Review 3 mentions threats and abandonment; Review 1 mentions scam concerns and inconsistent statements. These are not minor complaints.
• Insufficient review volume (n=3) limits statistical confidence, but the consistency and severity of allegations across all three independent reviews suggests genuine pattern rather than outliers.

This assessment should be treated with HIGH caution due to limited review volume (n=3), but the uniformity and severity of allegations (litigation, non-completion, threats, refund breach) across all reviews suggest serious, systemic problems with this contractor. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with only 3 reviews, but the evidence strongly indicates this contractor should not be engaged.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are recent (May 2024) and mention positive professionalism (fast response, showed up next day, educational follow-up) and project completion (job finished, recommendations acted upon). One review explicitly addresses pricing favorably (competitive, under estimate). However, with only 2 reviews total, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology requirements (minimum 3 reviews needed).

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — consider requesting more diverse feedback to validate
• Limited mention counts across all dimensions (1–2 each) result in LOW confidence for any individual dimension score

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate the score reliably.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are recent (November and October 2024) and positive, the sample size is too small to establish reliable patterns across all four dimensions. All dimensions show LIMITED confidence due to minimal mention counts (1–2 mentions each).

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language and no specific details about pricing transparency, timeline adherence, or problem-solving complexity. Pattern suggests potential review bias or insufficient detail for robust assessment.
• Pricing dimension based on only 1 mention ('great price') — insufficient evidence of fair pricing practices or transparency.
• No explicit mention of punctuality, communication responsiveness, or timeline adherence in either review.

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Any scoring attempt would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.