Find Nearby Plumbers In Bremerton, Washington

Western Mechanical demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising their diagnostic skills, speed, and quality workmanship. However, the company is significantly undermined by serious professionalism and pricing concerns. Three separate reviews document hidden fees, unauthorized charges, poor communication, hostile behavior, and collection threats—patterns that suggest systemic customer service failures. While older positive reviews (2019) indicate past reliability, more recent negative experiences (2023-2024) suggest deterioration or inconsistent service delivery. The company's willingness to pursue collections over disputed charges and difficulty reaching management for resolution are major red flags.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews (3 of 8) document hidden/unauthorized fees and aggressive collection practices—this is a pattern, not isolated incidents
• CRITICAL: Two reviews explicitly describe hostile, threatening, or disrespectful behavior from owner/management
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2019 (5+ years old); most recent reviews (2023-2024) are negative
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple complaints about inability to reach decision-makers, endless holds, and receptionist gatekeeping
• AUTHORIZATION ISSUE: At least one review documents unauthorized repair work performed and charged without consent
• INCONSISTENCY: Stark contrast between glowing older reviews and serious complaints in recent reviews suggests either service degradation or selective review patterns

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (positive reviews are 5+ years old) and a clear pattern of recent customer service failures that directly contradict older testimonials; the pricing and professionalism dimensions are particularly unreliable given conflicting evidence, but the pattern of fee disputes and hostile communication is consistent enough to warrant serious concern.

Kimco Plumbing shows significant inconsistency across reviews spanning 2011–2023. While technical skill and responsiveness are generally praised (5 mentions of experience quality, 6 mentions of project completion), serious concerns emerge around professionalism (condescending communication, failure to follow up on complaints) and pricing transparency (hidden service fees, no discounts for incomplete work). Two recent negative reviews (2022, 2016) describe poor customer service recovery and misleading pricing, while older positive reviews (2012, 2015) highlight good workmanship. The company appears to have lost customers due to pricing practices and lack of accountability for failed repairs.

• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Multiple reviews (2016, 2016) report hidden or undisclosed service fees ($95 fee not mentioned in initial quote; $140 bill when customer was quoted $35). This suggests a systemic pricing communication problem.
• LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY: Review from 2016 explicitly states company refused to return and fix incomplete work without additional $140 charge, and owner follow-up on complaint (2022) never occurred.
• INCONSISTENT QUALITY: Stark contrast between positive reviews (2012, 2015, 2023) praising efficiency and professionalism, and negative reviews (2022, 2016, 2016) describing condescension, incomplete diagnosis, and poor communication. This suggests either inconsistent technician quality or selective positive review bias.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent negative review is from 2022 (condescending behavior, no owner follow-up). Oldest reviews are from 2011–2012 and are uniformly positive, suggesting possible quality decline over time or review selection bias.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: Review from 2016 describes technician performing 5-minute 'fix' that failed to resolve underlying issue; customer had to pay again for proper diagnosis. Review from 2011 describes incomplete clog diagnosis.

This score should be treated with caution. While based on 7 reviews with moderate data density, the company shows extreme polarization (three 5-star, three 1–2 star reviews) with credible complaints about pricing transparency and service recovery that are not offset by positive reviews. The WW Score of 62.8 reflects genuine quality concerns, particularly around professionalism and pricing fairness, but the small sample size and temporal spread (2011–2023) limit confidence in predicting current performance.

Aquarius Pump Company has a mixed but mostly positive review profile across 8 reviews spanning 2018–2022. The majority of reviewers praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and competent work on wells and septic systems. However, two detailed 1-star reviews raise serious concerns: one describes the owner selling unnecessary parts, performing incomplete electrical work that left a system non-functional for a week, and displaying a condescending attitude; another describes an oversized, overpriced water treatment system sold under false pretenses along with unprofessional behavior. These negative reviews are specific, credible, and significantly drag down scores in professionalism and pricing. The positive reviews, while numerous, are mostly brief and lack granular detail, limiting confidence in the higher-end scores. Overall, the business appears capable when the owner is not directly involved in upselling, but the owner's conduct represents a meaningful and documented risk.

