Find Nearby Plumbers In Gaithersburg, Maryland

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by repeated no-shows, failure to communicate status updates, unresponsiveness to callbacks, and hostile behavior toward customers (yelling, refusing service). Project completion is severely impacted by incomplete work, abandoned jobs, missed appointments (3+ instances per review), and failure to honor callbacks. Technical experience is undermined by poor workmanship (creating new leaks while fixing others, incomplete installations) and lack of warranty coverage. No pricing information was provided in reviews, so that dimension could not be evaluated. The consistency of negative feedback across all four reviews with specific, detailed complaints indicates systemic operational failure.

• All four reviews are from 2017 (5-7 years old) — recency is a significant limitation; current operations may differ
• All reviews rate the company 1.0 stars with detailed, specific complaints — not generic praise, suggesting authentic negative experiences rather than fake reviews
• Multiple reviews mention the same owner names (Dwayne, Don) and similar failure patterns (no-shows, incomplete work, poor communication), indicating consistent systemic issues during that period
• Reviews reference home warranty company referrals, suggesting this may have been a warranty-approved contractor with documented performance problems

This score should be treated with caution due to review age (2017); however, the consistency and specificity of complaints across all four reviews indicate genuine operational failures during that period. Current reliability cannot be assessed without recent reviews.

This review dataset cannot be analyzed using the WW Score methodology. The reviews provided are predominantly for a restaurant/bar (Gentleman Jim's) and do not pertain to a contractor or plumber. While approximately 28 reviews discuss plumbing services from Jim's Inc., the majority of the dataset (28 reviews) consists of restaurant reviews covering food quality, atmosphere, and dining service—dimensions that do not map to the four WW Score dimensions (Professionalism, Price Friendly, Project Completion, Experience) as defined for contractor/plumber evaluation. The plumbing reviews present significant data quality issues that prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Dataset contains mixed content. Approximately 28 reviews are for a restaurant/bar (Gentleman Jim's) and are not applicable to contractor/plumber scoring.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple 5-star reviews from 2025-03-11 with generic praise ('Amazing staff and food!', 'Excellent food and the staff is wonderful!', 'Service was on point!!!') and minimal detail suggest potential review manipulation or clustering.
• MULTIPLE EMPTY REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain only a rating with no text, providing zero usable data.
• CONFLICTING BUSINESS IDENTITY: Reviews reference both a restaurant/bar and a plumbing company under similar names, creating ambiguity.
• SERIOUS CONDUCT ISSUES: Multiple plumbing reviews document unprofessional behavior including discriminatory language ('what is he, Hispanic?'), aggressive confrontation with customers, and alleged deceptive pricing practices.
• PRICING COMPLAINTS: Plumbing reviews consistently cite astronomical markups (100-550% above material costs) and misleading assessments to justify inflated quotes.
• INCOMPLETE/ABANDONED WORK: One review documents work left unfinished across multiple visits with unexpected mid-project price increases.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most restaurant reviews are from 2025 (recent); plumbing reviews span 2010-2023 with significant gaps, making trend analysis unreliable.

This dataset cannot produce a reliable WW Score. The review pool is contaminated with restaurant reviews unrelated to contractor services, contains numerous empty reviews, exhibits patterns consistent with fake review manipulation, and the plumbing reviews—while substantive—document serious conduct and ethical concerns that would require separate investigation rather than numerical scoring. Any score derived from this data would be meaningless.

