Find Nearby Plumbers In Colorado Springs, Colorado

Gold Rush Plumbing shows strong professionalism and pricing in positive reviews, with many customers praising responsiveness, punctuality, and fair rates. However, a significant cluster of negative reviews (particularly from 2022-2024 and 2019-2020) reveal serious project completion failures including improper installations, abandoned jobs, unresponsive communication, and follow-through issues. The company demonstrates inconsistent quality and reliability, with some customers experiencing excellent service while others faced costly mistakes, mold damage, and unresolved callbacks. The recency of several critical failures (2024, 2023) and the severity of issues (fire hazard installations, $5000+ in damages) substantially lower confidence in overall reliability.

• CRITICAL: Multiple reviews from 2022-2024 describe severe project failures including improper water heater installation causing mold/fire hazard risk, abandoned jobs, and unresponsive communication after service completion.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Negative reviews consistently mention inability to reach company after job completion, ignored calls/texts/emails, and refusal to honor callbacks or warranty issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Recent reviews (2024, 2023) contain serious allegations of incompetence and poor follow-through, contradicting the predominantly positive older reviews (2018-2019).
• INCONSISTENCY FLAG: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews (many generic, brief, from 2018-2019) and detailed negative reviews describing fraud, overbilling, and safety hazards (2019-2024). This suggests either significant company decline or potential review manipulation in earlier period.
• BILLING CONCERNS: Multiple reviews allege fraudulent billing practices, overbilling for hours not worked, charging for materials not used, and inflated labor rates ($500 for faucet mounting vs. $150-200 market rate).
• SAFETY ISSUES: At least two reviews mention fire hazard concerns and improper installations that required complete remediation by other contractors at customer expense.

This WW Score should be treated with CAUTION. While the numerical score of 72.8 reflects mixed performance, the underlying data reveals a company with serious reliability and integrity issues, particularly in project completion and follow-through. The concentration of severe failures in recent years (2022-2024) and consistent patterns of unresponsiveness after job completion suggest declining service quality. Customers should be aware that positive reviews are predominantly from 2018-2019, while recent reviews document significant problems including safety hazards, billing fraud allegations, and abandoned work. The company's responsiveness during initial contact contrasts sharply with post-job communication failures.

This contractor shows strong professionalism and pricing appeal in recent reviews (2024-2025), with customers consistently praising punctuality, communication, and fair rates. However, the score is significantly dampened by serious negative incidents involving incomplete work, water damage, billing disputes, and unprofessional conduct documented in multiple reviews from 2024 and earlier years. Project completion reliability is concerning, with documented cases of abandoned work, missed appointments, and follow-up issues. While technical skill is evident in successful installations, the pattern of customer service failures and accountability issues creates substantial risk.

• CRITICAL: Multiple severe negative reviews (2024-11-16, 2024-07-24, 2023-10-28, 2019-06-21, 2019-11-22, 2016-06-18, 2012-11-23, 2012-05-09, 2011-09-08) document serious issues including water damage from negligence, billing disputes, missed appointments, unprofessional behavior, and threats of liens. These are not isolated complaints.
• PATTERN DETECTED: Recent reviews (2025, 2024 Q1-Q3) are overwhelmingly 5-star with generic praise and minimal specifics, contrasting sharply with detailed negative reviews. This suggests possible review manipulation or selective positive feedback.
• BEHAVIORAL CONCERNS: Multiple reviews describe aggressive communication, yelling, threatening legal action, and unprofessional phone demeanor. One review (2023-10-28) documents over 10 abusive text messages after customer complaint.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAGS: Documented cases of incomplete work requiring callbacks (2016-06-18), missed appointments without follow-through (2012-11-23), and abandoned jobs mid-repair (2024-11-16).
• BILLING DISPUTES: Multiple reviews (2024-11-16, 2023-10-28, 2019-06-21, 2011-09-08, 2011-09-09) document overcharging, hidden charges, excessive drive-time billing, and disputed invoices. Claims of lien threats documented.
• RECENCY CONCERN: While 2024-2025 reviews are predominantly positive, the 2024-11-16 reviews describe catastrophic failures (water damage, threats). This suggests either recent improvement or inconsistent service quality.
• EMPTY REVIEWS: Two reviews (2025-03-11, 2024-12-11) contain only ratings with no text, limiting data quality.

This score should be treated with CAUTION. While recent reviews show strong professionalism and pricing, the documented pattern of serious failures (water damage, billing disputes, missed appointments, unprofessional conduct) across multiple years creates substantial risk. The stark contrast between glowing recent reviews and detailed negative reviews raises concerns about review authenticity. Customers should request references and verify insurance/licensing before engaging this contractor.

Father Daughter Plumbing shows strong technical capability and fair pricing, but professionalism is significantly undermined by a critical failure in responsiveness and follow-through. Four reviews (2020–2022) praise punctuality, friendliness, and skill, but the most recent review (October 2022) reveals a severe breakdown: after installing a water conditioner, the company became unreachable, failed to honor callbacks, and left the customer with a leaking installation to manage alone. This suggests either business closure or abandonment of service obligations, which directly contradicts the positive earlier experiences. The mixed timeline and dramatic shift in service quality create substantial uncertainty about current reliability.

