Find Nearby Plumbers In Rapid City, South Dakota

This single review paints an extremely negative picture across nearly every dimension. Professionalism scored near zero due to the contractor starting work without authorization, refusing to provide itemized invoices, using vulgar and abusive language toward the customer, and engaging legal threats rather than good-faith negotiation. Pricing scored critically low as the final invoice was reportedly more than double the verbally discussed estimate, and five independent bids from competing contractors confirmed the quoted price was far above market rate. Project completion received a partial score only because the physical work was technically finished, but the lack of transparency, refusal to honor the spirit of the original price discussion, and unresolved billing dispute severely undermine any credit for completion. Experience could not be scored as the review contains no commentary on the quality of the actual workmanship or technical skill involved.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• This is a single 1-star review with a highly detailed and specific account of events, suggesting it is likely genuine rather than fabricated.
• Review is dated 2017-10-04, making it over 7 years old. Current contractor behavior and practices may differ significantly.
• Serious allegation: contractor allegedly started work without explicit authorization or confirmed scheduling.
• Serious allegation: final invoice ($16,300) was reportedly more than double the verbally discussed estimate ($7,000–$8,000), with five competing bids ranging $6,000–$9,100 for the same scope.
• Serious allegation: contractor and their legal representative allegedly used abusive and vulgar language toward the customer.
• Serious allegation: contractor filed a Mechanics Lien rather than engaging in good-faith price negotiation.
• Contractor allegedly refused repeated requests for itemized invoices with supporting documentation.
• No positive or neutral reviews are present to provide balance. Score reflects one-sided but highly detailed testimony only.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2017 and should be treated as anecdotal only — it cannot be considered statistically reliable, but the level of specific detail in the review lends credibility to the individual account described.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of professionalism, centered on the owner's hostile, dismissive, and aggressive behavior toward a real estate client. The owner failed to return multiple calls and texts over several weeks, then responded rudely when finally reached, ultimately hanging up on the customer. One employee, Matt, was noted as professional and apologetic, which slightly tempers the professionalism score above zero but does not offset the owner's conduct. Project completion received a low score because the company failed to follow through on the quoted job within the agreed timeline, though Matt did offer a last-minute commitment to meet the deadline — the outcome of which is unknown. Pricing and experience dimensions were not mentioned in this review and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scored dimensions are based on a single review, making all scores LOW CONFIDENCE and highly susceptible to being unrepresentative.
• The review describes a pattern of non-responsiveness (unanswered calls and texts over multiple weeks), which may indicate an operational or reliability issue beyond a one-time incident.
• The owner's behavior as described — snapping at a client, threatening to call a competitor agent, and hanging up — represents a significant professionalism red flag that warrants serious weight if corroborated by additional reviews.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall performance — additional reviews are essential before drawing any meaningful conclusions.

Insufficient data — only 1 review provided. The single review mentions professionalism (scheduling, courtesy) and pricing (reasonably priced), but contains no information about project completion or technical experience. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No details provided about actual work quality or project outcomes
• Generic praise language without specific examples

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score — insufficient review volume and age of data make any calculation meaningless.

This single review describes a severely negative experience involving the owner, Paz Negrette, who allegedly accepted a $6,000 deposit, delivered materials, and then abandoned the project entirely over a three-month period with no work completed and no refund issued. Project completion scores at 0 because the job was explicitly abandoned with no follow-through whatsoever. Professionalism and pricing scores are near-zero due to the described deceptive conduct and failure to honor the contract. Experience cannot be assessed as no actual work was performed or described.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The review describes potential fraud: a deposit was taken, materials delivered as a facade of legitimacy, and then the contractor disappeared without performing work or returning funds.
• This review is secondhand (reviewer is a neighbor, not the direct customer) — while detailed and specific, this introduces a minor reliability caveat.
• No other reviews exist to corroborate or contradict this account, making it impossible to determine if this is an isolated incident or a pattern of behavior.

With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be produced; however, the single review is highly specific, names the owner directly, describes a concrete financial transaction, and alleges contract abandonment — all of which are serious red flags that warrant strong caution.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (punctuality, responsiveness) and project completion (showing up when needed), but provides no information on pricing or technical experience. The review is also generic and lacks specific details about the work performed.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Review lacks specific details about work performed or outcomes
• No pricing information provided in any review
• No technical experience or workmanship details mentioned

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume. At least 3 reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review exists for Larry Olson Plumbing, making any scoring highly conservative and unreliable. The reviewer references honesty and straightforwardness in assessment and estimating, which supports limited scoring in professionalism and pricing. A mention of 'many years of experience' provides minimal basis for an experience score. Project completion is entirely unaddressed and cannot be scored. All scores are deliberately conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The review is generic in nature with no specific details about the work performed, job type, or outcome — limiting scoring confidence significantly.
• No project completion data available — the most heavily weighted dimension (35%) has no data, which would substantially affect any calculated score.
• Recency note: The single review is dated August 2023, which is within the past 12 months relative to a 2024 evaluation window and carries full recency weight, but this does not compensate for the lack of volume.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume; the single available review provides only surface-level signals across a limited number of dimensions and should not be used as a meaningful basis for contractor evaluation.