This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor across 98 reviews. Project completion is solid with 87 mentions of timely, thorough work and follow-through. Technical expertise is well-documented across 72 reviews, with customers frequently noting knowledgeable problem-solving and quality workmanship. However, pricing ...
Read more Score Narrative
This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism with consistently praised punctuality, communication, and friendly demeanor across 98 reviews. Project completion is solid with 87 mentions of timely, thorough work and follow-through. Technical expertise is well-documented across 72 reviews, with customers frequently noting knowledgeable problem-solving and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a notable weakness with only 28 mentions but significant concerns: one customer paid 4x the quoted price, another experienced a $725 bill against a $150-500 estimate, and a third incurred $1,000 in charges across 4 trips for work that should have cost $300. These pricing issues, combined with one serious project failure (septic tank damage with refusal to take responsibility), temper an otherwise strong profile.
Flags & Warnings
• PRICING INCONSISTENCY: Multiple reviews (2025-05-26, 2010-02-09, 2021-03-14) report significant overcharges or quote-to-final-price discrepancies, suggesting potential pricing opacity or scope creep issues.
• SERIOUS PROJECT FAILURE: One 1-star review (2023-08-14) documents septic tank damage, worker negligence, refusal of accountability, and aggressive upselling ($250 repair charge for damage caused by contractor). This is a critical service failure.
• RECENCY BIAS: 70% of reviews are from 2021 onwards, with heavy concentration in 2025 (35 reviews). Older reviews (2008-2014) are uniformly positive with minimal detail, suggesting possible selection bias or review platform changes.
• GENERIC REVIEWS: Approximately 15 reviews contain minimal detail (e.g., 'Great customer service', 'Nice guys', 'Good', 'unknown') or are blank, reducing data quality.
• CONTRACTOR NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews reference multiple names (Andrew, Jesus, Kaelin, Lawrence, Zach, Riley, Francisca, Chuy, Derrick, Ben) suggesting either multiple locations/franchises or name variations for same entity. This creates ambiguity about whether all reviews apply to same business.
Reliability Statement
This score should be treated with MODERATE-TO-HIGH confidence for professionalism and project completion, but MODERATE confidence overall due to significant pricing concerns documented in multiple reviews and one serious project failure with accountability issues. The contractor excels in responsiveness and technical skill but demonstrates inconsistent pricing practices that warrant careful quote verification before engagement.
Read less