• Two detailed 1-star reviews describe the owner specifically engaging in upselling unnecessary equipment, incomplete work, and dismissive/arrogant behavior — these are credible and specific complaints that carry significant weight.
• Several 5-star reviews (2018–2019) are brief and generic with minimal detail (e.g., 'Great company. Fast, efficient, very knowledgeable service.'), which slightly reduces confidence in those positive scores.
• Most reviews are from 2018–2021; only one review is from 2022. The recency of the data is limited and may not reflect current service quality.
• The negative review dated 2021-06-02 explicitly warns that the owner's sons were professional but the owner himself was problematic — suggesting inconsistent service quality depending on who performs the work.
• Small sample size of 8 reviews total limits statistical reliability of all dimension scores despite HIGH confidence labels based on mention counts.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-low reliability due to the small review pool of only 8 reviews, a date range spanning over 4 years with limited recency, and two substantive negative reviews that reveal specific, credible patterns of concern around the owner's conduct and pricing practices.

Fritz has received strong praise from multiple customers for professionalism, competence, and creative problem-solving — notably the custom stainless steel trim fix and budget-conscious options during a full remodel. However, one detailed 1-star review raises serious concerns: four out of six installed sinks leaked, a gas line was not installed to code, and the contractor allegedly avoided callbacks to resolve the issues. This single negative review carries significant weight because it directly contradicts the positive pattern and touches on safety, workmanship quality, and follow-through simultaneously. Pricing and value were mentioned positively in two reviews but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions. The mixed record, combined with a small total review count, keeps the overall WW Score in the low-to-mid range despite the majority of reviews being positive.

• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews total — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not fully reliable.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most critical negative review is from 2018, and two of the four positive reviews are from 2015 and 2020, making them over 3 years old. Only one review (2022) falls within the past 3 years.
• SAFETY FLAG: One reviewer explicitly stated a gas line was not installed to code — this is a serious safety concern that warrants elevated scrutiny regardless of positive reviews.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: The 1-star reviewer reported that Fritz avoided calls and ignored attempts to resolve multiple installation failures, which is a significant professionalism and project-completion red flag.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Some positive reviews use vague, non-specific language ('great,' 'lovely man,' 'gets the job done') with limited technical detail, which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight — though not flagged as definitively fake.

This WW Score is based on only 4 reviews spanning 7+ years and should be considered LOW reliability — the presence of a serious safety-related negative review combined with an insufficient sample size means this score cannot be confidently used to assess current contractor quality.

Aloha Plumbing has a mixed record across all four dimensions. On the positive side, two older reviews praise prompt arrival, honest pricing advice, and solid workmanship on aged plumbing. However, a significant negative review from 2020 describes serious workmanship failures — missing a P-trap, uneven hot/cold lines — combined with a non-refundable $100 estimate fee and a refusal to return to fix errors without an additional charge, which heavily penalizes both project completion and pricing scores. Professionalism scores are dragged down by the reported unwillingness to honor a callback at no cost. The most recent review (2023) is positive but brief and lacks detail, limiting its scoring impact.

• Two of the four reviews are over 10 years old (2011, 2012) and should be weighted minimally; only one review is within the past 12 months.
• The 2023 review is very brief and generic with no specific details about the work performed, limiting its evidentiary value.
• The 1-star review from 2020 describes a serious workmanship failure (missing P-trap, uneven supply lines) and a refusal to remedy errors without additional charge — this is a significant red flag for both quality and customer service.
• Small sample size of only 4 reviews spanning over a decade makes it impossible to assess current, consistent performance with confidence.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to only 4 reviews spanning 12+ years, a heavily skewed recency profile, and one detailed negative review describing both workmanship defects and poor complaint resolution that materially impacts multiple dimensions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for a reliable WW Score calculation. Additionally, all reviews are from 2014–2015 (9+ years old), making them stale and unreliable indicators of current service quality. The dataset shows extreme polarity: one 5-star detailed review praising competence and honesty, one 5-star brief review praising speed and professionalism, and one 1-star review alleging price gouging and dishonesty. This contradiction cannot be resolved with such limited and outdated data.

• CRITICAL: All reviews are from 2014–2015 (9+ years old). No recent data available to assess current contractor performance.
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 1-star review alleges price gouging and dishonesty, directly contradicting two 5-star reviews praising transparency and fair pricing. Cannot reconcile without additional context or recent reviews.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5–10 recent reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• PRICING DIMENSION CONFLICT: Review 2 explicitly warns against gouging and hidden costs; Review 3 praises transparency and fair pricing. Scoring pricing at 40 reflects this serious contradiction and uncertainty.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3), extreme age of all reviews (9+ years), and direct contradiction between reviews on pricing integrity. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection. Request recent references or current reviews before engaging this contractor.