Find Nearby Plumbers In Bozeman, Montana

This contractor's reviews paint a deeply concerning picture across nearly every dimension. Pricing is the most damning area, with multiple reviewers explicitly documenting egregious parts markups (a $17.50 part billed at $147.50, a $39 faucet quoted at $150) and excessive labor charges, suggesting a systemic pattern of price gouging rather than isolated incidents. Project completion is severely undermined by one review describing an abandoned large project, months of ignored callbacks, and a customer unable to return to their own home — a critical failure. Professionalism scores are dragged down by poor communication, unreturned calls, and a technician who proposed unnecessary and costly work rather than a straightforward repair. The sole positive review (2017) describes quick, efficient work from a named technician, providing a small amount of counterbalancing evidence for experience, but it is both old and isolated.

• RECENCY WARNING: Only 2 of 5 reviews are from the past 12 months (2023 and 2024). The single positive review is from 2017 — over 7 years old — and should be weighted minimally.
• PATTERN WARNING: The two most recent reviews (2023, 2024) are both 1-star and describe serious failures in professionalism, pricing, and project completion, suggesting conditions may have worsened over time rather than improved.
• PRICE GOUGING PATTERN: Two independent reviewers in separate years explicitly documented specific part markups far exceeding reasonable trade margins, indicating a likely systemic pricing practice rather than a one-off error.
• ABANDONED WORK FLAG: One reviewer explicitly states work was left half-finished, calls were not returned, and they were unable to move back into their home — this is a severe project completion failure.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total. The WW Score should be treated as directional only and not fully representative of overall contractor performance.

This WW Score carries LIMITED overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 reviews), a wide date range spanning 7 years, and the fact that the only positive review is from 2017 — however, the consistency of serious complaints across pricing and project completion from multiple independent reviewers in different years does lend credibility to the negative findings.

The reviews paint a consistently negative picture across nearly all dimensions. Professionalism is severely damaged by reports of phone calls going unanswered repeatedly, a contractor who ghosted a customer after confirming an appointment, and a failure to send a promised contract. Project completion is also concerning, with one customer abandoned entirely after an initial response and no follow-through. Pricing received the lowest possible signal — a single reviewer describing the bid as significantly the highest they received and unaffordable, earning a very low score. The only modest positive is a single mention of adequate technical skill, which earns a conservative score given it is the sole data point and comes from an otherwise lukewarm review.

• Two of the four reviews are from 2022, making them over two years old. More recent reviews (2024) are weighted more heavily and both are strongly negative.
• Sample size is very small (4 reviews total). Scores carry low statistical reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
• The pattern of no-shows, unanswered calls, and ghosting across multiple independent reviews suggests a systemic responsiveness and reliability problem rather than isolated incidents.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews are varied in tone, detail level, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with limited data across most dimensions and should be treated as a preliminary signal only — a larger review sample is needed before drawing firm conclusions about this contractor's overall quality.

This contractor shows severe inconsistency across reviews, with two highly positive 5-star reviews praising honesty, fair pricing, and quality work, contrasted sharply by two 1-star reviews from 2008-2010 citing unresponsiveness, dangerous work, and non-performance. The positive reviews emphasize fair pricing and skilled workmanship, while negative reviews highlight professionalism failures (missed appointments, unresponsiveness) and project completion issues (faulty/dangerous work, work not performed). The extreme polarity and significant age gap between review sets (2008-2010 vs. 2019) make reliable scoring impossible. The two oldest reviews are 14+ years old and may not reflect current operations.

• CRITICAL: Extreme review polarity — two 5-star reviews vs. two 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests either significant business changes over time or potential data quality issues
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2008-2010 (14+ years old); two are from 2019. Cannot reliably assess current business performance
• UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE: 2008 review alleges 'faulty and dangerous work' and unresponsiveness to complaints — serious allegation that cannot be verified or dismissed
• INSUFFICIENT CONSISTENCY: Positive reviews praise 'honesty' and 'efficiency'; negative reviews cite 'unresponsiveness' and 'lack of professionalism' — contradictory evidence suggests either major operational changes or unreliable data
• CAPS LOCK REVIEW: 2008 review uses all caps, suggesting emotional distress but reducing credibility assessment

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data consistency and extreme review polarity spanning 11 years; the business may have undergone significant changes, or data integrity is questionable — recommend treating any score as unreliable and seeking additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. Review 1 (2022) is strongly positive, praising responsiveness, communication, emergency availability, and follow-through. Review 2 (2019) is strongly negative, describing a failed drain clearing attempt, a misdiagnosis of pipe condition, poor billing practices, unresponsive management, and an aggressive collections escalation. The two reviews directly contradict each other across nearly every dimension, creating high uncertainty. Scores have been conservatively set to reflect this conflict rather than averaging toward a neutral midpoint.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules (minimum 3 reviews required).
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one is 5-star with strong praise, the other is 1-star with serious complaints about workmanship, billing, and customer service. No reliable trend can be established.
• Review 2 (2019) raises a significant concern: a technician allegedly misdiagnosed pipe condition without proper inspection, and management escalated a disputed $210 bill to collections without returning customer calls. This is a material flag for both experience and professionalism.
• Review 1 is from 2022 and Review 2 is from 2019. The recency gap means the negative review may reflect older practices, but with only one data point per period, no improvement trend can be confirmed.
• All confidence levels are LIMITED due to low mention counts. No dimension score should be treated as representative of actual contractor quality.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 3+ years and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The first review is positive, praising a fast resolution to a building-wide water outage and describing pricing as reasonable. The second review is a serious complaint describing a months-long failure to properly install and commission a new boiler, with repeated unsuccessful repair attempts and ongoing loss of heat and hot water. The project completion and experience dimensions are heavily dragged down by the second review, which describes a significant and unresolved workmanship failure. The mixed signals across just two reviews prevent any meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The negative review describes a severe and prolonged project failure (boiler installation non-functional for 3+ months), which is a serious red flag for project completion and technical competence.
• Both reviews are from 2019, meaning all data is over 5 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• With only one positive and one negative review, scores are extremely sensitive to individual outliers and should not be trusted as representative.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, all data being over 5 years old, and a direct conflict between the two reviews — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality should be drawn from this data.

Both reviews are 1-star and paint a consistently negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism suffered due to the owner's absence from the job site, poor communication, confusing explanations, and threatening behavior when complaints were raised. Pricing was flagged negatively in both reviews — one customer paid double due to mistakes, and the other faced refusal of a payment plan alongside demands for over $1,000 despite unresolved work. Project completion was severely lacking: one job was finished with errors the customer had to pay to fix, and the other required a separate HVAC company to undo the contractor's work before the system functioned correctly. Experience scores are very low given that a removed component was the root cause of a prolonged system failure, suggesting a meaningful gap in technical competence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are 1-star with specific, detailed complaints — no positive reviews exist to balance the assessment.
• One review is dated 2019 and one is dated 2022 — both are older than 12 months from a typical current reference point, reducing recency weight.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific details, named individuals, and distinct incident descriptions consistent with genuine customer experiences.
• Threatening a customer with a lien in response to a written complaint is a significant professionalism red flag and has been weighted accordingly.

With only 2 reviews available, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and the WW Score cannot be formally calculated; however, the consistency and specificity of both negative reviews suggest the low scores are directionally reliable.