Find Nearby Plumbers In Owensboro, Kentucky

Scott Baird shows mixed performance across a small sample of reviews spanning 2013–2015. Professionalism is the strongest dimension, with responsive service and courteous staff noted across multiple reviews. However, significant concerns emerge in project completion and pricing: one detailed 1-star review documents repeated service failures (furnace issues not properly diagnosed on first visit, billing disputes after promised free work), while two 5-star reviews praise fair pricing and thoroughness. The stark contrast between the 1-star and 5-star reviews, combined with the small sample size and age of reviews (all pre-2016), limits confidence in this score.

• RECENCY CONCERN: All three reviews are from 2013–2015 (9–11 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Score reliability is inherently limited.
• CONFLICTING EVIDENCE: One detailed 1-star review documents serious project completion failures (repeated misdiagnosis, billing disputes) that directly contradicts the two 5-star reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or possible service variation.
• BILLING DISPUTE: The 1-star review explicitly documents a billing dispute (promised free work later billed), which raises concerns about pricing transparency and follow-through on commitments.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), significant age (all pre-2016), and conflicting evidence between reviews. The score does not reliably represent current contractor performance and should not be used as a primary decision factor without seeking more recent customer feedback.

This contractor shows significant pricing concerns that dominate the overall assessment. Three of five reviews explicitly cite excessive billing, overbilling for hours worked, and dramatic price increases following acquisition by Henry's Plumbing. Professionalism and project completion receive moderate scores based on positive mentions of punctuality, cleanliness, and completed work, but these strengths are heavily undermined by systematic pricing issues. The company demonstrates technical competence in HVAC and plumbing work, but customer trust has been severely damaged by billing practices.

• CRITICAL: Systematic overbilling pattern across multiple reviews (2019, 2014). Customers report being charged for significantly more hours than work actually performed.
• ACQUISITION IMPACT: Two 2019 reviews reference ownership change to Henry's Plumbing with immediate rate increases (from $338-347 to $588 for identical service; $240 for 40-minute job billed as 2 men × 2 hours).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews are from 2019 or earlier (oldest from 2014). Only one recent positive review from 2019. Limited current data.
• CREDIBILITY: The two 5-star reviews lack specificity on pricing and are older (2018-2019), while the three 1-star reviews provide detailed billing documentation, suggesting the negative reviews are more substantiated.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size (5 reviews) and age of data (oldest from 2014, most from 2019). However, the consistency of pricing complaints across independent reviews suggests a genuine systemic issue rather than isolated incidents. The WW Score reflects a contractor with adequate technical skills but serious customer trust problems centered on billing practices.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews. One detailed, substantive 1-star review from 2019 documents a major installation failure (uneven bathtub causing water damage), poor problem-solving, refusal to correct the issue, and total customer dissatisfaction resulting in BBB complaint and $10,000 in damages. This review is duplicated identically, suggesting possible review manipulation. Conversely, three generic 5-star reviews from 2015–2016 provide minimal detail ('great and friendly,' 'great job,' 'unknown'). The one moderately detailed positive review (2015) mentions on-time completion and professionalism. The stark contradiction between the detailed negative experience and vague positive praise, combined with review duplication and age disparity, makes this score unreliable. The WW Score reflects the severe documented failure weighted against limited positive evidence.

• CRITICAL: Identical duplicate review detected — the first two reviews are word-for-word duplicates with timestamps 1 hour 37 minutes apart (2019-02-11 22:23:49 and 2019-02-12 00:00:00). This suggests potential review manipulation or system error.
• Suspicious review pattern: Three 5-star reviews (2015–2016) are extremely generic with no substantive detail ('great and friendly,' 'great job,' 'unknown'). One review text is literally 'unknown,' providing zero usable information.
• Severe recency bias: Positive reviews are 8–9 years old (2015–2016); the detailed negative review is 5 years old (2019). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• Major service failure documented: The 2019 review details a critical installation defect (uneven bathtub), cascading water damage, three failed callback attempts, refusal to remedy the issue, and $10,000 total customer loss. This is a serious quality and follow-through failure.
• Warranty and accountability concerns: Customer explicitly states contractor 'will not make good on' warranty and filed BBB complaint. This suggests systemic accountability issues.

