Find Nearby Plumbers In Farmington, New Mexico

R.A. Biel presents a deeply mixed picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores moderately due to a large number of positive mentions of courteous, communicative technicians like Marcus, Keegan, and Randall, but is significantly dragged down by multiple explicit complaints of rude staff, a rude owner/manager, missed appointments without notification, and dismissive customer service. Project completion is the most damaging dimension: numerous reviews describe jobs left incomplete, problems recurring the same day or night after a technician declared the work done, repeated service calls that failed to resolve the original issue, and in one case a multi-month failure to restore AC. Pricing is the lowest-scoring dimension, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out opaque billing, refusal to itemize invoices, hidden service fees, and charges perceived as grossly disproportionate to the work performed. Experience scores in the middle range — several technicians are praised as knowledgeable and skilled, but an equal number of reviews describe technicians who could not diagnose problems, were unwilling to access equipment, or lacked the qualifications to complete the job they were sent to do.

• 6 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating. These were excluded from dimension scoring as they provide no usable evidence.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely brief and generic (e.g., 'Sucks.', 'Awesome job by both of them', 'Great service & will definitely use again') with no specific details. While not conclusively fake, these add limited evidentiary value and were weighted conservatively.
• The review corpus spans from 2012 to 2025 — over 13 years. Reviews older than 12 months (pre-June 2024) were given reduced weight, particularly the older negative reviews from 2012–2019, though the pattern of complaints about incomplete work and pricing is consistent across all time periods.
• A recurring pattern of incomplete HVAC and heating jobs — with technicians declaring work done only for the problem to recur the same day or night — appears across multiple independent reviews spanning several years. This is a structural concern, not an isolated incident.
• One review (2019) alleges deliberate concealment of plumbing defects and references pending legal action. This is an extreme claim and was treated as a single data point, but it is consistent with other complaints about accountability and follow-through.
• The owner/manager 'Mark' is named negatively in two separate reviews for rudeness and failure to return calls — suggesting a systemic customer service issue at the leadership level, not just individual technician behavior.

This WW Score is based on 49 reviews with usable content spanning 13 years, with strong mention counts across all four dimensions, yielding HIGH confidence in the score — however, users should note that the wide date range and the consistent recurrence of serious complaints about incomplete work and opaque pricing across multiple years suggest these are structural issues rather than isolated incidents.

This contractor's record is severely damaged by multiple detailed, credible negative reviews describing abandoned projects, no-shows, poor workmanship, and complete non-responsiveness after payment. The project completion dimension is the lowest-scoring area, with multiple reviewers explicitly describing unfinished work, debris left behind, and the contractor disappearing after being paid. Professionalism scores are dragged down heavily by documented patterns of lateness, blocking clients, sending an allegedly intoxicated worker, and failing to communicate. While a cluster of older positive reviews (2012–2017) mention reasonable pricing and responsiveness, these are outweighed by the volume and severity of the negative accounts, and the most recent reviews trend strongly negative. The pricing score is modestly positive due to a few explicit mentions of reasonable rates, but this dimension has limited influence given the serious completion and professionalism failures.

• THREE reviews contain only the text 'unknown' with no usable content — these were excluded from dimension scoring and flagged as low-quality data entries.
• The positive reviews are heavily clustered in the 2012–2017 period; the most recent substantive reviews (2021, 2022) are both negative and highly detailed, suggesting a significant decline in service quality over time.
• Multiple negative reviews describe nearly identical patterns: contractor accepts payment, fails to complete work, becomes unreachable, and blocks clients — this behavioral pattern across independent reviewers is a strong credibility signal for the negative accounts.
• One 5-star review from 2017 states only 'I couldn't have been happier with the work Bill did for me' with no specifics — this is generic and contributes minimal scoring weight.
• The contractor's most recent review (2022) describes potential fraud, legal action, and deliberate deception including a false business address — this is a serious red flag beyond normal service quality concerns.
• RECENCY WARNING: The two most recent dated reviews with substantive content (2021, 2022) are both 1–2 star ratings describing serious misconduct. Positive reviews are predominantly 5–8 years old or older.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability due to a sufficient number of detailed, specific reviews across both positive and negative experiences, but prospective customers should weight the more recent negative reviews heavily as they reflect the contractor's current operating behavior.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by poor communication, unresponsiveness, lack of follow-through, and unprofessional behavior (disassembling equipment without reassembly, complaining about clients). Project completion is severely impaired with multiple instances of abandoned work, incomplete diagnostics, and failure to honor commitments. Pricing concerns emerge from charges for unsuccessful work with no tangible results. The single positive review (5-star, 2021) praising installation work is substantially outweighed by five 1-star reviews documenting systemic failures in service delivery, responsiveness, and technical competence.

• Five of six reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints; one 5-star review from 2021 appears isolated and does not reflect current service patterns
• Multiple reviews document identical failure patterns: poor communication, unresponsiveness to callbacks, incomplete work, and lack of follow-through
• Four reviews explicitly mention office communication failures and being given 'the run around'
• Two reviews document charging for unsuccessful work with no service rendered or parts replaced
• Most reviews are older than 12 months (4 of 6 from 2019-2022); only 2 reviews from 2023 and 2021, limiting recency assessment
• Consistent pattern of technical incompetence: failed diagnostics, incorrect recommendations, incomplete repairs

This WW Score of 28.3 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of poor contractor performance; the score is based on six reviews with consistent, detailed complaints across all dimensions, and the pattern of failures is systematic rather than isolated.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly negative, citing excessive project duration (3.5 months), use of rusted pipes, poor workmanship (leaky pipe), and aggressive pricing for minor repairs. The reviewer explicitly states distrust and poor results. However, a single review cannot establish reliable patterns across professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from November 2022, over 2 years old. No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: While the complaint is detailed and specific, one review cannot establish contractor reliability or patterns.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). The single available review is dated and highly negative, but cannot be generalized to overall contractor performance without additional corroborating reviews.

Only one review was analyzed, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism positively (personal attention, answering questions, no pressure sales tactics), but provides no information about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. The review appears to describe a sales/consultation interaction rather than a completed project, limiting its relevance to overall contractor performance assessment.

• Insufficient Data — only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review describes a sales consultation, not a completed project or service delivery.
• No data available on pricing, project completion, or technical experience dimensions.

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only one review; at least 3 reviews are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score assessment.

This single review documents severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The plumber arrived an hour late, demanded upfront payment to purchase materials (poor cash flow management), and on a subsequent visit failed to show up entirely with no communication or follow-up. No information about technical skill or workmanship quality is available. With only one review and no data on experience, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• No data on experience/workmanship dimension.
• Severe service failures documented but based on single source.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2014 is not a sufficient basis for scoring. Additional recent reviews are required.