Find Nearby Plumbers In Federal Way, Washington

The majority of reviews praise individual technicians — particularly Alex and Omar — for professionalism, friendliness, and solid workmanship, which drives positive scores across most dimensions. However, one 1-star review from 2023 describes a no-show on two separate occasions with zero communication, a serious professionalism and project completion failure that meaningfully drags down those scores. Pricing feedback is limited but generally positive, with one reviewer explicitly noting a fair quote and another citing great value. The overall picture is of a capable but inconsistent operation, where performance appears to vary significantly depending on which technician is assigned.

• One severe negative review (1-star, 2023) describes two consecutive no-shows and complete lack of communication — this is a significant reliability red flag that is weighted heavily against the otherwise positive reviews.
• Two reviews have no date provided, making it impossible to assess recency or apply recency weighting for those entries.
• Several positive reviews are older than 3 years (2020), and the business or staffing may have changed since then. Recent data is sparse — only 2 reviews from 2025 and 1 from 2023.
• Some positive reviews are somewhat generic in phrasing (e.g., 'amazing,' 'great work,' 'highly recommend') with limited specific detail, though enough specifics exist across the set to avoid a fake review flag. No fake review pattern detected, but the small sample size limits confidence.
• Total review count of 8 is very low. Scores are mathematically calculable but should be treated with caution given the small sample.

This WW Score is based on only 8 reviews spanning multiple years with two undated entries, making it a low-reliability snapshot — the score directionally reflects available evidence but should not be treated as a stable or definitive assessment of this contractor's current performance.

J&K Plumbing exhibits a deeply polarized performance profile with significant operational inconsistencies. While individual technicians (particularly Jake, Dustin, and Antonio) frequently receive praise for technical competence and friendliness, systemic issues severely undermine overall service quality. The company struggles with professionalism due to persistent complaints about rude office staff (especially the receptionist), poor communication, failure to return calls, and aggressive scheduling practices (15-minute notice windows). Project completion is compromised by incomplete repairs, failure to follow up on warranty claims, false reporting to insurance companies, and abandonment of work. Pricing concerns emerge around hidden charges, cash-only payment demands, and inflated quotes. The company's apparent strategy of collecting service fees while avoiding actual repairs—particularly through AHS warranty assignments—is documented across numerous reviews spanning over a decade.

• SYSTEMIC FRAUD PATTERN: Multiple independent reviews (spanning 2008-2025) document identical schemes: marking jobs 'complete' to AHS without performing work, providing false diagnoses to deny warranty coverage, and collecting service fees without resolution. This pattern is too consistent to be coincidental.
• OFFICE STAFF CONDUCT: Receptionist (identified as 'Kathy' or 'Cathy') repeatedly described as rude, dismissive, and unprofessional across 40+ reviews. Multiple customers report being blamed for missed appointments despite company's own 15-minute notice policy.
• INTENTIONAL MISDIAGNOSIS: Documented pattern of technicians providing false information to warranty companies (roof leaks that don't exist, uneven floors, 'Act of God' clauses, foreign objects in toilets) to deny coverage. Licensed inspector review (2024) explicitly states company avoids work 'at all costs.'
• PAYMENT COERCION: Company demands cash/check only, refuses credit cards, and collects fees upfront before work completion. Multiple reviews note this prevents documentation and enables fee collection without service delivery.
• SCHEDULING ABUSE: Consistent complaints about 15-minute notice windows, technicians leaving immediately if customer is 2-5 minutes late, and charging $75 service fees for no-shows caused by company's own unrealistic timelines.
• FOLLOW-UP FAILURE: Extensive documentation of unreturned calls, abandoned repairs, parts ordered but never installed (3+ months delays), and tickets marked complete without resolution.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While recent reviews (2025) show some positive experiences, negative patterns persist consistently through entire review history (2008-2025), suggesting systemic rather than isolated issues.
• REVIEW AUTHENTICITY: Some highly generic 5-star reviews lack specific details; however, negative reviews are overwhelmingly detailed and specific, reducing likelihood of fake negative reviews. One review mentions company offers 'prizes for good reviews,' suggesting potential review manipulation.
• INSURANCE COMPANY COLLUSION: Multiple reviews suggest company benefits financially from AHS assignments regardless of work completion, creating perverse incentive to avoid repairs.

