Find Nearby Plumbers In Bremerton, Washington

Plumb Masters has a strong base of positive reviews praising individual technicians — particularly Graham, Oliver, Joe, and others — for punctuality, communication, and technical skill. However, a meaningful cluster of negative reviews reveals serious recurring issues: work that failed within days of completion, warranty disputes, poor follow-through on estimates, and unresponsive management during crises (notably the February 2021 freeze). Pricing is a consistent pain point, with multiple reviewers explicitly calling out costs as higher than expected or higher than competitors, and one reviewer noting a non-transparent flat-rate pricing model with built-in contingency charges. Project completion is the most penalized dimension, as several reviews describe jobs that were not properly finished, required callbacks that were denied or charged again, or were abandoned entirely without follow-up. The overall score reflects a company with capable field technicians but systemic issues in quality assurance, warranty honoring, and customer service escalation.

• Several reviews describe work failing within days of completion (drain clog recurrence within 5 days, leak not properly fixed requiring a second plumber), with the company refusing to honor warranty or charging again for return visits — a significant project completion risk.
• Multiple reviews from 2019–2021 cite the company not standing behind its work, with phrases like 'no warranty' added to invoices after the fact without prior communication.
• The February 2021 freeze incident is documented in detail by a long-term Platinum member: the company was completely unreachable during an emergency and never followed up for over 6 months, suggesting systemic failure under high-demand conditions.
• Two reviews from 2014 are about erratic driving behavior by company vehicles and are not relevant to plumbing service quality — these were excluded from dimension scoring but noted as professionalism flags.
• One review (2021-05-17, 1-star) appears emotionally exaggerated and potentially non-genuine ('I will see you in hell') with no specific factual detail — treated with low evidentiary weight.
• One review (2011, Simi Valley) appears geographically inconsistent with an Austin-based company and may be a misattributed or fake review — excluded from scoring.
• The company operates under multiple brand names (Blue Dragon, Plumb Doctors, Plumb Masters) which caused customer confusion and was flagged in at least one review — this may affect accountability and review attribution.
• Pricing dimension scored conservatively at 58 due to a near-even split between reviewers calling pricing fair or reasonable and those calling it significantly higher than expected, non-transparent, or exploitative.

This WW Score is based on a large and diverse review set spanning 2011–2023 with HIGH confidence across all four dimensions; however, the score should be interpreted cautiously given documented patterns of warranty denial, post-job pricing disputes, and emergency unresponsiveness that suggest the company's quality is highly technician-dependent and inconsistent at the organizational level.

Bill Blair Plumbing earns strong marks across all measured dimensions, with professionalism being the most consistently praised attribute across all five reviews — covering punctuality, communication, responsiveness, and attitude. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers describing jobs finished promptly and thoroughly, including going above and beyond the original scope. Experience is reflected in reviewers noting quick diagnosis and effective resolution of plumbing issues. Pricing is mentioned in only one review as 'very reasonably priced,' which limits confidence in that dimension despite the positive signal. The overall picture is of a reliable, customer-focused local plumber, though the small review pool and date range spanning 2020–2024 tempers full confidence.

• Small sample size of only 5 reviews — WW Score should be treated as directional, not definitive.
• Three of the five reviews are dated 2020–2022, meaning only one review (July 2024) falls within the most recent 12-month window. Recency weighting is limited.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is specific and varied enough to suggest authenticity, the absence of any critical feedback means weaknesses cannot be assessed.
• No negative or mixed reviews present — this may reflect genuine quality or may indicate that critical reviews are absent from this dataset.

This WW Score is based on a small but substantively detailed set of reviews; it should be considered a promising early signal of quality rather than a fully validated assessment, and prospective customers are encouraged to seek additional recent references.

The majority of reviews praise Mike Gilbert and the crew for strong technical skill, quality workmanship, and reliable follow-through on jobs ranging from flange replacements to full master bath remodels. Professionalism scores are pulled down significantly by one 1-star review describing a rude and dismissive response from whoever handles quotes, including being hung up on — a serious customer service failure that cannot be ignored. Pricing is mentioned positively in multiple reviews, with one reviewer noting the quote was over $150 less than a competitor. However, the bulk of the positive reviews are from 2016–2017, making them over 6 years old, with only one recent review from 2023, which limits confidence in the current state of the business.

