Find Nearby Plumbers In Rapid City, South Dakota

Action Mechanical presents a deeply divided picture across its review history. Positive reviews frequently praise prompt response times, friendly technicians, and successful job completions — particularly for water heater replacements and HVAC repairs. However, a substantial and recurring pattern of negative reviews raises serious concerns across all dimensions: multiple customers report being charged for travel time, inflated labor hours, work left incomplete or done incorrectly, and rude or dismissive responses from management (specifically named as Tim and Myron) when billing disputes arose. Pricing is the weakest dimension, with numerous detailed complaints about hidden charges, mileage fees, charges for time spent doing nothing, and final bills far exceeding verbal quotes. Project completion is also significantly undermined by multiple accounts of work that failed shortly after completion, required a second company to fix, or was abandoned for extended periods. The professionalism score reflects a split between courteous field technicians and consistently reported unprofessional management behavior.

• 8 reviews contain no text at all — only a star rating (all 5-star). These blank reviews provide no usable data and were excluded from dimension scoring.
• Several 5-star reviews are extremely short and generic ('Great service!', 'Love this company!', 'Great service', 'Very compitent and professional.') with no specific details. These may be low-effort or potentially inauthentic reviews and were given minimal weight.
• Two reviews dated 2024-11-11 and 2024-11-08 are nearly word-for-word identical, describing the same billing complaint. This appears to be a duplicate review from the same customer posted twice and was counted as one unique incident.
• The review history spans from 2010 to 2025. Negative billing and management complaints appear consistently across the entire timeline (2010, 2012, 2017, 2023, 2024, 2025), suggesting these are systemic and ongoing issues rather than isolated incidents.
• Management figures 'Tim' and 'Myron' are named repeatedly across negative reviews spanning multiple years for rude behavior and refusal to adjust disputed bills — this is a persistent pattern, not an anomaly.
• Multiple reviews describe work that failed after completion and required a second contractor to correct, which is a significant project completion red flag.
• The majority of high-quality, detailed positive reviews are from 2024-2025, while many of the most detailed negative reviews also fall in this recent window, indicating the mixed reputation is current and active.

This WW Score is based on a substantial volume of reviews (58 total, 50 with usable data) spanning 15 years, with strong representation in the past 12 months, giving the score HIGH overall confidence — however, the wide divergence between positive and negative experiences means the score reflects a genuinely inconsistent contractor rather than a measurement error, and prospective customers should weigh the detailed negative billing and workmanship complaints heavily.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a concerning picture of this contractor. The first review explicitly describes lying, failure to show up as scheduled, no communication about delays, and an attempt to upsell after-hours charges — directly impacting professionalism, project completion, and pricing scores. The second review, while not describing a service interaction, documents hostile and contemptuous behavior by company employees while driving a branded vehicle, further reinforcing serious professionalism concerns. No reviews mention technical skill or workmanship quality, so experience cannot be scored. With only two reviews available, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated, but all available signals are negative.

• Only 2 reviews available — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• The second review is dated 2016, making it over 8 years old. Its relevance to current business practices is significantly reduced.
• The first review is dated 2019, also more than 5 years old. No recent reviews are present to assess current performance.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. It is unknown whether this sample is representative of the contractor's full review history.
• The pricing concern in Review 1 involves a potential bait-and-switch pattern — quoting standard rates then pushing after-hours premium charges after failing to show up on time. This is a notable red flag.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are more than 5 years old, making it highly unreliable as a current assessment of this contractor's performance — consumers should seek more recent and numerous reviews before drawing conclusions.

With only two reviews, data is extremely limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The 1-star review is highly detailed and damaging: the contractor missed a first appointment, arrived an hour late to the rescheduled one, failed to listen to the customer, and left the job incomplete with the leak unresolved — costing the customer $127 with no result. The 5-star review praises phone responsiveness but notably does not confirm any work was actually performed, as the reviewer states they ultimately chose a different plumber. This means the only review documenting actual work performed is the negative one, which raises serious concerns about professionalism, project completion, and technical competence. The positive review cannot meaningfully offset the documented failure.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The 5-star review did not result in actual work being performed; the reviewer chose a different contractor. This review provides limited useful signal about workmanship or follow-through.
• The sole review documenting completed work is a 1-star review citing missed appointment, tardiness, poor listening, and an unresolved leak — a significant red flag.
• Pricing dimension has no data — the $127 charge is mentioned in the negative review but no context is given about whether it was quoted, agreed upon, or considered fair, so it cannot be scored.
• With only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor quality.

This score report is highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews (2 total), with the only review documenting actual work performed being strongly negative; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's typical performance can be drawn.

The reviews provided are for an FBO (Fixed Base Operator) at an airport, not a contractor or plumber. These reviews discuss airport facilities, amenities, and services such as fuel, crew cars, lounges, and flight planning rooms. None of the four WW Score dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience) can be reliably assessed from these reviews as they do not describe contractor or plumbing work.

• CRITICAL: Reviews are not for a contractor or plumber service. These are reviews of an airport FBO facility.
• Content mismatch: WW Score engine is designed for trades/contractor evaluation, not aviation facility reviews.
• Cannot calculate WW Score — no relevant data for any dimension.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted because the reviews do not pertain to a contractor or plumbing service.

Both reviews speak positively to Ray's professionalism — he is described as a hard worker who stays late, is responsive on weekends, and goes well beyond the job scope by offering a tow to a stranded customer. Pricing is addressed in one review where Ray accepted only gas money for a quick fix, suggesting exceptional value, though this is a single data point and may not reflect typical pricing. Project completion is touched on in one review where the problem was resolved promptly on arrival, but neither review describes a complex or multi-phase job, limiting confidence in this dimension. Experience is not explicitly addressed in either review — no reviewer comments on technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only two reviews, none of these scores should be treated as reliable indicators of consistent performance.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review (2020-07-13) is over 4 years old and carries significantly reduced recency weight.
• The older review, while detailed and specific, describes an unusually generous interaction (accepting only gas money, offering a tow) that may not reflect standard business practice and could skew pricing perception positively.
• No data exists for the Experience dimension — workmanship and technical skill are entirely unaddressed across both reviews.
• Small sample size makes it impossible to detect fake review patterns or assess consistency.

This score is based on only 2 reviews — one of which is over 4 years old — making it statistically insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor's overall performance.

This single review paints a consistently negative picture across all four dimensions. On professionalism, Tim did arrive on time, but he deflected blame for a bid error onto his secretary and his crew left the job site littered with garbage — both significant marks against professional conduct. Pricing was explicitly called out as 'top rate fees' for work the reviewer did not consider top rate, suggesting poor value. Project completion is questionable: the visible workmanship was described as aesthetically poor, and the reviewer expressed uncertainty about functional quality, indicating the job may not have been fully satisfactory even if technically finished. Experience concerns are raised by the poor aesthetic quality of the visible work and the bid mismanagement, suggesting below-average skill or attention to detail.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This review is dated 2012-08-04, making it over 12 years old. It carries very low recency weight and may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• All four dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated as highly provisional.

This score report is based on a single review from 2012 and cannot be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's current quality or typical performance.