Find Nearby Plumbers In Bremerton, Washington

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one praises professionalism and responsiveness (5-star, 2011), while the other documents severe project failure with property damage and refusal to compensate (1-star, 2018). The older positive review mentions pleasant demeanor and same-day service, but the more recent negative review explicitly documents incomplete remediation of damage caused during work. Without additional reviews, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 3 reviews recommended.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Positive review is from 2011 (13+ years old); negative review is from 2018 (6+ years old). Both are significantly dated.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Extreme polarity (5-star vs 1-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: 2018 review documents explicit failure to honor agreement regarding property protection and refusal to compensate for documented damage ($300+ loss). This is a serious red flag.
• PROFESSIONALISM SPLIT: One review praises professionalism; the other implies lack of regard for property and customer relations.

This score cannot be reliably calculated with only 2 reviews, and both are older than 6 years. The extreme contradiction between reviews and the documented project failure in the more recent review warrant extreme caution; additional current reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, and only one contains substantive, usable data about actual work performed. The sole actionable review describes a serious failure: a deposit was taken for a septic tank installation, the project was canceled, and the contractor (David) failed to return the customer's down-payment despite repeated attempts to resolve the matter. This constitutes a significant breach of professionalism and a complete failure of project completion. The other review is entirely irrelevant — it is a humorous account of a wrong-number call to a plumber in Washington state by a Texas resident and provides zero meaningful data about this contractor's actual services.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• IRRELEVANT REVIEW: The 5-star review (2021-06-25) is a wrong-number joke and contains no usable data about this contractor's workmanship, pricing, professionalism, or project completion. It has been excluded from scoring.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: The one usable review (2019-10-15) alleges that the contractor accepted a substantial deposit, never performed the work, and refused to return the payment — a potential financial dispute or fraud indicator.
• RECENCY WARNING: The only usable review is from October 2019, which is more than 5 years old. Current contractor behavior cannot be assessed from this data.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — POSITIVE: The 5-star review, while clearly a joke, artificially inflates the star rating average. Consumers relying on aggregate star ratings would be misled by its inclusion.

This WW Score report has extremely low reliability — only one substantive review exists, it is over five years old, and it describes a serious unresolved financial dispute; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or trustworthiness can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. This single review documents severe failures across professionalism (no callback on service request, apparent dishonesty to warranty company), project completion (incomplete work requiring rehire, customer had to hire another contractor), and experience (improper installation technique, lack of standard parts knowledge). However, a single review cannot establish a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2017 (7+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Serious allegations of dishonesty and misrepresentation to warranty company
• No pricing information available to assess Price Friendly dimension
• Customer had to hire replacement contractor — clear project failure

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only one review. The single review is highly negative and raises serious concerns about integrity and competence, but a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions fair pricing (85/100) and knowledgeable service/experience (90/100), but provides no explicit information about professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude) or project completion (timeliness, follow-through). The review is dated 2019, over 5 years old, which further limits its relevance.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from February 2019 — over 5 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• No explicit mentions of professionalism (punctuality, communication, responsiveness) or project completion (timeliness, callbacks)
• Cannot calculate weighted WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and age of the single review (2019).

This single review from 2014 provides positive feedback across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions clear communication and estimates (professionalism), fair pricing (price friendly), completion of a complex piping relocation and jet tub uninstallation (project completion), and quality workmanship (experience). However, with only one review and data nearly a decade old, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The review lacks sufficient volume and recency to establish meaningful confidence in contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from October 2014 (approximately 10 years old). Does not reflect current contractor performance or practices.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: All dimensions scored based on one customer's experience. No corroboration or pattern validation possible.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and significant age of available data (2014). At least 3 recent reviews are required to establish baseline reliability.

Insufficient data — only one review available. The single review documents a failure in professionalism, specifically poor communication and non-responsiveness (promised estimate not delivered, follow-up call not returned). No information is available regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• Insufficient reviews (n=1) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• Review is from 2022 (nearly 2 years old) — recency is limited
• Only professionalism dimension has data; three dimensions lack any mention

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.