1:Your website is table based, try to make div based, because google not giving any benefits to table based website. you are supposed to be SEO service provider, and did not know about table based layouts?? 2: Take a look at color schemes.
Your site home page is not attractive for user and also not seo friendly. First change your home page layout design for seo friendly.
The site doesn't look good to me. You can change the layout of the homepage, its formatting, and don't use tables a lot. The color is not user friendly I think? Maybe you can change that too. A good color combination starts with white then mix it with variations so long as it doesn't kill the general appearance.
Give your homepage a better look, the whole page is crammed up with content and the color is too dull to attract any viewers. Also it does not look too SEO friendly.
It's really starting to become a running gag that so many "SEO Experts" don't seem to know enough HTML/CSS to be opening their mouths on the subject of making websites... and I hate to break it to you, this REALLY hammers that point home. (Of course it's with disgust to the point of nausea that I see SEO having been turned from a small but important part of development into a cottage industry filled with scam artists blowing marketspeak out their arse to prey on the ignorance of others) In terms of design, the entire header area feels just slapped together any old way willy nilly -- that most of the page is images for text with no graceful degradation for when images are disabled/unavailable/unwanted means it's not even very good from a SEO point of view -- and that's without even looking at it's code! In many places the color contrasts are outside accessibility minimums, the layout breaks horribly at higher default font metrics, and of course it's a fixed width layout meaning it's even further down the accessibility /FAIL/ trail. Under the hood there's no doctype so good luck getting it to work cross browser with IE being in quirks mode (and some quirks in other browsers too!). It's encoded with the windows-1252 character set, which was NEVER meant to be used for websites... you've got scripting bloat doing CSS' job, static CSS inlined in the markup for christmas only knows what, an ID on a element that should never need an ID (LINK), no MEDIA targets on that same CSS LINK, separate CSS file for the footer for christmas only knows what, IE conditional garbage for the CSS -- indicating it's built with flawed methodologies (like say... having IE in quirks mode from having no doctype?) ... and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Your keywords meta is redundant pointless rubbish. It's called keyWORDS, not keyphrases, not keysentences, keyWORDS -- seven or eight unique words (or proper names, one of the few times I'd use more than one word per term) that exist in your BODY that you want to rank higher for. As such saying "SEO Expert" three times is redundant -- and another of the ways to get your keywords ignored. (Which is why so many people THINK it's ignored) We get to the body, and it's chock full of outdated broken site building methods. Tables for layout, attributes and tags like bgColor, align and FONT, redundant inlined STYLE, presentational images in the markup, nothing remotely resembling a logical document structure, proper heading orders or even semantic markup... and even the absolute laugh of things like spacer.gif's, comment placements that can trip IE and FF rendering bugs, pointless classes like "tooltip"... You've got 19k of markup, 12k of CSS, 96k of scripting, and 176k of images all to deliver 4.1k of plaintext. That comes to a whopping 302k in 60 files to do the job of around 40k in 8 files or less. HTML alone shouldn't be more than HALF what you have.... and there's not a blasted thing on that page I'd even be throwing javascript at. (unless I REALLY wanted it to work in IE6, in which case I'd be using a 2.8k .htc file) I'm stuck asking -- did you put this together with Netscape 4 Composer or Frontpage, or was this written in 1997? On the surface it's an ugly inaccessible mess -- under the hood it's a laundry list of how not to build a website... Though it's EVERYTHING I've come to expect when I see the words "SEO Expert" -- most of whom aren't experts at a blasted thing.
Yoda: Forgot almost did I. English most goodly helping not the site either. English site if you have, native speaker and or editor hire you should hmm?