Find Nearby Plumbers In North Las Vegas, Nevada

The review corpus is deeply polarized: a substantial cluster of glowing 5-star reviews praising individual technicians — most notably Gene Gallegos, Jorge, Isaias, and Ralph — sits alongside an equally substantial cluster of 1-star reviews citing poor workmanship, failed installs, rude staff, and unresolved warranty issues. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by repeated complaints about no-shows, unannounced arrivals, supervisors refusing callbacks, and rude office staff, even though many individual field technicians were praised for courtesy and punctuality. Project completion is the most damaged dimension: multiple reviewers describe abandoned repairs, improperly installed systems that failed within months, technicians who broke fixtures and left without disclosure, and warranty work that required third-party contractors to correct at the customer's expense. Experience scores reflect a split between highly competent individual technicians and a broader pattern of misdiagnoses, repeated service calls for the same issue, and subpar materials. Pricing received low scores due to complaints about inflated charges, a $1,000 quote for a simple tub reinstall, and customers forced to pay out-of-pocket to fix damage caused by 20/20 technicians.

• POSSIBLE FAKE REVIEW CLUSTER: A high concentration of 5-star reviews between November and December 2021 all praise technician 'Gene Gallegos' by full name with very similar narrative structures (quick diagnosis, polite, knowledgeable, fixed in minutes). While some variation exists, the volume and timing are suspicious and may inflate positive scores for the Experience and Professionalism dimensions.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2018-08-21 and 2018-08-04 are nearly word-for-word identical, describing the same 'Isaac' incident. Only one was counted toward mention totals to avoid double-weighting.
• EMPLOYEE REVIEW DETECTED: The 1-star review dated 2024-10-31 is explicitly written from the perspective of a current or former employee, not a customer. It was excluded from scoring as it does not reflect customer service experience.
• THEFT ALLEGATION: One review (2024-10-06) alleges an employee stole jewelry and that management dismissed video evidence. A separate review references police complaints against the company. These are serious integrity flags beyond the scope of standard scoring dimensions.
• RECENCY NOTE: Reviews span from 2015 to 2024. Negative reviews are distributed across the entire timeline, suggesting persistent systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Positive reviews are also distributed across the timeline but show a notable spike in late 2021 that warrants caution.
• SYSTEMIC PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different years and different home builders (Lennar, Beazer, Toll Brothers, Tri Pointe, Shea Homes, Brookfield) report the same categories of failure — improper installs, poor warranty follow-through, and rude office staff — indicating company-wide rather than technician-specific problems.

This WW Score is based on 68 reviews spanning nearly a decade and carries HIGH statistical confidence in its dimensions, but the score should be interpreted cautiously given the strong polarization between individual technician performance and systemic company-level failures, as well as a suspected cluster of potentially inauthentic 5-star reviews in late 2021.

This contractor has a deeply polarized review history, with a substantial majority of reviews describing serious failures across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is heavily penalized by recurring reports of rude office staff, technicians who were dismissive or hostile, no-shows without notification, and unprofessional conduct on-site including walking through sewage without shoe covers and bringing children to jobs. Pricing received one of the lowest scores due to multiple credible accounts of bait-and-switch advertising, wildly inflated quotes, charges for work not performed, and upselling of unnecessary parts or systems. Project completion is critically low, with numerous reviews describing abandoned jobs, repeat failed service calls spanning weeks or months, unresolved leaks, and work that made problems worse rather than better. Experience scores are similarly poor, with many reviewers explicitly describing technicians as clueless, misdiagnosing problems, installing parts incorrectly, and failing to identify obvious issues that other companies resolved quickly. The minority of positive reviews, while genuine in tone, are insufficient to offset the volume and severity of negative experiences documented across a decade of reviews.

• Several positive reviews are notably brief, generic, or lack specific detail (e.g., 'Professional and reliable', 'Used this company to replace my A/C unit and it works well', 'Thank you again for handling my repair needs. Professional and courteous.'), which may indicate solicited or low-effort reviews.
• The owner (Shon) appears to have responded to negative reviews with disputed or potentially dishonest rebuttals, as documented by at least one reviewer who provided invoice-based evidence contradicting the owner's public response.
• One reviewer explicitly states the owner called them to demand removal of a negative review, threatened legal action, and promised compensation that was never delivered after the review was taken down — indicating a pattern of review manipulation.
• Review dates span from 2011 to 2024. The majority of reviews are older than 12 months (pre-September 2023). Only 2 reviews fall within the most recent 12-month window (September 2024), both of which are split: one strongly positive (drywall/ceiling repair) and one strongly negative (AC compressor failure with disputed owner response). Recency weighting does not meaningfully change the overall score given the consistent negative pattern across all time periods.
• The single 5-star review from September 2024 describes drywall and scaffolding work, which may be a different crew or service line than the HVAC and plumbing work that dominates the negative reviews. This limits its comparability.
• Multiple independent reviewers across different years describe the same patterns: rude receptionist/office staff, technicians misdiagnosing HVAC issues, inflated or fraudulent quotes, and failure to complete jobs — suggesting these are systemic organizational issues rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score of 38.7 is based on a large sample of 52 reviews with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions, and should be considered a reliable and conservative reflection of this contractor's overall service quality; the volume and consistency of negative feedback across multiple years and service types makes this score highly trustworthy.

