Find Nearby Plumbers In Federal Way, Washington

Matt and the AM&D team consistently receive praise for responsiveness, same-day availability, and friendly professional conduct, driving a strong professionalism score across nearly all reviews. Project completion is well-supported, with multiple reviewers noting thorough work, clean job sites, and proactive problem-solving such as identifying an unrelated burst pipe during a routine visit. Experience scores are bolstered by specific mentions of technical knowledge, code compliance on a water heater replacement, and accurate estimates. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers call pricing fair or reasonable, one 2-star review explicitly describes feeling overcharged for a small pipe replacement and confused about weekend or estimate fees, which meaningfully pulls the pricing score down. Two of the positive reviews are from 2022, so the most recent 12 months of data carry slightly more weight in this assessment.

• One review (2-star, 2024-04-02) raises a pricing transparency concern — the customer felt the $1,750 charge for a small pipe replacement was excessive and was unclear about weekend/estimate fees being included. This suggests potential gaps in upfront cost communication.
• Two reviews are from 2022 (over 12 months old) and carry reduced weight per recency rules. The remaining five reviews are from 2024 or late 2022 and are considered current.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in length, tone, and specificity. The one negative review adds credibility to the overall dataset.
• Total review count is low (7 reviews). While the WW Score is calculable, findings should be treated as preliminary until more reviews are available.

This WW Score is based on a small but credible and varied review set; it is moderately reliable as a directional indicator of quality, but should be revisited once at least 15–20 reviews are available for higher statistical confidence.

Premier/First Choice Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism with consistent praise for punctuality, courtesy, and responsiveness across 58 reviews. Pricing is generally viewed favorably at 81.0, with customers noting fair and reasonable rates, though some discrepancies between quotes and final bills were noted. Project completion scores lower at 72.0 due to significant quality control issues documented in multiple detailed complaints involving incomplete work, poor communication about scope, uncapped pipes causing water damage, loose fixtures, and unresolved clogs. Experience ratings of 78.5 reflect mixed technical competency—many reviews praise skill and problem-solving, but several detail failures in workmanship, lack of inspection, and inability to complete jobs properly on first attempt.

• CRITICAL: One extremely detailed negative review (dated 2024-06-09) documents systematic failures across multiple dimensions: uncapped drain pipes causing kitchen flooding, loose shower fixtures, partially clogged drains with water leakage, poor communication about scope of work, and inability to handle heavy equipment. This review is highly specific and credible, not generic.
• Multiple reviews mention communication failures: poor notification about invasive work (wall cutting), disconnected phone calls during quotes, manager avoiding refund calls, and lack of transparency about work scope.
• Quality control concerns: Several reviews document incomplete work requiring callbacks or additional plumber visits (e.g., toilet not filling properly days after install, clogged drain not actually fixed by previous plumber).
• Inconsistency in service quality: Same company receives both 5-star reviews praising specific technicians and 1-star reviews from same time period documenting poor work. This suggests highly variable performance depending on which technician is assigned.
• Several reviews appear to be for 'First Choice Plumbing' mixed with 'Premier Plumbing'—these may be different companies or locations, creating potential data contamination.
• One review (dated 2024-03-25) praises 'First Choice Plumbing' and 'Robbie' but appears to be for a different company entirely based on context.
• Multiple empty or minimal reviews ('unknown', '.') reduce data quality but do not appear to be fake—likely system artifacts.
• Recency bias: Most detailed negative reviews are from 2024 (recent), while many generic 5-star reviews are from 2014-2015, suggesting possible quality decline over time or increased scrutiny in recent reviews.

This WW Score of 76.8 should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the company demonstrates genuine strengths in professionalism and responsiveness, the presence of multiple detailed, credible complaints about project completion failures—particularly the comprehensive 2024 remodel disaster—indicates real quality control issues that offset positive reviews. The score reflects a company with friendly, punctual staff but inconsistent workmanship and follow-through. Customers should verify specific technician assignments and obtain detailed written scope agreements before hiring.

Acclaim Plumbing scores well on project completion and experience, with multiple reviewers noting jobs were finished correctly the first time, quickly, and with cleanup afterward. Professionalism is generally strong — responsiveness, punctuality, and courtesy are frequently praised — but is meaningfully dragged down by a serious 1-star review citing sexist and derogatory comments from a General Manager, which cannot be ignored. Pricing is the weakest dimension: while several reviewers praised reasonable or transparent pricing, two reviews explicitly called out charges as very expensive or ethically questionable for the work performed, including a detailed complaint about a $145 charge for a $4.75 part and under 10 minutes of labor. The overall picture is a capable and generally responsive plumbing company with real pricing concerns and at least one significant professionalism red flag at the management level.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews are word-for-word identical (posted 2020-05-16), one with a timestamp and one without. Only one was counted toward scoring to avoid inflating mention counts.
• RECENCY WARNING: The majority of reviews are from 2018 or earlier. Only one review is from 2020, and none appear to be from the past 12 months relative to a typical analysis window. Scores may not reflect current service quality.
• PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: A 1-star review from 2017 explicitly accuses the General Manager of sexist and derogatory comments. This is a serious conduct allegation and was weighted accordingly in the professionalism score.
• PRICING CONCERN: Two separate reviewers raised explicit concerns about overcharging — one calling the service 'very expensive' and another providing a detailed breakdown suggesting a $145 charge for a $4.75 part and under 10 minutes of work was unreasonable. This meaningfully suppresses the pricing score.
• ONE REVIEW UNUSABLE: The review dated 2018-10-30 contained only 'N/A' as text and was excluded from scoring.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the mention counts are reasonable across all dimensions, but the score is undermined by the age of most reviews, one confirmed duplicate, and the presence of a serious unresolved conduct complaint that has no documented response from the business.

