Find Nearby Plumbers In Commerce City, Colorado

This single review describes severe failures in professionalism and project completion. While the reviewer notes that staff were initially polite and courteous, the overwhelming narrative centers on non-responsiveness, ignored callbacks, and complete failure to deliver an ordered product over a three-month period. The reviewer explicitly states they received zero service and zero satisfaction. However, with only one review and no comparative data, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from July 2022 (over 2 years old). Current performance may differ significantly.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish patterns or validate consistency without additional reviews.
• BUSINESS TYPE MISMATCH: Review describes a plumbing supply company (wholesale/retail), not a contractor/plumber service provider. Scoring framework may not align with actual business model.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2022 is insufficient to generate a trustworthy WW Score, and the business type appears misaligned with the contractor/plumber scoring framework.

The single review available describes an extremely serious situation: the contractor accepted payment for a faucet upfront, never performed any work, and then became completely unreachable — ignoring calls, messages, and pages. This constitutes total project abandonment and scores at or near zero for both project completion and pricing transparency. Professionalism is scored at near-zero as well, given the complete breakdown in communication and apparent deceptive conduct. No information was provided about technical skill or workmanship, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. The reviewer also alleges this is a pattern of behavior known to local law enforcement, which is an extremely serious red flag.

• FRAUD ALERT: Reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor took $410 upfront for materials, performed no work, and disappeared entirely — a pattern consistent with contractor fraud.
• LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVEMENT: Reviewer states the Adams County Sheriff is aware of the contractor's name and alleged hustle, suggesting a documented pattern of misconduct.
• IDENTITY FLAG: Contractor named as Chris Shiveley, described as the sole owner/employee who misrepresented himself as having a boss — possible deceptive business practices.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 1 review is available. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews. All dimension scores carry very low statistical weight.
• RECENCY WARNING: This review is dated April 2012, making it over 12 years old. Business practices or ownership may have changed, though the severity of the allegation warrants retention as a flag.

This score is based on a single, heavily negative review from 2012 and should be treated as extremely low confidence — however, the nature of the allegation (fraud, abandonment, law enforcement awareness) is severe enough that extreme caution is warranted before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review praises Kenny's work ethic, fairness, efficiency, and technical knowledge on a complex bathroom remodel involving sewer and water line work. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as it does not meet the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for statistical validity.

• Insufficient review count (n=1) — WW Score calculation suppressed per Rule 4 threshold
• No pricing feedback provided — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• All dimension scores based on single mention — confidence severely limited

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful confidence in any contractor assessment.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer claims a personal lifelong relationship with the owner, which introduces significant bias and reduces the objectivity of the praise. The review mentions honesty and good work in vague terms, with no specific details about a project, pricing, timeliness, or technical skill. Scores have been assigned conservatively given the generic and potentially biased nature of the content. No pricing information was mentioned at all.

• Only 1 review total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Reviewer explicitly states a personal lifelong relationship with the owner, indicating strong potential for biased or non-objective feedback.
• Review contains no specific project details, no mention of what work was done, no timeline, and no pricing information — consistent with a generic or relationship-based review rather than an authentic customer experience.
• Review is dated 2021-06-17, making it over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• Scores assigned conservatively due to vague language, personal bias risk, and single-review limitation.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data; the single available review is over three years old, generically worded, and written by someone with a personal relationship to the owner, making it a poor basis for any objective assessment.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is from 2018 (over 6 years old) and provides limited detail. While it mentions punctuality, reasonable pricing, and job completion, the brevity and age of the review prevent confident assessment of contractor quality.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from September 2018, over 6 years old. Does not reflect current performance.
• LIMITED DETAIL: Review is brief and generic with minimal specifics about the work performed.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and the age of the single available review; additional recent reviews are required.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer praises punctuality, politeness, and reasonable pricing, and notes consistent positive experiences over several years. The phrase 'do a great job' implies satisfactory workmanship, and 'never let me down' suggests reliable project follow-through. However, all scores are held conservative due to the single-review basis and the lack of specific detail about any individual job or technical challenge.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from March 2021, which is more than 1 year old. No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific job details (e.g., type of work, scope, outcome), which reduces evidentiary weight.
• All dimensions scored conservatively due to single-mention basis and limited specificity.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, moderately generic review that is over three years old, providing insufficient data for a meaningful WW Score calculation.