Find Nearby Plumbers In New Bedford, Massachusetts

Only a single review exists for this contractor, dated February 2011, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer notes that Jeff Andrade communicates proactively about delays and generally shows up when expected, though punctuality is imperfect — he sometimes arrives a few hours late. Pricing was described as around $75 for standard service, which the reviewer found acceptable, suggesting fair but not exceptional value. The reviewer noted professionalism, knowledge, and clean post-job cleanup, indicating a competent and reasonably skilled tradesperson. However, no specific details about complex problem-solving or technical challenges were provided, keeping experience scores conservative.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from February 2011 — over 13 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current service quality.
• All dimension scores are LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. Treat all scores as highly speculative.
• No recent reviews present — it is unknown whether this contractor is still active or whether service quality has changed.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from 2011, which is far too limited in volume and far too outdated to draw any meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture across professionalism, project completion, and experience. Ross was explicitly described as punctual, professional, polite, and neat, and he responded and scheduled within 24 hours — all strong professionalism signals. He successfully resolved two confirmed leaks plus a third minor issue in roughly half a day, demonstrating solid project completion. His quick diagnosis of the second leak's source suggests meaningful technical skill and problem-solving ability. Pricing was never mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only one review, all scores carry very limited confidence and should be interpreted cautiously.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• No pricing information was provided in any review — the Price Friendly dimension has no data.
• Single review is from August 2023 — recency is acceptable but volume is insufficient to establish a reliable pattern.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be treated as a reliable assessment of this contractor's overall performance — seek additional reviews before making a hiring decision.

This single review describes a highly positive emergency service experience involving prompt response, thorough diagnosis, skilled workmanship, and complete job follow-through including testing and cleanup. Professionalism is strongly evidenced by quick dispatch, clear communication, safety consciousness, and courteous attitude throughout. Project completion is well-supported by the reviewer explicitly noting the system was fully repaired, tested, and cleaned up before the team left. Experience is clearly evidenced by detailed praise of technical knowledge, problem-solving, and meticulous execution. Pricing is entirely absent from the review and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2016-12-01, making it over 8 years old. This significantly reduces its relevance to current contractor performance.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the pricing dimension has been left null.
• With only one review, all scored dimensions carry LIMITED confidence regardless of the positive content described.

This score report is based on a single review from 2016 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — far more recent and numerous reviews are needed before any WW Score can be meaningfully trusted.

Only a single review is available, making any reliable scoring impossible. That one review is a 1-star complaint describing a rude, impatient technician who yelled at the customer and spent significant time complaining about their job and employer. Professionalism is scored extremely low based on this explicit negative account. No data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience, so those dimensions cannot be evaluated at all.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The reviewer references 'two terrible experiences,' suggesting a pattern of poor service rather than an isolated incident, which increases concern despite the single review.
• Review is dated 2018 — data is over 6 years old and may not reflect current service quality.
• No data available for pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions — the contractor profile is severely under-evaluated.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single, dated review covering only one dimension, and no WW Score can be responsibly calculated from this data alone.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. That review does speak positively across multiple dimensions: the contractor responded quickly (within 30 minutes), completed the job to the customer's satisfaction, and charged roughly half the price of competitors. The work involved diagnosing and fixing a hot water issue in a shower, suggesting at least baseline technical competence. However, with only one review dated July 2022, all scores are conservative and carry very low confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2022, making it over 2 years old. Recency weighting is a concern — contractor's current performance is unknown.
• Single 5-star review with enthusiastic language and a call-to-action ('I guaranty you will be glad you did') could reflect genuine satisfaction but cannot be verified without corroborating reviews.
• All dimension scores are scored conservatively due to the single-mention limitation.

This score is not reliable and should not be used as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review from over two years ago, providing insufficient data across all dimensions.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review documents a serious professionalism concern involving aggressive and accusatory behavior by the owner's son, resulting in a very low professionalism score. However, this review provides no information about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. The reviewer's speculation about customer treatment and the single-review sample size prevent any meaningful overall assessment.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from March 2021 (3+ years old). No recent data available.
• SCOPE LIMITATION: Review addresses interpersonal conduct but does not describe actual contractor work, pricing, or project outcomes.
• SPECULATION: Reviewer acknowledges they are speculating about customer treatment rather than reporting direct experience with the business.

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality; only one review exists, it is over 3 years old, and it does not address core service dimensions like pricing, project completion, or workmanship.