Find Nearby Plumbers In Kennewick, Washington

L.W. Smith Pump Company demonstrates strong technical expertise and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising quick diagnosis, same-day service, and effective problem-solving. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a recent 2023 incident involving rude phone communication that cost the company a $2,700 sale. Pricing appears fair based on limited mentions—the company even provided free diagnostic advice in one case rather than charging for a service call. The stark contrast between older positive reviews (2013–2018) and the recent negative experience suggests a potential decline in customer service standards.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Four of five reviews are 6+ years old (2013–2018). The most recent review (April 2023) is significantly negative and describes unprofessional phone behavior, suggesting possible service degradation over time.
• PROFESSIONALISM VOLATILITY: Extreme range in professionalism—from 'remarkable' and 'ethical' in older reviews to 'snarky' and dismissive in the 2023 review. This inconsistency warrants caution.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 5 reviews total limits statistical reliability. Confidence in overall score is constrained by low mention counts across all dimensions.

This WW Score should be treated with caution due to the small sample size (5 reviews), heavy reliance on reviews older than 6 years, and a recent negative experience that contradicts the historical pattern. The score reflects historical strength but may not accurately represent current service quality.

Reid/Reed demonstrates solid technical competence and reasonable pricing across multiple reviews, with customers praising his knowledge and willingness to diagnose issues remotely. However, professionalism is tempered by a significant 2017 complaint about slow callback response (2+ weeks) and reluctance to take on new plumbing work despite advertising it. Project completion appears reliable based on three reviews mentioning timely, correct work. The score is held back by limited mention counts across all dimensions and the presence of one older but substantive negative review that directly contradicts service claims.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most reviews are 7-10 years old (2013-2016). Only 2 reviews from 2023-2024. Historical performance may not reflect current operations.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW CREDIBILITY: The 2017 one-star review is specific and detailed (slow callback, scope mismatch), not generic criticism. This directly contradicts positive claims and suggests past professionalism issues.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Review from 2014 ('absolutely perfect', 'excellent work') lacks specific details and may be inflated.
• NAME INCONSISTENCY: Reviews refer to both 'Reid' and 'Reed' — unclear if same person or if this is a business name vs. owner name issue.
• LIMITED SAMPLE: Only 6 reviews total with usable data; confidence cannot be high.

This score should be treated with caution due to small sample size, heavy skew toward very old reviews, and one credible negative review that raises questions about responsiveness and scope management. Recent performance data is insufficient to validate current service quality.

KIE Supply demonstrates strong technical expertise and knowledgeable staff across electrical, plumbing, and irrigation departments, with many customers praising staff members by name for their problem-solving abilities. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by recurring complaints about customer service inconsistency, particularly regarding closing time rudeness, appointment requirements, and poor treatment of non-contractor customers. Project completion and pricing reliability are concerning, with multiple documented cases of order fulfillment failures, incorrect shipments, long delays without communication, and disputed return policies that left customers without refunds for over a year. The business shows excellence in technical knowledge but substantial gaps in operational reliability and customer service consistency.

• PATTERN DETECTED: Multiple 1-star reviews from 2014-2021 describing serious order fulfillment failures, refund disputes, and poor follow-through on commitments. These are detailed, specific complaints with names and timelines—not generic criticism.
• INCONSISTENCY ALERT: Stark contrast between recent 5-star reviews (2023-2025, mostly generic praise) and older 1-star reviews (2014-2021, detailed complaints). Recent reviews lack specificity and detail compared to negative reviews.
• CUSTOMER SERVICE BIAS: Multiple reviews explicitly state poor treatment of non-contractor customers and DIY homeowners, suggesting service quality varies dramatically by customer type.
• OPERATIONAL RED FLAGS: Documented cases of disorganized warehouse, incorrect orders placed repeatedly, long delays without notification, and refusal to honor stated return policies.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Most recent reviews (past 12 months) are uniformly 5-star with minimal detail. Older reviews (2014-2021) contain detailed negative experiences with specific failures. This temporal pattern warrants caution.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: 11 reviews contain no text, only 5-star ratings. These provide no usable data and suggest possible review manipulation or incomplete submissions.

This score should be treated with MODERATE caution. While recent reviews are overwhelmingly positive, the detailed historical record of order fulfillment failures, refund disputes, and customer service complaints from 2014-2021 suggests systemic operational issues that may not be fully resolved. The stark contrast between recent generic 5-star reviews and older detailed 1-star reviews, combined with multiple empty review entries, raises concerns about review authenticity. Customers should verify current policies on returns, order fulfillment timelines, and service quality before making significant purchases.

Columbia Basin Plumbing demonstrates strong professionalism and technical competence, with multiple reviews praising punctuality, attitude, and workmanship quality. However, pricing emerges as a significant weakness, with five reviews explicitly criticizing costs as excessive or unfair relative to time spent—charges ranging from $185/hour to $1,700 for 2.5 hours of work. Project completion is generally solid, though one review documented incomplete work (RO system leak not caught before departure). The company shows inconsistency: excellent service in many cases contrasts sharply with deceptive practices (fireplace service misrepresentation) and quality lapses (mud tracking, incorrect measurements).