This WW Score of 58.2 should be trusted as a reliable indicator of significant service quality problems, though it may understate the severity of systemic issues given the company's apparent strategy of collecting fees without completing work. The HIGH confidence is based on 365 reviews with consistent patterns across 17 years, but the score reflects a company with serious operational and ethical concerns that warrant extreme caution.

Keller Supply exhibits a deeply polarized customer experience. Professionalism is the primary driver of the low WW Score, with 28 mentions revealing severe and consistent customer service failures: rude staff, dismissive attitudes toward non-contractor customers, refusal to help walk-in customers, and aggressive behavior from specific employees (particularly Mary). Experience scores are strong (78/100), with multiple reviews praising product knowledge and knowledgeable staff like Bobbie. However, project completion issues (48/100) include slow order fulfillment, inventory inaccuracies, poor communication, and unresponsiveness. Pricing is moderately favorable (65/100) with some mentions of competitive prices, though concerns about overcharging and warranty disputes exist. The business appears to prioritize contractor relationships over retail customers, creating a hostile environment for homeowners.

• SEVERE PROFESSIONALISM CRISIS: Multiple detailed accounts of rude, dismissive, and aggressive customer service spanning 2008–2021. Employee 'Mary' appears in at least 5 reviews with polarized feedback (praised by some, aggressively rejected others). Pattern suggests inconsistent staff behavior or possible personality conflicts.
• CONTRACTOR-FIRST BIAS: Repeated complaints that non-contractor customers are turned away, told to make appointments, or discouraged from shopping. This is a business model choice but creates hostile retail experience.
• RESPONSIVENESS FAILURES: Multiple reviews cite unreturned phone calls, emails, and lack of status updates on orders. One review documents 30+ days of non-communication on warranty claim.
• INVENTORY ACCURACY ISSUES: Customers report being told items are in stock when they are not, requiring 38+ mile drives for nothing.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most negative reviews cluster in 2019–2021 period. More recent reviews (2024) are sparse and generic ('Muy amables', empty 5-star ratings). This may indicate improved service or reduced review volume.
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Multiple empty or single-word 5-star reviews (11 reviews with no text or minimal text, all 5-star ratings from 2019–2023). These provide no actionable data and inflate apparent satisfaction artificially.
• POLARIZED MARY FEEDBACK: Same employee praised as 'exceptional' and 'fantastic' in 2019–2020, but aggressively rejected by multiple customers in 2021. Suggests either staff turnover, burnout, or inconsistent service delivery.
• WARRANTY/BILLING DISPUTE: One detailed account of $922.51 charge for item supposedly under warranty, with only partial refund after escalation. Raises trust concerns.

This WW Score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While the sample size is adequate (51 reviews), the data is heavily skewed by empty/generic 5-star reviews (22% of total) that inflate apparent satisfaction without providing evidence. The professionalism dimension is well-supported by 28 detailed mentions, but most are negative and concentrated in 2019–2021; recent data is sparse. The business model (contractor-focused wholesale) may not align with typical contractor scoring frameworks. Homeowners should expect poor walk-in service; contractors with established accounts may experience different outcomes.