This plumbing company demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is critically weak, with consistent reports of no-shows, poor communication, unresponsiveness, and dismissive attitudes toward customers. Project completion is the most damaging dimension—multiple reviews document incomplete work, failed callbacks, abandoned jobs, and customers forced to hire competitors to finish work. Pricing concerns emerge in two reviews involving unexpected charges and disputes over service fees. The single positive review (5-star) praising honesty and dependability is substantially outweighed by four 1-2 star reviews documenting systemic failures. All reviews are from 2012–2014, limiting recency data, but the pattern is consistent and explicit.

• All reviews are 10+ years old (2012–2014); no recent data available to assess if company has improved
• Four of five reviews are 1-2 star ratings with explicit, detailed complaints; only one 5-star review with generic praise
• Multiple reviews document identical failure patterns: no-shows, poor follow-through, unresponsiveness, and incomplete work
• One review explicitly states technician told customer 'don't ever call us again'—suggests hostile customer relations
• Potential fake review concern: The single 5-star review uses generic praise ('BEST plumbing service in the valley') with minimal specifics, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews; however, insufficient evidence to definitively flag as fake

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to age of data (10+ years old), but the consistency and specificity of negative feedback across multiple dimensions suggests genuine systemic problems existed at the time of these reviews; current performance cannot be assessed without recent data.

These reviews are for a plumbing supply store (parts retailer), not a contractor or plumber providing installation/repair services. The WW Score engine is designed to evaluate service contractors. The reviews mention product availability, staff knowledge, and pricing for retail transactions, but contain no data on professionalism (punctuality, communication, attitude during service calls), project completion (job finished, callbacks, follow-through on installations), or the core service dimensions relevant to contractor evaluation. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated for a retail parts supplier using this framework.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are for a plumbing supply store/parts retailer, not a service contractor. This business model does not align with WW Score evaluation criteria.
• No reviews mention service calls, installation work, punctuality, or project completion — all core contractor evaluation metrics.
• Pricing feedback is mixed (one review praises value at $15 vs Amazon; another complains of 300% markup). Insufficient context to determine fair market pricing.
• Reviews span 2014–2018 (6+ years old). No recent data available.
• Only 6 total reviews with minimal actionable contractor data.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted because the business reviewed is a plumbing supply retailer, not a service contractor, and the review data does not contain sufficient information on the four core contractor dimensions (professionalism, pricing for services, project completion, and technical experience in service delivery).

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Additionally, two reviews appear to be duplicates with identical text (dated 2023-09-16 and 2022-01-19), raising concerns about review authenticity. The remaining reviews are sparse and dated (one from 2020), limiting recency and confidence in any dimension scoring.

• DUPLICATE REVIEWS DETECTED: Two reviews contain identical text praising 'excellent price' and 'above standard service work' (2023-09-16 and 2022-01-19, attributed to 'Gwen'). This suggests potential fake or manipulated reviews.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 total reviews analyzed. Minimum 5+ reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2020 (3+ years old). Only one review is from the past 12 months.
• SAFETY INCIDENT: One 1-star review reports a traffic safety violation (running red light). This is a serious professionalism/conduct issue that cannot be ignored despite being a single mention.
• SPARSE DIMENSION COVERAGE: All dimensions have 1-2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (below 5 reviews), suspected duplicate/fake reviews, and extremely limited mention counts across all dimensions. Any scoring would be highly speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. Both reviews reveal serious deficiencies in project completion and follow-through: one contractor failed to correct a reversed valve installation for nearly 2 years and refused to repair drywall damage; the second failed to complete water circulation work and did not follow up despite incomplete payment. Professionalism scores are depressed by poor communication and lack of callback responsiveness, though initial responsiveness was noted in one review. No pricing information was provided in either review.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• Both reviews are older than 1 year (2016 and 2010) — no recent performance data available
• Severe pattern of non-completion and lack of follow-through across both reviews — suggests systemic issue with project closure
• One review explicitly documents 2-year failure to correct installation error and repair damage — indicates poor accountability
• Second review documents incomplete work with no follow-up despite unpaid balance — suggests abandonment of responsibility

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). However, the available evidence strongly suggests serious deficiencies in project completion and follow-through that warrant caution. Any scoring would be highly speculative and should not be relied upon for decision-making.