This score should be treated with extreme caution. The presence of an identical duplicate review, generic praise with no detail, and a well-documented major service failure create high uncertainty. The contractor's actual current performance cannot be reliably assessed from this dataset due to age of positive reviews, review manipulation indicators, and lack of recent data.

These reviews describe a supplier/retailer (Ira Wood & Sons), not a contractor or plumber. All three reviews document severe failures in communication, order fulfillment, and customer service. Professionalism is critically compromised by non-responsiveness to calls/emails, vague delivery estimates, and lack of follow-through on promised callbacks. Pricing appears competitive initially, but excessive restocking, shipping, and processing fees create hidden charges that undermine value. Project completion is severely damaged by repeated delays (2–6 months), items never shipped, and failure to deliver on promised timelines. No technical skill or workmanship is evaluated in these reviews. The company declared bankruptcy, corroborating the pattern of operational failure.

• CRITICAL: These reviews describe a plumbing fixtures supplier/retailer, NOT a contractor or plumber. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate service contractors, not product retailers. This analysis is out of scope.
• All three reviews are from 2010–2012 (12+ years old). No recent data available to assess current operations or whether bankruptcy has affected service.
• Company declared bankruptcy per Review 1, suggesting systemic financial/operational collapse. Current business status unknown.
• Reviews are consistent in tone and detail (not fake), but describe a defunct or severely compromised business model rather than contractor performance.

This score cannot be reliably applied because the entity reviewed is a product supplier, not a service contractor. If this business is still operating, these reviews are too old (12+ years) to reflect current performance. A WW Score for a contractor/plumber requires evaluation of on-site service delivery, not mail-order retail operations.

With only 3 reviews available, the dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. Review 1 (Jan 2024) praises timely communication but notes the contractor declined the job. Review 2 (Nov 2023) expresses dissatisfaction with work scope and pricing, suggesting the contractor performed work the customer did not authorize and charged full amount despite insurance claim. Review 3 (May 2022) is highly positive, praising professionalism, thoroughness, and skill, but is over 18 months old. The conflicting signals and minimal sample size prevent confident scoring.

• Only 3 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review dates span nearly 2 years (May 2022 to Jan 2024); most recent review is from Jan 2024 but only 1 review in past 12 months
• Review 2 contains serious concerns: unauthorized scope of work (connected outside wires without customer consent), potential billing dispute (customer felt obligated to pay full amount on insurance claim), and explicit statement 'would not hire'
• Review 3 is significantly older (May 2022) and may not reflect current service quality
• Conflicting signals: Review 3 is highly positive (5-star, master plumber, thorough); Review 2 is negative (3-star, scope issues, pricing concerns); Review 1 is neutral (4-star, declined job but responsive)
• Review 2 raises red flag about work authorization and customer satisfaction — suggests potential communication or scope-of-work issues

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3). The conflicting quality signals, significant time gaps, and serious concerns raised in Review 2 regarding unauthorized work and billing practices warrant caution. Do not rely on this analysis for hiring decisions; request additional recent references and clarify scope-of-work procedures before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews are available, both from 2007–2010 (13+ years old), making them outside the relevant recency window. One review explicitly criticizes non-responsiveness (no callbacks), while the other praises professionalism, pricing, and workmanship. The extreme age of these reviews and their contradictory nature prevent meaningful scoring.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews are from 2007–2010 (13+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Contradictory reviews: one 1-star (no callbacks) vs. one 5-star (meticulous, friendly, reasonable rates). Insufficient volume to determine which is representative.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — cannot assess on-time delivery or follow-through.
• Sample size of 2 reviews is below the minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and critically outdated data (13+ years old). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.