This contractor shows mixed signals across a very small sample of reviews spanning nearly two decades. Positive reviews (3 of 4) highlight responsiveness, fair pricing, and friendly demeanor, but a recent 1-star review (2016) documents serious communication failures with three unanswered calls over two weeks during business hours. The oldest reviews (2005, 2011, 2012) lack specificity and may not reflect current operations. With only 4 reviews total and significant recency concerns, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 reviews total — sample size is too small for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews span 11 years (2005–2016); most are older than 8 years and do not reflect current business practices
• CONFLICTING DATA: Most recent review (2016) is 1-star with explicit complaint about non-responsiveness, contradicting older positive reviews
• GENERIC PRAISE: Two reviews (2005, 2011) contain all-caps or vague language with no specific details about work performed
• COMMUNICATION RED FLAG: 2016 review documents failure to return calls during business hours — serious professionalism concern that cannot be ignored

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=4) and severe recency bias; the most recent review contradicts older positive feedback and raises serious concerns about current responsiveness that warrant direct verification before hiring.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for confidence. Two reviews are from 2015–2016 (8+ years old), limiting recency relevance. Professionalism mentions are split: one negative (unprofessional/aggressive staff attitudes) and one positive (helpful phone support from Marcia). Pricing data is extremely limited (1 mention of warranty dispute). No substantive data exists for project completion or experience dimensions. The review set is too small and too old to produce a trustworthy overall score.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 5 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two of three reviews are from 2015–2016 (8+ years old); only one review from 2019
• INSUFFICIENT DIMENSION COVERAGE: No mentions of project completion or experience/workmanship quality
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: One review mentions serious HR/hiring concern (sex offender employment); another praises customer service — unclear if same entity or location
• PRICING DATA MINIMAL: Only one warranty dispute mentioned; insufficient for fair pricing assessment
• REVIEW 1 (2019): Raises serious personnel/hiring concern but does not evaluate actual plumbing services
• REVIEW 2 (2016): Extremely negative (1-star) regarding warranty handling and staff attitude; very old
• REVIEW 3 (2015): Positive but focuses on phone support, not actual plumbing work or project completion

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3, minimum 5 required), poor recency (67% of reviews older than 8 years), and critical gaps in dimension coverage. Do not rely on this assessment for decision-making.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient for a reliable WW Score, but the picture that emerges is mixed at best. The first review (4-star, 2024) describes punctual, courteous, and communicative service with a project completed on time and within budget, suggesting a positive experience. However, the second review (1-star, 2024) is a detailed and credible account of serious failures: wrong paint color used, wrong brand applied, visible wallpaper lines left unaddressed, paint drips on hardwood floors, uncovered holes, and a dismissive response from the contractor when issues were raised. The attempt to charge an additional $800 for work that arguably should have been included from the start is a significant pricing and professionalism concern. The negative review is highly specific and detailed, lending it considerable weight despite the small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review is highly detailed and specific, describing wrong paint color, wrong brand, surface defects, floor damage, and a contractor dismissing responsibility — this is a credible and serious complaint that carries significant weight.
• The positive review, while favorable, is somewhat generic in its praise and lacks the granular specificity of the negative review, which slightly reduces its relative evidentiary weight.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the small sample size makes any pattern analysis unreliable.
• Both reviews are from 2024, so recency is not a concern, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions about current service quality.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews; no meaningful conclusions about Navarro Contracting's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more reviews are analyzed.

Both reviews are recent (July 2024) and consistently praise Abi across professionalism, pricing, communication, and job completion. Professionalism scores highest due to explicit mentions of punctuality, texting ahead of arrival, politeness, and communication in both reviews. Project completion is well-supported by same-day service and cleanup noted in both reviews. Pricing is described as 'reasonably priced' in both reviews but lacks specific detail, keeping that score conservative. Experience scores are based on one explicit mention of being 'technically superb' and one implied by successful job completion, warranting a moderate but not top score.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: Both reviews share nearly identical phrasing ('exceptional communicator,' 'reasonably priced,' 'really/very nice young man,' 'highly recommend') and both include the contractor's phone number, which is unusual for organic customer reviews. This pattern is a strong indicator of potentially coached, incentivized, or fabricated reviews.
• Both reviews were posted within 2 days of each other (July 28 and July 30, 2024), which adds to the suspicion of coordinated or inauthentic posting.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to only 2 mentions per dimension and potential authenticity concerns.

This score should be treated with very low trust — the sample size is below the minimum threshold, and multiple indicators suggest the two available reviews may not be authentic organic customer feedback.