Huber Plumbing shows strong pricing and experience ratings, with customers consistently praising fair costs and technical skill. However, professionalism and project completion scores are significantly dragged down by multiple serious incidents: rude technicians, incomplete diagnostics, poor workmanship (leaks, improper installations), no-shows, and failure to return calls. While many recent reviews (2021-2025) are highly positive, older reviews (2015-2018) reveal systemic issues with accountability, follow-through, and staff conduct. The company demonstrates inconsistency—some jobs are excellent, others result in thousands in damages and customer dissatisfaction.

• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark contrast between recent positive reviews (2021-2025) and older negative reviews (2015-2018) suggests either significant company improvement or potential review manipulation. Recent reviews cluster heavily on specific dates (2021-06-10, 2024-06-09) with minimal detail, raising authenticity concerns.
• MULTIPLE SERIOUS INCIDENTS: Three reviews document major failures—incomplete leak diagnosis ($185 wasted), improper shower valve installation (hose bib unsecured), and hose bib repair that caused $15,000 in water damage. Company refused accountability in at least two cases.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURES: Four reviews explicitly mention failure to return calls, no-shows without notification, and broken appointment commitments spanning 2015-2024.
• STAFF CONDUCT ISSUES: Multiple reports of rude/unprofessional technician behavior, including refusal to shake hands and argumentative responses to legitimate complaints.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Six reviews contain no text (only ratings), making them impossible to verify and reducing data quality.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most detailed negative reviews are 6+ years old; recent reviews are shorter and less specific, though some recent negative incidents (2024-06-09) are documented.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews are predominantly positive, the company has a documented history of serious failures, poor accountability, and communication breakdowns. The WW Score reflects genuine inconsistency in service quality rather than reliable excellence. Customers should verify references and clarify accountability terms before hiring.

This contractor demonstrates strong professionalism, fair pricing, and solid technical skills across multiple reviews. However, project completion is significantly dragged down by two severe failures involving incomplete work, non-responsiveness, and broken promises (reviews from 2013 and 2012). While most recent positive reviews (2015, 2019) show improvement in follow-through and communication, the historical pattern of abandonment and poor callback responsiveness creates substantial concern. The WW Score of 72.8 reflects competent workmanship undermined by critical reliability issues.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews (2013, 2012) document severe project completion failures including abandoned work, non-responsiveness to callbacks, and broken promises. One customer paid $1,350 with $875 unfinished; another lost $400 on Christmas lights project.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 8-14 years old (2010-2015). Only 2 reviews from 2019 and 2015 are recent. Cannot reliably assess current business practices.
• INCONSISTENT PERFORMANCE: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising professionalism and two damning 1-star reviews citing dishonesty and abandonment. Suggests either significant business changes or inconsistent service delivery.
• RESPONSIVENESS RED FLAG: Multiple mentions of poor callback responsiveness and communication failures in negative reviews, though positive reviews praise communication. This inconsistency is concerning.

This score should be treated with caution due to age of data (most reviews 8+ years old), severe historical project completion failures that contradict recent positive feedback, and inability to verify if business practices have genuinely improved or if negative patterns persist.

Both reviews praise the politeness and attitude of the crew and owner, supporting a professionalism score of 80. However, the first review explicitly flags poor communication and failure to honor a time request (arriving at 10 AM instead of 11 AM), while the second notes incomplete job execution (tools left in dirt, not put away). The owner's willingness to acknowledge and correct mistakes elevates the experience score to 85. With only 2 reviews and limited mentions across dimensions, confidence remains constrained. No pricing information was provided in either review.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score should be treated as preliminary and not relied upon for major decisions
• Communication issues explicitly mentioned in Review 1 — language barrier and failure to relay customer requests to workers
• Project completion concerns in both reviews: time commitment not honored (Review 1), incomplete cleanup/tool management (Review 2)
• Both reviews are from 2023 (over 1 year old) — no recent data available to assess current performance

This WW Score is based on only 2 reviews with limited mention density across dimensions and should be considered preliminary. The score reflects mixed signals: strong interpersonal professionalism offset by communication failures and incomplete job execution. Collect additional recent reviews before making high-stakes contractor decisions.