• CRITICAL: Most recent review (Oct 2022) describes complete service failure and unresponsiveness, contradicting all earlier positive reviews. This suggests either business closure or operational collapse.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Five of six reviews are from 2020–2022; no reviews from 2023 or later. Current operational status is unclear.
• PATTERN INCONSISTENCY: Earlier reviews (2020–2021) consistently praise 'Chris' by name with specific details. Later reviews are more generic. The Oct 2022 review indicates the company may no longer be operating.
• CALLBACK FAILURE: The Oct 2022 review explicitly states voicemail is full and website not updated, indicating abandonment of customer service infrastructure.
• INSTALLATION DEFECT: Water conditioner installation leaked at connection point, and company did not respond to warranty/callback requests.

This score should be treated with caution. While earlier reviews suggest competent work, the most recent review indicates a catastrophic failure in professionalism and project follow-through that may reflect current business status. The company's apparent unresponsiveness and possible closure make this score unreliable for predicting current service quality.

Mark Keesling demonstrates strong technical expertise and professionalism when engaged, with detailed positive feedback on custom work, problem-solving, and courteous demeanor. However, a critical 1-star review from 2018 documents complete non-responsiveness to follow-up service requests—multiple phone messages and emails went unanswered over weeks—which directly contradicts the professionalism claims and raises serious concerns about reliability and follow-through. Pricing appears reasonable based on limited mentions, but the project completion dimension is significantly weakened by the documented failure to respond to a scheduled service callback. All reviews are older than 6 years, limiting recency validity.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Reviews dated 2015-07-01 and 2015-06-29 are identical word-for-word, suggesting potential fake review inflation or data error. Treating as single review for scoring purposes.
• CRITICAL RESPONSIVENESS FAILURE: 2018 review explicitly documents complete non-responsiveness to multiple contact attempts (phone messages and email) over weeks, directly contradicting positive claims about professionalism and follow-through.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 4 of 5 reviews are from 2015-2017; only 1 review from 2018. No recent data (past 12 months) available. Current service quality cannot be reliably assessed.
• INCONSISTENT PATTERN: Stark contrast between glowing 5-star reviews praising responsiveness and professionalism versus 1-star review documenting complete communication failure. This suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential changes in business operations over time.

This score should be treated with caution due to limited recency (all reviews 6+ years old), a detected duplicate review, and a critical contradiction between positive professionalism claims and documented non-responsiveness to service requests. The WW Score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current service quality.

Rampart Supply earns strong marks for staff knowledge and helpfulness, with multiple reviewers across different years praising specific employees by name for going out of their way to assist non-professional customers. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and shows a mixed but generally positive picture — the majority of reviews highlight courteous, patient service, though one detailed 2012 review describes a notably poor customer service interaction with an inattentive and unprofessional clerk, which meaningfully pulls the score down. Pricing is mentioned favorably in a handful of reviews, with customers noting reasonable prices and staff actively trying to help find the cheapest solution, though the sample is small. Project completion is limited in scope here since this is a supply store rather than a contractor, but order fulfillment issues — including a 48-hour truck unloading delay and an unprocessed fax order — introduce enough concern to keep that dimension below average. Technical knowledge and problem-solving ability are consistently praised across multiple reviews, supporting a solid experience score.

• Most reviews are older than 12 months; only one review (August 2024) falls within the past 12 months. The majority of reviews span 2012–2021, meaning current service quality may differ significantly from what is reflected here.
• The 1-star review (2019) is from a truck driver about delivery wait times and is not representative of the typical customer experience; it was included in professionalism and project completion scoring as a legitimate negative data point.
• No strong fake review patterns detected. Reviews vary in rating, detail level, writing style, and specificity, which supports authenticity.
• This business appears to be a plumbing supply store, not a contractor. The 'project completion' dimension is less directly applicable and was scored based on order fulfillment and follow-through rather than on-site job completion.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the professionalism and experience dimensions are well-supported by multiple reviews, but the recency of data is a significant concern given that 10 of 12 reviews are more than 3 years old, and the single recent review alone cannot confirm that current service standards match historical patterns.

RSI receives strong praise in several reviews for professionalism, courtesy, and technical competence, particularly around whole-house repipe jobs. However, two reviews (ratings of 2 and 3 out of 5) raise meaningful concerns: one describes sloppy cleanup, mismatched drywall texturing, and extra painting required by the homeowner, while another details a complete lack of post-job paperwork, an unflushed toilet left by a worker, and a missing shower handle component. These negative experiences meaningfully drag down both the professionalism and project completion scores. Pricing is mentioned positively in a couple of reviews as competitive relative to other plumbers, but the sample is small. Overall, RSI appears capable of quality work but shows inconsistency in follow-through, cleanliness, and administrative responsiveness.

• Two of the six reviews are from 2019, making them over 4 years old at time of analysis — recency weighting applied, reducing their influence on final scores.
• The two most positive 2019 reviews share a similar condo-complex context and both use superlative language ('100 stars', 'beyond EXCELLENT', 'HIGHLY recommend'). While not conclusively fake, their enthusiasm without granular specifics warrants mild caution.
• One reviewer (3-star, 2020) explicitly reported receiving no invoice, no receipt, and no warranty documentation after paying in full — a significant business practice concern that may indicate administrative dysfunction.
• One reviewer (2-star, 2020) reported drywall texture mismatch and inadequate cleanup, suggesting quality control inconsistency across crews.
• Sample size is only 6 reviews — scores should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

This WW Score is based on a small sample of 6 reviews spanning 2019–2022, with meaningful negative signals in 2 of those reviews; the score should be treated as a moderate-confidence directional indicator rather than a fully reliable assessment.