67.5 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Bremerton, Washington
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Bremerton, Washington. Replacement and repair demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
20Sources used
15Primary sources
18Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.6 points average among 7 affected concepts
1.1 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 7 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Bremerton, Washington
ActionCOACH, City Wide, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Replacement and repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1.1 points on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #9 to #5 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Tiger AdjustersBusiness & Professional ServicesInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 68.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -1.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | HomeSmilesHome & Property ServicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 68.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -1.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 67.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -1.1 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 67.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 67.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Bremerton, Washington
A predominantly pre-1980 housing stock supports repair and replacement demand while older-property system condition remains property-specific
This relationship affected 7 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Share of Bremerton housing units built before 1980 and before 1940: built before 1980 percent: 77.3; built 1939 or earlier percent: 22 percent of housing units. [6] [5] [1]
High-wage, high-concentration skilled-trade labor market overlaps directly with major PSNS trade hiring
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Skilled-trade employment concentration and mean wages in the Bremerton metropolitan area: construction extraction: employment: 6,860, location quotient: 1.77, mean hourly usd: 38.23, us mean hourly usd: 31.42; installation maintenance repair: employment share percent: 6.3, mean hourly usd: 39, us mean hourly usd: 30.44; electricians: employment: 1,100, location quotient: 2.41, mean hourly usd: 39.05; plumbers pipefitters steamfitters: employment: 1,040, location quotient: 3.72, mean hourly usd: 38.84; painters construction maintenance: employment: 810, location quotient: 5.94, mean hourly usd: 32.71 mixed. [10] [9] [8] [2] [3]
skilled-trade-route-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [10] [5] [6] [12] [14] [13] [9] [8] [2] [3] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
A predominantly pre-1980 housing stock supports repair and replacement demand while older-property system condition remains property-specific1 local fact · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
High-wage, high-concentration skilled-trade labor market overlaps directly with major PSNS trade hiring1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
State wage floor and local service-sector wages create an elevated frontline compensation baseline1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Documented corridor LOS deficiencies and current shipyard-area parking constraints reduce route predictability in affected parts of Bremerton1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Very low Kitsap industrial/flex vacancy and limited West Bremerton availability constrain service-base options1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.28 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.53 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.68 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.70 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.30 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.45 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.1
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.0 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.89 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.5 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.11 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.1 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.05 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.95 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.5
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.9 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.49 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.5 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.51 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.71 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.29 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.0 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.80 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.0 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.8 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.2
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.81 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.19 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.9
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.14 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.86 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.8
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.1 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.19 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated ActionCOACH
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #3 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank5
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.7 pts
Aire ServHome & Property Services
+0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #8 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-1.1 pts
Average across all concepts-1.0 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Skilled Trade Employment Concentration And Mean Wages In The Bremerton Metropolitan Areaconstruction extraction: employment: 6,860, location quotient: 1.77, mean hourly usd: 38.23, us mean hourly usd: 31.42; installation maintenance repair: employment share percent: 6.3, mean hourly usd: 39, us mean hourly usd: 30.44; electricians: employment: 1,100, location quotient: 2.41, mean hourly usd: 39.05; plumbers pipefitters steamfitters: employment: 1,040, location quotient: 3.72, mean hourly usd: 38.84; painters construction maintenance: employment: 810, location quotient: 5.94, mean hourly usd: 32.71 mixed
