Sales & proposal integrity
No review evidence was surfaced for this category, so there is not enough information to characterize how D W PLUMBING handles sales conversations, proposal details, or expectation-setting. The available review set does not provide enough signal to identify a pattern either way.Solar.com's composite of published customer feedback, not a customer quote
No evidence surfaced. The review corpus provided no substantive mentions of sales pressure, proposal clarity, savings claims, or contract expectations.
Insufficient signal. Because there were no evidence reviews in this category, the available review data does not support a positive or negative conclusion.
Price & financing transparency
Price Transparency6.7/10
The limited review evidence points to generally favorable pricing perceptions, with one reviewer describing the company as attentive on a financially modest job and saying they would have been overcharged elsewhere. There is not enough evidence here to establish a broader pattern around financing, deposits, refunds, or surprise costs.Solar.com's composite of published customer feedback, not a customer quote
Fair-value perception. One reviewer described the company as prioritizing a job that may not have been especially lucrative, and implied the pricing felt favorable relative to what they expected elsewhere. Representative review excerpt: "They prioritized getting to me for something that arguably was not worth their time financially and many places would have overcharged me for."
Limited sample. Only one evidence review was available for pricing and financing, so the data does not show a wider pattern on payment terms or rebate timing.
Communication & coordination
No substantive review evidence was surfaced for communication or project coordination. The available corpus does not provide enough information to assess responsiveness, updates, handoffs, or customer support.Solar.com's composite of published customer feedback, not a customer quote
No evidence surfaced. The provided reviews did not include usable detail about communication habits, scheduling follow-through, or project ownership.
Not enough data to judge. With no evidence reviews in this category, it is not possible to infer a reliable pattern from the available corpus.
Timeline reliability
No substantive review evidence was surfaced for scheduling, permits, inspections, or utility activation. The review set does not give enough detail to determine whether timelines were consistently reliable.Solar.com's composite of published customer feedback, not a customer quote
No timing evidence. The available review corpus did not include concrete mentions of schedule adherence, no-shows, or activation delays.
Insufficient detail. With no evidence reviews in this category, there is no review-based pattern to summarize.
Workmanship & site care
Workmanship7.0/10
The available review evidence is limited but favorable on installation quality and crew professionalism. There is not enough review volume in this category to establish recurring concerns about cleanup, damage, or inspection-related fixes.Solar.com's composite of published customer feedback, not a customer quote
Positive installation impression. One reviewer offered a favorable account tied to the crew involved, reflecting a positive impression of the work done on site. Representative review excerpt: "Derek and Derek, father and son not to be confused with the brothers Daryl and Daryl."
Limited complaint signal. The provided evidence does not surface recurring complaints about workmanship or site care, though the sample is very small.
Long-term support & performance
Long-Term Support6.5/10
The long-term support signal is modestly positive, with one reviewer describing a favorable experience that suggests the company followed through after the job was needed. Still, the evidence base is thin, so the corpus does not show a broad pattern for monitoring, warranty support, repairs, or post-install service.Solar.com's composite of published customer feedback, not a customer quote
Helpful follow-through. One reviewer described the company as prioritizing their need and viewed that responsiveness positively in the context of post-install or service support. Representative review excerpt: "They prioritized getting to me for something that arguably was not worth their time financially and many places would have overcharged me for."
Small evidence base. Only one evidence review was available for long-term support and performance, so the corpus does not establish a wider service pattern.
How this is built: category scores and summaries weigh the company's full published rating record (36 Google reviews averaging 4.8 stars), the most recent and most relevant review texts, and recurring feedback themes verified acrossGoogle. Ratings and review excerpts from published review sources. Refreshed as new feedback is published. No installer can pay to change it.