Find Nearby Plumbers In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

The review set paints a predominantly negative picture of RF Fager Co., with the single standout positive experience belonging to C.A. Contractors (a referred subcontractor), not RF Fager itself. Professionalism scores are severely dragged down by multiple explicit accounts of rude, condescending, and dismissive counter staff, as well as a documented six-week failure to deliver a basic estimate to a customer. Project completion and follow-through are similarly damaged by reviews describing the company sidestepping warranty obligations, failing to stand behind products, and abandoning customers with defective merchandise. Pricing receives a slightly higher score due to one positive mention of average prices and account discounts, but is offset by a complaint of double-market-rate markups. Experience scores modestly because some staff were noted as knowledgeable, but this is undercut by instances of staff providing no credible answers and dismissing customer questions before hearing them.

• The only strongly positive review (Grady Embrey, 5 stars, 2024) is explicitly about C.A. Contractors, a referred third-party contractor, NOT about RF Fager Co. directly. This review should not be attributed to RF Fager's own service quality and has been weighted accordingly.
• The majority of reviews are older than 12 months, with most negative reviews dating from 2012 to 2019. Only two reviews fall within the past 24 months (2023 and 2024). Recency weighting is limited; the 2023 negative review about estimate follow-through is the most recent RF Fager-specific data point.
• A recurring pattern of RF Fager failing to honor product warranties or stand behind sold products appears across multiple independent reviews (propane stove, Rubinet fixtures), suggesting a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
• No fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, detail, tone, and rating, and include specific names, dates, and product references, indicating authentic authorship.

This WW Score carries MODERATE-to-HIGH reliability for the negative dimensions given the volume and specificity of critical reviews, but should be interpreted with caution given that most reviews are over one year old and the sole 5-star review pertains to a third-party contractor rather than RF Fager Co. itself.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent deficiencies across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by documented instances of rudeness, hanging up on customers, no-shows without notification, and dismissive behavior. Project completion is undermined by abandoned work, lost customer keys, incomplete diagnostics, and systemic failures of installed systems. Pricing concerns are substantial, with evidence of overcharging, lack of transparency, and refusal to provide cost breakdowns. While two positive reviews (2017) acknowledge efficiency and fair pricing, they are vastly outweighed by nine negative reviews spanning 2011–2020 documenting unprofessional conduct, incomplete work, and apparent ethical violations.

• CRITICAL: 9 out of 11 reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints of serious misconduct. This is not a pattern of isolated incidents but systemic failure.
• Multiple reviews document hanging up on customers, refusal to communicate, and no-shows without notification—clear professionalism red flags.
• Evidence of potential unethical practices: lost customer keys with $1600 work abandoned, overcharging relative to competitor quotes ($1600 vs $75 diagnosis; $4500 vs actual thermostat issue), and refusal to provide transparent pricing.
• Two positive reviews (2017) are significantly older than the majority of negative reviews. Recent pattern (2019–2020) shows continued problems with communication and technical judgment.
• One review (2020) involves pandemic-related mask refusal, which may reflect broader customer service issues.
• Technical competence is questioned in multiple reviews: missed expansion tank requirement, misdiagnosis of AC problem, miswired heating system causing $1200/month utility bills, and broken items during service calls.

This WW Score of 32.8 is highly reliable and should be trusted as a strong indicator of poor contractor performance. The score is based on 11 reviews with consistent negative patterns across all four dimensions, supported by specific documented failures. The contractor should be avoided.

Mako Contracting receives a critically low WW Score of 28.3, driven by severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Four of five reviews are 1-star ratings documenting systematic problems: incomplete work, missed deadlines, poor communication, arrogance, and aggressive billing practices. The single 5-star review from 2019 lacks specificity and contradicts the overwhelming pattern of documented failures. Professionalism is severely compromised by rudeness, lack of follow-through, and threats of liens. Project completion is the most damaging dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned work, timeline failures, and incomplete jobs. Pricing concerns include overcharges, hidden costs, and exploitation of contingency funds. The company demonstrates a pattern of taking advantage of inexperienced homeowners.

• CRITICAL: One 5-star review (2019) appears inconsistent with five other reviews spanning 2016-2018 and lacks specific details; may not reflect typical customer experience
• All negative reviews (4 of 5) are from 2018 or earlier; most data is 5+ years old, though pattern is consistent across multiple years
• Multiple reviews reference small claims court action and threats of liens, indicating serious legal disputes
• Negative reviews contain highly specific, detailed complaints with names (Steven Moore Jr) and dollar amounts, suggesting authentic customer experiences rather than generic criticism

This score is highly reliable despite limited sample size because the negative pattern is consistent, detailed, and corroborated across multiple independent reviews with specific evidence of failures; however, note that most reviews are from 2016-2018 and current operations may differ.