- Frontline Service Wages In The Bremerton Metropolitan Area Compared With National Meansfood preparation serving: local mean hourly usd: 22.8, us mean hourly usd: 17.86, local employment share percent: 9.8; building grounds cleaning maintenance: local mean hourly usd: 22.93, us mean hourly usd: 19.66; office administrative support: local mean hourly usd: 28.36, us mean hourly usd: 24.79 usd per hour and percent
- Washington State Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 202617.13 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHome & Property Services
-1.9 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.9 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.7 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.4 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #3 to #1, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Warren Avenue Bridge Is One Of Only Two Crossings Of The Port Washington Narrows Connecting Key Parts Of Bremerton2 crossings
- Bremerton Intersections Documented As Los Deficient Under 2023 ConditionsKitsap Way (SR 310) and Marine Drive, SR 3 southbound off-ramp and Loxie Eagans Boulevard, SR 3 and Imperial Way, SR 3 and Sam Christopherson Avenue, SR 3 southbound and Belfair Valley Road/Sherman Heights Road intersections
- Psns Workforce Parking Constraints And Use Of Alternative Commute Modes In Downtown Bremertonparking shortage reported: yes; additional navy parking likely years away: yes; alternative modes named: worker-driver bus, carpool, vanpool, ferry, local transit qualitative condition
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.1 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.0 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
Aire ServHome & Property Services
-0.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.8 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #8 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected-0.9 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Navy Near Term Off Base Facility Needs Documented In The Kitsap Industrial Studyindustrial building space sqft up to: 282,000; class a office sqft: 53,000; industrial land acres approximate: 25; radius: within 40 driving miles of PSNS mixed
- Industrial And Flex Inventory And Availability In Kitsap County With West Bremerton Submarket Detailcounty vacancy percent q4 2024: 1.8; county inventory buildings: 352; county rentable building area sqft: 3,880,000; available spaces count: 8; available space size range sqft: 5,000, 24,000; west bremerton available spaces count: 2; average flex nnn rent usd per sqft per year: 14.77 mixed
- Commercial Stormwater Impact Surcharge Depends On Stormwater Runoff Being Improperly Conveyed Into The Wastewater Systemcommercial i base per ihsu usd monthly: 26.43; commercial ii surcharge percent of base: 50; commercial ii surcharge per ihsu usd monthly: 13.23; commercial ii threshold: No more than 400 square feet of impervious-surface runoff conveyed into the wastewater system and no more than one improper connection; commercial iii surcharge percent of base: 100; commercial iii surcharge per ihsu usd monthly: 26.43; commercial iii threshold: More than 400 square feet of impervious-surface runoff conveyed into the wastewater system and/or more than one improper connection; new multifamily commercial no detention penalty per ihsu usd monthly: 5.85 mixed
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.1 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.1 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.1 pts
Aire ServHome & Property Services
-1.1 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Target-market demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#2 City WideStable · tested #2–#3
#3 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#4 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#5 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #6–#8
#7 HomeSmilesStable · tested #7–#8
#8 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#9 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#10 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#11 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#12 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #10–#12
#13 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
#14 ZOOM DRAINStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [7] [8] [15] [5] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [5] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [20] [15] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [8] [9] [11] [6] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [12] [13] [14] [5] [3] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [15] [16] [18] [19] [1] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [20] [7] [8] [17] [3]Referral ecosystem: [7] [8] [15] [20] [3]Territory quality: [14] [12] [5] [7] [15] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [18] [19] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Real estate and site feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 ActionCOACH | — | — | — | — |
| #2 City Wide | — | -0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #4 Tiger Adjusters | — | -0.4 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #5 Workout Anytime | — | -0.6 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #6 Jan-Pro International | — | -1.1 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #7 HomeSmiles | — | -1.0 pts | -0.5 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #8 FASTSIGNS | — | -0.6 pts | -0.4 pts | -1.1 pts |
| #9 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.6 pts | -1.9 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #10 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.5 pts | -1.4 pts | -0.8 pts | -1.1 pts |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | +0.7 pts | -1.7 pts | -1.0 pts | -0.8 pts |
| #12 PuroClean | +0.5 pts | -1.4 pts | -0.9 pts | -1.1 pts |
| #13 Aire Serv | +0.7 pts | -1.9 pts | -0.9 pts | -1.1 pts |
