Yeah, looks to be custom HTML, they probably have a unique admin panel or something for content management. It's pretty poorly done in my opinion.
Holy... that page is horrible. To list some issues: View the source code - it's horribly formatted - not a major issue, but... yeah. 139 errors in HTML validator Conditional comments for IE-only CSS - in 2016? Seriously? Illegal nesting of elements (divs within spans and so on) Sizes are set in px - really not recommended at all The page itself is a mess, and it loads (from cache, no less) in over 10 seconds - first load 13.35 seconds. NOT a site I would base anything on.
Not to mention the closing </head> tag, but not an opening one. ))) What if the author of the page reads these posts and we are hurting it`s feelings? Or worse, the OP paid someone to do it? )
Then maybe it'll serve as a wakeup call for the fact that someone put the saddle on them and took them for a ride. I didn't even pop the bonnet before I went "what is this shit" on accessibility grounds ALONE... Which is why the developer(s) behind that should likely be poisoned, shot, stabbed, hung, stretched, disemboweled, drawn and quartered -- and then hope that they can be buried in secret as I'd probably defile their grave whilst at it. But I'm a pretty vindictive SOB when it comes to people flipping the bird at accessibility. ... wait, did I just mix up Vigo the Carpathian with Captain Stern?