• RECENCY WARNING: 5 of 7 reviews are from 2016–2017, making them 7+ years old. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2023). The current quality and reliability of this contractor cannot be confidently assessed from this data.
• NEGATIVE PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: One review (2020) explicitly describes a rude, dismissive interaction where the reviewer was hung up on by the person handling quotes. This is a direct professionalism failure and has been factored into the professionalism score.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 7 total reviews across multiple years. This is a thin dataset and all scores should be interpreted with caution.
• NO FAKE REVIEW PATTERNS DETECTED: Reviews vary in detail, tone, and specificity. No suspicious repetition or identical phrasing was identified.

This WW Score carries moderate reliability due to a small review pool of 7 reviews, the majority of which are over 6 years old, and one clear negative professionalism incident that tempers an otherwise positive picture.

Mission Plumbing has a large and deeply divided review base. The majority of reviews praise responsiveness, friendliness, and professional conduct from individual technicians, which drives the professionalism score upward. However, a significant cluster of serious negative reviews — including multiple allegations of taking deposits and abandoning jobs, ghosting clients mid-project, and installing equipment without required components (e.g., missing gas regulators on tankless heaters) — substantially drags down project completion and pricing scores. Pricing is mixed: many reviewers cite fair or reasonable costs, but several explicitly describe being overcharged, bait-and-switch pricing tactics, or double-billing relative to quoted amounts. Experience scores are moderate-to-good for routine jobs but are undermined by documented technical failures on more complex installations. The overall WW Score of 68.4 reflects a company with genuine strengths in day-to-day service but serious, recurring reliability and integrity concerns on larger or multi-stage projects.

• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A cluster of 10+ reviews all dated 2024-07-29 with no timestamps, many referencing 'Dan' or 'Daniel', using similarly enthusiastic but vague language ('Amazing Company!!!', 'Defiantly worth checking out', '5 stars isn't high enough'). Several lack any specific job detail. This pattern is consistent with a coordinated review campaign and these reviews were treated with reduced individual weight.
• FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: A large batch of reviews dated exactly 2024-06-09, 2023-06-10, 2022-06-10, 2021-06-10, and 2020-06-10 with no timestamps suggests bulk importing or fabrication of review dates. Many of these are blank (no text) or extremely generic.
• ABANDONED WORK / FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviewers across different time periods (2024-2025) allege that owner Randy Wood accepted deposits ranging from $2,250 to $5,000 and either never started work or abandoned jobs mid-project without refund or communication. This is a serious and recurring pattern, not isolated incidents.
• GHOSTING PATTERN: At least 4 separate reviews explicitly describe Randy Wood or the company going silent after partial payment or partial work completion, including trade agreements, new construction additions, and boiler/tankless installations.
• TECHNICAL FAILURE: One review documents tankless water heaters installed without required gas regulators, causing error codes. The owner reportedly showed indifference and avoided paying for the corrective work done by another company.
• DUPLICATE REVIEW: The negative review describing a wife being dismissed and the boss cussing loudly appears to have been submitted twice (2022-06-10 and 2021-12-30) with nearly identical text, suggesting the reviewer reposted. Counted once for scoring purposes.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most serious fraud and abandonment allegations are concentrated in the 2024-2025 period, suggesting a possible deterioration in business conduct in recent years. Older reviews (2013-2020) are more consistently positive.
• 9 reviews contained no text (rating only) and were excluded from dimension scoring but counted in total reviews analyzed.
• BLANK REVIEWS: 9 reviews had no text content and could not contribute to any dimension score.

This WW Score is based on a large review set (130 reviews) with HIGH mention counts across all four dimensions, making the score statistically meaningful; however, the presence of a suspected coordinated positive review campaign on 2024-07-29, combined with serious and credible fraud allegations from multiple independent reviewers in 2024-2025, means prospective customers should treat this score with caution and conduct additional due diligence — particularly for large or multi-stage projects involving upfront deposits.