| #14 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.7 pts | -1.7 pts | -1.1 pts | -1.1 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
ActionCOACH, City Wide, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, FASTSIGNS, Mister Sparky Electric; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Bremerton, Washington
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
67.5Best Home & Property Services franchise opportunities we assessed in Bremerton, Washington
2 Home & Property Services concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 66.9 to 68.1. HomeSmiles ranked highest at 68.1. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.3 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.4 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 1.3-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 66.9–68.1
- Category average
- 67.5
HomeSmiles68.1
Aire Serv66.9
Limited two-concept comparison
67.2Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Bremerton, Washington
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 67.2 to 67.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 67.3. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.4 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 67.2–67.3
- Category average
- 67.2
Rainbow International Restoration67.3
PuroClean67.2
Metric registry
The 18 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 45,482people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived facts; 2022 employer-firm reference year | Bremerton, Washington | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 4.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived facts; 2022 employer-firm reference year | Bremerton, Washington | Context only | [4] |
| Employer firms in the Census QuickFacts reference year | 850employer firms | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived facts; 2022 employer-firm reference year | Bremerton, Washington | Context only | [4] |
| Share of Bremerton housing units built before 1980 and before 1940 | built before 1980 percent: 77.3; built 1939 or earlier percent: 22percent of housing units | 2026-2030 planning period; housing market analysis in the plan | Bremerton, Washington | Supports modeled relationship | [6] [5] [1] |
| Bremerton Regional Growth Center current activity density and employment concentration | current people per acre approximate: 67; center size acres: 592; employment context: Most concentrated job area in Kitsap County for decades; includes Puget Sound Naval Shipyardmixed | 2025 center-criteria evaluation published and accessed in 2026 | Bremerton Regional Growth Center | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility workforce in Bremerton | employees in bremerton: more than 14000; employer: Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facilityemployees | PSNS & IMF workforce described for Labor Day 2025 | Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Bremerton | Used in scoring | [8] [9] [2] [3] |
| Skilled-trade employment concentration and mean wages in the Bremerton metropolitan area | construction extraction: employment: 6,860, location quotient: 1.77, mean hourly usd: 38.23, us mean hourly usd: 31.42; installation maintenance repair: employment share percent: 6.3, mean hourly usd: 39, us mean hourly usd: 30.44; electricians: employment: 1,100, location quotient: 2.41, mean hourly usd: 39.05; plumbers pipefitters steamfitters: employment: 1,040, location quotient: 3.72, mean hourly usd: 38.84; painters construction maintenance: employment: 810, location quotient: 5.94, mean hourly usd: 32.71mixed | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard, Washington | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Frontline service wages in the Bremerton metropolitan area compared with national means | food preparation serving: local mean hourly usd: 22.8, us mean hourly usd: 17.86, local employment share percent: 9.8; building grounds cleaning maintenance: local mean hourly usd: 22.93, us mean hourly usd: 19.66; office administrative support: local mean hourly usd: 28.36, us mean hourly usd: 24.79usd per hour and percent | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard, Washington | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Washington State minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 17.13usd per hour | Minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | Washington | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Bremerton intersections documented as LOS-deficient under 2023 conditions | Kitsap Way (SR 310) and Marine Drive, SR 3 southbound off-ramp and Loxie Eagans Boulevard, SR 3 and Imperial Way, SR 3 and Sam Christopherson Avenue, SR 3 southbound and Belfair Valley Road/Sherman Heights Roadintersections | 2023 existing intersection conditions and 2044 forecast analysis | Bremerton state-route and arterial network | Used in scoring | [12] [3] |
| PSNS workforce parking constraints and use of alternative commute modes in downtown Bremerton | parking shortage reported: yes; additional navy parking likely years away: yes; alternative modes named: worker-driver bus, carpool, vanpool, ferry, local transitqualitative condition | Current PSNS & IMF employee transportation and downtown Bremerton parking conditions in spring 2026 | Downtown Bremerton and Navy Base Kitsap-Bremerton approaches | Used in scoring | [13] [3] |
| Warren Avenue Bridge is one of only two crossings of the Port Washington Narrows connecting key parts of Bremerton | 2crossings | Current project schedule accessed August 2026; construction planned for 2027-2029 | Port Washington Narrows crossings in Bremerton | Used in scoring | [14] [5] |
| Industrial and flex inventory and availability in Kitsap County with West Bremerton submarket detail | county vacancy percent q4 2024: 1.8; county inventory buildings: 352; county rentable building area sqft: 3,880,000; available spaces count: 8; available space size range sqft: 5,000, 24,000; west bremerton available spaces count: 2; average flex nnn rent usd per sqft per year: 14.77mixed | Industrial and flex inventory through Q4 2024; Navy off-base space requirements cited in the study | Kitsap County industrial/flex market with West Bremerton submarket detail | Used in scoring | [15] [1] |
