Find Nearby Plumbers In Clarksville, Tennessee

This business is a plumbing supply retailer, not a contractor/plumber, which makes this review set fundamentally misaligned with the WW Score framework designed for service providers. The reviews reflect retail customer service and product pricing rather than project completion, workmanship, or service delivery. Professionalism scores are mixed: positive mentions of knowledgeable staff and courteous service are offset by serious complaints about unprofessional language and poor customer service from specific employees. Pricing feedback is contradictory—some reviews praise competitive pricing while others report prices 30% higher than competitors. Experience/product knowledge is consistently praised. However, without reviews addressing actual project completion, on-time delivery of services, or follow-through on service work, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: This business appears to be a plumbing supply warehouse/retailer, NOT a contractor or plumber providing installation/repair services. The WW Score framework is designed for service contractors, not retail suppliers. Reviews discuss product purchases, pricing, and retail customer service—not project completion, workmanship quality, or service delivery.
• Review dates are heavily skewed toward older data: 5 of 8 reviews are from 2017 or earlier (2017, 2016, 2015, 2014). Only 2 reviews are from 2021 or later. This severely limits recency and reliability.
• Contradictory pricing feedback: One review praises 'top notch' pricing and beating competitors 'by a mile,' while another explicitly states prices are '30 percent higher than other supply houses.' This suggests either inconsistent pricing practices or reviews from different time periods.
• Serious professionalism red flags: Two 1-star reviews from 2017 cite unprofessional employee behavior (profanity, poor customer service from 'Evan'), which directly contradicts the 5-star reviews praising staff professionalism. This suggests either significant staff turnover or inconsistent service quality.
• No project completion data: Zero reviews mention actual project completion, timeliness of service delivery, callbacks, or follow-through on work—all critical dimensions for a contractor/plumber score. This business model does not align with the WW Score framework.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated because the business is a plumbing supply retailer, not a service contractor, and reviews do not address project completion or service delivery. Additionally, 62.5% of reviews predate 2018, and contradictory feedback on pricing and professionalism suggests either significant operational changes or inconsistent service quality. This review set is unsuitable for WW Score assessment.

This contractor demonstrates severe and consistent failures across all dimensions. Reviews document systematic non-payment to subcontractors and employees, unresponsiveness to customer communications, incomplete projects spanning years, fraudulent pricing practices, and theft of customer property. Every single review is 1-star with detailed allegations of deception and abandonment. The pattern is unmistakable and corroborated across multiple independent accounts spanning 2020–2024. This is not a marginal performer but a business engaged in practices that appear fraudulent and harmful to both customers and workers.

• CRITICAL: All 8 reviews are 1-star ratings with substantive, specific allegations—not generic complaints. This is NOT a fake review pattern but rather a genuine pattern of severe business misconduct.
• Multiple reviews document non-payment to subcontractors and employees, with specific dollar amounts ($5,400, $3,300, $14,000+) and job locations cited.
• Consistent pattern of project abandonment: pottery studio incomplete after 2+ years; home foundation incomplete at contracted deadline; drywall job unpaid; multiple jobs left unfinished.
• Owner Chris Sutton named in 7 of 8 reviews with allegations of fraud, unresponsiveness, and deliberate deception (false wage offers, undisclosed price increases, stolen house plans).
• BBB complaints referenced under previous business name (SCS Contractors and Services), suggesting possible pattern of rebranding to escape accountability.
• Reviews span 4 years (2020–2024) with no positive reviews, indicating sustained problematic behavior, not isolated incidents.
• This business should be considered HIGH RISK for fraud and non-payment.

This score is highly reliable. Eight independent reviews with specific, corroborated allegations of fraud, non-payment, and project abandonment create an overwhelming and consistent pattern. This contractor should be avoided.

With only two reviews, one strongly negative and one strongly positive, no reliable score can be calculated. The negative review from 2023 describes serious issues: a late arrival with no communication, a dramatically inflated estimate after the initial quote, and a $200 charge for under an hour of inconclusive work — raising concerns across professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience. The positive review from 2018 offers only vague praise with no specific details, making it difficult to weight meaningfully. The five-year gap between reviews and the lack of specificity in the positive review further reduce confidence in any favorable signal.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• The positive review (2018) contains no specific details about the job, pricing, or outcome — it reads as generic praise and cannot be weighted heavily.
• The negative review (2023) is the most recent and most detailed, describing late arrival, bait-and-switch pricing, and a charge for minimal inconclusive work — all serious red flags.
• The positive review is over 5 years old and predates the negative review by nearly 5 years — recency weighting strongly favors the negative account.
• Possible fake review concern: the 5-star review uses vague, non-specific language with no job details, which is a common pattern in low-credibility reviews.

This score is not reliable — with only 2 reviews spanning 5 years, one of which lacks specificity, no meaningful conclusion about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn.

With only 2 reviews, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The negative review is highly detailed and serious — describing misaligned tiling, messy grouting, a leaking shower drain, and a contractor who refused to honor callbacks for two months, ultimately resulting in legal action. This single review alone raises significant red flags across professionalism, workmanship, and project completion. The positive review mentions prompt response and competitive pricing for drywall patching, but is vague and contains no specifics about quality of finish, making it difficult to weight heavily. The contrast between the two reviews is stark and unresolved.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The 1-star review describes serious workmanship failures (leaking drain, misaligned tiles, messy grout) and a contractor who explicitly refused to return for warranty/callback work for 2 months, calling the customer 'annoying'. This is a significant red flag.
• Legal action was reportedly initiated by the customer against this contractor — an extreme outcome that warrants serious caution.
• The 5-star review uses informal and vague language ('forced them all in about 6 hours') with no detail on quality of finish. While not definitively fake, it lacks the specificity needed to carry high evidentiary weight.
• The two reviews are approximately 2.5 years apart (Jan 2021 and Jun 2023). The more recent and more detailed review is the negative one, which per recency rules carries greater weight.
• Score confidence is LOW across all dimensions due to the minimal review count. These scores should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

This WW Score report is highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews being available; the serious and detailed nature of the 1-star review combined with the vague 5-star review means no confident assessment of this contractor can be made, and prospective customers should seek significantly more evidence before hiring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, fair pricing, excellent project completion, and strong technical skill, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall contractor performance.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are from 2021 (3+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• Limited mention counts across all dimensions (1–2 mentions each) prevent confident scoring.
• Positive sentiment is unanimous but based on minimal data; cannot rule out selection bias.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Additionally, all reviews are from 2021, raising questions about current service quality. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection decisions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor's overall performance.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are recent (within past 12 months), which is positive for recency.
• No negative feedback present, but this may reflect limited sample rather than consistently excellent service.

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; recommend collecting additional customer feedback before making contractor selection decisions based on this data.