NW Blue Diamond has a deeply polarized review history, with a near-even split between glowing 5-star reviews and damning 1-star reviews, which is itself a red flag noted by one reviewer. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by multiple accounts of no-shows, failure to return calls, a plumber making inappropriate gestures, and refusal to honor promises to return and fix poor work. Pricing is a serious concern, with multiple reviewers describing overcharging, price gouging on flood restoration work, suggesting cash payments to avoid tax, and one confirmed case of a fraudulent upsell of a non-existent leak to a senior citizen. Project completion is the weakest dimension, with multiple reviews describing abandoned work, refusal to return for callbacks, incomplete finishing, and one reviewer being unable to reach the company at all after a dispute. Experience scores are mixed — some reviewers praise the quality of specific jobs, but others document incorrect installations, sloppy paintwork, damaged tile from improper tool use, and use of substandard components.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION: The jump between 1-star and 5-star reviews with no middle ground is explicitly flagged by one reviewer as a red flag. Several 5-star reviews use generic, enthusiastic praise with limited specific detail, which is consistent with potentially inauthentic reviews.
• SENIOR SCAM ALLEGATION: One reviewer explicitly describes being scammed as a senior citizen — a fabricated secondary leak was quoted at $600, the faucet was installed incorrectly, and only $35 of a $425 fee was refunded.
• CASH PAYMENT SUGGESTION: One reviewer reports being asked to pay in cash to 'waive the tax,' which is a potential indicator of tax evasion and unprofessional business conduct.
• PRICE GOUGING ALLEGATION: One reviewer documents carpet replacement billed at $2,500 for a $600-value job, and painting billed at $1,300 when a competitor quoted $600 including materials.
• RECENCY WARNING: All reviews are from 2013–2018. The most recent review is from September 2018. There is no data from the past 5+ years, making it impossible to assess the current state of the business. This score should be treated with caution.
• ABANDONED WORK PATTERN: At least two separate reviewers describe the contractor refusing to return to complete or fix work after payment, which suggests a systemic pattern rather than isolated incidents.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a sufficient number of reviews, but the score should be treated with significant caution given the age of all reviews (2013–2018), a strong fake review suspicion pattern, and multiple serious allegations including fraud, price gouging, and abandoned work.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions. Professionalism is critically compromised by chronic no-shows, extreme lateness, reckless driving behavior, and failure to follow contractual obligations (inspection requirements, permit acquisition). Project completion is severely impaired with incomplete work, abandoned jobs, inadequate cleanup, and failure to honor callbacks. Experience is questionable given substandard concrete work, unsafe digging practices near utilities without locates, and employment of unlicensed workers. The single positive review (5-star) is generic and lacks specificity, creating a stark contrast with three detailed 1-star reviews documenting serious operational failures. The WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data volume (4 reviews), but the pattern is unambiguously negative.

• CRITICAL: Only 4 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 5 for reliable scoring. WW Score calculation suppressed.
• SEVERE PATTERN: Three 1-star reviews with detailed, specific complaints vs. one 5-star review with generic praise ('friendly', 'passionate', 'affordable') lacking substantive detail. The 5-star review appears inconsistent with documented operational failures.
• SAFETY CONCERNS: Multiple reviews document unsafe practices (digging without utility locates near gas/water lines, expired vehicle tabs, reckless driving).
• LEGAL/COMPLIANCE ISSUES: Failure to obtain permits, failure to honor inspection requirements stated in contract, employment of unlicensed workers, non-refund of customer payments with reported complaint to authorities.
• RECENCY ISSUE: All reviews are from 2020-2021 (3-4 years old). No recent reviews available to assess if practices have improved.
• INCOMPLETE WORK PATTERN: Multiple reviews document abandoned or incomplete projects with inadequate follow-through and cleanup.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews, minimum 5 required). However, the available evidence strongly suggests this contractor poses significant professional, safety, and legal risks and should not be engaged without substantial caution and verification of current licensing/compliance status.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews are available, and critical dimensions lack sufficient evidence. Project completion is mentioned in 2 reviews (prompt service, on-time delivery, completed work), and experience is mentioned in 2 reviews (hard work, quality results). However, professionalism and pricing are not explicitly addressed in any review. The review dates are extremely old (2017–2020), with no recent data to assess current performance. Generic praise without specific details limits confidence in these scores.

• All reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal specific detail — suggests potential selection bias or generic praise
• Review dates are 3–7 years old; no recent performance data available
• Only 3 total reviews — below minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• Professionalism and pricing dimensions have zero mentions — cannot assess these critical areas
• Review language is vague (e.g., 'completely happy') without concrete examples of what was done well

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3), absence of data for two critical dimensions, and outdated review dates. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.