Find Nearby Plumbers In Federal Way, Washington

Only one usable review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single positive review (dated 2021-08-04) explicitly mentions professionalism (timely response, professional demeanor), project completion (work completed within one hour, follow-up service honored), and experience (skilled plumbing work). However, with only one review providing data, confidence in any dimension is severely limited. The first review (dated 2021-09-22) describes a serious traffic incident and alleged death threat unrelated to plumbing services and cannot be scored against professional dimensions.

• CRITICAL: First review describes alleged criminal behavior (aggressive driving, death threat) by company representative. This is a serious safety and legal concern that transcends normal service quality metrics. This review cannot be scored but represents a major red flag for company culture and employee conduct.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 usable review available. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2021 (3+ years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• SINGLE POSITIVE REVIEW BIAS: The one usable review is highly positive with specific details, but cannot be generalized from a sample size of one.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient usable data (only 1 review) and concerning allegations in the second review regarding employee conduct and safety. Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only one review contained usable detail, describing a serious incident where the contractor dropped a toilet, damaging both the toilet base and the wall, and then concealed the damage rather than disclosing it. This reflects very poor workmanship, a failure to complete the job without causing harm, and a significant lack of honesty and professionalism. The second review contained no text and only a low 2-star rating, providing no actionable detail. With only two reviews total — both old (2013 and 2015) and neither positive — the data paints a concerning but very limited picture.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are over 9 years old (2013 and 2015); data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• One review contained no text whatsoever — only a 2-star rating — and could not be scored dimensionally.
• The sole usable review describes deliberate concealment of damage caused by the contractor, which is a serious integrity concern.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews, both over 9 years old, with only 1 containing usable detail — treat any inferences with extreme caution.

Both reviews are strongly negative and describe serious failures across all dimensions. Professionalism is critically low: one reviewer reports the contractor arrived four hours late with no proactive communication, and the other describes him as cocky and unresponsive. Project completion is near zero — one job resulted in pipes protruding two inches past the drywall plane making finishing work impossible, and the other involved a seismic gas shutoff valve installed in the wrong flow direction with no follow-through to correct it. Experience is severely undermined by allegations that the contractor is unlicensed and operating as a trainee, with work so deficient it is reportedly costing one customer $20,000 to remediate. Pricing concerns are also present, with one reviewer charged for 19 parts when only 6 were used and a fee increase above the original estimate without justification.

• CRITICAL: One reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor is NOT licensed and is operating as a trainee — this is a serious legal and safety concern that should be independently verified before hiring.
• CRITICAL: Alleged unlicensed work on gas lines and structural plumbing poses significant safety and liability risks to homeowners.
• One reviewer reports a gas shutoff valve was installed in the wrong flow direction — a potentially dangerous installation error.
• Contractor allegedly charged for 13 unused parts (19 purchased, 6 used) — this may constitute fraudulent billing.
• Contractor was reportedly unresponsive to a callback request to correct a known installation error on a gas line.
• WARNING: Only 2 reviews are available. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence.
• Both reviews are recent (March and June 2024), suggesting these issues reflect current contractor behavior.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and must be treated as preliminary; however, both reviews are detailed, specific, and independently describe serious failures in professionalism, workmanship, licensing, and follow-through — lending credibility to their accounts despite the small sample size.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review mentions fast and efficient job completion but provides no specific details about professionalism, pricing, or technical experience. The generic praise and lack of concrete examples raise concerns about review authenticity.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review contains generic praise with no specific details or examples
• Excessive punctuation (!!!!) suggests potential low-quality or fake review
• No mention of pricing, professionalism, or technical skill — critical dimensions absent
• Review date is recent (April 2024) but single data point cannot establish pattern

This score cannot be trusted. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a reliable WW Score, and this analysis contains only 1 review with minimal substantive detail.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professional service, timely completion, and attention to detail (quality workmanship), but provides no information on pricing or value. All scores are based on extremely limited evidence from a single 5-star review and should not be considered reliable.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited.
• Single positive review with no negative feedback or specifics on pricing — cannot validate against broader patterns.

This analysis is unreliable. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score. Do not use this data for decision-making.

Only one review was submitted and it contains no specific, scoreable information about any of the four dimensions — professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience. The review does not describe any direct interaction with the contractor, making it impossible to assign evidence-based scores. The sole review is a warning alleging a possible name change from a prior business (Thriftway Plumbing) with a poor reputation, but this claim cannot be verified from the data provided. Because fewer than 3 reviews are present and no dimension data exists, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score.
• The single review alleges this contractor may be operating under a changed name to obscure a negative review history associated with 'Thriftway Plumbing.' This is a serious reputational flag that warrants independent verification.
• No scoreable content exists in this review — no mentions of professionalism, pricing, project completion, or workmanship quality. All dimension scores are null.
• Review is dated 2020-11-12, making it over 3 years old. Even if additional reviews existed, recency weighting would reduce its influence significantly.
• The 1-star rating combined with the name-change allegation suggests potential deceptive business practices, but this cannot be confirmed from a single unverified review.

This WW Score report has no statistical reliability — with only one review containing zero scoreable dimension data, no meaningful assessment of this contractor can be made, and consumers should seek additional verified sources before drawing any conclusions.