• PRICING CONCERN: Multiple reviews (5 of 15) explicitly criticize pricing as excessive or unfair. This is the most consistent negative theme across the dataset.
• DECEPTIVE PRACTICE FLAGGED: Review from 2022-12-08 documents receptionist misrepresenting service offerings (fireplace service), then charging full service call fee anyway. This suggests potential systemic customer deception.
• QUALITY INCONSISTENCY: Review from 2018-10-25 documents multiple quality failures (incomplete RO system check, mud tracking, incorrect measurements) despite plumber being paid for 2 hours. Suggests quality control gaps.
• RECENCY BIAS: Most negative reviews (pricing complaints, quality issues) are from 2018-2024, while older reviews (2019-2021) are more uniformly positive. Recent pattern suggests deterioration or increased customer scrutiny.
• INCOMPLETE WORK: One documented case where plumber left with undetected leak in installed system, requiring customer to fix it themselves.

This score should be treated with MODERATE confidence. While professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by 8-10 mentions each, the pricing dimension—critical to overall value assessment—is based on only 5 mentions but shows a consistent, severe pattern of customer dissatisfaction. The company's deceptive practice regarding fireplace services and documented quality control gaps further reduce confidence in reliability. Scores above 75 would be misleading given the pricing and ethics concerns.

Frank Blair's Professional Plumbing has a strong base of positive reviews praising punctuality, communication, and follow-through on jobs — particularly water heater replacements through home warranty claims. However, the review set spans from 2015 to 2024, and the most recent negative reviews (2020–2021) raise serious concerns: an unlicensed plumber causing damage and refusing to fix it without additional payment, undisclosed charges added after work was completed, and at least one instance of a completely unanswered callback. Pricing received a notably lower score due to one detailed complaint about hidden charges and a lack of upfront cost disclosure, which directly undermines trust. The professionalism and project completion scores are tempered by the responsiveness failure (no return call) and the unlicensed technician incident, both of which are significant red flags that pull scores below what the positive reviews alone would suggest.

• UNLICENSED TECHNICIAN: One reviewer explicitly states an unlicensed plumber was sent to perform work, caused damage, and the company refused to remedy it without additional payment. This is a serious professional and legal concern.
• HIDDEN CHARGES: One reviewer describes being charged $184 for work after the fact with no prior estimate or disclosure, which they describe as feeling taken advantage of. This directly contradicts the positive pricing mentions in older reviews.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS: One reviewer (2021) reports leaving a message with no return call, indicating a potential responsiveness issue.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2015–2018, which is 6–9 years old. Only 2 clearly positive reviews are from 2024 and 2020. The negative reviews cluster in 2020–2021, making the recent track record mixed at best.
• REVIEW SPREAD: While no obvious fake review patterns were detected, several older 5-star reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'excellent work, would recommend'), which slightly reduces their evidentiary weight.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability — the high mention counts provide statistical grounding, but the significant age gap between most positive reviews and the more recent negative incidents means the score may not accurately reflect the company's current service quality.

Cray Plumbing receives consistently strong marks for professionalism across the majority of reviews, with multiple customers praising punctuality, courtesy calls, shoe covers, and polite technicians — particularly Luis and Sammie. Project completion is generally positive, with jobs described as timely and thorough, though one review documents a complete failure to follow up on a service call within 24 hours, which is a meaningful negative signal. Pricing is a mixed area: one reviewer explicitly called pricing 'a bit on the high end,' another was frustrated by a $48 diagnostic fee with no upfront cost estimate and a hostile customer service response, while others felt the value was fair. Experience scores reasonably well, with multiple reviewers noting knowledgeable technicians who explained their work clearly and solved problems effectively. The two 1-star reviews, while a minority, are specific and credible and meaningfully pull down the professionalism and pricing dimensions.

• Most reviews are dated between 2014 and 2019 — all reviews are older than 5 years. No recent reviews are present, so current service quality cannot be assessed.
• The six 5-star reviews use somewhat similar praise language (professional, polite, timely), but they contain enough specific detail (named technicians, specific jobs, personal anecdotes) to be considered credible rather than fake.
• One 1-star review documents a complete lack of callback after 24+ hours — a serious responsiveness failure that directly impacts the professionalism score.
• One 1-star review documents a refusal to provide even approximate pricing, refusal to escalate to a manager, and a hang-up — this is a significant customer service and pricing transparency concern.
• Recency warning: No reviews from the past 12 months or even the past 5 years. This score should be treated as a historical snapshot only and may not reflect current business practices.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability due to a reasonable number of reviews with usable data across all four dimensions, but is significantly limited by the age of all reviews (2014–2019) and the presence of two credible, specific negative reviews that reveal real weaknesses in responsiveness and pricing transparency.