Find Nearby Plumbers In Bend, Oregon

Team Thompson demonstrates strong professionalism and technical expertise based on explicit praise for punctuality, cleanliness, and quality workmanship. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with multiple reviews citing high hourly rates and expensive quotes that deter customers. Project completion is supported by positive feedback on timely delivery and promise-keeping, though limited mention count reduces confidence. The single negative review raises serious concerns about workplace conduct and property damage, which substantially impacts the overall professionalism score despite being outweighed by positive feedback.

• One review (1-star, 2024-01-17) alleges serious misconduct including property destruction and disrespectful behavior—this is a critical red flag that contradicts the professionalism narrative in other reviews and warrants investigation
• Pricing dimension shows consistent negative sentiment across multiple reviews, with customers explicitly stating rates are unaffordable; this is a genuine business concern, not fake review activity
• Small sample size (4 reviews) limits statistical reliability; recommend collecting more recent reviews to establish trend clarity
• Most reviews are from 2023; only one review from 2024 limits recency assessment

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size and the presence of one serious misconduct allegation that conflicts with otherwise positive feedback; the pricing weakness is well-documented but the professionalism concern requires verification before drawing firm conclusions.

Pine Valley Plumbing receives consistently strong praise across professionalism, workmanship, and responsiveness in the majority of reviews, with multiple customers highlighting Roger and Elliot by name for courteous, efficient, and thorough service. Pricing is mentioned favorably in several reviews, with customers describing costs as reasonable, fair, and cost-effective, though this dimension has fewer mentions than others. Project completion scores are tempered by one notable negative review describing a complete failure to respond to a voicemail from a customer with a plumbing emergency — a serious lapse in follow-through. The score is also significantly moderated by the age of the review pool, with the most recent positive review dating to 2020 and the majority of reviews being 5 to 10 years old, limiting confidence in how well these ratings reflect current performance.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Only 1 review is from the past 5 years (2020). The majority of reviews are from 2014–2018, making it difficult to assess current service quality. Scores should be treated with caution as a reflection of present-day operations.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: One review (2022) explicitly describes a failure to answer a call and a complete lack of callback after a voicemail was left for a plumbing emergency. This is a significant negative data point and the most recent review in the dataset.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several older 5-star reviews use similarly enthusiastic but somewhat generic language ('highly recommend', 'excellent', 'great job'). While not conclusive, this warrants mild caution. No strong evidence of fabricated reviews, but specificity varies.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 9 total reviews span approximately 8 years, which limits statistical reliability across all dimensions.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small and predominantly dated review pool, with the most recent review being a negative one that raises concerns about current responsiveness and follow-through.

A&E Plumbing, Heating & Air scores strongly across all four dimensions based on a small but consistently positive set of reviews. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with all five reviews touching on responsiveness, punctuality, communication, or respectful conduct — highlighted most vividly by the detailed radiant heat review describing proactive texting, booties worn without prompting, and thorough follow-up. Pricing sentiment is positive, with one reviewer noting the final cost came in under estimate and another calling the price 'great,' though the sample is small. Project completion is well-represented, with reviewers describing work as finished cleanly, accurately, and on schedule. Experience is supported by specific mentions of specialized radiant heat expertise and clean, accurate plumbing work, though only three reviews speak to technical skill directly.

• Very small sample size of only 5 reviews — all rated 5.0 stars. This uniformity warrants caution, though the reviews vary meaningfully in detail and specificity, reducing but not eliminating fake review concern.
• Three of the five reviews (2021-06-13, 2021-07-18, 2021-11-15) are older than 12 months relative to the most recent review date (2023-02-11) and are now over 2 years old. Recency weighting is limited.
• Two reviews (2022-06-03 and 2021-11-15) are notably brief and generic with no specific job details, which slightly reduces their evidentiary value. However, they are not identical in phrasing and are not flagged as definitively fake.

This WW Score should be treated as a promising but low-confidence signal — the reviews are consistently positive and contain meaningful detail in key entries, but a total of only 5 reviews is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about this contractor's typical performance.

Doug receives consistently positive feedback across all four dimensions from the reviews available. Professionalism is the strongest signal, with all four reviewers noting prompt communication, timely arrival, and courteous demeanor. Project completion is also well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished cleanly and efficiently, including a non-standard sink installation and a drain clearing. Experience is reflected in comments about technical competence and problem-solving, such as helping locate a compatible sink and handling a backflow installation on short notice. Pricing is mentioned positively in two reviews, with one explicitly calling him 'affordable,' though this dimension has limited coverage. The overall score is tempered by the small review pool, which limits statistical confidence.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score cannot be considered highly reliable with this sample size.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback; while the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the uniformly perfect ratings warrant mild caution.
• Two of the four reviews are dated more than 12 months ago (2023); recency weighting slightly reduces confidence in current performance consistency.
• No negative or mixed reviews present — it is unclear how Doug handles disputes, delays, or difficult jobs.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be treated as a preliminary positive signal rather than a definitive assessment; seek additional reviews before making a high-stakes hiring decision.

Pipe Dreams receives consistently positive feedback across all four scored dimensions, with professionalism being the most frequently mentioned and best-supported area. Reviewers highlight punctuality, responsiveness, politeness, and cleanup as specific strengths. Pricing is praised notably in two reviews, with one reviewer explicitly crediting Pipe Dreams with identifying a cheaper solution than a competitor quoted. Project completion is supported by references to jobs being finished properly and follow-through, though detail is limited. Experience is touched on in two reviews referencing knowledgeability and accurate problem diagnosis, but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• Two reviews are dated the same day (2023-08-24), which is a minor flag worth noting, though the content is distinct enough to not suggest fabrication.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback whatsoever — while not conclusive, this warrants caution as it may not reflect the full range of customer experiences.
• One review (the referral-based review from 2023-09-26) is vague and generic with no specific job details, reducing its usable data value.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews and should be considered a preliminary signal only — significantly more reviews are needed before this score can be trusted as a reliable representation of contractor quality.

Mike consistently receives praise for his responsiveness and communication, with all four reviewers noting quick callbacks, timely scheduling, and punctual arrivals — driving a strong professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly called out as reasonable and fair in three reviews, with one reviewer specifically noting he did not inflate prices as others had, supporting a solid but not exceptional pricing score. Project completion is supported by three reviews describing jobs that were seen through to resolution, including one instance where Mike proactively brought in another vendor to ensure a timely fix. Experience is only lightly evidenced, with one review referencing attention to detail and another implying diagnostic skill, but neither provides enough technical specificity to warrant a high score. Overall, the picture is positive but the very small review pool limits confidence significantly.

• Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• All reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback, which warrants mild caution, though the reviews do contain specific details and varied language reducing fake review suspicion.
• Two of the four reviews are dated 2021 and early 2022, making them over 2 years old. No reviews from the past 12 months were provided, so recency cannot be confirmed.
• Review pool is too small to detect meaningful patterns; score may shift substantially as more reviews are added.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews with moderate specificity and no recent data within the past 12 months, making it a low-confidence preliminary assessment that should not be treated as definitive.