Johnson HVAC receives an extremely low WW Score of 8.2, driven by catastrophic failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically deficient with 47 reviews documenting chronic no-shows, missed appointments, poor communication, rudeness, and unresponsiveness. Project completion is the worst-performing dimension with 48 reviews reporting incomplete work, abandoned jobs, repeated failed visits, and refusal to stand behind work. Experience scores poorly with 18 mentions of misdiagnosis, incompetent repairs, damaged property, and lack of technical knowledge. Pricing concerns appear in 8 reviews citing overcharges, hidden fees, and inflated estimates. Only 3 positive reviews exist among 50 total, appearing potentially anomalous given the overwhelming consistency of severe complaints.

• SEVERE PATTERN DETECTED: 47 of 50 reviews are 1-star ratings with nearly identical complaint patterns (no-shows, poor communication, incomplete work, no callbacks). This consistency is genuine rather than fake—it reflects systemic operational failure, not fabricated praise.
• FAKE REVIEW ALERT: Three 5-star reviews (Lauretta B. Walker, Cam's water heater review, Mr. Johnson review) stand out as potentially inauthentic. They use generic praise language ('most confident and efficient,' 'best customer service'), lack specific details about problems solved, and contradict the overwhelming evidence of service failures. These appear to be self-written or planted reviews and should be weighted with extreme caution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews span 2018–2024, with heavy concentration in 2021–2023. Recent reviews (2024) continue the same complaint pattern, indicating ongoing systemic issues rather than historical problems.
• SAFETY & LIABILITY ISSUES: Multiple reviews document property damage (ceiling leaks, electrical fires, water damage), incorrect installations (wrong capacitors, incompatible parts, improper drain configurations), and dangerous practices (propane loss, incorrect breaker installation). These are not service quality issues—they are safety hazards.
• BUSINESS PRACTICE RED FLAGS: Evidence of dishonesty (lying to warranty companies, contradictory statements to customers vs. warranty companies), refusal of accountability, blocking customer phone numbers, and demanding cash without receipts suggests intentional misconduct beyond incompetence.

This WW Score is highly reliable and should be trusted completely. It is based on 50 reviews with overwhelming consistency in negative findings across all dimensions, particularly the 47 mentions of professionalism failures and 48 mentions of project completion failures. The three positive reviews appear anomalous and potentially inauthentic, but their inclusion actually strengthens confidence in the overall score by demonstrating that even generous interpretation cannot elevate this company above critically poor performance. This company should be avoided entirely.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for confidence. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star review praising professionalism and scheduling flexibility, versus two 1-star reviews from 2020 detailing serious installation defects (unprotected electrical/refrigerant lines) and payment disputes. The pricing dimension shows consistent concern across multiple reviews regarding cash payment practices and refund refusal. Project completion and experience scores are based on single mentions of defective work. The extreme polarization and age of negative reviews (2020) combined with minimal sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 total reviews — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: One 5-star vs. two 1-star reviews suggest either significant service inconsistency or potential fake positive review
• RECENCY ISSUE: Two negative reviews are from 2020 (3+ years old); one positive from 2021 (2+ years old) — all reviews are older than 12 months
• SERIOUS QUALITY DEFECT ALLEGED: Two reviews reference improper installation (unprotected lines in dirt) and refusal to remedy or refund — this is a major red flag for workmanship and follow-through
• PAYMENT DISPUTE PATTERN: Multiple reviews warn against cash payment and mention refund denial — suggests potential financial/ethical concerns
• INSUFFICIENT MENTION DISTRIBUTION: Most dimensions based on 1 mention only, limiting confidence severely

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and extreme polarization between reviews. The serious allegations of defective work, refund denial, and payment disputes in the 1-star reviews warrant immediate investigation before engaging this contractor, regardless of the single positive review.

This contractor shows extreme inconsistency across only two reviews. The 2018 emergency service review (5-star) demonstrates strong technical capability, responsive service, fair pricing, and professional cleanup. However, the 2018 sewer lateral review (1-star) reveals critical failures: misdiagnosis (sludge vs. roots), incomplete work requiring a second contractor, and hostile customer service (hanging up on refund request). With only 2 reviews spanning 2 months in 2018 and contradictory evidence of both competence and serious deficiency, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews available — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2018 (5+ years old) — no recent performance data available
• EXTREME INCONSISTENCY: One 5-star and one 1-star review suggest either highly variable service quality or potential data quality issues
• SERIOUS CONCERN: 1-star review documents misdiagnosis, incomplete work, and hostile customer service (hung up on customer) — this is a major red flag for reliability
• POSITIVE NOTE: 5-star review shows strong technical problem-solving, responsiveness, and fair pricing when service was completed properly

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and extreme age (both from 2018). The contradictory evidence (one excellent, one severely deficient experience) suggests either inconsistent service quality or data reliability concerns. Do not rely on this analysis for decision-making without obtaining more recent reviews.