| Independent local reporting described a defense-sector expansion search constrained by Kitsap industrial inventory | General Dynamics Electric Boat searched Kitsap County for expansion space and lack of suitable industrial or warehouse inventory hampered the search.reported search outcome | Reported 2025 search for Kitsap County industrial/warehouse expansion space | Kitsap County industrial/warehouse market serving Bremerton-area defense activity | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Navy near-term off-base facility needs documented in the Kitsap industrial study | industrial building space sqft up to: 282,000; class a office sqft: 53,000; industrial land acres approximate: 25; radius: within 40 driving miles of PSNSmixed | Industrial and flex inventory through Q4 2024; Navy off-base space requirements cited in the study | Within 40 driving miles of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Current Bremerton sign-permit and pole-sign restrictions | sign permit generally required: yes; pole signs prohibited except zones: Freeway Corridor (FC), Industrial (I); downtown centers moving flashing animated signs prohibited: yes; downtown centers wide parcel freestanding sign max sqft: 100regulatory requirements | Current municipal sign standards accessed August 21, 2026 | City of Bremerton | Conditional relationship | [17] [2] [3] |
| Commercial stormwater impact surcharge depends on stormwater runoff being improperly conveyed into the wastewater system | commercial i base per ihsu usd monthly: 26.43; commercial ii surcharge percent of base: 50; commercial ii surcharge per ihsu usd monthly: 13.23; commercial ii threshold: No more than 400 square feet of impervious-surface runoff conveyed into the wastewater system and no more than one improper connection; commercial iii surcharge percent of base: 100; commercial iii surcharge per ihsu usd monthly: 26.43; commercial iii threshold: More than 400 square feet of impervious-surface runoff conveyed into the wastewater system and/or more than one improper connection; new multifamily commercial no detention penalty per ihsu usd monthly: 5.85mixed | Current municipal utility classifications accessed August 21, 2026 | City of Bremerton commercial stormwater accounts | Conditional relationship | [18] [19] [2] |
| Warren Avenue Bridge Multimodal Improvements project schedule | design and permitting: October 2024 to Spring 2027; construction advertisement: Summer 2027; construction: 2027-2029; project completion: 2,029; vehicle capacity preserved in proposed cross section: yesproject schedule | Current project schedule accessed August 2026; construction planned for 2027-2029 | Warren Avenue Bridge, Bremerton | Supports modeled relationship | [14] [2] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 21, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Share of Bremerton housing units built before 1980 and before 1940 and Industrial and flex inventory and availability in Kitsap County with West Bremerton submarket detail
- 2Structural Constraints and Capital Hazards in Targeted Municipalities: A Forensic AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility workforce in Bremerton, Current Bremerton sign-permit and pole-sign restrictions, Commercial stormwater impact surcharge depends on stormwater runoff being improperly conveyed into the wastewater system, and Warren Avenue Bridge Multimodal Improvements project schedule
- 3Franchise data - remake - 181(20260821-181911).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility workforce in Bremerton, Bremerton intersections documented as LOS-deficient under 2023 conditions, PSNS workforce parking constraints and use of alternative commute modes in downtown Bremerton, and Current Bremerton sign-permit and pole-sign restrictions
- 4U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Bremerton city, Washington
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, and Employer firms in the Census QuickFacts reference year
- 5Bremerton2044: 2024 Comprehensive Plan
Used for: Share of Bremerton housing units built before 1980 and before 1940 and Warren Avenue Bridge is one of only two crossings of the Port Washington Narrows connecting key parts of Bremerton
- 62026-2030 City of Bremerton Consolidated Plan
Used for: Share of Bremerton housing units built before 1980 and before 1940
- 72025 Center Criteria Report: Bremerton Regional Growth Center
Used for: Bremerton Regional Growth Center current activity density and employment concentration
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard — May 2025
Used for: Skilled-trade employment concentration and mean wages in the Bremerton metropolitan area and Frontline service wages in the Bremerton metropolitan area compared with national means
- 112026 Minimum Wage Announcement
Used for: Washington State minimum wage effective January 1, 2026
- 12Bremerton2044 Transportation Technical Analysis, Attachment C: Future Conditions Analysis
Used for: Bremerton intersections documented as LOS-deficient under 2023 conditions
- 14Warren Avenue Bridge Multimodal Improvements Project
Used for: Warren Avenue Bridge is one of only two crossings of the Port Washington Narrows connecting key parts of Bremerton and Warren Avenue Bridge Multimodal Improvements project schedule
- 15Kitsap Industrial Land, Buildings and Infrastructure Study
Used for: Industrial and flex inventory and availability in Kitsap County with West Bremerton submarket detail and Navy near-term off-base facility needs documented in the Kitsap industrial study
- 16General Dynamics adds nuclear sub parts to Gig Harbor’s maritime economy
Used for: Independent local reporting described a defense-sector expansion search constrained by Kitsap industrial inventory
- 17Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 20.52: Sign Standards
Used for: Current Bremerton sign-permit and pole-sign restrictions
- 18Bremerton Municipal Code Chapter 15.06: Assessments, Rates, Fees and Charges
Used for: Commercial stormwater impact surcharge depends on stormwater runoff being improperly conveyed into the wastewater system
- 19Assessments, Rates, Fees, and Charges — Effective January 1, 2026
Used for: Commercial stormwater impact surcharge depends on stormwater runoff being improperly conveyed into the wastewater system
- 20
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.