Scott's Plumbing demonstrates strong technical expertise and generally professional conduct, with many customers praising workmanship quality and responsiveness. However, the company is significantly hampered by persistent and credible pricing complaints spanning over a decade. Multiple independent reviews document charges substantially higher than competitors for identical work, with some customers reporting 2-4x markup disparities. While recent reviews (2024-2025) show improved consistency and positive experiences, older reviews reveal patterns of aggressive pricing, undisclosed fees, and incomplete follow-through on callbacks. The pricing dimension substantially depresses the overall score despite strong performance in experience and professionalism.

• PRICING PATTERN: 42 reviews explicitly mention pricing concerns. Negative pricing reviews span 2008-2023 with consistent complaints of inflated rates ($400+/hour equivalent), hidden dispatch fees, and charges 2-4x higher than competitors. This is not isolated—it represents a systemic pattern.
• INCOMPLETE FOLLOW-UP: Multiple reviews (2023, 2018, 2016, 2015) document failure to return for callbacks, no-shows despite confirmed appointments, and abandoned work (e.g., ceiling hole cut but never repaired). At least 6 reviews explicitly mention this.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Several reviews report incorrect diagnoses (studor valve, compressor vs. starter, misidentified problems) requiring rework or customer correction. This suggests variable technical judgment.
• RECENCY BIAS NOTED: Reviews from 2024-2025 (most recent 20 reviews) are predominantly 5-star with specific positive details. Reviews from 2015-2020 contain significantly more 1-star complaints with detailed pricing grievances. This temporal split suggests either genuine improvement or potential review management.
• DISPATCH FEE CONTROVERSY: Multiple reviews (2021, 2020) document surprise $70 dispatch fees charged after estimates, not disclosed upfront on phone or website. This practice appears to have been discontinued in recent years.
• OWNER BEHAVIOR: Several reviews describe the owner (Scott) as dismissive, defensive, or insulting when customers questioned pricing or complained about work quality. This suggests potential customer service culture issues.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK - MODERATE: Four reviews contain only ratings with no text (5.0 stars, 2024-06-09 and 2023-06-10). While not conclusive, combined with the temporal clustering of 5-star reviews in June 2024, warrants caution. However, most positive reviews contain specific details and verifiable claims, reducing overall fake review likelihood.

This WW Score of 68.2 is reliable but reflects a company in transition: strong technical skills and recent service improvements are substantially offset by a documented 15-year history of pricing practices that customers consistently describe as exploitative. The HIGH confidence is justified by the large sample size (120 reviews) and consistent patterns, but potential customers should weight the pricing dimension heavily and obtain multiple quotes before engaging. Recent positive reviews suggest possible operational changes, but the pricing pattern is too extensive to dismiss as isolated incidents.

Silverdale Plumbing shows strong professionalism with punctual arrivals, friendly demeanor, and good communication in positive reviews. However, pricing is a significant weakness—multiple reviews cite excessive charges for estimates, inflated labor rates, and poor value compared to competitors. Project completion is inconsistent: while some jobs were completed well, critical failures include inadequate tightening of fittings that failed shortly after, lack of proper diagnosis, and refusal to honor warranty expectations. Experience is mixed, with skilled work on complex jobs (water heater replacement, bathroom vanity) but concerning lapses in basic plumbing competency (hand-tightened fittings).

• PRICING PATTERN: Three separate reviews (2023-11-04, 2022-02-23, 2019-08-19) describe overcharging or poor value. The $75 estimate fee, $136 for 2-minute job, and $200 vs. $1000+ quotes suggest inconsistent or inflated pricing practices.
• QUALITY CONTROL ISSUE: Two reviews (2022-02-23, 2019-08-19) describe the same failure pattern—loose fittings that were inadequately tightened, causing leaks within weeks. This suggests either inadequate workmanship or lack of quality assurance.
• RECENCY BIAS: Three of seven reviews are from 2019–2022 (older than 2 years). Only two reviews are from 2024 and 2023. Older negative reviews may reflect past practices, but pattern consistency is concerning.
• COMMUNICATION GAP: Review from 2022-02-23 notes plumber did not explain the issue to tenant, limiting their ability to prevent recurrence.

This score should be treated with moderate caution. While professionalism and project completion are supported by 5–6 mentions each, the consistent pattern of pricing complaints and quality failures across multiple years is a significant red flag. The WW Score of 68.2 reflects genuine weaknesses in value delivery and workmanship consistency, not data scarcity.